Hello again, I just wanted to thank everyone who commented on my last thread. I’ve got another question I was hoping someone could help me with.
According to a Papal Encyclidical from Leo XIII(?), all Anglican clergy are not considered ordained as the Orthodox are, Bishops lack apostolic succession and all of their sacramanets are considered null and void; hence they don’t have the real presence.
Does anyone know how this jump in logic was made? From my understanding of Clerics who leave the RC or are branded heretics they aren’t usually deemed to be any less ordained, they might be forbidden from consecrating a Eucharist but that doesn’t mean if they did it would lack the real presence. In this sense the validity of orders, and in the case of the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox has nothing to do with ones personal theology since in the case of the latter, especially the Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox they probably diverge far more than any Anglican from Catholic beliefs.
Please correct me if I am mistaken but as far as I am aware the Anglicans generally claim to have gained their apostolic sucession from either Former Catholic Bishops, or in more recent times from Orthodox or Old Catholics who are deemed by the RC to have it.
If the Oriental Orthodox can dissent from traditional Christianity on matters like the canon of scripture, the nature of sacraments and even the divinity of Christ why is it only the Anglicans of these groups who have been declared invalid? It seems to go against the RC notion that the sins of the priest does not affect the validity of the sacraments they can preform.
Any comments are appreciated