Pope’s Protestant Friend Dies, But Push for Unity Lives

The Boston Globe ^ | 8/7/14 | Austen Ivereigh

[ebb tide]

He simply called him a fellow bishop since he apparently had valid orders through an Old Catholic line.

I find it amusing when people throw out totally unsupported propositions, such as "valid orders" to defend the scandals of Pope Francis.

Tony Palmer – the New Face of Anglicanism

On the Nullity of Anglican Orders

[ebb tide]

It's not the first time that post-Vatican popes have recognized invalid orders as being valid.

Archbishop Welby, who is visiting Rome with his wife, wore, as is customary for visiting archbishops, an episcopal ring given to Archbishop Michael Ramsey by Pope Paul VI in 1966.

Vlad, in the uppermost picture, Pope St. John Paul II is kissing the episcopal ring that Pope Paul VI had given to the faux bishop, Michael Ramsey.

[vladimir998]

The orders of the above three Anglican bishops were not valid and were not recognized as such by anyone in the Vatican. John Paul II kissing an Anglican’s ring is no more a validation of his orders than kissing a Qur’an is a validation of its contents.

[vladimir998]

“I find it amusing when people throw out totally unsupported propositions, such as “valid orders” to defend the scandals of Pope Francis.”

1) This is not a scandal - except to you and other sedevcante and quasi-sedevacante.

2) Anyone who has actually studied the valid orders controversy knows the following:

- the Church has concluded that all Anglicans will be treated as if no valid orders exists in all public statements and if they seek ordination in the Catholic Church.

- Some Anglicans have received documented proof from the Vatican that they have valid orders because they were ordained through Old Catholic lines. Some have even written about this. here’s a case from 1959 - 3 years before Vatican II. http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/10/vatican-recoginition-of-anglican-orders.html

One final note: Even if Tony Palmer did not have valid orders, the pope may have believed he did. In the grant scheme of things it hardly matters. Palmer is dead. Francis is still pope. And none of us can change either one of those facts.

[ebb tide]

Pope John Paul II kissed the ring that Pope Paul VI had given to the the faux bishop, Michael Ramsey; thus recognizing both Rowan Williams and Ramsey’s “valid”orders.

It wasn’t an “anglican ring”! It was a Catholic episcopal ring given by Pope Paul VI to the heretic, Michael Ramsey.

[vladimir998]

“Pope John Paul II kissed the ring that Pope Paul VI had given to the the faux bishop, Michael Ramsey; thus recognizing both Rowan Williams and Ramsey’s “valid”orders.”

Nope. He may have kissed the ring but that doesn’t mean he recognized their orders. Again, this is the same pope who kissed the Qur’an.

“It wasn’t an “anglican ring”!”

You need to learn to read more carefully. I said “Anglican’s ring” not “anglican ring”. It was on an Anglican’s hand.

“It was a Catholic episcopal ring given by Pope Paul VI to the heretic, Michael Ramsey.”

Which tells us exactly nothing about what Paul VI thought of Anglican orders.

Nice try. You failed again.

[ebb tide]

Even if Tony Palmer did not have valid orders, the pope may have believed he did.

So what the Pope may have mistakenly believed about "valid orders" makes it OK?

You have stated that Tony Palmer was not an Anglican Bishop (Post 3)

You have stated that Tony Palmer was not Catholic Bishop (Post 20).

What in tarnation was he?

[ebb tide]

Which tells us exactly nothing about what Paul VI thought of Anglican orders.

It tells us that, unlike the pre-Vatican II popes, Popes Paul VI, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have recognized Anglican orders as being valid.

Why else would each one them present either an episcopal ring or pectoral cross to a heretic?

[ebb tide]

>>“It was a Catholic episcopal ring given by Pope Paul VI to the heretic, Michael Ramsey.”<<

>>Which tells us exactly nothing about what Paul VI thought of Anglican orders.<<

Do you know what an episcopal ring or pectoral cross represents?

I don’t think you do.

[ebb tide]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The collective name given for convenience sake to those insignia of the episcopal order which of right are worn by bishops alone. In its broader sense the term may be taken to include all the items of attire proper to bishops, even those belonging to their civil or choir dress, for example the cappa magna, or the hat with its green cord and lining. But more strictly and accurately, rubricians limit the pontificals to those ornaments which a prelate wears in celebrating pontifically. The pontificals common to all are enumerated by Pius VII in his constitution "Decet Romanos" (4 July, 1823), and are eight in number: buskins, sandals, gloves, dalmatic, tunicle, ring, pectoral cross, and mitre.

"Bishops alone".

[ebb tide]

1) This is not a scandal - except to you and other sedevcante and quasi-sedevacante.

Once again, in desperation, you resort to calling me a sedevacantist.

Prove it.

[ebb tide]

It was on an Anglican’s hand.

It was a Catholic episcopal ring on a heretic's finger.