I usually agree with and appreciate Peters opinions. Here, I don’t.
Any layperson, like myself, can read Apostolicae Curae, and see that proper form and intent are required for valid consecrations.
I encourage all Catholics and Anglicans to read Apostoicae Curae in full. There is no wiggle room as Peters implies.
>>30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.<<
This is the 100th anniversary of Fatima and the Virgin’s warning. It is also the year of the Revelation 12 signs. The 500 th year anniversary of the Lutheran schism. The list goes on. It is pretty clear that time is up.
It is time for Anglicans and Catholics to hold fast to what we were taught when we first believed and look up. Our redemption draws near.
So if Leo XIII’s AC is ignorable, so then is Bergolio’s AL, right?