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.<<
Ebb, as I read Peters...he is in a ‘nice way’, calling the Cardinal a heretic (see his citation of canons). Beyond that, he is leaving open the most charitable view of the cardinal’s comments that is possible. But it still remains...he is calling him a heretic for all practical purposes.
“Any layperson, like myself, can read Apostolicae Curae, and see that proper form and intent are required for valid consecrations.”
They’ve been present - according to the Vatican - in SOME Anglican ordinations since the 1920s. I agree that we should stick with Leo XIII’s understanding as a general rule, but no one can deny valid ordinations have taken place thanks to the Old Catholics helping in Anglican ordinations.