Hermenegild wrote:Vague assertions? Setting up a new religion is hardly a vague assertion. If you implement a wholesale revolution - you know what you are doing.
I guess Cranmer of Canterbury may have been an honest Catholic too.
There were clear differences between Cranmer, and many Catholic bishops of the 1960s and 70s. Cranmer, a
de facto political appointee worked to support Henry's agenda in justifying the "dissolution of his marriage." He was a schismatic in spirit with these actions, but at what point should Catholics have severed communion with him, absent a judgment of the Holy See? I am not aware of any that had severed themselves from him, until he was excommunicated.
The Catholic bishops of the 1960's and 70's were a mixed bunch. Some were open supporters of the Conciliar sect, and actively sought to undermine Catholic teaching and the liturgy within their diocese. Others, were clearly not revolutionaries, and followed along with this program thinking that it could be reconciled with the Catholic teaching of the past, and wished to remain in peace and communion with "Pope" Paul VI.
For those latter bishops, their spirit was not one of a schismatic, and they were not heretics, so they remained in their offices.
Hermenegild wrote:That doesn't magically turn him into a Catholic bishop - you have no idea what you are talking about.
You should try to read what I write more accurately. I never claimed that Bp. Brown was a Catholic bishop, he was a Catholic who possessed (apparently) valid episcopal orders derived from outside the Church. If you ever want me to clarify a statement, I will, but please do not assume I mean something when I do not say it.
Now, the scenario is this: in the absence of the Pope, when the church is in crisis, and the hierarchy is no longer reliable, what happens if a layman seeks orders from another a man who had illicitly obtained orders outside the Church, but had reconciled himself with the Church?
Is this a schismatic act? If so prove it. Or, is it an act of grave imprudence deserving of censure, but not a schismatic act?
Hermenegild wrote:Bp. Musey had authority to receive these men back into the Church and to function as priests? Highly doubtful - Old Catholic "priests" were simple layman when they returned to the Church in the past.
Bp. Musey had no authority to send priests, but neither does any "traditional" bishop.
I believe it could be argued that he could accept one back into the Church, as that act could be supplied by the Church.
These priests, like all traditional priests have no authority and only operate on a legal basis by the request of the laity, not the commission of the Church. (Canon 2261)
When a Pope comes again, he along with his bishops will judge their (all traditional priests) vocations and determine whether they will be given a mission, sent for further training, or return to the lay state.