“Another preposterous claim! Murder and adultery have happened on multiple occasions. Does that make those acts morally right and lawful?”
The correct question would have been: Murder and adultery have been documented as having happened on multiple occasions. Does that not show that these acts do in fact happen?
After all I posted this: “It is not uncommon.” You conveniently skip over that fact. Of course.
“You’re hole is getting deeper.”
No, actually you’re still the one in the hole and I think you know it too. That’s probably why you keep making up new false arguments. There’s certainly more than a hint of desperation in your posting while I have stayed on subject throughout.
“Why do you refuse to state your opinion on the validity of Anglican orders? Haven’t made up your mind yet?”
No, I have made up my mind. I told you that I would answer the question as soon as you answered this one: “You consistently make claims that are untrue. Why do you do that?”
“Check Post 138. I did ask you earlier. So far: nothing but crickets.”
You’re right - you did ask. I didn’t see that post. I will not answer your question, however, until you answer mine: “You consistently make claims that are untrue. Why do you do that?” Even if you did ask specifically about Anglican orders - and you only did so in 138 - you have repeatedly made things up. Why do you do that?
“The above is not true, but I’m not surprised, from your past posts.”
As you can see I never responded to 138 - which means I didn’t see it. You have - just as you did now - repeatedly posted multiple posts rather than one. It’s easier for things to get overlooked when you post in such a way.
“Your source said:”
It doesn’t matter what the source said if it wasn’t the pope saying it since I noted “and yet those who they were given two (and their ecclesial communions) were never recognized as having valid orders.”
Once again we see that you confuse one thing with another. The pope or the Church officially or even unofficially recognizing valid orders among non-Catholics is vastly different than a theologian’s opinion about the same.
If nothing matters unless a pope is saying it, stop quoting other sources, especially those with whom you disagree.
Put up or shut-up, quote me a Pope who says pectoral crosses can be passed out like gifts to laypeople.
Show me a pope who has countermanded the canons of the Council of Lacodicea.
Don't try quoting anybody else, because you've said, "nothing matters unless a pope is saying it."
Another falsehood. Your source "asked" in a positive way if these heretical laymen are, "effective ministers of the Holy Ghost and to be recognized as being in communion with the corpus of ministers who have the duty to build up the body of Christ.
Nowhere did he mention, "not having valid orders" as you have stated.
Good point. Now think about this: it was I who posted a photo of Pope Benedict presenting a pectoral cross to a laymen. You said it was not a sign of recognizing Anglican orders. You then brought in your nutty theologian who agrees with me, not you, on the significance of giving a pectoral cross to someone. Finally, I claim Anglicans don't have valid orders, your source implies they do have valid orders, and you refuse to state your position on the matter.