• How should we relate to these reformed sacramental rites – including the ministers ordained in them?
  
• Should we receive the sacraments in these rites, from priests ordained with these rites, by bishops consecrated with these rites – or fly from them all?
  
• Is it morally possible to administer or receive doubtful sacraments?
  
• Do we need to prove with certainty that they are invalid before we fly from such things?
  
• What are the effects of not flying from these reformed rites once we have recognised that they are of doubtful validity?
  
• Can one live a Christian life in habitual danger of doubtful sacraments?
  
• Should we keep our thoughts on this matter to ourselves, to avoid unsettling others?
  

Quote:Grounds for Remaining in the Anglican Communion

A Letter to a High-Church Friend

Frederick William Faber
James Toovey, London 1846
pp 54-58, 61-62
Available Online

My dear friend, this wish to imitate the Saints leads me to say a few words, not of a learned sort, but as addressed to one anxious about his soul, on the miserable, much-vexed question of Anglican orders. You have doubts and misgivings about your position, and of course the very first question which faces a man who wishes to tread in the steps of the Catholic Saints, is:

• “Am I sure that I have priests round me, that they have jurisdiction to absolve me, that I can attend upon the highest ordinances of religion with faith, and without the perpetual distraction and unsettlement of doubts, the existence of which on such subjects goes far to destroy the very office of a visible Church?
  
• “Am I sure of all this?
  
• “And if not, and I do believe in a visible Church, have I any right to be short of sure on such matters?”
  

Another Way of Approaching the Problem

Now I have purposely avoided entering into any theological arguments, which have been handled far better by others; I have kept to the peculiar grounds of yourself and your friends; and have tried to look at everything in the way in which I should have thought it would have come home to one simply and seekingly anxious about his soul. What little I shall say about Anglican orders shall be in the same line.

You say that the Church has never decided the question, and that the Pope has passed no dogmatic judgment on it, to which you would bow when given. Now, my dear friend, in the outset let me ask you if you are acting honestly towards the Anglican communion, when you remain in it with a determination, ready beforehand, to submit to a decree of Gregory XVI on the subject of the orders of your ministers? To be plain, is not this quite dishonest?

And then, in the next place, has not Rome implicitly settled the question of your orders by the administration of confirmation, and of ordination also, without any condition?

This is the more remarkable [in comparison], from the way in which the Church administers conditional baptism to converts; without ceremonies, and with every possible want of solemnity beyond what mere safety requires, to intimate her fear of sacrilege, and the simple prudence of charity which has forced her thereto.

But now, look at the question of Anglican orders in another way.


Multiplicity of Arguments Pointing to the Conclusion

If a man had wished to learn the mind of the Church, as well as he could, on the Arian or Eutychian heresies before they were condemned, the way by which he would approach to it would be, by finding that different theological schools in the Church, or even her individual doctors, starting from different points and premises, and theologizing on somewhat different principles, all came to conclusions equally unfavourable to the heresy in question. Surely, if a man could arrive at this, he would have grounds more than sufficient to act upon.

And may not something of this sort be arrived at, in regard to Anglican orders?

One set of men start with history; some take the deposition of a consecrator, others other points, and they decide against Anglican orders. Some start from the point of "intention:" this man argues it on the omission of intention in the consecration of bishops for so many years; that man argues it from the fact that the compilers of the Thirty-Nine Articles did, as a matter of history, include the sacramentality of orders under a "corrupt following of the Apostles," and that no subsequent High-church divines could inject an interpretative intention into words not intended to convey it; and both decide against Anglican orders.

Others start with the principle of jurisdiction, which you as well as they consider essential to the power of keys, except in articulo mortis; if you do not hold the Queen to be the fountain of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nor the Chair of Peter, then I presume you must consider it as infused into each individual bishop at the moment of consecration, and for this theory I fear you are unprovided either with scripture or tradition: and these scholars, on the ground of jurisdiction, decide against Anglican orders.

Then, again, the "English Churchman" has made it most probable that several bishops may have been unbaptized, from the suicidal exposure which the Editor has made of negligence and sacrilege among Anglicans in their practice of baptism; and here again it fares ill with Anglican orders.

Now, I do not wish to argue the question in any hard theological way; I do not mean to say that any one of these theories is necessarily true, or of itself decisive against the orders: but I ask you, if the diversity goes to show that the Church has not yet, totidem verbis, decided the question, do not the variety of premisses, and the unity of conclusion, prove to a moral certainty how the Church would decide it?


Impossibility of the Christian Life in a situation of doubtful orders

And alas! can it be well, can it be right, can it be — to use your own fearful, bold word – providential, that you should go on your way encumbered and weighed down with this dismal blighting cloud, pressing on you at every turn, darkening every ministerial act you confront, turning into ungraceful, yea, intolerable gloom, all that was meant to cheer and to illuminate the poor striving penitent?

Ah! how many a young man's heart is bleeding at every pore, miserable under the weight of his past years, half-ruined by the neglect of what calls itself his Church and spiritual mother, now humbling himself to confession, and in many, many cases repulsed, his confession refused to be heard, bandied from one minister to another; and, when all is over, to have no security, but every ground for gravely doubting whether he has ever been absolved at all, or ever received the Blessed Eucharist, or can by any possibility come across any of the endearing powers lodged by virtue of the Incarnation in the priesthood of the Catholic Church!

Is not this positively affrighting?

Is it not enough to make the deadest and the coldest Catholic call loudly and imploringly upon you to abandon that perverse system, which you are trying to force upon your own reluctant communion; and which every day takes more and more the compact and cognizable form of a dreadful delusion?


Is it wrong to unsettle others by talking about doubtful sacraments?

Is it sinful to unsettle men's minds when they are lying in the lap of death, and know it not?

Is it sinful, when we reject your claim to be a Church, or to have bishops, or to be other than a misled disunited number of wandering sheep, to call you one by one, as we can, and where we can, and when we can?

Are we, as you say, immoral when we treat you as in no Church at all, because we do not admit your premisses, and so cannot act on your conclusions? Are you not judging us through out, as though we held what you hold? If it be undignified treatment for those who buoy themselves up on the inflated claims of Anglicanism, it is such treatment as the strenuous, pitiful, charity of Catholics in all ages has shown to blindfold perishing souls.

I am really surprised at the way in which some urge the immorality of unsettling men's minds; as if it was not a positive obligation to unsettle those whom we believe in fearful error.

Surely it is most false, as well as daring, to say that a work is not from the Holy Spirit because it is not calm: shall we venture to limit His dealings? shall we condemn, for the sake of some sickly theory of our own, the tumultuous contrition which the Saints have deemed heroic, and which has sometimes separated body and soul. Surely one would rather say that truth in its beginnings has mostly, and very markedly, been an unsettling thing; and it should be remembered that solemn steps may be taken while the greatest calmness reigns within, which, nevertheless, from certain outward circumstances, may have every appearance of hurry and perturbation.

But is not such a charge as this, brought forward with quiet unsuspecting self-complacency, another sign of the marvellous blind pride which characterizes your position? and all such charges are of quite recent invention; you have made a new position for yourselves.


Incoherency of a “high church” party, trying to change the Church of England, accusing others of causing strife

For, supposing such a charge to be true, or fair, it comes with an uncommonly bad grace from men who first unsettled our minds [with their attempts to "re-catholicise" the Church of England, including in liturgical matters]; who have unsettled their own communion from its very bottom, with quite as much appearance of wantonness as we have shown; who are more painfully unsettling it now by their remaining, than we by our seceding; and whose work was not only not calm in its beginnings, nor calm in its progress, but breeds even daily increasing scandal, tumult, strife, faction, and schism, among yourselves, as it approaches, by the help of the momentum which juvenile ecclesiologists have given it, to its goal of a broken purpose and frustrate expectations.

Are you to have a monopoly of unsettlement? Have you some graduated scale of unsettlement, up to which men's minds may be blamelessly disturbed, and which you alone know how to manage?

After all you have done, and all you are doing in your own communion, this show of meek indignation at our immoral unsettling of men's minds must be, to Dissenters and Low-church men, amusing and instructive in the extreme. Yet it is natural enough; it is but the jealous snappish anger of a sportsman with one who crosses his beat. Forgive me this ill-natured figure, which really forces itself upon me. […]


Illegitimacy of acting on probable opinions

[S]urely your reverence for the authority of St Thomas, backed as it is by Suarez and St Alphonsus, may incline you to admit principles of moral theology, which, with respect to the very questions of the succession and sacraments, may point out a line of conduct different from the one you are pursuing.

They, in common with the other masters of moral science, rule that in matter of faith and sacraments it is not lawful to follow even a very probable opinion, but that the safe and more certain side is to be followed; that there is a religious obligation on men to follow it: and the propositions, taking the other side, have been condemned by the Church in the pontificate of Innocent XI; and it is remarkable that even the bold proposition, condemned by him, itself denies the right to use the probable opinion in the case of priests' or bishops' orders.

Now you, on your own showing, have not a shadow of a doubt about our succession and our sacraments; whereas, to say the least, you confess to having chill and uncomfortable misgivings about your own; and this, on the principles which define and limit the nature and extent of probable conscience, ought at once to decide your submission to the Church.

In a word, either you must go back to the simpler Protestantism you have outgrown, and realize that; — or you must go on, and submit to the Roman Church; — or you must deal unfairly and dishonestly with your conscience and your present communion in remaining where you are.


Summary

You have come now to the place where the roads part; the next step may involve final grace: and if, with grave doubts yourself, you invoke your brother's blood upon your head, by stifling his doubts by your superiority of intellect, it probably will involve final grace.

Now, without entering directly into the question of Anglican orders, and the validity of your sacraments, and avoiding, not altogether certainly, yet as far as was possible, the use of distressing language which would take for granted a view so painful to you, I have shown that there is at least a very grave doubt cast over the whole subject, to put it no higher than a doubt; and that such a doubt is in many ways inexpressibly injurious to the life of the soul, retarding, thwarting, chilling, quenching everything which is high and holy and aiming at perfection.

[color=#71101]Then I have shown you, that supposing you have a very strong probability on your side, still in matter of faith and sacraments that is not sufficient; and that, according to the doctrine of St Thomas, and St Alphonsus, and all the great masters of moral theology, you are bound in those matters, not to put up with probable opinion, but to take the safer side.[/color]

I do not think that, if you give these two points the consideration they deserve, you can be quite easy even about the orders and the sacraments regarding which you were so confident.

NB: The Lifesitenews article below discusses the 'allowance' of the Latin Mass in the Arlington diocese but the gloria.tv article that follows explains the caveat...

Vatican grants two-year extension for Latin Masses in Diocese of Arlington
Traditional Latin Masses will reportedly continue in three parish churches as well as five non-parish locations in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia.



Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington
Catholic Diocese of Arlington/YouTube screenshot

• Destruction of authority
  

• The Synodal Church’s way of proceeding: A Conversation in the Spirit
  

• The icing on the cake: a discussion on the ordination of married men to the priesthood and the diaconate for women.
  

• firstly, absolute freedom for the participants to say and think what they want. To each his own truth, his own convictions, his own opinion.
  
• secondly is the equality of the deliberators. If one of them could impose his idea, his point of view or his experience, there would be no more freedom. It follows that there is no objective truth, only opinions.
  

• the weakest personalities – the most numerous – will be completely disorientated, and ready for any reform or questioning, as long as a leader makes them believe that they are the expression of the general will; or else, disgusted, they will take refuge in absolute relativism. They are recycled.
  
• a strong personality may refuse to get involved, defending the truth. If they don’t leave by slamming the door – a departure that the moderator will then comment on with scorn or mockery – they will be asked more or less politely to leave the group if they persist in staying and defending their position.
  

NB: Video #1 seems to be missing from this 30-video playlist