Anglican orders not 'invalid' says Cardinal, opening way for revision of current Catholic position

[abucs]

With all due respect to Cardinal Coccopalmerio, I’m not sure I’ve ever read something more meaningless. I won’t for a second deny that there is value and good in an Anglican ordination, that does not make their orders valid. You can’t just say that “this seems nice and there is good in it” to suddenly make something “valid.”

Look this is exactly right.

I remember somewhere reading about a dictatorship of relativism where words are used in an ambiguous sense in order to muddy the waters and attempt to remake thought in different ways and to then blame people who call you out as rigid, old fashioned and somehow backward.

We have had and resisted this (blank) in the west for 3 generations now. The church should not capitulate to such ambiguous reasoning which will be more divisive then it is inclusive and a betrayal of the mission of Christ.

Yes, Anglicans are nice people. Anglican pastors can be selflessly giving their lives for the good of their communities in the name and fellowship of Christ. Good on them and God bless them and let’s work together for the love of Christ.

But the Anglican orders are not valid and those people in the church spouting this (blank) should stop talking to people like unthinking children.

It is truly an embarrassment which non Catholics point to as weak and ill thought out.

There are a lot of atheists and agnostics out there who rightly criticise the ambiguous relativism from the Progressive culture and increasingly respect a church that sticks to its intellectual foundations, even if they disagree with the doctrine. Such thinking atheists and agnostics will see us as weakly following an incoherent thought structure that is being rejected by an increasing number of people.

Stop this incoherent reasoning that tries to depict rigid Catholicism as not being nice and an impediment to some fantasy inclusiveness. These incoherent articulations will lose far more people than it reconciles with.

Go take a look at this politically correct reasoning that was rolled out in the Anglican church and the deep and lasting divisions that has caused.

 

[ctb95]

Do you think it is quite startling? I do not think so at all…not based on the previous behaviour of the very people who made the posts to which you are objecting.

What I find remarkable is that such people dare to even think that have any ability whatsoever to critique in any way the Cardinal President of Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

That is simply beyond absurd to this old professor.

I will not claim to be an expert in any sense of the word, but I have seen a lot of conflict and contradiction among many bishops recently. (See Amoris Laetitia and the following Dubai). I have also seen high ranking officials who are guilty of wrongdoing and have commited serious wrongdoing (Cardinal Law and others). It doesn’t take an expert to see these things.

I have the utmost respect for our Bishops and Cardinals, but that doesn’t mean they are above being questioned or critiqued, simply because they are prelates.

 

[Tim_D]

I find this to be of great interest and topical to this thread:

*"In 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a doctrinal commentary to accompany Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ad tuendam fidem, which established the formula of the profession of faith to be made by those assuming certain offices in the Church. Despite the ongoing work of the ecumenical Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), *the Congregation’s commentary listed Leo XIII’s declaration in Apostolicae curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations as an example of “those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed”. Anyone who denies such truths “would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.

The continuing authority of Apostolicae Curae was reinforced in the essay The Significance of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus by Fr Gianfranco Ghirlanda SJ, Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, released on 9 November 2009. (Anglicanorum Coetibus introduces a canonical structure that provides for groups of Anglican clergy and faithful to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church “while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony”.) In the essay, approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fr Ghirlanda commented that “the ordination of ministers coming from Anglicanism will be absolute, on the basis of the Bull Apostolicae curae of Leo XIII of September 13, 1896”.[15]

 

[Tim_D]

This also seems to be of interest:

"On the passing of the first Act of Uniformity in Queen Elizabeth I of England’s reign, fourteen bishops were dismissed from their sees, and all the other sees, except Llandaff (then part of the Church of England), were at the time vacant.[1] The question was how to obtain consecration so as to preserve unbroken apostolic succession,* as the Bishop of Llandaff refused to officiate at the consecration of the new Archbishop of Canterbury.[1]"*

So, it would seem that even in Queen Elizabeth’s time the question of legitimate succession was a prominent concern.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I will not claim to be an expert in any sense of the word, but I have seen a lot of conflict and contradiction among many bishops recently. (See Amoris Laetitia and the following Dubai). I have also seen high ranking officials who are guilty of wrongdoing and have commited serious wrongdoing (Cardinal Law and others). It doesn’t take an expert to see these things.

I have the utmost respect for our Bishops and Cardinals, but that doesn’t mean they are above being questioned or critiqued, simply because they are prelates.

Dubai is a country.

Let us be clear: judgments and actions concerning Cardinals, such as His Eminence he emeritus Archbishop of Boston who became Archpriest of Saint Mary Major, are exclusively the domain of His Holiness. As the Supreme Legislator, such matters are reserved to his very person. So that is beyond the purview of everyone who is not the Pope.

As for the second point in bold, it means exactly that, in virtue of being a prelate, he is indeed beyond question or critique by those who have a lesser dignity and lesser stature than the prelate.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Not only that, but look at the examples then-Cardinal Ratzinger gave.

If a Cardinal spoke publically calling into question the legitimacy of Pope Francis’ election, or the validity of Vatican II, or the veracity of Pope St. John XXIII’s canonization, we would rightly treat such statements with suspicion, and rightly place our confidence in the relevant Papal declarations.

Why not the same with the veracity of *Apostolicae Curae *.

Because, for theologians who are following this issue, your comparisons utterly fail.

What you propose is a false analogy.

 

[ctb95]

Dubai is a country.

Let us be clear: judgments and actions concerning Cardinals, such as His Eminence he emeritus Archbishop of Boston who became Archpriest of Saint Mary Major, are exclusively the domain of His Holiness. As the Supreme Legislator, such matters are reserved to his very person. So that is beyond the purview of everyone who is not the Pope.

As for the second point in bold, it means exactly that, in virtue of being a prelate, he is indeed beyond question or critique by those who have a lesser dignity and lesser stature than the prelate.

Sorry, “Dubai” was a misspelling of “dubia.” I posted on my phone, so I could be prone to misspellings.

Does this rule apply only to prelates and clerics, or to the laity as well? Is there any rule against laypersons forming their own judgements regarding a prelate? If so, I would love to see where this is stated.

Thanks.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am aware that a prelate is not answerable to a lesser prelate, cleric, or laypeople. My question is: is it explicitly wrong for a layperson to form their own private judgment or critique of a cleric and/or his decisions?

 

[Memaw]

Look this is exactly right.

I remember somewhere reading about a dictatorship of relativism where words are used in an ambiguous sense in order to muddy the waters and attempt to remake thought in different ways and to then blame people who call you out as rigid, old fashioned and somehow backward.

We have had and resisted this (blank) in the west for 3 generations now. The church should not capitulate to such ambiguous reasoning which will be more divisive then it is inclusive and a betrayal of the mission of Christ.

Yes, Anglicans are nice people. Anglican pastors can be selflessly giving their lives for the good of their communities in the name and fellowship of Christ. Good on them and God bless them and let’s work together for the love of Christ.

But the Anglican orders are not valid and those people in the church spouting this (blank) should stop talking to people like unthinking children.

It is truly an embarrassment which non Catholics point to as weak and ill thought out.

There are a lot of atheists and agnostics out there who rightly criticise the ambiguous relativism from the Progressive culture and increasingly respect a church that sticks to its intellectual foundations, even if they disagree with the doctrine. Such thinking atheists and agnostics will see us as weakly following an incoherent thought structure that is being rejected by an increasing number of people.

Stop this incoherent reasoning that tries to depict rigid Catholicism as not being nice and an impediment to some fantasy inclusiveness. These incoherent articulations will lose far more people than it reconciles with.

Go take a look at this politically correct reasoning that was rolled out in the Anglican church and the deep and lasting divisions that has caused.

AMEN!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is a perfect post to highlight the confusion here. Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders to be void and invalid and Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF stated this act as an example as something to be “held definitively.” How is it, then, that we can return to the topic after 100+ years and declare it to be unsettled? Did Pope John Paul II not declare that it is beyond the authority of the Church to ordain women as priests or is that something that just needs to be newly explored? Is abortion truly intrinsically evil or are there situations where it isn’t? If the cork is rotting in the bottle, then how is it that we can ever hold as dear all of the things that the Church has taught as authoritative in the past that can now be parsed as acceptable today?

Very simply. As His Eminence, the former Cardinal Prefect of the CDF before his elevation to the Petrine Office, himself said concerning both Anglicans and Lutherans, they are different questions that contemporary theologians are examining…and which the Magisterium will have occasion to pronounce upon. Which is why His Eminence also said that the words of Leo stand – but there are other considerations by which the greater matter is carried forward.

Cardinal Ratzinger summed the matter up quite well in the 1990s when he said:
*I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran evangelische] Lord’s Supper.”] /…/ *
This approach has completely altered, now across more than 25 years, the Holy See’s thinking…most especially regarding PCPCU – and brings us to the threshold of great theological and ecclesiological advancements.

 

[ctb95]

Very simply. As His Eminence, the former Cardinal Prefect of the CDF before his elevation to the Petrine Office, himself said concerning both Anglicans and Lutherans, they are different questions that contemporary theologians are examining…and which the Magisterium will have occasion to pronounce upon. Which is why His Eminence also said that the words of Leo stand – but there are other considerations by which the greater matter is carried forward.

Cardinal Ratzinger summed the matter up quite well in the 1990s when he said:
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran evangelische] Lord’s Supper.”] /…/
This approach has completely altered, now across more than 25 years, the Holy See’s thinking…most especially regarding PCPCU – and brings us to the threshold of great theological and ecclesiological advancements.

I agree.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am aware that a prelate is not answerable to a lesser prelate, cleric, or laypeople. My question is: is it explicitly wrong for a layperson to form their own private judgment or critique of a cleric and/or his decisions?

Ultimately, that is a matter of conscience to be worked out with a confessor in the internal forum or moral theologian in the external forum, due to the individual variables.

 

[ctb95]

Ultimately, that is a matter of conscience to be worked out with a confessor in the internal forum or moral theologian in the external forum, due to the individual variables.

I see. Thank you for your insight.

 

[jfitzgerald]

The question is the legitimacy of their ordinations, not the orthodoxy of their beliefs. Pope Leo XIII declared that due to the changes of understanding in the nature of the Mass and the priesthood enshrined in the Edwardian ordinal , Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.” If something that can be so boldly and dogmatically stated can be turned upside down, then what of the other beliefs of the Church that we hold so sacred? What purpose does this serve?

Was Pope Leo speaking ex cathedra?
THAT is what makes all the difference, you know. If he was not, then his words are his opinion …admittedly, the opinion of the Vicar of Christ carries more weight than do the opinions of us regular Toms, Dicks, and Harrys in the pews; however, even a Pope can be wrong (or prejudiced, or even vindictive) upon occasion, when he is only speaking for himself and not for God.

 

[Brendan]

Because, for theologians who are following this issue, your comparisons utterly fail.

What you propose is a false analogy.

Those were the four examples given by Cardinal Ratzinger of items that are to be definitively held by the faithful.

I repeat

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations

So the comparison of them was not my choice, but his. He presented those within his capacity as headPrefect of the CDF.

So what is the theological separation of those that would render my analogy false.

I presume that you would agree with me that a Cardinal who questioned the canonization of Pope St John XXIII would rightly have their statement to that regard treated with suspicion, not only by the Holy See, but the faithful as well; but not one who questioned the veracity of Apostolicae Curae.

And yes, I am a student of theology. I have completed my M.A in Theology as well as most of the course work for ordination to the Diaconate. I stepped back from that when my wife and I were expecting our 5th and then 6th child. The course work I am missing is the liturgical practica and homiletics. I was counseled to wait on those until I reentered formation.

Thus, please feel free to outline your reasoning as why the examples are not comparable.

 

[edwest2]

Look this is exactly right.

I remember somewhere reading about a dictatorship of relativism where words are used in an ambiguous sense in order to muddy the waters and attempt to remake thought in different ways and to then blame people who call you out as rigid, old fashioned and somehow backward.

We have had and resisted this (blank) in the west for 3 generations now. The church should not capitulate to such ambiguous reasoning which will be more divisive then it is inclusive and a betrayal of the mission of Christ.

Yes, Anglicans are nice people. Anglican pastors can be selflessly giving their lives for the good of their communities in the name and fellowship of Christ. Good on them and God bless them and let’s work together for the love of Christ.

But the Anglican orders are not valid and those people in the church spouting this (blank) should stop talking to people like unthinking children.

It is truly an embarrassment which non Catholics point to as weak and ill thought out.

There are a lot of atheists and agnostics out there who rightly criticise the ambiguous relativism from the Progressive culture and increasingly respect a church that sticks to its intellectual foundations, even if they disagree with the doctrine. Such thinking atheists and agnostics will see us as weakly following an incoherent thought structure that is being rejected by an increasing number of people.

Stop this incoherent reasoning that tries to depict rigid Catholicism as not being nice and an impediment to some fantasy inclusiveness. These incoherent articulations will lose far more people than it reconciles with.

Go take a look at this politically correct reasoning that was rolled out in the Anglican church and the deep and lasting divisions that has caused.

Well said. The Dictatorship of Relativism was explained by Pope Benedict.

"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Source: Practical Catholic

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/

Ed

 

[7_Sorrows]

Those were the four examples given by Cardinal Ratzinger of items that are to be definitively held by the faithful.

I repeat

So the comparison of them was not my choice, but his. He presented those within his capacity as headPrefect of the CDF.

So what is the theological separation of those that would render my analogy false.

I presume that you would agree with me that a Cardinal who questioned the canonization of Pope St John XXIII would rightly have their statement to that regard treated with suspicion, not only by the Holy See, but the faithful as well; but not one who questioned the veracity of Apostolicae Curae.

And yes, I am a student of theology. I have completed my M.A in Theology as well as most of the course work for ordination to the Diaconate. I stepped back from that when my wife and I were expecting our 5th and then 6th child. The course work I am missing is the liturgical practica and homiletics. I was counseled to wait on those until I reentered formation.

Thus, please feel free to outline your reasoning as why the examples are not comparable.

Praying for you as you handle your family obligations and your studies!

 

[Brendan]

Praying for you as you handle your family obligations and your studies!

Why thank you

I stepped back from formation several years ago, and was blessed with another child after that. So it might be a few more years before I look at reentering formation.

As I mentioned above, I did continue with the course work, and then some.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thus, please feel free to outline your reasoning as why the examples are not comparable.

I have explained it in my post.

If you have an MA in theology, you have only to extrapolate from the quote of Cardinal Ratzinger and apply it to the situation addressed by the Cardinal President.

“…the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity’.”

And that is precisely what Cardinal Coccopalmerio was and is ultimately addressing.

Both the Magisterium and the theological community have moved beyond the narrow point of Apostolicae Curae. Much has happened, at every level that matters and has significance, since 1896…and most especially since Saint John XXIII.

There is a path ahead.

 

[Memaw]

Those were the four examples given by Cardinal Ratzinger of items that are to be definitively held by the faithful.

I repeat

So the comparison of them was not my choice, but his. He presented those within his capacity as headPrefect of the CDF.

So what is the theological separation of those that would render my analogy false.

I presume that you would agree with me that a Cardinal who questioned the canonization of Pope St John XXIII would rightly have their statement to that regard treated with suspicion, not only by the Holy See, but the faithful as well; but not one who questioned the veracity of Apostolicae Curae.

And yes, I am a student of theology. I have completed my M.A in Theology as well as most of the course work for ordination to the Diaconate. I stepped back from that when my wife and I were expecting our 5th and then 6th child. The course work I am missing is the liturgical practica and homiletics. I was counseled to wait on those until I reentered formation.

Thus, please feel free to outline your reasoning as why the examples are not comparable.

Thank You, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Brendan]

I have explained it in my post.

If you have an MA in theology, you have only to extrapolate from the quote of Cardinal Ratzinger and apply it to the situation addressed by the Cardinal President.

“…the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity’.”

And that is precisely what Cardinal Coccopalmerio was and is ultimately addressing.

Both the Magisterium and the theological community have moved beyond the narrow point of Apostolicae Curae. Much has happened, at every level that matters and has significance, since 1896…and most especially since Saint John XXIII.

There is a path ahead.

I agree that the issues cannot be narrowed to the validity of the Eucharist, but it remains a starting point. The celebration conducted by an Anglican priest, lacking Holy Orders obtained form outside of the Anglican Communion, could not truthfully be said to be an act of Transubstantiation. The elements of bread and wine would remain just that, bread and wine. The Cardinal is certainly correct that discussions with and about the Anglican Communion cannot be narrowed to the validity of their Orders, or Communion. But it cannot disregard the lack of validity.

I am unaware of much happening that has changed the Church’s long held requirements on the requirements for validity on both. I understand that A.C. was focused very tightly on the determination of validity of Anglican Orders, but the determination was made.

This would be no less true, and perhaps especially even more true, of the female Anglican clergy.

In addition, no level of extrapolation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement could lead to a denial of that statement. And the date of 1998 is intriguing, especially in regards to your statement mentioning Pope St John XXIII. I am unaware of any statements on his behalf in regards to the Anglican communion acquiring valid Holy Orders.