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

[Memaw]

What the heck is going on???

Good question!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Randolph]

Fr. John Hardon S.J. was a very Holy Priest, kind and never to busy to talk. I met him many times at Fr. Robert Fox’s Marian Congress. He worked very closely with the Vatican and I would trust anything he said. God Bless, Memaw

I had the great privilege of meeting him. I learned a lot from him from his work about Church teachings and moral theology. What a good and Holy priest!!!

I trust, respect and admire Fr. Hardon… I believe he will be made a saint one day.

 

[SteveLy]

Canonist Edward Peters has some further discussion of the matter of Anglican orders in this CWR article, which clarified some issues for me.

Good article.

 

[Randolph]

Below is the text from the article by Edward N. Peters

Was Leo’s “Apostolicae curae” an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, itself making infallibly certain the invalidity of Anglican orders and thus requiring Catholics to hold them “absolutely null and utterly void”?

A rock dropped into quiet waters produces a visible splash and observable ripples. The same rock thrown into a storm-tossed sea, however, passes unnoticed, for its effects are overwhelmed by larger and wider waves.

Before the splash of Cdl. Coccopalmerio’s startling comments toward recognizing Anglican orders disappears in the theological chop that is the new normal for Catholics, let’s record some questions deserving of consideration.

Note, the only source I have for Coccopalmerio’s comments is The Tablet and, as that site sets the stage for its report by recalling “Leo XIII’s remarks [on] Anglican orders”—as if Leo’s letter Apostolicae curae (1896), which declared Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void”, simply conveyed, you know, some “remarks”—one is not reassured that The Tablet fully grasps what is at issue here. In any case, no Tablet quotes attributed to Coccopalmerio directly attack Leo’s ruling (we are not even told what language the cardinal was speaking or writing in, and I think that is an important point) so there is some room for clarification.

But, if Coccopalmerio said what The Tablet reports him as saying, the following questions would warrant airing.

**1. Was Leo’s Apostolicae curae an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, itself making infallibly certain the invalidity of Anglican orders and thus requiring Catholics to hold them “absolutely null and utterly void”? I think it was, and I think we must, but I am open to counter arguments.

1. Or, was Apostolicae curae a prominent exercise of the ordinarypapal magisterium which coalesced with several centuries of other ordinary exercises of papal-episcopal magisterium in rejecting the validity of Anglican orders to the point that Catholics must hold them invalid? I think they surely came together thus and so hold that Catholics must regard Anglican orders as null. I can scarcely see any counter argument, let alone a plausible one, here, but if someone wants to offer it, I would listen.
2. Or, finally, does Apostolicae curae, and the effectively unanimous rejection of Anglican orders by Catholic authorities over the centuries, and the express inclusion of the invalidity of Anglican orders by then-Cdl. Ratzinger in his doctrinal commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem(1998) as something known with infallible certainty, and therefore as something to be held definitively by Catholics, leave any room whatsoever for speculating on, let alone defending, the possible validity of Anglican orders? Surely the question is rhetorical.

Next, if the answer to any of the above scenarios is Yes, do we not then face the situation anticipated by Canon 750 § 2 whereby one who rejects an assertion “proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church” is in that regard “opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church”? And, if the answer to that question is Yes, would not ‘obstinacy’ (which, I hasten to add, can scarcely be proven by a few comments) in rejecting a “doctrine mentioned in can. 750 § 2” leave one, following fruitless admonition by the competent ecclesiastical authority, liable to a “just penalty” under Canon 1371, 1º? **

Now, besides the possibility that Coccopalmerio did not say what The Tablet thinks he said, or that he said it but, on further consideration, he wishes to revise his remarks, the only other accounting I can come up with for his remarks is that, while Anglican orders are themselves invalid, some Anglicans are nevertheless validly ordained—not in virtue of their Anglican orders, to be sure, but in virtue of a post-Edwardian reintroduction of valid orders (conferred by break-away Catholic bishops or Orthodox prelates), such that a given Anglican minister might, by doing an ‘ordination pedigree’ search, be able to trace his orders back to a prelate possessed of valid orders. Such a query can be tedious, of course, and it might impact only a small number of Anglican ministers, but I think it only fair to acknowledge the possibility. (For what it’s worth, I think the Roman decision to ordain “absolutely” all Anglican ministers coming into full communion who wish to serve as priests—if applied without regard for the possibility that some could trace their orders to a bishop with valid orders—is problematic). Maybe this unusual source of sacramental validity is what the prelate had in mind.

If, by the way, our speaker above were not a credentialed canonist, I would pause to make it clear that the canonical-doctrinal conclusion of the invalidity in Anglican orders does not, repeat not, mean that “nothing happened” at, or as the result of, the rites undergone by Anglican ministers. Such rites can of course be occasions of great grace for their recipients and ministry conducted in their wake can, and doubtless has, helped many to grow closer to Christ. But canonists need no reminding that the power of a devotional rite to dispose one toward a closer cooperation with grace is not to be confused with whether a specific sacrament was (i.e., validly), conferred thereby, and so I mention this point only for the sake of others following this discussion.

… and more…

 

[Memaw]

Below is the text from the article by Edward N. Peters

Was Leo’s “Apostolicae curae” an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, itself making infallibly certain the invalidity of Anglican orders and thus requiring Catholics to hold them “absolutely null and utterly void”?

A rock dropped into quiet waters produces a visible splash and observable ripples. The same rock thrown into a storm-tossed sea, however, passes unnoticed, for its effects are overwhelmed by larger and wider waves.

Before the splash of Cdl. Coccopalmerio’s startling comments toward recognizing Anglican orders disappears in the theological chop that is the new normal for Catholics, let’s record some questions deserving of consideration.

Note, the only source I have for Coccopalmerio’s comments is The Tablet and, as that site sets the stage for its report by recalling “Leo XIII’s remarks [on] Anglican orders”—as if Leo’s letter Apostolicae curae (1896), which declared Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void”, simply conveyed, you know, some “remarks”—one is not reassured that The Tablet fully grasps what is at issue here. In any case, no Tablet quotes attributed to Coccopalmerio directly attack Leo’s ruling (we are not even told what language the cardinal was speaking or writing in, and I think that is an important point) so there is some room for clarification.

But, if Coccopalmerio said what The Tablet reports him as saying, the following questions would warrant airing.

**1. Was Leo’s Apostolicae curae an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, itself making infallibly certain the invalidity of Anglican orders and thus requiring Catholics to hold them “absolutely null and utterly void”? I think it was, and I think we must, but I am open to counter arguments.

1. Or, was Apostolicae curae a prominent exercise of the ordinarypapal magisterium which coalesced with several centuries of other ordinary exercises of papal-episcopal magisterium in rejecting the validity of Anglican orders to the point that Catholics must hold them invalid? I think they surely came together thus and so hold that Catholics must regard Anglican orders as null. I can scarcely see any counter argument, let alone a plausible one, here, but if someone wants to offer it, I would listen.
2. Or, finally, does Apostolicae curae, and the effectively unanimous rejection of Anglican orders by Catholic authorities over the centuries, and the express inclusion of the invalidity of Anglican orders by then-Cdl. Ratzinger in his doctrinal commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem(1998) as something known with infallible certainty, and therefore as something to be held definitively by Catholics, leave any room whatsoever for speculating on, let alone defending, the possible validity of Anglican orders? Surely the question is rhetorical.

Next, if the answer to any of the above scenarios is Yes, do we not then face the situation anticipated by Canon 750 § 2 whereby one who rejects an assertion “proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church” is in that regard “opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church”? And, if the answer to that question is Yes, would not ‘obstinacy’ (which, I hasten to add, can scarcely be proven by a few comments) in rejecting a “doctrine mentioned in can. 750 § 2” leave one, following fruitless admonition by the competent ecclesiastical authority, liable to a “just penalty” under Canon 1371, 1º? **

Now, besides the possibility that Coccopalmerio did not say what The Tablet thinks he said, or that he said it but, on further consideration, he wishes to revise his remarks, the only other accounting I can come up with for his remarks is that, while Anglican orders are themselves invalid, some Anglicans are nevertheless validly ordained—not in virtue of their Anglican orders, to be sure, but in virtue of a post-Edwardian reintroduction of valid orders (conferred by break-away Catholic bishops or Orthodox prelates), such that a given Anglican minister might, by doing an ‘ordination pedigree’ search, be able to trace his orders back to a prelate possessed of valid orders. Such a query can be tedious, of course, and it might impact only a small number of Anglican ministers, but I think it only fair to acknowledge the possibility. (For what it’s worth, I think the Roman decision to ordain “absolutely” all Anglican ministers coming into full communion who wish to serve as priests—if applied without regard for the possibility that some could trace their orders to a bishop with valid orders—is problematic). Maybe this unusual source of sacramental validity is what the prelate had in mind.

If, by the way, our speaker above were not a credentialed canonist, I would pause to make it clear that the canonical-doctrinal conclusion of the invalidity in Anglican orders does not, repeat not, mean that “nothing happened” at, or as the result of, the rites undergone by Anglican ministers. Such rites can of course be occasions of great grace for their recipients and ministry conducted in their wake can, and doubtless has, helped many to grow closer to Christ. But canonists need no reminding that the power of a devotional rite to dispose one toward a closer cooperation with grace is not to be confused with whether a specific sacrament was (i.e., validly), conferred thereby, and so I mention this point only for the sake of others following this discussion.

… and more…

Thank you, I agree, but even if “some” were ordained by break away Catholic Bishops that wouldn’t mean the Catholic Church would accept all as valid. For them to go to a break away Catholic Bishop to try to get the Sacrament of Holy Orders seems to me a deceitful way to do it and would NOT be pleasing to God to try to sneak in the back door. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Frankly the condescension towards Fr. Ruggero is quite startling. Crass attitudes of “fine, then leave” or trying to say he’s in error are quite offputting. Yes, this topic is a bit confusing, but that’s exactly why need an educated priest like Fr. Ruggero to explain some of the considerations being made

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.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

One of the reasons it’s nice to have you on here Don Ruggero. You’re a source of knowledge for the rest of the site.

That is very nice of you to say.

There was a very important conference that was held in Rome just a couple of weeks ago which brought together a number of prelates, Catholic and Anglican, as well as theologians and academics from various countries on this topic. It was His Eminence, the Cardinal President of the aforementioned dicastery, who hosted those event components that were held at the Vatican, along with Bishop Farrell of PCPCU.

In another circumstance, I would share about that event…but not given the makeup of this thread. The event was an opportune moment for the promotion of His Eminence’s writings on this topic.

 

[Estevao]

I wonder what Pope Leo XIII would think of all this. It seems to me that you’d be hard pressed to find a more intelligent man to ever have sat on the chair of Peter than Vincenzo Pecci.

 

[Fiasco]

Frankly the condescension towards Fr. Ruggero is quite startling. Crass attitudes of “fine, then leave” or trying to say he’s in error are quite offputting. Yes, this topic is a bit confusing, but that’s exactly why need an educated priest like Fr. Ruggero to explain some of the considerations being made

The condescension issuing from the other direction was the cause of the supposed “condescension” from us. Some of us aren’t stupid, naive know-nothings. we may not be formally “educated” in this field, but we know how to read known orthodox literature, and listen to known orthodox speakers. For example: we know the difference between the National Catholic Register and the National “Catholic” Reporter.

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 [they] 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.

Your insulting and/or condescending words are simply beyond belief to this 62 year-old Catholic layman who wants to remain loyal to the teachings of the Church.

Apart from that, i don’'t think Archbishop Cranmer and his spiritual descendents would like to imagine that the Catholic Rite of Ordination (etc) is on a par with his made-up one.

Estevao:
Pope Leo was mediaeval and…pre-Vatican II!

 

[billy15]

I think Dr. Peters lays out his points quite lucidly. If he had posted his thoughts on this forum, under anonymity, without reference to his credentials to a canon lawyer, would he too be chastised to even dare to think he had any ability to critique the Cardinal? Who are we to rashly judge the competence of posters in this thread and forum without asking them for their credentials, or knowing their credentials? The majority of posters may not be professors of theology, but one doesn’t need a formal education to know the faith. Just ask apologist Dave Armstrong.

In any case, I also came across this great essay posted by a priest of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, Fr. Donald Paul Sullins. Fr. Sullins is a former Anglican priest who was ordained under the Pastoral Provision to the Catholic priesthood in 2002. Fr. Sullins shows why there are some problems with what the Cardinal has said in the recent interview with The Tablet. Although this essay was written well before the Cardinal’s comments this week, it shows that no one has said, as the Cardinal remarked, “that nothing has happened” in Anglican ordination. I would hope that Pope Leo XIII is not being accused of having a “rigid” view on the validity of Anglican Orders. Here are some relevant excerpts from Fr. Sullins’ essay which show how Leo XIII was correct in his teaching that Anglican orders are “null and utterly void”, emphases mine:

While Apostolicae Curae holds that Anglican ordination does not confer the fullness of Catholic orders, this by no means implies that Anglican ordination is without its own value and purpose.

…I argue, absolute ordination creates the optimum conditions for the reception of Anglican priests into Catholic ministry while also respecting and valuing Anglican ministry.
In this article, I will present four main arguments to support this thesis… [Fourthly], **the absolute ordination of convert Anglican priests, properly understood, does not express a negative judgment, but rather a positive appraisal of the value of Anglican ministry.
**

---

Article 25 [of the Articles of Religion] titled Of the Sacraments presents the Anglican assessment of the nature of the seven sacraments traditionally recognized by Catholic Christianity:

“Those five commonly called Sacraments—that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction—are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel… for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.”

Here the emerging Church of England unmistakably asserted that the ordination of deacons and priests lacks any divinely ordained sign or ceremony, and, thus, does not confer sacramental grace… The specific concern of* Apostolicae Curae*, that the Edwardian Ordinal drafted by Archbishop Cranmer lacked both the form and intent of Catholic ordination, is emphatically confirmed by the content of that rite itself, and contemporaneous expressions of Cranmer’s doctrinal views. Even the most motivated ecumenists have seldom claimed otherwise…

With regard to the crucial question of the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Cranmer ordination rite clearly not only did not intend to do, but intended not to do, what the Catholic Church did.

---

…it is important to state clearly that absolute ordination in no way involves a detraction of Anglican priesthood. From a Catholic perspective, the question of the formal validity of Anglican orders is not a question about the efficacy of Anglican ministry. While Apostolicae Curae holds that Anglican ordination does not confer the fullness of Catholic orders, this by no means implies that Anglican ordination is without its own value and purpose.

The Catholic Church today views the relation of Catholic to Protestant, not as the difference between wrong and right, but as between part and whole. It recognizes that many elements of genuine sanctity, doctrine, and orders are to be found in the separated churches of the Reformation, among whom, moreover, Anglicanism is held to have a special place. The bishops of England and Wales, in a joint statement, have made this explicit: “We would never suggest that those now seeking full communion with the Roman Catholic Church deny the value of their previous ministry. According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the liturgical actions of their ministry can most certainly engender a life of grace, for they come from Christ and lead back to him and belong by right to the one church of Christ.”

If one’s personal experience of grace in Anglican priestly ministry does not prove that the underlying orders are valid, it is equally true that a defect in the underlying orders does not nullify the experience of grace.

…in analogy to Apostolicae Curae, imagine… the case of a couple who discovered, after years of happy marriage, that there had been some legal (or canonical) defect in their wedding license and that they were not legally (or canonically) married at all. To continue their marriage, such a couple would have to get married again, absolutely, in recognition that their former ceremony was null and void. Would that absolute remarriage negate the relationship they had developed?

…No. The reality of their experience, the very real union of their lives and bodies, would not be negated in the slightest by the defect in their authorization. In the same way, Apostolicae Curae’s declaration of nullity of Anglican orders in no way denies the genuine grace and truth that is present in Anglican ordained ministry.

I would like to know if Dr. Peters and Fr. Sullins are wrong in their assessments.

 

[Memaw]

The condescension issuing from the other direction was the cause of the supposed “condescension” from us. Some of us aren’t stupid, naive know-nothings. we may not be formally “educated” in this field, but we know how to read known orthodox literature, and listen to known orthodox speakers. For example: we know the difference between the National Catholic Register and the National “Catholic” Reporter.

Your insulting and/or condescending words are simply beyond belief to this 62 year-old Catholic layman who wants to remain loyal to the teachings of the Church.

Apart from that, i don’'t think Archbishop Cranmer and his spiritual descendents would like to imagine that the Catholic Rite of Ordination (etc) is on a par with his made-up one.

Estevao:
Pope Leo was mediaeval and…pre-Vatican II!

Agreed, this 80 year old, 20 year CCD teacher, mother of 9, (two babies in Heaven), niece of a Holy Priest and and friend of many priest, wishes to remain loyal to the teaching of the Church as well. I wouldn’t allow the National Catholic Reporter in my house and I NEVER see it where good Catholic lititure is for sale. A good dose of humility welcome. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Tim_D]

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.

In another circumstance, I would share about that event…but not given the makeup of this thread. The event was an opportune moment for the promotion of His Eminence’s writings on this topic.

You know, some of these posters have a good point; if you honestly believe that ordinary posters here shouldn’t “dare to even think” that they understand the subject or that you can’t even find it worthwhile to “share about that event” based on your negative opinion of the folk involved, then why are you even here? All I asked was, if Pope Leo XIII was in error in his determination of the validity of Anglican orders, then what else has the Church been wrong about theologically? From the looks of it, one can turn anything upon its head if you parse the subject enough. Then again, I do at times dare to even think that I have any semblance of understanding about the subject.

 

[Fiasco]

Agreed, this 80 year old, 20 year CCD teacher, mother of 9, (two babies in Heaven)[Safe, in bliss forever. Comforting.], niece of a Holy Priest and and friend of many priest, wishes to remain loyal to the teaching of the Church as well. I wouldn’t allow the National Catholic Reporter in my house and I NEVER see it where good Catholic lititure is for sale. A good dose of humility welcome. [Less name and title dropping.] God Bless, Memaw

Your response is mystifying.

Don’t you ever purchase fish?
And what do you wrap your food scraps etc in?

You’re not “environmentally friendly”?

May God bless you for a faithful and fruitful life!

You know, some of these posters have a good point; if you honestly believe that ordinary posters here shouldn’t “dare to even think” that they understand the subject or that you can’t even find it worthwhile to “share about that event” based on your negative opinion of the folk involved, then why are you even here? All I asked was, if Pope Leo XIII was in error in his determination of the validity of Anglican orders, then what else has the Church been wrong about theologically? From the looks of it, one can turn anything upon its head if you parse the subject enough. Then again, I do at times dare to even think that I have any semblance of understanding about the subject.

Ditto.
Anything not stamped with the approval of the counterfeit "spirit of V II " is suspect.

 

[Memaw]

Your response is mystifying.

Don’t you ever purchase fish?
And what do you wrap your food scraps etc in?

You’re not “environmentally friendly”?

May God bless you for a faithful and fruitful life!

Ditto.
Anything not stamped with the approval of the counterfeit "spirit of V II " is suspect.

Just agreeing with Tim D, and giving my “degrees.” While they may not be to impressive, there all I have and I AM a loyal Catholic. God Bless, Memaw
PS, what does fish, food scraps and the environment have to do with it?? Now I’m mystified, ha.

 

[Brendan]

Does this mean that, when attending a Catholic Mass, I may take communion there instead of opting for a blessing?/QUOTE

No

Firstly, because this would just touch on Holy Orders, NOT on validity of the Eucharist

If you look at the Eastern Orthodox Churches, we are not permitted to receive there, except under rare circumstances, (and even then, it is only if that particular Church permits it)

Holy Communion invoves a LOT more than the validity of the Sacrament, it involves the acception of all that the Church teaches. We do not accept all that the Anglican Churches teach, ergo, an act of Holy Communion would be an act of falsehood.

 

[Brendan]

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.

It would be interesting to hear the rational behind the Cardinals statement.

Especially given then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement, to which you referred

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…

If we, the faithful, are to hold definitively that Anglican Orders are invalid, any statement to the contrary must be in error.

I understand that that there might be those within the Anglican communion who DO have valid Orders, but every known example acquired those Orders outside the communion. Such as Alberto Cutie, who was ordained a Catholic priest, but left the Church to become an Espicopalian. Or those men who have sought Orders via the Old Catholic Church ( the 'Dutch touch"). In each case, those valid orders originated from outside the Anglican communion.

Thus the question becomes; under what circumstances does the Council for Legislative Texts have authority over a declaration by the CDF regarding the definitive nature of a Papal declaration?

 

[Fiasco]

Just agreeing with Tim D, and giving my “degrees.” While they may not be to impressive, there all I have and I AM a loyal Catholic. God Bless, Memaw
PS, what does fish, food scraps and the environment have to do with it?? Now I’m mystified, ha.

Sorry!
i tend to take for granted that everyone knows that one of the National “Catholic” Reporter’s nicknames is “Fishwrap” because that’s just about all it’s good for, plus wrapping rubbish in, lining birdcages, and similar tasks.

Being too stupid to work out how to attach an image, this link is the best i can do. You’ll have to ignore the other stuff on the page because it’s irrelevant:

google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F07%2Fscreen-shot-2014-07-07-at-10-42-10-am.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsd-3133%2F2015%2F01%2F07%2Fputrid-rubbish-greg-gutfeld-shows-how-nyt-has-shamefully-nutshelled-itself%2F&docid=bm5V8i5oZeFxFM&tbnid=dgRRQh4gko2q6M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjjqJX46OzTAhXHvbwKHSZVAmsQMwgkKAAwAA…i&w=409&h=409&itg=1&bih=755&biw=1398&q=Pope%20Francis&ved=0ahUKEwjjqJX46OzTAhXHvbwKHSZVAmsQMwgkKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

[Tim_D]

It would be interesting to hear the rational behind the Cardinals statement.

Especially given then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement, to which you referred

If we, the faithful, are to hold definitively that Anglican Orders are invalid, any statement to the contrary must be in error.

I understand that that there might be those within the Anglican communion who DO have valid Orders, but every known example acquired those Orders outside the communion. Such as Alberto Cutie, who was ordained a Catholic priest, but left the Church to become an Espicopalian. Or those men who have sought Orders via the Old Catholic Church ( the 'Dutch touch"). In each case, those valid orders originated from outside the Anglican communion.

Thus the question becomes; under what circumstances does the Council for Legislative Texts have authority over a declaration by the CDF regarding the definitive nature of a Papal declaration?

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?

 

[Brendan]

This is a perfect post to highlight the confusion here.

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 *.

 

[Tim_D]

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 *.

Indeed.