Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII

[st_bernard]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Does anyone know of a book which has all these Vatican documents?

Gratias

 

[LilyM]

Wow. It does bother me. It should probably bother those who are faithful to what the Church teaches in this regard: that Anglican orders are forever and totally invalid. No priest, no Eucharist.

I’ve never heard of Apostolicae Curae before, but I certainly know, understand and believe the Church’s teaching on Anglican Orders, which is all one needs to do really. I don’t know ANY Catholic who DOES think Anglican orders are valid - not that I make a habit of asking all of 'em admittedly.

 

[Ace86]

TNT, the third. No offense Ace86.

Secondly the very fact that there are a document on the Vatican site insisting that the Anglicans NOT be called “Church(es)” is an indication that their orders are certainly not accepted.

The Vatican site doesn’t have 101 documents. Can’t imagine why, but they don;t. And it’s not like they are going to say “Apostolicae Curae? But it’s not on your website. We thoguht it had been revoked.”

Almost all the motu proprios are incomplete, even the encyclicals. The only one of the earlier Popes where they’ve got a lot is Leo XIII but even for him it is incomplete (but such excellent encyclicals)

LilyM:

I’ve never heard of Apostolicae Curae before, but I certainly know, understand and believe the Church’s teaching on Anglican Orders, which is all one needs to do really. I don’t know ANY Catholic who DOES think Anglican orders are valid - not that I make a habit of asking all of 'em admittedly.

What I meant to say was that it bothers me that that doc seems to be missing from the website, not that Anglican orders are invalid. It’s too bad that many of the encyclicals, etc. are incomplete. They shouldn’t be missing though…

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I’ve never heard of Apostolicae Curae before, but I certainly know, understand and believe the Church’s teaching on Anglican Orders, which is all one needs to do really. I don’t know ANY Catholic who DOES think Anglican orders are valid - not that I make a habit of asking all of 'em admittedly.

You’d be surprised. I was reading a collection of articles written around the 100th anniversary of Apostolicae Curae and priests even think we need to take another look at what Pope Leo XIII taught in light of new information, he was hidebound by his narrow view of tradition, etc.

What I have to say to that is, just how are we going to explain away-

1. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

I don’t care if Apostolicae Curae wasn’t an ex cathedra pronouncement or if it was an extraordinary excercise of infallibility, the Pope took it upon himself to teach on a matter of faith and morals. Anything to the contrary looks like a bunch of pandering in order not to “offend” the Anglicans.

To me, the argument is just as valid today as it was 500 years ago-ordinations done according to the Edwardine Ordinal are invalid. Since the validly ordained hierarchy had died out by the issue of the 1662 Ordinal which may be adequate (and that is questionable) there were no validly ordained bishops who could ordain anyone. Since there were neither validly ordained by schismatic bishops left and no valid bishops could have been ordained according to the Edwardine Ordinal, it follows that the Anglican sect has lost its order. In more recent history, some Anglicans took it upon themselves to get ordained by bishops with valid orders (Old Catholics, Dutch Jansenists, even some Orthodox bishops) but it is really questionable if the order continues to other men ordained by the Anglican with a valid Order because of the possible defective Anglican ceremony. Regardless, the only valid orders in Anglicanism are the result of an infusion of valid orders from outside of Anglicanism.

Because of the choice of the Anglican Communion to ordain women, I would say that the absolute and final nail has been driven into the coffin of the dispute. Why it has continued since Pope Leo’s definition is beyond me. If any doubt existed as to the intention and proper understanding of ordination by Anglicans, it has been definately clarified by their choice to “ordain” women. Whoever thinks they can ordain women obviously doesn’t intend to do what the Church does nor do they have a proper understanding of Orders.

 

[gorman64]

Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers.

Does this sound like anyone you might know?

 

[GKC]

Why does it bother you? Do you know of any Anglican/Episcopalian converts who have not been “re-” ordained? Plus, any kind of large scale reunion (like has happened in the past with the schismatic east) has been totally ruled out with the Anglicans due to their ordination of women among many other things.

I know of two such converts who were ordained sub conditione; Fr. John J. Hughes and Fr. Graham Leonard, one-time Anglican Bishop of London. Fr. Hughes’ two books on the subject of Apostolicae Curae make interesting reading, esp. for RCs. Of course, so does Francis Clark’s book.

GKC

 

[RobedWithLight]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Does anyone know of a book which has all these Vatican documents?

Gratias

I’m not aware of such a book. If there were, it would span several thick volumes. In any case HERE is a site that contains all the documents mentioned above.