Posted on 05/10/2017 6:14:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Leo XIII’s remarks that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” have been a major stumbling block to Catholic-Anglican unity.
One of the Vatican’s top legal minds has opened the way for a revision of the Catholic position on Anglican orders by stressing they should not be written off as “invalid.”
In a recently published book, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, calls into question Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 papal bull that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.”
“When someone is ordained in the Anglican Church and becomes a parish priest in a community, we cannot say that nothing has happened, that everything is ‘invalid’,” the cardinal says in volume of papers and discussions that took place in Rome as part of the “Malines Conversations,” an ecumenical forum.
“This about the life of a person and what he has given …these things are so very relevant!”
For decades Leo XIII’s remarks have proved to be one of the major stumbling blocks in Catholic-Anglican unity efforts, as it seemed to offer very little room for interpretation or revision.
But the cardinal, whose department is charged with interpreting and revising Church laws, argued the Church today has a “a very rigid understanding of validity and invalidity” which could be revised on the Anglican ordination question.
“The question of validity [regarding the non-recognition of Anglican orders, while the Pope would give pectoral crosses, rings or chalices to Anglican clergy], however, is not a matter of law but of doctrine,” he explains in a question and answer format. “We have had, and we still have a very rigid understanding of validity and invalidity: this is valid, and that is not valid. One should be able to say: ‘this is valid in a certain context, and that.......
(Excerpt) Read more at thetablet.co.uk ...
Two things should be kept in mind here:
1) Since the 1920s the Catholic Church has recognized that some Anglican Orders are valid. Most Catholics do NOT know this. The validity is based on the validity of orders from Old Catholic lines.
For at least 60 years some Anglican priests have asked for and received statements from the Catholic Church acknowledging the validity of their orders. http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/10/vatican-recoginition-of-anglican-orders.html
Thus, some of what the Cardinal says might be true but he clearly is not only putting the cart before the horse in terms of canon law he is doing so theologically as well. It is not what the supposedly ordained man does after ordination that makes him validly ordained. It is the ordination itself that does.
2) Now that Old Catholics have started “consecrating” women and the Anglicans still don’t understand priesthood correctly, Leo XIII’s decision should still stand as a general statement. Individual cases may turn out differently.
If the Catholic Church does decide to incorporate Anglican clergy into their ranks it would be a good idea to ask them first if they believe in God, the Resurrection and the divinity of Christ. Most Anglican “clergy” are agnostics.
Born in New York City in 1928 as son and grandson of Anglican priests, and through his mother a direct descendant of US Founding Father and first Chief Justice, John Jay, John Jay Hughes was an Anglican priest himself for 6 years before becoming a Catholic in 1960.
Since Anglicans do not recognize the Catholic Church as the one true church or the pope as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, why do they care?
“Since Anglicans do not recognize the Catholic Church as the one true church or the pope as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, why do they care?”
The problem is two-fold:
1) Some Anglicans DO recognize the Catholic Church as the one true Church and the pope they just have somewhat different understandings. Case in point: http://www.anglicancatholic.org/frequently-asked-questions
2) The Anglican Church has always been angered and humiliated that the Vatican does not universally recognize Anglican Orders. Liberals in the Catholic Church have always pushed for recognition of Anglican Orders as an “easy way” of reunification (completely ignoring the fact that much of Anglicanism has renounced basic Christian beliefs and practices, of course).
I would argue that many of us are more Catholic than Catholics.
Thank you for the recommendation.
“We have had, and we still have a very rigid understanding of validity and invalidity: this is valid, and that is not valid. One should be able to say: ‘this is valid in a certain context, and that is valid another context’.”
As presented, this sounds very ambiguous. It appears to be a continuation of the creeping moral relativism that seems to surround this Pope. Or not.
Then why not join the Ordinariate?
When will Francis change the name of the Church to reflect more modern sensibilities?
Some Anglican priests were ordained by bishops who were ordained by bishops who were, etc., ordained by bishops before the break so their ordinations do go back to the Apostles in unbroken chain. They could be held valid. If that Apostolic chain is broken, and it is for many or most Anglican bishops, then the ordination cannot be valid, no matter what this or that pope might decree.
It is all about “intercommunion.” Francis is working up to declaring all the liturgical churches to be One Big Happy Family. His concept of the Church seems to be as the Orthodox churches in organization and the Episcopalian or Unitarian church in belief.
The dictator, Bergoglio, has already stated, “This my church.”
Thus he has renamed it: Francischurch.
What a shocker that he's using that word. Wonder where he got it from?
No such thing as “more” or “less” Catholic. Either one is Catholic or one is not.
Of course, I totally get your point though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.