Again, anyone who claims the Church no longer teaches that Anglicans are heretics needs to provide Church teaching to support that. That means you. Until you can do that, then what Leo XIII stated in 1896 still holds true. However, it sure would be odd for Church teaching to contradict itself.
“Again, anyone who claims the Church no longer teaches that Anglicans are heretics needs to provide Church teaching to support that.”
Again, anyone who mischaracterizes the issue as being about what the Church teaches about heretics rather than what the Church calls Anglicans needs to get a clue.
“That means you.”
No, that means you. How do I know? Because I know what I did and did not say and I know what the Church does and does not teach. The fact that you can’t even get the dates right about the time period we’re talking about is indicative of your grasp of the matter at hand.
“Until you can do that, then what Leo XIII stated in 1896 still holds true.”
Except nowhere in what Leo XIII wrote in 1896 did Leo say that Anglicans are heretics. That wasn’t the point of the Apostolicae Curae. Apparently neither you nor ebb tide have actually read the document. Sorry, but I, unlike you faux traditionalists actually have read thousands of pages of the Church’s teachings from centuries past. You faux traditionalists are rarely actually all that familiar with the Church’s teachings or history. Ebb tide proves that all the time.
“However, it sure would be odd for Church teaching to contradict itself.”
It doesn’t. And the Church - for quite some time - has referred to Anglicans as Anglicans and not as heretics - even Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae does so. Hence, Leo XIII wrote:
“The former have been moved by an awareness of the excellence of the Christian priesthood and a desire that their ministers should not be without its twofold power concerning the body of Christ, while the latter have been prompted by the wish to remove an obstacle in the way of the Anglicans’ return to unity.”
Wow, that’s Leo almost complimenting Anglicans in a way and notice he calls them ANGLICANS and not heretics?
And again:
“25. Now the words which until recent times have been generally held by Anglicans to be the proper form of presbyteral ordination...”
Anglicans. Again. Why didn’t he call them heretics there? Why didn’t he call them “Anglican heretics” at the very least?
And again:
“26. It is true that this form was subsequently amplified by the addition of the words ‘for the office and work of a priest’; but this rather proves that the Anglicans themselves had recognized that the first form had been defective and unsuitable.”
Defective and unsuitable - but he doesn’t just call them heretics? Why not?
And again:
“...; and equally vain is the contention of a relatively small party among the Anglicans, formed in more recent times, that the said Ordinal can be made to bear a sound and orthodox sense.”
Leo is not mincing words: “vain”. But he doesn’t call the Anglicans heretics? Why not?
And again:
“32. The majority of Anglicans themselves, more accurate in their interpretation of the Ordinal...”
Another almost compliment to Anglicans. And he doesn’t call them heretics. Why not?
So, we can see that EVEN Leo XIII - in this all important document about Anglican orders does not refer to the Anglicans as heretics when he easily could have done so. Why not? Why would he do that when it is just so easy to toss the word “heretics” out there like you two faux traditionalists do all the time?