CatholicforChrist Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 This question is one concerning the invalidity of the Anglican orders and also one of another topic that is intermingled by an identical decree. Pope Leo XIII decreed, in his Encyclical [i]Apostolicae Curae[/i], the following: "40. We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always [i]valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise[/i], by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding." (emphasis added) With this being said, an identical decree was made in Pope Saint Pius V's[i] Quo Primum[/i], declaring: "Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that [i]this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See[/i], as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing." (emphasis added) The reason I ask this question is that so many will say that the Mass promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V can be deemed unlawful even thoughe he states in [i]Quo Primum [/i]that the Mass will last in perpetuity and always remain valid. Pope Leo XIII states in [i]Apostolicae Curae [/i]that Anglican orders are invalid and that this decree stands forever and must not be challenged, so the question is whether or not Pope Leo XIII's decree is actually binding on future Popes because the same arguments against [i]Quo Primum [/i]can be applied to [i]Apostolicae Curae[/i] and even more strictly because [i]Quo Primum[/i] was an Apostolic Constitution and [i]Apostolicae Curae[/i] was not. With this being said, does the "one equal cannot bind another" argument apply also to [i]Apostolicae Curae [/i]if it applies to [i]Quo Primum[/i]? Could not the next Pope decree that Anglican orders are valid if the same Pope can claim that the Mass promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V cannot be used? I would like to hear especially from those who believe that [i]Quo Primum [/i]is not binding "in perpetuity" as it claims, but responses from all are welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 [quote]Prohibited content... Catholic vs Catholic Debate- a post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the [b]Novus Ordo mass [/b]and/or our Holy Father.[/quote] [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules[/url] read 'em, and follow 'em here because it is dUSt's board (which he pays for) so he makes the rules. that said, these are two different types of issues. one deals with the VALIDITY of a SACRAMENT. one deals with the RITUAL that is to be done around a SACRAMENT. change the ritual, it's the same sacrament (keeping the valid form and matter of the consecration). no one says that the Tridentine Mass is unlawful. a Tridentine Mass done in communion with the HIEARCHY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (the current hierarchy who are in communion with the Pope), i.e. allowed by the Bishop, is perfectly licit. it is illicit to do a Tridentine Mass in contradiction to the Bishop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Were you aware that the same kind of language was used in disbanding the Jesuits (which were, of course, later reformed) and in promulgating the Breviary after Trent (which was changed dramatically with no outcry in the early 20th century by Pius XI (I think...))? In addition, a pope cannot bind a future pope on matters of discipline, which are, by their nature, changeable. At the time Quo Primum was written it was common for bishops or even individual priests, to change and develop their own liturgies. Practically each diocese had its own liturgy, often with very different prayers. The point of saying that the Mass could not be changed or modified was to stop this practice and to supress all other rites of the Mass which were less than 200 years old. This was actually a huge deal because it was the first time the authority to develop the liturgy was taken away from individual bishops and reserved exclusively to the Holy See. However, there is no evidence that Pius V ever had the intention of binding future popes or setting the form (i.e. the specific prayers and rituals) of the Mass up as a matter faith and morals rather than as a discipline. He made the point of specifying that previous decrees from the Holy See had no effect on the new Mass, but did not say that subsequent decrees were invalid. Oh, and I second what Aluigi said... Edit: Also, Leo XIII was not setting up a general discipline or defining a rite of a Sacrament. He was declaring, definitively, that the rite used by the Anglicans for a long time, was not in valid. Because this rite was in place long enough that no one ordained under the old (valid) rite was still alive, they no longer had valid bishops or priests. Without valid bishops, even the correct rite would not validly confer Ordination. You are comparing apples and oranges...actually, the two are probably much farther apart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Y'all should read the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to "Apostolicae Curae", "Saepius Officio" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 15 2004, 07:42 PM'] Y'all should read the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to "Apostolicae Curae", "Saepius Officio" [/quote] Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 In addition to what Polar bear said (and as usual said it very well)... The Anglicans have only furthered their invalidity this century with proclamations ordaining women, druids, and active homosexuals. There is no objective standard of anytype that can say Anglicans have valid orders. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Angelicans had valid orders for about 16 years after they left the Church, they did not realize that their orders were invalid until over 80 years after the fact, and then all the valid ordered Bishops were dead. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 [quote name='thedude' date='Oct 16 2004, 12:15 AM'] Why? [/quote] Don't you know? Because it's anti-Catholic and if one does not have a firm understanding of Catholicism, then one might leave the Church when reading the nonsense of those who left the group (Acts 20:29-30). God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Incidentally, that guy on the left of ironmonk's signature picture almost looks like a KKK member. Anyone else notice that? Perhaps I just have a perverted mind. But anyway, go back on with your conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 16 2004, 12:40 AM'] Incidentally, that guy on the left of ironmonk's signature picture almost looks like a KKK member. Anyone else notice that? Perhaps I just have a perverted mind. But anyway, go back on with your conversation. [/quote] I don't see it. He appears to be in traditional clerical dress. Maybe if he had a hood-mask, but still... Edited October 16, 2004 by thedude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 16 2004, 12:40 AM'] Incidentally, that guy on the left of ironmonk's signature picture almost looks like a KKK member. Anyone else notice that? Perhaps I just have a perverted mind. But anyway, go back on with your conversation. [/quote] I see a monk. It looks nothing like a KKK member's robe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 [quote name='thedude' date='Oct 15 2004, 10:15 PM'] Why? [/quote] Because it blows the Popes faulty logic out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 [quote]Don't you know? Because it's anti-Catholic and if one does not have a firm understanding of Catholicism, then one might leave the Church when reading the nonsense of those who left the group (Acts 20:29-30). God Bless, ironmonk [/quote] Ironmonk, "Saepius Officio" is not anti-Catholic. In fact, the Primates who wrote it began with an extremely friendly greeting to the Pope and 'all the bishops of the catholic Church", a tone which is maintained throughout the document. There is no animosity inherent in it whatsoever - only sound argumentation. Ironmonk, your rhetoric is nonsensical. How dare you call something nonsense having not even read it? Incidentally, it was Rome who 'left the group' at the Council of Trent by preaching another Gospel (Galatians 1) and declaring it irreformable, to boot. For anyone who wants a clear understanding of why the English Church's orders are in fact valid, [url="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm"]"Saepius Officio" can be read here. [/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 17, 2004 Author Share Posted October 17, 2004 I do not understand some of those posts. I was not equating the anglican rites to the Novus Ordo rite. I was asking if a future Pope had the authority to declare that anglican orders are valid, which no one has yet addressed. Some will say that Quo Primum could not bind future Popes, but that means that neither could Apostolicae Curae. They are both Encyclicals (except Quo Primum held more weight as an Apostolic Constitution). Neither is infallible necessarily in and of themselves as Encyclicals, but my question is for those who say that Quo Primum is not binding [i]because one equal cannot bind another[/i]. If this is true in all cases, then the same is true for anglican orders. They could be declared valid by some future Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 no, Apostolicae Curae binds because it declares that the Anglicans do not have valid apostolic succession. Quo Primum is not binding because it declares to everyone: USE THIS MASS, stop changing everything even if your a bishop. can you not tell the difference between a matter of discipline and a matter of doctrine? it's very simple. notice polar bear showed some other things that used the same language but were matters of discipline that could be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now