Post by Pacelli on Sept 1, 2023 13:00:51 GMT -5
The following is paragraph 31 and 32 of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, by Pope Leo XIII:
The entire papal bull is linked HERE
In my opinion, the changing theology of the Conciliar sect on the mass and the nature of the priesthood also cast into doubt whether ambiguous statements that may be orthodox in a Catholic context can be viewed as such in a rite developed outside the Church. The Pope is clear on this in regard to the Anglicans when he teaches,"any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite."
Even when orthodox wording is used, as the Pope teaches, if the sect instituting this new rite does not believe the same meaning with these words as meant in Catholic usage, the "remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted."
Even though the Anglicans and the Conciliar sect are not identical, the principle of what Pope Leo XIII taught can be applied to the new situation, so long as the reasoning that leads to it make it applicable. A simple way to say this is: if the new sect had new beliefs not in line with the teaching of the Church on these matters, the mass and the priesthood, and initiated a novel rite on their own, then there are two things we learn from the Pope:
1. That ambiguous wording in the sect's rite cannot be taken in the same sense as in a Catholic rite.
2. That even when terms are used that have a Catholic usage in the rite, then it is still not sufficient if the reality of those terms is not the same as the "reality which Christ instituted."
The entire papal bull is linked HERE
31. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
32. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, “Almighty God, giver of all good Things”, which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate “form” of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church.
32. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, “Almighty God, giver of all good Things”, which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate “form” of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church.
In my opinion, the changing theology of the Conciliar sect on the mass and the nature of the priesthood also cast into doubt whether ambiguous statements that may be orthodox in a Catholic context can be viewed as such in a rite developed outside the Church. The Pope is clear on this in regard to the Anglicans when he teaches,"any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite."
Even when orthodox wording is used, as the Pope teaches, if the sect instituting this new rite does not believe the same meaning with these words as meant in Catholic usage, the "remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted."
Even though the Anglicans and the Conciliar sect are not identical, the principle of what Pope Leo XIII taught can be applied to the new situation, so long as the reasoning that leads to it make it applicable. A simple way to say this is: if the new sect had new beliefs not in line with the teaching of the Church on these matters, the mass and the priesthood, and initiated a novel rite on their own, then there are two things we learn from the Pope:
1. That ambiguous wording in the sect's rite cannot be taken in the same sense as in a Catholic rite.
2. That even when terms are used that have a Catholic usage in the rite, then it is still not sufficient if the reality of those terms is not the same as the "reality which Christ instituted."