Talk:Apostolicae curae

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Texts / Catholicism / Anglicanism Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as High-importance).

The defect in form was not the removal of the words, "Receive the Holy Ghost," as these words remained in the Edwardine Ordinal. The defect was thought to be the removal of any mention of priestly sacrificing (in the case of presbyters) and the removal of references to "High Priesthood" in the case of bishops. Nrgdocadams 07:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the following sentence supposed to mean? "These references, however, were and are missing, at least according to the Anglican view and the Anglican interpretation-translation of those liturgies, in certain Eastern Rite ordination liturgies which the Catholic Church considers to be valid as to for." Was "as to for" supposed to be "valid as to form? This smacks of cut and paste with part of the lifted text cut off. At http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae I find the same text, but it says "form" where this says for. Is the latter site the source, or did it migrate from Wikipedia to there? In eiher case, I wil edit this article to say "form."Edison 17:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says "the pope defined". Is this in fact considered an infallible

I'm not sure that this was an ex cathedra pronouncement and thus infallible. Perhaps someone can research this point? Majoreditor 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not ex cathedra but Ratzinger used it as an example of the infallibility of the Magistarium. SECisek 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theological definition is achieved by both the ordinary Magisterium and the extra-ordinary Magisterium. In the case of the extra-ordinary Magisterium it is proper to speak of something being "infallibly defined."--129.74.165.99 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. SECisek 03:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Roman Catholic view of the Lutheran-Anglican acceptance of each others' priests also apply to the acceptance of each others' clergy by the ELCIC (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Cananda and the Anglican Church of Canada's agreement? - Fremte 00:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding it would. I don't know if there's a good quotable source though. However, the "Complications" section is deficient in that it doesn't address the Anglican bodies that have broken away over the course of the 70's. I think there is an article sent to the Vatican by Dr. William Tighe. It might help to expand this section using quotes from the article: http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/10/anglican_taxono.html Nickjost (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The penultimate sentence of the section Anglican Response talks of sacrificial theology 'particularly'in the Prefaces to the various Ordinals.I have checked out the first two in 'The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI' Prayer Book Society, 1999, pp 292, 438 and can find no mention of sacrifice at all, nor can I find it in my copy of the BCP 0f 1662. Nor can I find it in 'Anglican Orders' CHS 1948. which gives the text of the 'Answer of the Archbishops'. Section 28, pp48-49, when talking of the Ordinals talks of succession and continuance. Could a correction please be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of fair play may I suggest that the second paragraph in the section on the 'Defects of Anglican ordination rites asserted' be moved to the section on anglican response. There is no similar catholic interpolation in that latter section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Timothy Dufort and why is his opinion important? There appears to be a missing reference in the text under "Contemporary doubts." I dont think it makes sense to refer to a person without mention of his qualifications.--129.74.165.99 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to his article in The Tablet as an expression of Catholic opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced about Dufort. It was 2 pages 25 years ago by someone who has apparently not distinguished himself--doesnt show up on google except for this wp article. Does everyone who has written 2 pages in the Tablet in the last 25 years deserve a reference? I doubt that even the Tablet would assert that everything it prints is encyclopedic. I am sure there are some more reputable Catholic theologians whose opinions could be quoted here.129.74.165.194 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dufort wrote just before the Pope's visit. Who he is matters nothing, what he says does. Perhaps it is possible to find someone who will say the same thing, but it is the song thast matters not the singer. It bears all the hallmarks of a piece of kiteflying, the fact that it was published at all was significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why there is a section here on Orthodox opinion. That seems to me to belong to an article on Orthodox-Anglican relations. There is no evidence to my knowledge that the Orthodox Church ever published an official response to Apostolicae Curae. IMHO, this is an article on Apostolicae Curae not on the general topic of Anglican orders.--129.74.165.99 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can anyone explain why the Orthodox section is here?EastmeetsWest 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see reason for inclusion. Rome sees Orthodox orders as valid and therefore de facto recognizes those who the Orthodox recognize. The Orthodox treat Anglican orders on a case by case basis. Rome rejects Anglican orders out of hand (though that's not entirely consistent). There is therefore an argument that Rome can likewise accept Anglican orders on a case-by-case basis and be true to its own understanding (which it seems to be doing since I understand some ordinations are conditional when priests are received from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism). Total rejection by the East would seriously weaken Anglicanism's case. This is one of many reasons why homosexual and female ordinations are so controversial. If anything stating that female ordinations aren't a "settled" matter in Orthodoxy should be edited out. While a case can be made for a sort of non-serving deaconess female ordinations are otherwise universally rejected. 12.44.178.253 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Wasn't logged in. Nickjost 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolicae curae says that the Anglican Church lost her Apostolic succession, for the reason that the form of the Sacrament was changed in order to reflect a departure from Catholic truth about this sacrament. As apparently the Anglicans themselves changed it again later, but at a time where no bishop who had been consecrated before the first change was alive, it remains (at least) a tolerated opinion for Catholics also that the new form in itself would be enough (though not a certainty either). Even assuming that, however,it would be necessary to have a validly ordained consecrator (e. g. through an Old Catholic or Eastern Orthodox line). Of course, there is now even the additional complication (which Leo XIII. didn't yet know about) around of women Anglican bishops, whom even a Catholic bishop could not ordain to anything if he wanted to.--138.245.1.1 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logically the Basil Hume section should come just after Dufort of the Tablet. Could we have a reference for the important Hume quotation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it is cited. It was in a famous issue Church Times. SECisek 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A fairly common Anglican view was perhaps that of Randall Davidson, the next Archbishop of Canterbury,"

This is misleading as the quote is 70 years old and Davidson has been dead for years! More over it is weasel wording to claim that this 70 year old oppinion is a "fairly common Anglican view".

SECisek 14:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-worded it. The context in that paragraph is reaction at the time Apostolicae Curae was issued, not 21st century reaction. Kingdon 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr Kingdon, the 'fairly common view' relates to the time of AC. But your rewording underestimates the Protestantism of late Victorian England. Mr Secisek sees weasel wording where there is none. I use quotations not quotes, please. FJ

Your rewording of the rewording looks fine to me (I was writing in a weasely way, I guess, by trying to avoid anything which I had any doubt about - even if the doubt was due to my own ignorance). Kingdon 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to expand on Randall Davidson's views. The quotation is taken from his letter to Lord Halifax dated 24/4/1895. He says 'I do not think that you yourself realise adequately the strength and depth of the present Protestantism of England' and goes on in this strain. The whole letter should be read. He was then Bishop of Rochester and went on to become Archbishop of Canterbury. I was not claiming that his views are a fairly common Anglican view now, but it is probably still very much alive among Evangelicals, and as for the Liberals I would doubt whether they care. Well, let us weasel away! FJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is much clearer now. Well done by all. SECisek 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please what is the evidence for the last paragraph? What does it mean about Laud and Parker? How did unofficial doubts manifest themselves and what it the evidence for them being entertained ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - with cite. SECisek 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No page reference and and no evidence mentioned about Laud ,Parker ,or the unofficial doubts. As regards the latter Moss was not present at them and who does he cite as his source? FJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However I am quite happy with your revision even though it asserts as fact what is a matter of dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a URL refed properly and (by you request) I added the voulme, chapter, and section to cite. It is beyond the scope of this article to go into why Laud & Parker were valid archbishops. The assertion that they were is stated and - this is the important part - the cite IS the evidence that backs the assertion. Read the book, if you cant find it read it online as cited.

I am not sure I have your meaning when you say I am asserting a fact that is a matter of dispute. It clearly states:

"Other Anglican theological critics argue..."

What are you suggesting this should read? Also, FJ, please - SIGN YOUR POSTS with ~~~~. Thank you. SECisek 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont normally cite introductions to Dogmatic Theology to attempt to prove points of history, even if they are by by C.B. Moss. Does he provide any new evidence? If not why cite him at all? I note he wrote in 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does not provide "new evidence" nor did he write in 1965. That was simply the edition I had at hand. Perhaps you can't find the cite or the web page it refers to: [[1]]

Take 5 minutes and read it. If you can't take minutes scroll down to section III and just read that.

Also, again, FJ, please - SIGN YOUR POSTS with ~~~~. Thank you. SECisek 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your invariable courtesy. I still cant see why it is included, but the paragraph does no harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. I will attempt to add more info into the article on this subject when time permits. SECisek 21:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should redirect here. There is not a single word in that article that did not come verbatium from this one. I will blank and redirect. -- SECisek 16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could a citation be provided for the statement that that the Archbishops asserted a "strong sacrificial theology "in the 1549. 1552, 1559, and 1662 versions of the ordinal. Please where is this in the Responsio? I cannot find it, perhaps for good reason, as I cannot find it in the ordinals either. The only real assertion of a sacrificial theology is in Section 16 - 17 of the Responsio, beginning with the words "Further we truly teach" and is contained in the Prayer of Oblation which in the 1662 BCP is an optional prayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.222.69 (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that this perfectly fair point was overlooked by the Pope, not did he make use of Article XV of the 39. His case could have been strengthened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.222.69 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no direct link to the text of the bull itself, I added this. Then I changed the external links to Saepius Officio into similar footnote references. I also tidied up the formating for the remaining references.

On 17 October 2007, Secisek undid revision 165194145 by 163.231.6.68, with the comment "can you find a link not on an angelfire cite?". Since he gave no reason for his opposition to Angelfire.com and since the text of this work does not appear to be posted elsewhere online, I have re-added this link in the "External links" section. I think it would be worthwhile to integrate something about this response to the response into the article itself at some point.Echevalier 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelfire sites are not accepteable here at wikipedia. We would have to delete the link during a GA process. -- SECisek 07:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the whole domain blacklisted. Wikipedia's loss.Echevalier 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, anybody can set up an Angelfire site, saying anything the poster wants it to. WP requires verifiable sources that are peer reviewed. By their very nature, Angelfire site are unverifiable. -- SECisek 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures should not cause headings to indenet per MoS. What are we to do? -- SECisek 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the text do Catholics have "apologists" but not Anglicans? Could we have both or neither? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.175.16 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some have claimed that this is ex cathedra (one of the few things besides the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception...). AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, prior to his election, Pope Benedict seemed to claim the ruling was infaliable per the teaching authority of the magistarium, not per papal infaliability. The Roman Position is perplexing at best, given the "conditional" reordinations that they have performed and the presence of undisputed Orthodox, Old Catholic, and truely Roman lines of succesion in the Anglican episcopacy. -- Secisek (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing perplexing at all. A conditional reordination can have two quite unperplexing reasons: 1) failure of the individual Catholic bishop in charge through undue courteousness ("the reordination will work anyway, so about this question let's better let sleeping dogs lie"). 2) - and this, I believe, is actually more probable - precisely the fact that the convert in question has Orthodox or Old Catholic (or possibly Catholic) bishops in his ordination family-tree. As the article says, Rome observed that this shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate.[7] Rome felt that even if this addition could give the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, and why? Because the validly ordained bishops had all died by then.--138.245.1.1 (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]