There's been a lot of talk lately regarding Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s comments on the validity of Anglican orders. His comments come
from an article in The Tablet, a publication which can be compared to the National Catholic Reporter here in the US; in short, both publications are known best for their heterodox writings. Here's some excerpts from the article on the cardinal if you haven't seen it yet:
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...
“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 is valid another context’.”
There's been a lot of talk about "rigidity" lately, and it's unfortunate that it seems so many things devolve into this charge against Catholics by and large. These comments have raised some eyebrows, and it would be well for all Catholics to take a deeper look and find out the real story behind Pope Leo XIII's declaration on the nullity of Anglican orders in
Apostolicae curae, especially in light of all the confusion that may result among the faithful during the upcoming 500th anniversary of the Protestant reformation.
 |
| Pope Leo XIII in 1898 |