03.04.2014 Views

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH A Defence of ... - Rore Sanctifica

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH A Defence of ... - Rore Sanctifica

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH A Defence of ... - Rore Sanctifica

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Worlock, the Catholic Archbishop <strong>of</strong> Liverpool, as stating that he regarded "the historical basis <strong>of</strong><br />

Pope Leo XIII's famous 'absolutely null and void' judgment as being no longer relevant." An<br />

editorial in the 14 April 1989 issue <strong>of</strong> the same journal, which the hierarchy permits to be sold in<br />

our churches, contained an explicit demand for the recognition <strong>of</strong> Anglican Orders. It claimed that:<br />

"At grassroots level we do recognize Anglican orders." Unfortunately, this claim is probably only<br />

too accurate where some (or many) English bishops are concerned. Cardinal Hume, for example,<br />

not only attended the enthronement <strong>of</strong> Dr. George Carey as "Archbishop <strong>of</strong> Canterbury" in April<br />

1991, but actually read a lesson, and behaved to all intensive purposes as if this married Protestant<br />

layman were a Catholic bishop. This is hardly surprising in view <strong>of</strong> some alarming and astonishing<br />

statements made by the Cardinal in an interview published in the Anglican Church Times on 28<br />

July 1978:<br />

I could not in practice dismiss all Anglican Orders as "null and void" because I know that a number<br />

<strong>of</strong> Anglican Bishops have in fact had the presence at their ordination <strong>of</strong> an Old Catholic or an<br />

Orthodox bishop, that is, somebody who, in the traditional theology <strong>of</strong> our Church, has been<br />

ordained according to a valid rite.<br />

One presumes that the Cardinal is claiming that these Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops acted as<br />

co-consecrators, but what he evidently does not understand is that Pope Leo XIII ruled irrevocably<br />

that due to a defect <strong>of</strong> form the Anglican ordinal is incapable <strong>of</strong> transmitting valid orders even if<br />

used by a bishop whose own orders are valid (this is explained later [Chapter IV]). If Cardinal<br />

Hume used the Anglican Ordinal himself, with the specific intention <strong>of</strong> ordaining a priest with the<br />

power to celebrate a valid Mass and to absolve men <strong>of</strong> their sins, nothing would happen. The man<br />

he intended to ordain would be a layman before and after the ceremony. The transmission <strong>of</strong> valid<br />

orders requires both a validly ordained bishop and an ordination rite recognized as valid by the<br />

Catholic Church. I have been assured by an Orthodox priest in London that, to the best <strong>of</strong> his<br />

knowledge, no Orthodox bishop has ever or would ever act as a co-consecrator in an Anglican<br />

ordination. Cardinal Hume continued:<br />

As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, I think it needs to look carefully again at<br />

Apostolicae Curae and its status. We need to discover whether the historical background upon<br />

which it was working and the argumentation upon which it was based is consonant with historical<br />

and theological truth as theologians and historians see it today.<br />

There is, <strong>of</strong> course, no need whatsoever to look again at Apostolicae Curae, because, as Pope Leo<br />

XIII made clear beyond any possible doubt in his letter to Cardinal Richard <strong>of</strong> Paris, cited in full in<br />

Appendix VI, the encyclical settled the question <strong>of</strong> Anglican Orders finally and without any<br />

possible appeal. One wonders, too, who the theologians are whose theories have so impressed<br />

Cardinal Hume. Is he perhaps referring to Hans Küng or to the Catholic members <strong>of</strong> the now totally<br />

discredited ARCIC? An authoritative decision <strong>of</strong> the Magisterium does not need to be re-evaluated<br />

each time a liberal theologian calls it into question. If this were the case there is not a truth <strong>of</strong> our<br />

faith from the Resurrection to the Real Presence that would not need to be looked at carefully again.<br />

One hopes that Cardinal Hume is aware <strong>of</strong> the fact that theologians do not form part <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Magisterium. Liberal Catholics who seek to undermine the authority <strong>of</strong> Apostolicae Curae state<br />

frequently that it is not infallible. This is untrue as is made clear in Chapter IV.<br />

On a more encouraging note, the English bishop, whose approbation <strong>of</strong> my book I have already<br />

cited, also remarked:<br />

I don't think you need worry about ARCIC's request for a reconsideration <strong>of</strong> Apostolicae Curae.<br />

Anyone who reads the Bull <strong>of</strong> Leo XIII and the letter to Cardinal Richard on the authority <strong>of</strong> the<br />

pronouncement can be in no doubt that the matter is now beyond question. This is one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

reasons that your book which contains these documents will do untold good. I shall recommend it<br />

to our priests. It deserves much recognition.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!