Archbishop of Canterbury on the Mutual Blessings

...and then after the mutual blessings, His Holiness tuned to me and said, "Completely null and utterly void".

I said, "Oh, Your Holiness! Don't be so hard on yourself! Your people need you! Don't go all sede-vacantist on them now!"


Comments

viterbo said…
" Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. . . .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 valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, 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. (Pope Leo XIII,Apostolicae Curae, September 18, 1896.)"

But what did Pope Leo really mean? He must have meant not really null and not really void and not really inviolable; after all these words are so ambiguous.

Now unlike the equivocations of Leo XIII, this is not ambiguous: 'The Anglican sect itself is a scandal as it is false church born as a result of the amoral lust of King Henry VIII, who had Parliament declare himself to be the Supreme Head of the Church in England. The false “Anglican church” was built by true bishops who betrayed Christ the King for King Henry Tudor’s thirty pieces of silver as Catholic churches and monasteries were stolen in the greatest land grab in human history and as over 72,000 Catholics who remained faithful to the true Church, fully three percent of the population of England at the time, were executed between 1534 and 1547. There’s your scandal, Jorge.'

http://meetingthemets.com/2014/06/20/where-the-absurd-is-a-normal-way-of-life/

Anonymous said…

Unfortunate. I'm sure SSPX etc. will milk this for this is worth.
Anonymous said…
Your point is intriguing, to say the least. It coincides with a comment that was published about Pope Bergoglio's manner of saying Mass. One was said by Cardinal Dolan of New York. He said, 'One gets the sense from (the pope) that the Mass is not enough, that he wants to get it over with.' That the head of the Catholic Church has an apparent disconnect with the Holy Eucharist is distressing. Somehting is very, very wrong.
Anonymous said…
Your point is intriguing, to say the least. It coincides with a comment that was published about Pope Bergoglio's manner of saying Mass. One was said by Cardinal Dolan of New York. He said, 'One gets the sense from (the pope) that the Mass is not enough, that he wants to get it over with.' That the head of the Catholic Church has an apparent disconnect with the Holy Eucharist is distressing. Somehting is very, very wrong.
Anonymous said…
This is a Diplomatic Blessing from the Canterbury guy. Pope Francis knows this. After all, he is a skillful diplomat and knows that.
Joe Potillor said…
How we have come a long way from Ragensburg, now from Pope Benedict in Westminster Cathedral wearing the Pope Leo XIII stole....these two are NOT in continuity, I don't care what anyone says.
viterbo said…
"...proponents of that falsehood [that the Catholic Church shares any untiy with Anglicans or other schisms] are compelled to deny necessarily the infallibility of the Church."

This act by Bergoglio, therefore, is an exmple of what the Holy Church would once have called a 'denial of the infallibility of the Church." Acta Apostolicae Sedis XI (1919): 312-316

http://www.novusordowatch.org/aas-08nov1865.pdf

So Bergoglio publicly denies the infallibility of the Catholic Church every single time he teaches in word or deed unity, even partial, with Anglicans, or other 'brother bishops'. The Magisterium teaches this. He simply is denying the infallibility of the Christ's Church. So are we to conclude that Bergoglio's magisterium is legitmate and thus infallible in its contradiction to the former Magisterium?

"no error can underlie the church's public and solemn magisterium..."
Damask Rose said…
Um, I think this is the wrong time to look humble...

Meanwhile, there's this:

"Muslims in Nineveh, Iraq, have ordered Christians to keep their churches closed, and told them that if they open their churches, that they will burn them down."

http://shoebat.com/2014/06/19/muslims-order-christians-close-churches-say-open-will-burn/

See, the problem is, there is no tangible bastion of Catholicism/Christianity any more. No strong, powerful Christian bulwark that is backing these persecuted Christians anywhere.

In fact, I almost feel that the Church is beginning to find its martyrs embarrassing. I remember the beatification of Cardinal Newman. The Bishops of England and Wales almost seemed embarrassed that a Protestant actually converted.

With regards to Papal non-kneeling to the Blessed Eucharist, I seem to recall Fr Z's posts on the Jesuit Fr Richard McBrien (I think that was his name) who seems to be the same age as the Pope. I do wonder if this is a cultural/70s attitude to Eucharistic Adoration. Meaning certain Jesuits of a certain age just don't get it.

Martyrs of England and Wales, please pray for us.
Lynda said…
Yes, didn't you all know Diplomatic Blessings are central to the Deposit of Faith?
viterbo said…
Damask Rose said: "I almost feel that the Church is beginning to find its martyrs embarrassing. I remember the beatification of Cardinal Newman. The Bishops of England and Wales almost seemed embarrassed that a Protestant actually converted."


There does seem to be a lot of feeling ashamed about association with Christ's Truth, His sacrifice, His means of Grace, these days. Catholic Apologetics seems to have turned on its head and become more like sympathy for the devil. But what can be expected if the church teaches and preaches its own unnecessity? its own outdated pointlessness?