On Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae (1896), Michael Davies wrote the following about its theological status:
The most frequently cited argument
used by those wishing to question the binding authority of the Bull is that it
is not infallible. An infallible pronouncement, in the strict sense of the
word, pertains only to what is contained in the deposit of divine revelation,
which is known as the primary object of infallibility. It is evident that Our
Lord gave us no revelation as to the validity or invalidity of Anglican Orders.
But there is a secondary object of infallibility which involves truths
connected with revelation, including historical facts. It is an infallibly
revealed truth that Our Lord instituted a sacrificing priesthood, but is
absolutely essential for the faithful to know who is or who is not a priest. When
a convert priest celebrates Mass his congregation as the right to know that his
Mass is valid. Thus, when the Church pronounces upon the validity of the
ordinations of any Christian communion, we can know with infallible certainty that
its decision is true. Convert priests from Orthodoxy are accepted without reordination,
but, because the Church accepts the validity of their orders, we need have no
scruples about assisting at their Masses. Decisions relating to this secondary
area of infallibility are what is known as dogmatic facts, and Apostolicae
Curae comes into this category. There is no possibility that Pope Leo XIII
was mistaken, and there is no possibility that his decision will ever be
reversed. The verdict of the Bull is not simply final but infallible.
It is of great importance that the
consequences of a reversal of Apostolicae Curae should be understood
clearly. People Leo XIII assured Cardinal Richard that with Apostolicae Curae
the question of the validity of Anglican orders had been “finally settled
and determined without possible appeal.” If People John Paul II now informed us
that this was not correct, and that Anglican Orders are valid, what possible
grounds could we have or being certain that he was right if Pope Leo XIII was
wrong, and that a future pope would not reverse his decision and pronounce in
favour of invalidity again? It is no exaggeration to claim that the entire credibility
of the papacy would be undermined by any reversal of the judgement of Apostolicae
Curae, and we can be quite certain that no such reversal will ever be made.
Christian unity is a goal for which every Catholic has the duty to work and
pray, but never at the expense of Catholic truth. (Michael Davies, The Order
of Melchisedech: A Defense of the Catholic Priesthood [2d ed.; Fort Collins,
Colo.: Roman Catholic Books, 1993], 46-47)
Elsewhere in his book, Davies reproduces an English translation of
Leo XII’s letter to Cardinal Bell:
The Letter of Leo XIII to Cardinal
Richard on the Authority of the Bull
It is still, to some extent, a
disputed question whether the Bull is to be ranked as an infallible document or
not. That it is final and irreformable all theologians are agreed, and the
distinction between such a decision and one that is formally infallible does
not seem easy to draw.
Some theologians were inclined to
argue at first that it was evident from the absence of certain customary
expressions in the wording of the Bull that the Holy Father could not have
intended to use his full power, and that, therefore, it was lawful for
Catholics to minimize, as far as possible, the force of his words. Pope Leo
XIII subsequently made his intention very clear by the following letter to
Cardinal Richard which was published in the Acta Sanctae Sedis:
To our well-beloved Son, Francis
Mary, Cardinal Richard, Archbishop of Paris.
Beloved Son, salutation and
Apostolic benediction.
Taking heed, as Our office is, to
religion and the eternal salvation of souls among the English, We have lately
put forth, as you know, the Constitution Apostolicae Curae. It was Our
intention thereby to deliver a final judgement and to settle absolutely that
most grave question about Anglican Orders, which indeed was long since lawfully
defined by Our predecessors, but by Our indulgence was entirely reheard. And
this We did with such weight of argument and in such clear and authoritative
tones that no prudent or right-minded man could possibly doubt what Our judgement
was, and so all Catholics were bound to receive it with utmost respect, as
being finally settled and determined without any possible appeal. We must, however,
confess that certain Catholics have not so responded to it, a matter which has
caused Us no little sorrow. We have written this to you, beloved Son, because
it especially applies to a certain journal called the Revue Anglo-Romaine,
published in Paris. There was some among its writers who, instead of defending
and illustrating this Constitution, try instead to weaken it by explaining it
away. Wherefore you must see that nothing is put forth in this journal which is
not in full accordance with Our Statements, and it will certainly be better for
it to cease and be silent rather than to bring difficulties against these excellent
statements and decisions.
In like manner, whereas certain
Englishmen who dissent from the Catholic religion, appeared to be enquiring of
Us in the spirit of sincerity what was the truth about their ordinations, but
received the truth when We had declared it to them before God in a very different
spirit, it clearly follows that the Catholics, of whom We have spoken, at least
all the religious men amongst them, should know what their duty is. For it is
no longer right or fitting for them to join in or assist in any way the plans
of such people, for by so doing they might cause no small hindrance to the
spread of religion which they desire.
We therefore willingly confide
these serious matters, beloved Son, to your tried prudence and wisdom, and as
an auspice of divine gifts and a proof of Our special good will towards you We
affectionately impart to you the Apostolic benediction.
Given
at Rome at St. Peter’s,
the fifth day of November 1896,
in the nineteenth year of our Pontificate.
Leo PP. XIII. (Ibid., 168-70)