Regarding Pope Leo XIV - still no word if he shares distant precedes sir Pope Leo XIII's 1896 papal bull (decree) that Anglican clergy are invalid?

[Anonymous]

It's been many months and I still haven't seen one news article that covers if either Cardinal Prevost ever viewed Anglican Orders (clergy) as invalid, or if he realised when taking the name Leo that his distant predecessor issued the 1896 decree as Pope that Anglican Orders (clergy) are null and void and may as well be considered lay ordinary Christian people.

See Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_curae

Does the new Pope just want to avoid setting any controversy tone barely one year into the job? Shrug.

I mean I'm just asking the valid and fair question here: what gives? Lol. On the silence.

Updates

7 mo

*Predecessor (not precedes sir) typo spelling errors

Updates

7 mo

Leo XIII was not a Sir, title, spelling grammatical error on my part. Apologies. Typo instead - of Predecessor

[strateguy632]

He definitely agrees with previous statement (called papal bull, that is a fancy phrase for a stamped document, but i call it moden slang: a load of papal bull) because it was from pope, even if his name differed, but now same name too! So same, until he would specifically include anglican clergy.

[Asker]

@strateguy632 we must strive for another papal bull 🐂

[Staximus]

Why do you even care about this hogwash? Who thinks of this shit and why does it even matter? I think you need a hobby or something.

[Asker]

@staximus this is GAG - if you don't like, sir there's the block button ✅ then you won't see even my anonymous

[Staximus]

Who gives a shit what the Pope says? He's just another dude.