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

Pope Leo XIII noted the manner in which the Anglican Reformers brought their new Ordinal into
line with the Protestant heresy:
For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to
some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under
which it was composed and publicly authorised. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it
necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors
of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves
from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognisant of the necessary
connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under
a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to
suit the errors of the reformers. For this
reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of
the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as We
have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as
they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out (para. 30).
Some Anglican apologists have protested that this passage is unjust as the word "priest" occurs
throughout the Anglican Ordinal. But the essence of the Catholic priesthood can only be defined
with reference to its primary function of offering sacrifice. A Catholic priest is a sacrificing priest;
he is a man who is ordained, as the traditional rite expresses it, "to offer sacrifice to God, and to
celebrate "Mass, both for the living and the dead." To use the term "priest", when referring to a
"priesthood" vitiated in its essential character, has about as much meaning as the use of the word
"democratic" in the official titles of communist dictatorships. Nor can there be any doubt that most
Anglican ministers would reject with indignation the least suggestion that they were sacrificing
priests. The Reverend G. Lampe, Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, writes
that the loyal Anglican should be thankful that his Orders are not valid in the sense of Catholic
theology. 11
The Reverend T. H. L. Parker is equally forthright. Criticizing attempts by Anglo-Catholics to
prove that Cranmer's Ordinal was not a totally Protestant rite, he comments:
But the plain fact about the Edwardine Ordinal was its Protestant character. It was a Reformation
rite springing out of and expressing a Protestant concept of Church and Ministry . . . No doubt the
debate will continue. Loopholes will still be found, new variations of old arguments brought
forward; but all this cannot really hide the fact that Anglo-Catholics are in a most unenviable
dilemma. 12
It is true that the Anglican Ordinal, like Cranmer's 1549 Communion Service, did not specifically
exclude or deny the Catholic concept of the priesthood. As Pope Leo XIII makes clear, the key to
the whole understanding of Anglican Orders lies in an accurate appreciation of the historical setting
in which the Ordinal was composed.
. . . the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus
of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated
with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view (para. 30).
The history of the period and the sentiments of the authors are documented fully in Cranmer's
Godly Order.
In a reiteration of the traditional Catholic teaching regarding the substance of a Sacrament, Pope
Leo explains that the matter in itself can be indeterminate: ". . . the imposition of hands, which,
indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for
Confirmation" (para. 24). The sacramental signification "pertains chiefly to the form". Where the