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

clerical resistance, and practically no open resistance on the part of the bishops. Gardiner and
Bonner were notable exceptions. I have described in Cranmer's Godly Order how Bishop Bonner
reached the point where he realized that he
must either stand up for what he believed to be true or abandon any claim to personal integrity.
Eventually, on 15 September, 1549, Bishop Bonner felt that his failure to make an explicit public
protest against the reforms "might unto some be an allowance of heretical doctrines". He had been
forced to allow a Protestant to preach in his own Cathedral of St. Paul and when, in the sermon, the
preacher declaimed "against the Holy Sacrament, denying the verity and presence of Christ's true
Body and Blood to be there" the bishop rose from his place and left the Church.
Four days later he explained to Cranmer "three things I have, to wit, a small portion of goods, a
poor carcass and mine soul: the first two ye may take (though unjustly) to you; but as for my soul,
ye get it not quia anima mea in manibus meis semper". That same night he was conveyed to the
Marshalsea prison. 2
The Agreed Statement on the Ministry appeared in 1973. Five years have passed since then and not
a single bishop in England and Wales has had the courage to repudiate it publicly. There is no
Bonner in the present-day hierarchy. And what do orthodox bishops have to fear? Not prison, but
criticism in the Modernist press, the disapproval of the ecumenical establishment. I know for a fact
that there are bishops who deplore the Canterbury Statement but will not criticize it publicly, since
such criticism would reflect upon their two confreres who signed the document. They see
themselves as members of the episcopal trade union in which loyalty to the other members, even if
they are in the wrong, comes before loyalty to the Catholic Faith which, as bishops, they have a
duty to defend even at the cost of their lives.
The Agreed Statement on the Ministry is of particular relevance to
the question of Apostolicae Curae and Anglican Orders. Its clear objective was to provide a way
around Apostolicae Curae by rendering obsolete the criteria upon which Pope Leo XIII based his
final and irrevocable decision that Anglican Orders are invalid.
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 (para. 40).
The Agreed Statement explains (para. 17):
We are fully aware of the issues raised by the judgment of the Roman Catholic Church on Anglican
Orders. The development of the thinking in our two Communions regarding the nature of the
Church and of the Ordained Ministry, as represented in our Statement, has, we consider, put these
issues in a new context.
Pope Leo XIII condemned Anglican Orders as invalid, inter alia, because Cranmer's Ordination and
Communion rites clearly rejected the concept of the Mass as a sacrifice of the Body and Blood of
Christ, and of the priest as a man upon whom the Sacrament of Ordination had conferred powers
denied to the rest of the faithful, to transform bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ by
an immaculate blessing, and to absolve men of their sins. Furthermore, as a result of this denial, the
Anglican ordination rite was devoid of the power to confer orders so that the apostolic succession
was broken and the power to ordain lost to the Church of England.