Replies

but the whole supposed basis for rejecting Anglican orders was "missing words" in the ordinal. Our ordinal says you're being ordained to be a priest in the Church of God, to do what priests have always done in the Church of God, chiefly administration of the sacraments. Our sacrament of the eucharist is sacrificial. So what is the importance of the missing words in the ordinal?

If the words were removed specifically to deny the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, then the Catholics are correct.

I don't deny that many Anglicans still regard the Mass as sacrifical, but that was not the determination of the leaders of the Anglican Church who removed the words. Or so is the finding of the Catholic Church.

We have our own experience with this phenomenon in our own time. The vandals at ICEL seem to have a huge problem translating the words for sacrifice into English properly for the prayers of the Mass. (They also have a problem with "Grace" and other concepts.) This is deliberate to get people to think differently. I think this is what the Catholics thought the Anglicans were doing in removing this language.

I think it depends on why the words were removed. If, as you say, it is because they are superfluous, because "Administering the sacraments" includes the Eucharist, which is a Sacrifice, then you are correct. If the words were removed specifically to deny the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, then the Catholics are correct.

We both know that the language was changed specifically to deny the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. My whole point to eastsider was the irony that Rome did not officially make a determination on Anglican orders until after the sacrificial language was reinstated because of the influence of the Oxford Movement. So by the time the offical determination was made, the basis for that determination was no longer applicable.