Replies

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 So by the time the offical determination was made, the basis for that determination was no longer applicable.

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 So by the time the offical determination was made, the basis for that determination was no longer applicable.

But all the King's horses and all the King's men. Once the system had been broken, a certain class of priests had been essentially pretending to be valid priests. And ordaining others and so on.

None of this is to say that the situation wasn't ironic, to say the least, which I believe was your original point.