Replies

As far as Anglican orders goes, the problem (as I understand it) is that the new Sacramentary printed under Edward VI left out all mention of, and actually denied, the sacrificial priesthood. Consequently, when the English bishops ordained new priests, they specifically omitted or denied any sacrificial priesthood.

That's a good summary of the official Roman position. My point was that the official declaration on Anglican orders was made after the sacrificial language was restored to the liturgy as a result of the Oxford Movement. Keep in mind there are many "Anglican" liturgies, just as there were many "uses" in England prior to the reformation. Sarum was the most prevalent but there were four other major liturgies in use and many local variations.

I have seen traditionalist RC literature that says the new Roman ordinal uses the same language that supposedly rendered the Anglican ordinal null and void. I don't know whether this is true as I couldn't find an online version of it.

That's a good summary of the official Roman position. My point was that the official declaration on Anglican orders was made after the sacrificial language was restored to the liturgy as a result of the Oxford Movement.

I think the Roman point is that it matters not what a person says during the liturgy if he was not ordained for the purpose of sacrificing. To use a poor analogy, my license to carry a concealed weapon, though similar in many ways, does not make me a policeman or give me the power to act like one.