The English Reformation did not merely transfer jurisdiction from Rome to the Crown. Under Edward VI it displaced the received Catholic liturgical order and doctrine and created a materially new rite for ordaining bishops, priests and deacons. Rome confronted the consequences almost immediately: during Queen Mary’s restoration, Julius III and Paul IV distinguished between Orders conferred with the accustomed Catholic rite and those deriving from the Edwardine Ordinal. Three centuries later, the attempt to recover Catholic Eucharistic worship and sacerdotal theology within Anglicanism encountered bishops, courts, Parliament and formularies for which post-Reformation Anglican usage and theology were already normative. Taken together, that history gives formidable support to Leo XIII’s judgment in Apostolicae Curae.*
The English Reformation changed more than the jurisdiction under which the Church in England was governed. Under Edward VI the received Catholic liturgical order was displaced by a new Prayer Book settlement, the Mass was replaced by a newly composed Communion service, Eucharistic doctrine was substantially recast, and in 1550 a new English rite was promulgated for the making of deacons, the ordering of priests and the consecration of bishops. The controversy over Anglican Orders turns, accordingly, upon something deeper than the survival or disappearance of particular prayers and ceremonies. At issue is the sacramental identity of a newly constituted rite: what it signified, and what kind of ministry it was intended to confer.
The Edwardine Ordinal was not simply the Catholic Pontifical translated into English and shortened. Its title, The Form and Manner of Making and Consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, accurately described what had taken place: a new form and manner had been devised for the reformed Church of England. Scripture, prayer, imposition of hands, invocation of the Holy Ghost and the traditional names bishop, priest and deacon naturally remained. Liturgical composition seldom begins from nothing. Yet those inherited materials were now assembled within a materially new liturgical act belonging to another ecclesiastical and theological settlement. Leo XIII accordingly begins his historical treatment in Apostolicae Curae by referring to the new rite introduced publicly under Edward VI.¹
Cranmer’s work is therefore inadequately described as a Catholic ordination rite from which several objectionable passages had been cut. The omissions mattered precisely because they revealed the Protestant theological character of the new construction. What had explicitly signified consecration, sacrifice, priesthood and the power of offering sacrifice within the Catholic rite was deliberately excluded. Leo consequently judged the Ordinal as a whole, in the circumstances in which it was composed and according to what he called its “native character and spirit”.¹
The distinction between schism and sacramental validity is indispensable. Catholic theology has never taught that separation from Rome automatically extinguishes Holy Orders. A bishop validly consecrated remains a bishop; a priest validly ordained remains a priest. Under Henry VIII, despite the breach with Rome, the accustomed Catholic rites of ordination continued to be used. The decisive sacramental development came under Edward VI, when the inherited rite itself was replaced.
Queen Mary’s accession brought the consequences before the Holy See almost immediately. Catholic worship and communion with Rome were restored, Cardinal Reginald Pole was appointed papal legate, and Rome had to determine the status of clergy ordained during the preceding years. Some had received Orders before the schism; some had been ordained during the Henrician separation according to the accustomed Catholic rite; others had been initiated according to the newly created Edwardine Ordinal.
Julius III’s letter to Pole of 8 March 1554 drew the distinction which Leo XIII would later make central to his case. Those who had truly received sacred ordination were to remain in their Orders. This included men ordained after Henry’s separation by ministers themselves implicated in error or schism, provided the customary Catholic rite had been used. Men initiated according to the Edwardine Ordinal stood in another category. Leo’s interpretation is explicit: they could subsequently be promoted to Orders because the ordination previously received had been invalid.¹
Rome was therefore not declaring every post-Henrician ordination null because England had fallen into schism. It recognised sacramental validity where the Catholic rite had remained in use. The dividing line was the rite actually employed.
Pole acted upon the same distinction. On 29 January 1555 he delegated faculties to the Bishop of Norwich in terms which again distinguished those consecrated without observing the accustomed form of the Church. Leo notes that in the English circumstances then obtaining the alternatives were the Catholic form and the Edwardine rite.¹
The question was then carried directly to Rome. In February 1555 Philip and Mary sent three ambassadors to the Pope, among them Thomas Thirlby, Bishop of Ely, to give a fuller account of the English restoration and secure confirmation of Pole’s acts. The documentation placed before the Roman authorities included the relevant portions of the new Ordinal itself. The Edwardine rite was therefore neither unknown at Rome nor judged merely from later descriptions of what Cranmer was supposed to have intended.¹
After examination by Cardinals, Paul IV issued Praeclara carissimi on 20 June 1555. Those promoted to ecclesiastical Orders by someone other than a bishop “duly and rightly ordained” were required to receive those Orders anew. Leo reads the phrase against the documents which preceded it: the bishops in question were those promoted without the accustomed form of the Church, or without the Church’s form and intention — in the contemporary English setting, those consecrated according to the new ritual form.¹
Paul IV’s language went further. He referred to persons who had obtained Orders nulliter et de facto. Leo emphasised the juridical force of nulliter: the act had produced no sacramental effect. It was not merely unlawful or irregular. When uncertainty subsequently arose as to whom Paul meant by bishops “duly and rightly ordained”, a further Brief of 30 October clarified that bishops and archbishops who had not been ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church could not be so regarded.¹
Roman practice followed the documents. Men whose purported Orders derived from the Edwardine rite were ordained absolutely according to the Catholic rite. The fact is canonically important. Holy Orders cannot be repeated; Rome could not knowingly ordain absolutely a man whom it considered already validly ordained. Leo therefore invoked the maxim that custom is the best interpreter of law: the practice of absolute ordination showed how the Marian decrees had actually been understood.¹
Julius III, Pole, the Norwich delegation, the royal embassy carrying the relevant Ordinal texts, Praeclara carissimi and Paul IV’s October clarification form a contemporary documentary sequence of considerable weight. Rome was distinguishing Catholic ordination from Edwardine ordination while the new rite was scarcely a few years old.
Elizabeth’s accession did not erase the sacramental character of clergy validly ordained according to the Catholic rites. Those priests remained priests and those bishops remained bishops. What returned, however, was the reformed Prayer Book settlement and the Edwardine rite for future ordinations. Some men within the Elizabethan establishment therefore possessed unquestionably valid personal Orders, but their sacramental character could not alter the rite subsequently used to create a new generation of ministers. Continuity of personnel could coexist temporarily with discontinuity of rite, doctrine and sacramental transmission.
Matthew Parker is relevant because, as Elizabeth I’s first Archbishop of Canterbury, he stood at the head of the episcopate through which the restored Elizabethan establishment would perpetuate its hierarchy. Parker was consecrated in the chapel of Lambeth Palace on 17 December 1559 by William Barlow, John Scory, Miles Coverdale and John Hodgkins, using the Edwardine rite. Parker’s own Register records the ceremony in considerable detail, with corroboration from other contemporary documentary material.¹³ The fact of the Lambeth ceremony ought therefore to be distinguished from the sacramental question raised by the rite employed there.
Older Catholic polemic notoriously produced the so-called “Nag’s Head” story, according to which Parker’s consecration had instead been contrived through an irregular ceremony at the Nag’s Head tavern in Cheapside. Nothing in the Catholic case against Anglican Orders requires that story. A more serious historical dispute concerns William Barlow, Parker’s principal consecrator, because no surviving record of Barlow’s own episcopal consecration has been found. Anglican defenders have long argued from his recognised episcopal status and public exercise of episcopal office that the absence of the record is not evidence that no consecration occurred. Even that controversy, however, is secondary to Leo XIII’s case.
The eighteenth-century case of John Clement Gordon makes the point particularly clearly. Gordon’s Anglican Orders were examined at Rome, and arguments concerning Parker’s consecration formed part of the material submitted. Leo XIII records that this ground was set aside in the final judgment. A copy of the Anglican Ordinal was examined and compared with Eastern and Western ordination forms, and in 1704 Clement XI ordered Gordon to be ordained afresh and absolutely. The decisive defects lay in form and intention.¹
The Catholic case therefore need not maintain that Parker never underwent a consecration ceremony, defend the Nag’s Head tale, or depend upon proving that no validly consecrated bishop participated at Lambeth. One may concede the historical ceremony of 17 December 1559 and still face the essential sacramental question: could the Edwardine rite used on that occasion validly confer the Catholic episcopate? Leo returned from contested episcopal genealogies to what he regarded as “the essential point of the whole matter”: the Anglican Ordinal itself.¹
The words Receive the Holy Ghost, used as the Edwardine form of priestly ordination, did not in Leo’s judgment sufficiently determine the Order or grace being conferred as the Catholic priesthood, particularly the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Later additions specifying the “office and work of a Priest” came after Rome considered the original hierarchy to have failed and could not, in any event, give the word priest a Catholic sacramental content if the rite in which it appeared embodied another conception of ministry.¹
Reducing Leo’s argument to missing words obscures its real force. He examines what the Edwardian reform deliberately excluded from the new Ordinal, the Protestant theology of those who constructed it and the wider reconstruction of worship in which it belonged. What had formerly spoken plainly of sacrifice, consecration, sacerdotal priesthood and the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice disappeared. Even traces surviving in retained prayers were deliberately removed. The Ordinal’s form could not be detached from that surrounding theological act. Its “native character and spirit” supplied the context in which the remaining words had to be understood.¹
The defect of intention follows from the same analysis. Catholic theology ordinarily presumes the requisite intention when a minister seriously uses the Church’s valid sacramental matter and form; even a heretical minister can validly confer a sacrament. Leo distinguishes the case in which a rite itself has been changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite not received by the Church and of rejecting something belonging to the nature of the sacrament. The ecclesial act then manifests the intention objectively.¹
Cranmer’s inaccessible private psychology is beside the point, as are the sincere convictions of an Anglo-Catholic ordinand born centuries later. The Church judges intention insofar as it is externally manifested. In the Edwardian settlement that manifestation lay in the deliberate creation of a new rite within a changed theology of Eucharist, sacrifice and ministry.
Three centuries later, the Oxford Movement provides an unusually revealing historical confirmation of what had become established within the Church of England. It began as a theological and ecclesiological recovery rather than a campaign for elaborate ceremonial. Its appeal to apostolicity, the Fathers, sacramental grace and the Church developed into the claim that Anglicanism had remained fundamentally “Catholic” notwithstanding the Reformation. Ritualism eventually translated that claim into worship: Eucharistic vestments, the eastward position, altar lights, incense, the mixed chalice, elevation, genuflection and wafer bread reappeared; reservation and, in some places, Eucharistic adoration, Benediction and Corpus Christi observance followed.
The Anglican establishment’s reaction is revealing. Early in 1866 Archbishop Charles Longley told a deputation that the bishops intended “to ascertain distinctly what the law allows and what it does not allow”. Four eminent counsel consulted by the bishops concluded that Eucharistic vestments, altar lights, incense, the ceremonially mixed chalice and wafer bread were unlawful. The English Church Union then obtained opinions from nine other counsel, who generally favoured the legality of most disputed usages. The disagreement itself is instructive: practices drawn from the Catholic inheritance were not simply being exercised as the unquestioned usage of the English Church; their compatibility with Anglican law required learned argument. All thirteen lawyers, moreover, agreed against the ceremonial use of incense.²
Canterbury Convocation considered the same controversy. In June 1866 its Lower House expressed entire disapproval of censing persons and things and of elevation of the consecrated elements, discouraged wafer bread and non-communicating attendance, and required episcopal reference before several disputed usages were introduced. In February 1867 both Houses adopted the principle that no alteration from the “long-sanctioned and usual ritual” should be introduced without the diocesan bishop’s sanction.²
Those words identify the operative historical norm with remarkable clarity. It was not the Catholic worship of pre-Reformation England or the sacramental theology historically expressed through it. It was established post-Reformation Anglican usage and theology.
The Crown’s Royal Commission on Ritual, appointed in June 1867, proceeded from the same assumption. Its terms of reference concerned varying interpretations of the Book of Common Prayer and the need for greater uniformity. Its first report dealt with Eucharistic vestments and acknowledged that some witnesses regarded them as symbolic of doctrine. The Commission nevertheless recommended restraining variations from what had “long been the established usage” of the Church of England and Ireland.² Catholic vestments which had once belonged naturally to English worship were now being judged as possible departures from another established usage.
Alexander Heriot Mackonochie of St Alban’s, Holborn supplied the first great judicial test. Proceedings instituted in 1867 concerned elevation of the elements, kneeling during the Prayer of Consecration, altar lights, incense and the mixed chalice. In March 1868 Sir Robert Phillimore’s Court of Arches declared elevation, incense and the ceremonially mixed chalice unlawful, while initially sanctioning altar lights; the Privy Council subsequently reversed him on the lights and imposed a stricter reading of the celebrant’s posture.²
Hebbert v Purchas widened the field. John Purchas, perpetual curate of St James’s Chapel in Brighton, had adopted markedly Roman ceremonial. His eastward position, Eucharistic vestments, wafer bread and mixed chalice came before Phillimore, who in 1870 decided substantially in his favour. The Judicial Committee reversed the decision in February 1871: Eucharistic vestments were declared unlawful, the particular eastward practice was prohibited, and wafer bread and the mixed chalice were forbidden. Purchas’s case had gone undefended, which itself encouraged further litigation.²
Ridsdale v Clifton provided that reconsideration in 1877. The Judicial Committee upheld the prohibition of Eucharistic vestments, modified the ruling concerning wafer bread and accepted the eastward position provided that the manual acts were not concealed from the congregation.² The law moved; the underlying assumption remained. Ancient Catholic usages were being tested against the legal meaning of the post-Reformation Prayer Book settlement.
The Public Worship Regulation Act 1874 gave that process an unmistakably constitutional form. Archbishop Archibald Campbell Tait was centrally involved in promoting reform of the machinery for dealing with ritual irregularity. The bishops wanted changes in ecclesiastical judicature, though Parliament altered the measure in ways not all its original promoters desired. Proceedings remained subject to episcopal involvement and veto, while Parliament, ecclesiastical courts and ultimately the Crown’s judicial structures participated in regulating the established Church’s worship.³ Four clergymen were imprisoned between 1878 and 1881 for refusing obedience to courts whose jurisdiction they disputed, helping eventually to discredit the prosecutorial system.²
That Protestant constitutional identity extends beyond ecclesiastical legislation and survives in the Coronation settlement itself. At his Coronation in 2023, Charles III was required to swear that he would maintain “the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law” and “preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England”; he then separately made the statutory declaration that he was “a faithful Protestant”.¹⁴ The language descends from the constitutional settlement secured after 1688 and is difficult to reconcile with the retrospective Tractarian picture of the Church of England as simply the ancient Catholic Church in England continuing substantially unchanged beneath an unfortunate Reformation exterior. Whatever theological breadth later Anglicanism has permitted, the Crown at the very summit of the establishment does not swear to preserve an undefined branch of Catholicism: it swears to preserve a Protestant Reformed religion, and identifies the Church of England’s doctrine, worship, discipline and government with that legally established settlement. The constitutional vocabulary is therefore unusually candid about an identity which later Anglo-Catholic constructions have often sought to qualify or explain away.
There is no need to turn this history into a caricature in which every Anglican bishop opposed every Catholic practice. Legal opinion was divided, episcopal attitudes varied, and the jurisprudence itself changed. Westerton v Liddell had already permitted several disputed ornaments; the Lincoln Judgment later enlarged Ritualist liberty substantially. The point lies elsewhere. The received Catholic liturgical order no longer possessed authority simply because it was the ancient worship of England. Its restoration had to make its way through an Anglican legal and theological settlement which had long since acquired its own norms.
The proceedings against Bishop Edward King of Lincoln show the development particularly well. Beginning in 1888, the Church Association challenged his use of the mixed chalice, eastward position, Agnus Dei, ablutions, altar lights and the sign of the Cross at the Absolution and Benediction. Archbishop Edward Benson’s judgment of 1890 allowed the mixed chalice and several other usages under carefully defined conditions while prohibiting the contested signs of the Cross; the Judicial Committee substantially confirmed him in 1892.²
The mixed chalice almost encapsulates the paradox. Adding water to the Eucharistic wine belonged to ancient Catholic practice. By the late nineteenth century its lawful restoration in a Church claiming continuity with Catholic England depended upon precise judicial distinctions as to when and how the mixing occurred.
Reservation brought the controversy directly into Eucharistic doctrine. In 1899 the Archbishops of Canterbury and York held public hearings on incense, processional lights and reservation. They declared incense and processional lights inadmissible in July 1899 and in May 1900 concurred in forbidding any form of reservation of the consecrated elements. The bishops of both provinces subsequently issued a pastoral letter seeking compliance.²
This occurred only a few years after Apostolicae Curae. Medieval Catholic England had reserved and adored the Blessed Sacrament because it confessed the objective and abiding Presence of Christ under the consecrated species. Yet almost contemporaneously with Rome’s judgment on Anglican Orders, the Anglican hierarchy was still deciding whether reservation could lawfully exist within its worship, and concluded that it could not.
The Anglican formularies make the doctrinal setting explicit. Article XXVIII rejects transubstantiation, describes reception of Christ’s Body in a heavenly and spiritual manner, and says that the Sacrament was not instituted to be reserved, carried about, elevated or worshipped. Article XXXI condemns the “sacrifices of Masses” in which priests were said to offer Christ for living and dead for remission of guilt or punishment.⁴ The Royal Commission’s later survey itself recorded the judicial proposition that the Church of England had forbidden adoration of the consecrated elements.²
Presence, sacrifice, adoration and priesthood were at stake. The liturgical discontinuity embodied a doctrinal discontinuity.
Victorian Ritualism therefore illuminates Apostolicae Curae in a way that purely sixteenth-century argument cannot. It did not create a defect retrospectively in the Edwardine Ordinal. It showed that the ecclesiastical settlement for which that rite had been constructed remained recognisably operative three centuries later. Catholic doctrine and worship returned as things to be argued for, litigated, authorised, prohibited or gradually accommodated, rather than simply exercised as the ordinary inheritance of the institution.
That history is difficult to reconcile with the strongest Tractarian account of uninterrupted “Catholic” identity. If the received Catholic doctrine and liturgical order had remained normative throughout, their recovery should hardly have required a movement, repeated litigation, episcopal permissions, parliamentary intervention and eventual juridical accommodation. The problem was deeper than Catholic practices having become unfashionable. They no longer carried the authority of the institution’s own presumptive norm.
For the question of sacramental intention, this matters. Leo judged intention as manifested externally by an ecclesial rite and the theology which gave that rite meaning. The nineteenth-century Church of England continued publicly to exhibit the post-Reformation theological inheritance which his historical analysis attributed to the creators of the Ordinal. The response to Ritualism consequently supplies later evidence of continuity with that ecclesial intention.
Nuntiatoria has examined other aspects of the same question before. “Pope Leo’s Doublespeak and the Unbroken Authority of Apostolicae Curae” considered the continuing force of Leo XIII’s judgment and the inability of later ecumenical gestures or Old Catholic participation in Anglican consecrations simply to erase the defects Rome identified.⁵ “The form, the rite, and the reality: Why Apostolicae Curae still stands” examined the inseparability of sacramental form, intention and the total signification of the rite.⁶ “From the Clementine Chapel to Walsingham: Apostolicae Curae and the Problem of Ecclesiastical Symbolism” considered the contrary signals created when modern gestures appear to communicate sacerdotal recognition which Catholic doctrine formally denies.⁷
The Tudor and Victorian evidence supplies the historical framework in which those arguments belong. Episcopal genealogy cannot settle validity by itself; sacramental form has to be read within the rite of which it forms a part; intention is an ecclesial and objective question rather than an exercise in private psychology; and a developed Anglo-Catholic theology cannot simply be projected backwards into 1550.
The so-called “Dutch Touch” raises the same distinction. A validly consecrated Old Catholic bishop participating in an Anglican consecration possesses the episcopal character and therefore the capacity to ordain. His physical participation does not by itself determine the validity of the sacramental act being performed nor the rite being used. The Marian evidence had already illustrated the principle centuries earlier: Rome accepted Orders conferred in schism where the Catholic rite had been used, while treating Edwardine ordinations differently. The validity of the minister and the validity of the sacramental act are related but distinct questions.
ARCIC belongs to a much later theological history and should neither be dismissed as the private opinion of its commissioners nor treated as though it had transformed Anglican doctrine universally.
The 1973 ARCIC statement on Ministry and Ordination came from an officially appointed commission, but its own published status was explicit: at that stage it remained “an agreed statement of the Commission and no more” and was not a declaration of either the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion.⁸ The subsequent reception process gave ARCIC I considerably greater representative weight. The Anglican provinces gave what the official summary described as a clear “yes” to the Eucharistic and Ministry statements, and the 1988 Lambeth Conference recognised them, with their elucidations, as “consonant in substance with the faith of Anglicans”.⁹
That was a substantial ecclesial development, not a universally binding Anglican dogmatic definition. Rome’s response remained qualified. In 1982 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith praised what ARCIC had achieved while identifying serious doctrinal questions. It noted, particularly, that the agreements had not been sufficiently related to the documents which historically formed Anglican identity — the Thirty-Nine Articles, Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal — even where the newer formulations appeared difficult to reconcile with them. On Eucharistic sacrifice Rome wanted an explicit confession that through the priest the Church sacramentally offers Christ’s sacrifice; regarding ministry, it warned that saying the ordained minister presides at the Eucharist did not establish priesthood in the Catholic sense unless the sacrificial function was also affirmed.¹⁰
The 1993 clarifications went appreciably further. They affirmed that only the validly ordained priest acting in persona Christi can be the minister through whom Christ’s redemptive sacrifice is sacramentally offered in the Eucharist, that Holy Orders confer the priesthood of the New Covenant, that ordination permanently configures the minister to Christ’s priesthood, and that apostolic succession involves episcopal succession together with apostolic teaching.¹¹ Cardinal Edward Cassidy responded in March 1994 that the clarification had thrown new light upon the disputed questions, greatly strengthened the agreement achieved by ARCIC I and appeared to remove the need for further study of Eucharist and Ministry at that stage.¹²
That convergence was real. It cannot tell us that Cranmer and the creators of the Edwardine Ordinal intended the same theology in 1550. Neither did the mature ARCIC synthesis become the compulsory profession of every Anglican minister. The Historic Formularies remain, while contemporary Anglicanism accommodates markedly different understandings of Eucharist and ministry. One clergyman may describe himself in explicitly sacerdotal terms, reserve the Sacrament and speak readily of Eucharistic sacrifice; another may reject transubstantiation and sacrificial priesthood and read Articles XXVIII and XXXI in a robustly Reformation sense. Both remain Anglican clergy.
ARCIC is consequently evidence of later ecumenical convergence, not of original identity. Indeed, the amount of theological work required to arrive at formulations which Rome could regard as substantially compatible with Catholic teaching itself belongs to the later history of development rather than to the history of the Edwardine rite.
The evidence, taken chronologically, is difficult to force into the Tractarian narrative of unbroken Catholic continuity. Edward VI saw the construction of a materially new Ordinal within a changed theology of Eucharist, sacrifice and ministry. Under Mary, Rome distinguished ordinations according to the rite actually employed: the accustomed Catholic rite could confer valid Orders even amid schism, whereas the Edwardine rite was treated as invalid. The Ordinal itself was taken to Rome; Paul IV confirmed and clarified the resulting discipline; absolute ordinations revealed how that discipline was understood; and Clement XI later upheld the same conclusion on grounds of form and intention while declining to rest the case on Parker. Elizabeth restored the Edwardine settlement, and the valid personal Orders of surviving Catholic clergy could not transform the rite subsequently used for the creation of a new ministry.
The nineteenth-century evidence completes the picture. Ritualists attempted to recover Catholic Eucharistic worship and sacerdotal theology within Anglicanism and encountered an institution whose bishops, courts, formularies and laws treated post-Reformation Anglican usage and Protestant theology as normative. Leo XIII did not have to invent that discontinuity in 1896. The Marian documents showed Rome confronting it in the sixteenth century; Gordon demonstrated the continuity of Roman discipline in the eighteenth; Victorian Ritualism displayed its enduring institutional consequences within the Church of England itself. ARCIC records a genuine later movement towards Catholic formulations, but it cannot make that movement retroactive. The Edwardine Ordinal was not merely the Catholic rite made poorer: it was another rite, created within another theological settlement. That distinction is the historical key to the Marian evidence, the Victorian controversies and the judgment of Apostolicae Curae alike.
¹ Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896, especially its treatment of Julius III, Cardinal Pole, Paul IV, the Gordon case, the Edwardine Ordinal, and defects of form and intention.
² Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline (1906), especially its historical survey of the ritual controversy, the 1866 legal opinions, Canterbury Convocation, the Royal Commission on Ritual, Mackonochie, Purchas, Ridsdale, the Lincoln proceedings and the Lambeth hearings on reservation.
³ Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, together with the parliamentary history of the measure.
⁴ Church of England, Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Articles XXVIII and XXXI.
⁵ Nuntiatoria, 31 October 2025, Pope Leo’s Doublespeak and the Unbroken Authority of Apostolicae Curae.
⁶ Nuntiatoria, 15 April 2026, The form, the rite, and the reality: Why Apostolicae Curae still stands.
⁷ Nuntiatoria, 5 June 2026, From the Clementine Chapel to Walsingham: Apostolicae Curae and the Problem of Ecclesiastical Symbolism.
⁸ ARCIC I, Ministry and Ordination (1973), including the Commission’s own statement of the document’s initial status.
⁹ Lambeth Conference 1988, response to ARCIC I, including the provincial reception of the Eucharistic and Ministry statements.
¹⁰ Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Observations on the Final Report of ARCIC, 27 March 1982.
¹¹ ARCIC, Clarifications of Certain Aspects of the Agreed Statements on Eucharist and Ministry (1993).
¹² Cardinal Edward Cassidy, letter to the ARCIC co-chairmen, 11 March 1994.
¹³ Matthew Parker’s Register, The Order of Rites and Ceremonies observed in the Consecration of the Most Reverend Lord Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, recording the ceremony at Lambeth on 17 December 1559, preserved at Lambeth Palace Library and transcribed with discussion of the corroborating records in Arthur Lowndes, Notes as to the Consecration of Archbishop Parker; see also Anglican Orders, Catholic Encyclopedia, for the Catholic historical treatment of Parker, Barlow and the Nag’s Head controversy.
¹⁴ The Royal Household, The Coronation Order of Service: The Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla, 6 May 2023. Charles III swore both to maintain the “Protestant Reformed Religion established by law” and to preserve the settlement, doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the Church of England; he also subscribed the statutory declaration that he was “a faithful Protestant”.
Leave a Reply