The recent past has witnessed quite a few attempts to explain the Anglican-Roman Catholic position on various questions including Holy Orders, the Real Presence, and of course, the source of final authority within the Church. The questions raised are incapable of any immediate solution acceptable to Anglicans.

At the root of the problem is the inability of the Anglicans to accept the decision of Leo XIII when, in 1896, he declared that Anglican "orders" were invalid. His action was the culmination of a process invited by some Anglicans whereby the validity of the Orders conferred in the Anglican communion was examined by a panel Leo established. This body included some Anglicans, but the conclusion of the investigation was summed up in Apostolicae curae in which Pope Leo wrote:

Wherefore, strictly adhering in this matter to the decrees of the Pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our own motion and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out in the Anglican Rite have been and are absolutely invalid (Cath. Ency. Vol. 1, p. 497b).

As a result of this Decree any discussion with Anglicans on the topic of the Eucharist, the Mass, Anglican Orders, or the source of authority in the Church is doomed to failure because they cannot reconcile themselves to the truth of what happened under Elizabeth I. The Anglicans are no longer schismatics as they were when Henry VIII made his first separation from Rome....They are now material heretics. There is no special place in inter faith discussions for those who are in this situation. These words may seem harsh, but in matters of religious truth there can be no equivocation. Recognition of the Church founded by Christ on the Rock of Peter, must be basic to any attempt at repairing the damage wrought by the so-called Reformation.

Eucharist
Let us consider the tremendous question of the Mass and the Eucharist. I offer the following proof that heresy regarding the Mass and the Real Presence is at the root of Anglican errors. Wherein do Anglican errors lie? Many Anglicans seem to accept the idea expressed in the catch phrase, "We left the Pope, not the Catholic Church." I have never been able to reconcile this with the monarch's coronation oath which guaranteed the continuance of the "reformed religion." It was not Catholicism which was to be upheld.

Cardinal Ratzinger in his now famous Report laid down an important principle:

"We must not mistake words for reality; theological progress and a few documents do not signify a thoroughgoing rapprochement....An ecumenism which does not face up to these difficulties which men at present find inseparable, is full of dangers."

It follows that when something is defined, described, or legislated, one may presuppose that the competent authority knew the intention to be conveyed, and sought words most apt to convey it.

The so-called reformers of the sixteenth century were united in their determination to get rid of the Mass. To do this they scoffed at the idea of the Mass being a repetition of Calvary. The Church's term, on the other hand, is re-presentation. The followers of Zwingli and Calvin would have nothing to do with the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. Luther taught "impanation," which had the Body and Blood of Christ cohabiting with the material elements.

Henry VIII defended the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Mass, in words that were substantially the words of Thomas More. That is why I maintain that the work of Thomas Cranmer was the ultimate success of the English "reformers" in destroying beyond hope of internal correction the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the office of priesthood. Cranmer led England from schism to heresy in one fell swoop. Thus was Protestantism triumphant in England, and has remained so to the present. Thus there will be no more "surrenders" to Rome as when Mary Tudor attempted to restore the Church on her accession.

The Book of Common Prayer, Article 18, states:

"The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of that love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death; in so much that to such that rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ."

The Article goes on to take issue with the idea of "transubstantiation," which it states is "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament and hath given rise to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after a spiritual and heavenly manner. And the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not, by Christ's ordinance, reserved, lifted up or worshipped."

One finds this latter statement difficult to believe when over three hundred years previously Thomas Aquinas had penned the most lucid explanation of the Eucharist when the Church instituted the Feast of Corpus Christi.

In Article 31, the sacrificial nature of the mass and the doctrine of Purgatory are said to be "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."

Taking into account the Church's teaching on the Eucharist and the Mass, and the decision on the invalidity of Anglican "Orders," it is clear that a Catholic could not receive the Body and Blood of Christ at any Anglican service. Were a Catholic to try this, and show any reverence to the "elements," he or she would be guilty of formal idolatry. On the other hand, to Anglicans who would approach the altar in a Catholic church to receive Communion, there could be gross indifference and at the least, material sin.

When we consider the special place that the Anglicans have carved out in the realm of religious discussions, it is time that the Church made it clear that there is no special place for a group that believes its own propaganda...Hard words? Yes, but the Church has to maintain truth at any cost.

Church of SS Joseph & Patrick, Port Union, NFLD