Another thought...

I must confess I do get a bit exasperated with the Anglo-Tridentine side of things when it seems to be quite oblivious to the intervening 400 years of Anglican history and development between now and the Henrician Reformation. Using post-Trent hyperscholastic Roman theological and philosophical arguments of the kind we now encounter in the blogosphere will get Anglicans absolutely nowhere fast.

Of course, I absolutely swear by the Catholic Tradition and the unique sacramental ministerial eucharistic sacrificial priesthood, the sacerdotium exactly as understood by the Roman, Eastern and Old Catholic Communions. I believe utterly in apostolic succession and the grace of apostolic Holy Order. But some Anglo-Papalist arguments just don't hold water. I see the REC's historical position as analogous to that of the Church of Sweden and the Church of South India, churches of a more protestant character which nevertheless have transmitted unimpaired the true Apostolic Ministry. The Church of England, in the days of her orthodoxy, recognised the orders of the Swedish Church in 1920 and those of the CSI in 1955. Surely if the Anglican Communion has recognised those Churches as possessing the sacerdotium in spite of what may be perceived as lower or lesser views of the priesthood, Mass and sacramental system, it can and should do the same for the REC. Even Dr E.L. Mascall would come to our defence in this matter, as he did with the CSI in the 1950's. His example demonstrates, I think, in a nutshell the theological difference between the irenic and scholarly Anglo-Catholic position held by our classic theologians and what now obtains in a certain segment of the Continuing Church.