Anglican Orders: Christ Holds the Keys

Denzinger part 64

Part Two examines the remaining claims behind Leo XIII’s judgment, including priestly mediation, the forgiveness of sins, the apostolic keys, sacramental form and intention, and the alleged extinction of Anglican succession. Each claim must be tested against the New Testament distinction between Christ’s sovereign authority and the delegated ministry of His apostles.

The Believer Draws Near Through Christ, Not Through a Priest Who Offers Christ

Hebrews does not direct Christians toward an earthly altar where another priest presents Christ. It directs them toward the heavenly sanctuary where Christ Himself ministers.

“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” — Hebrews 10:19

The believer possesses boldness through Christ’s blood.

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.” — Hebrews 10:22

The direction of access is through Christ to God. Christ is not presented as a victim dependent upon an earthly priest. The believer is dependent upon the heavenly High Priest.

Paul writes:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” — 1 Timothy 2:5

The Roman system maintains that the ministerial priesthood participates in Christ’s one priesthood rather than replacing it. Nevertheless, that theological explanation must still be found in the apostolic writings. Where does the New Testament say that Christ’s unique mediation is exercised through ordained men who possess sacramental power to consecrate and offer Him?

Hebrews says that Christ brings believers to God. Apostolicae curae assumes that a priest must sacramentally bring Christ to the altar. These are different directions of mediation.

The believer comes to God by Christ:

“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.” — Hebrews 7:25

The passage does not say that believers come to Christ through a priest who offers Him. Christ Himself is the living and sufficient way of access.

The Sanctuary Sin Offering Applied to Christ Was Not Eaten

The Old Testament sacrificial pattern also challenges the identification of the Eucharistic meal with the propitiatory offering itself.

Leviticus states:

“And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.” — Leviticus 6:30

Hebrews specifically connects Christ with this sanctuary sin offering:

“For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” — Hebrews 13:11

The writer applies the pattern directly to Christ:

“Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” — Hebrews 13:12

The particular sin offering used as the pattern for Christ’s suffering was not eaten. Its blood entered the sanctuary, while its body was taken outside the camp.

The Lord’s Supper, by contrast, is a meal of communion. Paul compares participation at the Lord’s Table with those who became “partakers of the altar” by eating sacrificial meals:

“Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” — 1 Corinthians 10:18

The meal expresses fellowship in the benefits of the sacrifice. It does not become the propitiatory death itself.

The distinction is essential. The sacrifice opens fellowship. The meal celebrates fellowship. The cross accomplishes reconciliation. The table proclaims and participates in the blessings of that reconciliation.

If the Lord’s Table is remembrance, proclamation, thanksgiving, and communion grounded in the finished sacrifice, no special priesthood is required to offer Christ again. Christian ministers may preside, teach, pray, and maintain good order, but that is not the same as possessing an ontological power to place Christ upon an altar.

The Alleged Defect of Intention Assumes What Must Be Proved

Denzinger 1966 joins the alleged defect of form to a defect of intention:

“So with this inherent defect of form is joined the defect of intention, which it must have with equal necessity that it be a sacrament.”

The Anglican ordinal was judged defective because it deliberately removed language expressing the Roman sacrificial understanding of priesthood. From Rome’s perspective, that removal demonstrated an intention not to create priests who would offer the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Yet this argument can be reversed. If the New Testament does not institute a priesthood empowered to offer Christ as a propitiatory victim, then intending not to confer such a power is not necessarily a defect. It may instead represent an intention to return to the ministry of elders, overseers, pastors, and teachers described by the apostles.

The true apostolic question is not whether Anglicans intended to do what the medieval and Tridentine Church understood priesthood to do. The true question is whether they intended to appoint ministers to perform the work that Christ and the apostles assigned to Christian ministers.

Paul charged Timothy:

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” — 2 Timothy 4:2

He continued:

“But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” — 2 Timothy 4:5

Peter instructed elders:

“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2

Paul told the Ephesian elders to guard the church from false teachers:

“Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” — Acts 20:31

These are apostolic ministerial duties. The ministers teach, preach, shepherd, oversee, pray, guard doctrine, correct error, and care for the flock. The New Testament does not add that their office is invalid unless an ordination formula explicitly confers power to offer Christ’s body and blood.

Apostolica error, and care for the flock. The New Testament does not add that their officee curae therefore defines intention according to a later ecclesiastical doctrine. It does not first demonstrate that Christ instituted the sacrificial intention Rome requires.

Forgiving and Retaining Sins Does Not Establish a Sacrificial Priesthood

Christ Holds the Master Key: Apostolic Authority Is Ministerial, Not Sovereign

The authority Christ gave to the apostles was real, but it was received authority. Christ possesses the keys inherently and by His own royal authority. The apostles received keys ministerially, as servants entrusted to proclaim and administer what the King had already authorized.

The distinction is comparable to the difference between the owner of a house and the steward appointed to serve within it.

Christ says of Himself:

“These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” — Revelation 3:7

This language echoes Isaiah 22:22, written centuries before the later Roman Catholic institutional system existed, where the key of the house of David represents governing authority. In Revelation, however, the ultimate Davidic authority belongs to Christ. He does not receive permission from an apostle, bishop, council, or priest before opening or shutting. His judgment is final because He is the King.

Christ possesses the master key.

By contrast, Jesus said to Peter:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” — Matthew 16:19

A related authority is extended to the disciples in Matthew 18:

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” — Matthew 18:18

After His resurrection, Jesus said:

“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” — John 20:23

These sayings grant the apostles a genuine ministry of authority. Nevertheless, nothing in them makes the apostles the sovereign owners of the kingdom, the authors of forgiveness, or independent judges whose decisions compel heaven to conform to their will.

Christ is the One who possesses the key of David. The apostles receive the keys of the kingdom from Him. The authority is therefore derived, delegated, and ministerial.

The Book of Acts shows how the keys were exercised. Peter opened the kingdom to the Jews through the preaching of Christ at Pentecost. He did not personally manufacture forgiveness. He proclaimed:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” — Acts 2:38

In Acts 8, the Samaritans were received into the expanding people of God. In Acts 10, Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and his household, and the Holy Ghost fell upon the Gentiles.

Peter explained:

“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43

The remission belonged to those who believed in Christ through His name. Peter opened the door by proclaiming what God had revealed and by witnessing God’s reception of the Gentiles. He did not independently decide who was entitled to enter heaven.

The apostles never declared themselves to be the door. Jesus said:

“I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.” — John 10:9

The apostles pointed sinners toward that Door. They did not become the Door themselves.

Paul described apostolic ministry as an ambassadorship:

“Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us.” — 2 Corinthians 5:20

An ambassador speaks with genuine authority, but the authority belongs to the king who sent him. An ambassador announces the king’s decree; he does not create the decree according to his own will.

This is the proper distinction between Christ and His apostles. Christ is the King who owns the kingdom and possesses the master key. The apostles are ambassadors and stewards entrusted with proclaiming the King’s gospel, guarding His house, applying His discipline, and declaring His terms of entrance.

The grammatical construction of Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 also deserves attention. The Greek uses a future form of “to be” together with a perfect passive participle. It can therefore be represented in English as:

“Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven.”

On this understanding, heaven is not waiting to discover what the apostles will independently decide. The apostles are authorized to bind and loose upon earth in accordance with what has already been determined in heaven.

Even where the traditional English rendering is retained, the broader New Testament context leads to the same conclusion. Apostolic authority remains subordinate to Christ. The apostles cannot contradict their Lord, create a different gospel, forgive apart from Him, or close a door that Christ has opened.

This distinction is important when considering Trent’s claim that the apostles and their alleged successors received a priestly power of “forgiving and retaining sins.” John 20:23 cannot simply be isolated and transformed into proof of an independent sacerdotal tribunal.

The apostles exercised the ministry of forgiveness by preaching Christ, declaring remission to believers, warning the unbelieving, and exercising discipline within the Church. Their declaration was authoritative because it agreed with Christ’s gospel.

When Paul preached forgiveness, he said:

“Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” — Acts 13:38

Forgiveness was preached “through this man,” Jesus Christ. Paul did not say that forgiveness originated in the sacerdotal character of the preacher.

The distinction remains decisive.

Christ possesses authority inherently.

The apostles exercise authority ministerially.

Christ determines the terms of the kingdom.

The apostles proclaim those terms.

Christ is the Door.

The apostles direct people to the Door.

Christ holds the key of David that no one can overrule.

The apostles receive keys as trusted stewards of His gospel.

John 20:23 therefore does not prove that Christ instituted a continuing priestly class possessing independent judicial power over divine forgiveness. It proves that the risen Christ commissioned His apostles to proclaim and apply His gospel with the authority of servants sent by their Lord.

The authority is genuine, but it is not sovereign. The keys are entrusted, but they are not owned. The apostles serve within Christ’s house. Christ alone is Lord over the house.

Trent also connects the priesthood with “forgiving and retaining sins.” The principal text is commonly John 20:23:

“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

This is unquestionably a serious apostolic commission. Yet the manner in which the apostles exercised the ministry of forgiveness must be learned from Acts and the Epistles.

Peter proclaimed:

“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43

Paul preached:

“Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” — Acts 13:38

The apostolic ministry announces forgiveness through Christ. It declares the gospel terms upon which sins are forgiven. It also exercises discipline when professing believers persist in grave sin. Nothing in these passages requires the later sacramental tribunal in which an ordained priest judicially absolves an individual because he possesses a sacerdotal character.

Paul describes the apostolic message as the ministry of reconciliation:

“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” — 2 Corinthians 5:18

He explains the message:

“To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” — 2 Corinthians 5:19

The apostles are ambassadors who plead:

“Be ye reconciled to God.” — 2 Corinthians 5:20

The reconciliation is accomplished by God in Christ. The ministers proclaim it. The passage does not identify them as priests who mediate forgiveness through an ontological sacramental power.

Matter and Form Are Not the Language of the Apostles

Denzinger 1963 begins by distinguishing the ceremonial and essential parts of a sacrament, ordinarily called matter and form. The imposition of hands is identified as the matter, while the determining words are treated as the form.

This is a developed sacramental framework. The New Testament does not instruct the Church to judge ordination by determining whether a precise combination of matter and form produces validity. It records prayer, fasting, the discernment of spiritual qualifications, divine calling, congregational recognition, prophecy, and the laying on of hands.

The apostolic emphasis is personal, spiritual, moral, and doctrinal.

Paul says:

“A bishop then must be blameless.” — 1 Timothy 3:2

Titus states:

“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” — Titus 1:7

Acts requires men:

“Full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” — Acts 6:3

Paul warns Timothy:

“Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” — 1 Timothy 5:22

The concern is not merely whether the correct formula has been pronounced. The concern is whether a suitable, faithful, spiritually qualified person is being entrusted with ministry.

A ritual theory may attempt to protect the Church from uncertainty by defining objective conditions for validity. Yet it can also shift attention away from the matters Scripture repeatedly emphasizes. A man may possess the supposedly valid matter, form, intention, and succession while lacking the character the apostles require.

The New Testament does not teach that correct sacramental mechanics can compensate for the absence of apostolic truth, holiness, or the Holy Ghost.

The Claim That the Hierarchy Had Become Extinct Is Self-Sealing

Denzinger 1964 states that the Anglican addition “for the office and work of a priest” came too late:

“With the extinction of the hierarchy, there was now no power for ordaining.”

This creates a self-sealing institutional argument. Once Rome declares that a hierarchy has become extinct, no subsequent correction of language can restore it, because only an already valid hierarchy possesses the power to create another valid minister.

The conclusion therefore rests upon the same authority that makes the initial judgment. Rome defines the necessary priesthood, judges the Anglican form incapable of conferring it, declares the succession extinct, and then rules that no later amendment can repair the defect because no valid ordaining power remains.

Historical succession is a legitimate subject for investigation, but Denzinger 1963–1966 does not demonstrate from Scripture that ministerial authority is transmitted through an unbroken chain possessing an indelible Eucharistic power. The New Testament emphasizes fidelity to apostolic doctrine.

Paul tells Timothy:

“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” — 2 Timothy 2:2

The emphasis falls upon the faithful transmission of apostolic teaching to faithful men capable of teaching others. Paul does not say that the essential continuity lies in a sacramental power to consecrate and offer Christ.

A succession that preserves the laying on of hands while altering apostolic doctrine would not be made apostolic merely by institutional continuity. Conversely, a ministry cannot be declared non-Christian merely because it refuses a sacrificial function absent from the New Testament.

What Apostolicae Curae Actually Demonstrates

Apostolicae curae demonstrates that the Anglican ordinal did not intend to confer the Roman Catholic priesthood as defined by Trent. On that narrow point, Leo XIII’s reasoning is understandable. Anglican reformers had rejected the Roman conception of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and accordingly removed language that expressed a sacrificing priesthood.

What the letter does not demonstrate is that the Roman Catholic priesthood is the priesthood instituted by Christ.

It assumes that the Eucharist is a continuing visible sacrifice.

It assumes that such a sacrifice requires a new external priesthood.

It assumes that the apostles received power to consecrate and offer Christ’s body and blood.

It assumes that bishops possess the highest grade of that priesthood.

It assumes that valid ministry requires an unbroken transmission of this sacramental power.

It then declares Anglican orders invalid because they fail to embody those assumptions.

The argument is therefore internally consistent only after Trent has been accepted. It is not an independent demonstration from Scripture.

This does not automatically prove that every Anglican ordination is spiritually valid, historically continuous, or doctrinally faithful. Anglican teaching and practice must also be tested against Scripture. The point is more precise. Leo XIII’s stated reason for declaring all Anglican orders void depends upon a definition of priesthood that the New Testament does not establish.

The choice is not between Roman sacerdotalism and an absence of Christian ministry. The New Testament plainly provides elders, overseers, teachers, evangelists, shepherds, and servants. It provides prayer, fasting, laying on of hands, spiritual gifts, order, discipline, and the faithful transmission of doctrine.

What it does not provide is an earthly priesthood whose defining power is to offer the immortal Christ as a propitiatory victim.

Christ and the Apostles Must Define Christian Ministry

Before issuing this universal judgment, Leo XIII grounds it in the accumulated authority of previous popes and in his own papal authority:

“Assenting entirely to the decrees of all the departed Pontiffs in this case, and confirming them most fully and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own inspiration and certain knowledge...”

Denzinger 1966 concludes:

“We pronounce and declare that ordinations enacted according to the Anglican rite have hitherto been and are invalid and entirely void.”

Such a universal judgment requires an apostolic foundation of equal strength. Yet the decisive criterion is not derived from Christ’s teaching about pastoral ministry, Paul’s qualifications for elders, Peter’s commands to shepherd the flock, or the ministries listed in Ephesians. It is derived from the Tridentine doctrine that a priest must possess power to consecrate and offer Christ.

Hebrews directs the Church elsewhere.

Christ is the great High Priest.

Christ possesses the unchangeable priesthood.

Christ offered Himself once.

Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary once.

Christ obtained eternal redemption.

Christ perfected the sanctified by one offering.

Christ sat down because His sacrificial work was complete.

Christ ever lives to intercede.

Through Christ, believers draw near to God.

The New Testament does not place the risen Lord into the hands of another sacrificing priest. It places every believer into the hands of the risen Lord.

The Church does not need ministers who offer Christ again. It needs faithful elders who preach Christ, teach the apostolic word, shepherd the flock, guard against error, live blamelessly, pray for the saints, and direct believers toward the one Mediator.

The Holy Ghost is not confined to an institutional chain whose validity depends upon later sacramental definitions. The Holy Ghost calls, equips, sanctifies, distributes gifts, appoints overseers, and builds the body of Christ according to His will.

The Lord’s Table does not require a priest who transforms bread into an immortal propitiatory victim. It requires believers who remember Christ, proclaim His death, examine themselves, give thanks, share communion, and look for His return.

The final test of Christian orders cannot be whether Rome recognizes them as possessing Rome’s sacrificial power. The final test must be whether the ministry is faithful to Christ, the apostles, the gospel, and the written word of God.

Leo XIII declared Anglican orders void because Anglicanism had rejected the Roman sacrificing priesthood. Scripture raises the more fundamental question: where did Christ institute that priesthood in the first place?

Until that question is answered from the New Testament, Apostolicae curae cannot establish that Anglican ministers lack apostolic orders. It establishes only that they lack the form, intention, and sacrificial power demanded by a later ecclesiastical system.

Christ remains the one great High Priest.

His offering remains once for all.

His blood remains sufficient.

His mediation remains direct.

His throne of grace remains open.

The Church’s task is not to offer Him again, but to proclaim what He has already accomplished and to call all people to come unto God by Him.

“And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” — 2 Peter 2:3

Feigned words are:

• Made-up or fabricated speech.

• Cleverly invented stories.

• Deceptive teaching designed to sound convincing.

• Words shaped to manipulate rather than communicate the truth.