Anglican Orders & Paul VI’s Ordinal: Fruits of a Common Poison

They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” — Osee 8:7 

Preamble: The Wrong Turn: When Good Souls Follow Bad Signs.

Defending the Modernist synodal church out of ignorance is like trusting a signpost that points to a grand estate—but leads to a desert. The sign looks official, freshly painted, even bears the name “Catholic”—but it points the wrong way.

I stumbled on an instance of such defense in which a Novus ordo "priest" posted a defense of Apostolic Succession so correctly while showing to a correspondent of his that 

"The Church of England (the Anglican Communion) does not share Apostolic Succession with the Catholic Church".

The twist, and unfortunately so, is that, the "Apostolic Succession" he has in mind in defending Catholic Apostolic Succession is that traced only to ecumenist "Paul VI"' revised ordinal of 1968. 

Unbeknownst to him, he is standing by a signpost bearing two directions:

• One reads: “Anglican Reformation – 1552”
• The other: “Vatican II Renewal – 1968”

But the road beneath them is the same: a road paved not with Apostolic Faith, but with Ecumenical Diplomacy, Doctrinal Compromise, anti-Liturgical heresy and rupture. It bears the name ‘Catholic’—but leads not to the Father’s House, but a barren desert - the Modernist, ecumenical, synodal Pan-Religious impostor church occupying Catholic buildings.

Let us explore how this is the case.

1. A Sincere Defense, A Fatal Flaw 

At first glance, the Novus Ordo "priest" seems to perform a meritorious act: defending the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession against Anglican claims. He rightly asserts that the Church of England lost valid succession after the Edwardine Ordinal (1552), as Pope Leo XIII infallibly declared in Apostolicae Curae (1896):

 “Wherefore, strictly adhering… to the decrees of the Pontiffs, our predecessors… We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are completely null and void.” (Denz. 1966)

Concluding his article he wrote:

So, dear brother, while many Anglican ministers are sincere, the painful truth is this:

👉 If a priest is not validly ordained, then the Eucharist he celebrates is not valid.

It’s not a matter of performance or devotion, but of sacramental reality.

This is not arrogance. It’s fidelity to what Christ handed down through the Apostles...

So far, all sounds Catholic. But then comes the tragic twist: the Ordinal he defends as "Catholic" is "Paul VI"'s 

 2. Two Rites, One Heresy

Now: both the Anglican Ordinal (1552) and Paul VI’s New Ordination Rite (1968) spring from the same poisoned tree—Protestant,  Modernism anti-Liturgical heresy.

• The Anglican ordinal was produced by Protestant Reformers seeking to erase the notion of the Mass as a sacrifice.  The 1968 ordinal was produced by Modernists aiming at ecumenism, minimizing references to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.
• The Anglican ordinal removed references to the priest offering the Sacrifice of the Mass Removed key expressions like “to offer sacrifice” (offere sacrificium) from the ordination prayers. Emphasizes the presider as a minister of the Word, not a sacrificer. The 1968 ordinal emphasizes the priest as a leader of the assembly, not an alter Christus who offers the Sacrifice. 
• Pope Leo XIII condemned the Anglican ordinal as utterly null and void on the grounds that  the rite had been deliberately stripped of every reference to a true sacrifice of the Mass. The 1968 ordinal was also deliberately designed to align with Protestant theology: to be acceptable to Protestants and ecumenical observers present during Vatican II and the Consilium, and therefore shares in the same condemnation. As Fr. Cekada puts it: 

 ❝If Anglican Orders are invalid because of the suppression of the concept of sacrificing priesthood… why not apply the same logic to the 1968 rite?❞  -Fr. Anthony Cekada, “The Validity of the New Ordination Rite”

A tree is known by its fruit—and its root.

The Anglican Reformation amputated the Mass from the priesthood.

The Conciliar Revolution of Vatican II, especially in Paul VI’s 1968 Ordinal, dismantled the traditional sacramental language and replaced it with ecumenical ambiguity.

Though centuries apart, both movements sprang from the same poisoned root: a hatred for the idea that the priest offers sacrifice for sins.

 The root error is the denial of the priesthood as a sacrificial office. — Fr. Anthony Cekada, “Traditionalists, Infallibility and the New Mass”

 3. Validity Eclipsed: Form and Intention Distorted:

The Church teaches that a sacrament requires:

• Proper matter
• Proper form
• Proper intention

When the form is rewritten, and the intention veiled, the validity becomes doubtful. And a doubtful sacrament must be treated as invalid.

Though separated by time and vestments, both Anglican and Paul VI ordinals:

• Rewrote the forms and veiled the intention.
• Diminish the priesthood to “service”
• Banish the sacrifice from the sanctuary
• Embrace a theology of man-centered worship

They are liturgical reflections of doctrinal rebellion, the priest no longer seen as a man marked to climb the altar of Calvary, but as a host for human encounter.

They are branches from the same anti-liturgical heresy root. As Fr. Anthony Cekada bluntly notes:

 “The new rites... reflect the same doctrinal hollowness which Pope Leo XIII condemned in the Anglican rites.”“ -Absolutely Null and Utterly Void”, 2006. 

4. From the Same Root: A Counterfeit Church

That the Novus ordo priest is unaware of the implications reveals another bitter fruit of the new orientation: Ignorance masquerading as orthodoxy. He defends what he thinks is Apostolic Catholicism, but unknowingly promotes a mutation of it.

As Fr. Cekada again warns:

 ...it is no exaggeration to say that what Paul VI created was a counterfeit Catholic Church: new rites, new theology, new clergy, new sacraments.”

And Archbishop Lefebvre is paraphrased to have said:

This Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time... It has a new priesthood, new sacraments, new theology, new catechism—all opposed to Tradition

5. The Soul in Peril: Led by a False Light

The soul who follows such a "priest"—trusting the official-looking signpost labeled “Catholic”—is not led to the Father’s House but into a doctrinal wasteland, a desert of spiritual sterility.

This Novus Ordo "priest" accepts in principle that sincerity is not enough.  He wrote:

So, dear brother, while many Anglican ministers are sincere, the painful truth is this:

👉 If a priest is not validly ordained, then the Eucharist he celebrates is not valid.

It’s not a matter of performance or devotion, but of sacramental reality.

This is not arrogance. It’s fidelity to what Christ handed down through the Apostles...

His sincere defense of Apostolic Succession is admirable. But the fact is that he defends the Catholic Faith using poisoned tools. Doing so is simply to corrupt the very thing one aims to protect. Sincerity without truth, and good will without the right doctrine, do not preserve the Church.

The road to hell may be paved with good intentions. But the road to Heaven is paved with Apostolic truth—and there is only one such road.

He must come to terms with the fact that:

• Like the Anglican ordinal, the 1968 rite of Episcopal Consecration is absolutely null, utterly void.
• To that extent, he himself is not a validly ordained Catholic Priest.
• That the "Eucharist" he celebrates is not valid, nor any other "priestly" acts he posits. 

He has to understand that this conclusion about his status and his colleagues, in his own words: 

...is not arrogance. It’s fidelity to what Christ handed down through the Apostles...

 He must seek the safe path so as to manifest his desire to promote "fidelity to what Christ handed down through the Apostles".

6.  The Safe Path: The Tree That Still Bears Good Fruit

The Ordinal that can lay claims to the formidable defense put up by that Novus ordo priest is the Traditional Roman Ordinal. How sad he is not a beneficiary of what he defends. He is a product of  57 Years of Invalid New order Bishop. 

The Traditional Roman Ordinal as definitively fixed by Pope Pius XII preserves:

• Clear, unambiguous sacrificial form
• Intention to ordain true sacrificing priests
• The organic, apostolic link to the early Church

It is in the light of this that it must be said:

• The Anglican tree is dead—cut off centuries ago.
• The Modernist tree is rotting—grafted onto the same lifeless root.

But the old Roman tree—planted by Christ, watered by martyrs, pruned by saints—still bears fruit in the wilderness. It bears fruit in uncompromising Traditional Catholic Bishops and Priests and other sacred ministers of the Altar.

He must flee the new rites, and seek formation under an uncompromising Traditional Catholic Bishop and be validly ordained. He certainly has a good grasp of the principles: oh that no emotional trickery may interfer as to make him fall short of taking  logical steps.  

He must not merely admire the truth from afar. He must act on it. The time for passive fidelity is over. The truth demands his decision: to abandon the poisoned rites of Paul VI and seek true ordination in the Church that Christ founded—the one that has not, and cannot change her priesthood, her Mass, or her doctrine.

It is written:

Hold fast to tradition, which you have received… whether by word or by epistle. — 2 Thessalonians 2:14