In response to this often-made (anglo-catholic) accusation, the distinguished Regius Professor of Divinity, E.C. Ratcliff, (himself an anglo-catholic) wrote:

The accusation is irrelevant. Cranmer's purpose in his Second Communion service was not to improve or restore to purity the historic Latin liturgy in English form. His purpose was to give an exact liturgical expression to the fulfilment of the command, 'Do this in remembrance of me.' The liturgical action of the Lord's Supper, according to Cranmer's later conception of it, consists in the eating of bread and drinking of wine in thankful remembrance of Christ's death. It is possible to reject this conception as inadequate or mistaken; but rejection neither requires nor justifies refusal to acknowledge the skill and felicity with which the Rite embodying the conception is constructed. The several parts of the Rite succeed each other in a logically inevitable order which deserves the admiration of all students of liturgy…The Second Communion service is a remarkable achievement…

As we know, the 1552 Order for Holy Communion, with some adjustments, became the 1662 Order and has been used millions of times in thousands of places since 1662 in over 100 languages.

However, it is a mistake to state that the meaning of the 1552 or its revision as the 1559 and then as the 1662 is to be interpreted exactly according to what we can glean of Cranmer's intentions. As used in the Church of England the Rite/Order was interpreted by Elizabethan divines (e.g., Richard Hooker) and then by Caroline divines (e.g., Jeremy Taylor) and thus the rich meaning of the 1662 Service is more comprehensive than that of its creator (and his assistants). Of course, the range of possible meaning (including receptionism and virtualism) is all within a basic Reformed Catholic mindset and never includes the rejected medieval doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass & transubstantiation.

Further, as we know, the American BCP (1789-1928) contains a Prayer of Consecration which revises 1662, as it looks back to 1549 and also receives from the Scottish Episcopal 18th Century Rite. Yet it remains very much reformed Catholic and high-church Protestant!

To return to Cranmer. His Rite of 1552 is reformed Catholic with a biblical logic. Further, as many have acknowledged, it was written in magnificent English and that English was preserved in the 1662 BCP and in the PECUSA BCP (1789-1928). To cite Professor Ratcliff again:

It is now commonplace to speak of Cranmer's magnificent English. Yet wherein, we may ask, does the significance lie? The question is not to be answered by conventional observations upon mastery of style. Liturgical style, to be effective, must express a sense of the Divine Majesty which is the Object of address. Cranmer was the master, or rather the creator, of English liturgical style, because he had apprehended the nature of worship. To serve the purposes of worship he brought the resources of the scholar: appreciation of the fine compositions of liturgical Latin; knowledge of the rules of rhythm and clausula; facility and felicity in translation; a feeling for the meaning of words. With such resources, and moved by a profound religious sincerity, Cranmer made of English a liturgical language comparable with Latin at its best ("The Liturgical Work of Cranmer" in Liturgical Studies, SPCK, 1976).

Thus the Arabic proverb is true of Cranmer if not true of other martyrs - "The ink of the scholar is more worth than the blood of the martyr."

Regrettably, from the 1960s much of the Anglican family has gradually yet systematically sought to remove both Cranmer's Rite and his English from Anglican worship! The Prayer Book Society of the USA is committed to keeping in print and using with understanding the revised version of Cranmer's Rite as found in the 1928 BCP.