An unswerving Anglican Order

Viewpoint. AS AN Anglican priest I should be most interested to know the real foundation of Hugh King's recent assertion that my Church does not regard Holy Orders as a Sacrament and that therefore our clergy are only laymen, performing an "empty ritual" at the Eucharist.
I stress "real foundation", because to derive his conclusions simply from Article 25 is a fallacy. I wonder if he has used the Preface to the Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer? I suggest that both he and other interested Catholics read it. I hope that space will permit a short extract from it.
"It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons". The Preface continues by stating the "reverend estimation" in which these office's are held and the necessity for the "Imposition of Hands", ie, Episcopal Consecration or Ordination, before any of these offices can be executed.
Now if we turn to the Catechism, we read that two Sacraments (ie, Baptism and Eucharist) are "generally necessary to salvation". That does not exclude the other five Sacraments, but makes the rather obvious point, that salvation is not conditional upon everyone being ordained, married, etc!
In other words we have to distinguish between what is universally necessary, and what would apply to individual states of life.
I wonder if your correspondent has studied the "ARCIC" documents? If he has, he would know that Fr Edward Yarnold, SJ, to whom he refers with some enthusiasm, would not support his views on Anglican Orders. In fact I doubt if there are many reputable Catholic theologians who would do so today. (See "Anglican Orders — a Way Forward?" Edward Yarnold SJ CTS 1981).
I suspect that the ghost of Leo XIII's Bull still haunts the minds of not a few Catholics. But at the official academic level it has lost much of its cogency in Roman/Anglican debate.
Indeed as a Catholic Archbishop recently observed, Leo's Bull on Anglican Orders may well prove not to be the key factor in the ongoing discussions on the validity of ministry.
Finally, are we really asked to believe that, when the Pope met Dr Runcie at the door of his Cathedral in 1982, he was greeting a layman rather than the legitimate successor of St Augustine of Canterbury?
If that were the case, then that historic encounter must have been a charade, and my Ordination by Archbishop Runcie (three months after that meeting) a meaningless and empty ceremony.
Rev Peter Hart
Deal, Kent