You had to know this was coming:
No, that doesn’t follow. One can think a particular rite is not as explicit as it ought to be, or needs to be changed somewhat for some other reason, without it invalidating the form. There are fairly specific criteria I believe for what makes an invalid form. There are rites that have been used in and recognized by the Catholic Church that would be tweaked if they wanted to use them today as well, but the CC doesn’t think they were invalid.
I have no disagreement with any part of your post except for the “nor are the many variants of ‘episcopal’ valid anymore” clause.Masses are only Valid if in proper Form and Substance. The Episcopal Rite has neither, nor are the many variants of ‘episcopal’ valid anymore, because operate against Basic Christian Traditions, the Commandments, and/or Bible teaching. 'Gay ‘Married’ episcopal bishop lives in violation of the Commandments and the Bible, much less Christian Tradition.
Quo Primum invalidated all new rites created after 1370 A.D. And Trent prohibited new rites being created. On that basis, it would appear that all Lutheran and Anglican Rites (with the possible exception of the Sarum Rite), including the Traditional Mass in the vernacular, are invalid. However, I don’t know the whole story behind what the Church is allowing the new Ordinariate to say but I can’t see them applying a different standard than what they are approving in the new English translation of the OF. Maybe they’re only temporarily allowing it for whatever reasons, but if they have to tweak anything, then the only thing I can conclude is that there is a problem with the Anglican Rite or Lutheran Rite per se, ecumenism notwithstanding. I guess it all boils down to the intent as the Church requires for validation.
But, what about intent? Let’s look at the case of one Alberto Cutie. He left the Church, joined the Episcopalian Church and subsequently was “ordained” a priest. As such, he now conducts their services. However, in order for Mass to be valid, Cutie would have to intend to consecrate as the Church intends, not as the Episcopalian ecclesial community intends.
On the face of it this seems a problem, given that the Catholic Church affirms the NO Mass, which is much more of a break in liturgical tradition than the traditional Anglican liturgy. I realize that it is not considered a different rite, but then the Anglican and Lutheran liturgies would not be a new rite by that meaning either. It doesn’t seem applicable at all.
The Church is the Church community. The Anglican priests consider themselves to be part of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, just as Catholics do. As far as intent goes, that is not at issue, and AC doesn’t say that it is.
However, the Anglican eccleisal community does not have valid orders, as has already been established by Pope Leo XIII. Furthermore, in order for the Holy Eucharist to be valid, the Catholic priest must have the intent to do as the Church commands. Thus, intent is one of the four marks of validity for the Church.
I don’t see intent as an issue since the intent is clearly to consecrate the Eucharist.
However, you cannot have it both ways. You either intend to consecrate the Eucharist as the Church intends, or you don’t.
as long as the matter and form were there.I guess we’re presuming the intent isn’t the same if you decide to break away completely from the very Church which supplies that validity. (This is to be distinguished from a schism.)Episcopals in my acquaintance intend to consecrate the Eucharist in the same manner as do we.
If their intent is the same, and the matter and form are there, where is the problem?
We acknowledge that the heretics of the 16th century e.g. Luther, Cranmer etc. could confect the Eucharist even though they “switched teams”
No it is not true to Catholic Doctrine, That priest needs to learn the catholic faith better
Since we are discussing why or why not the CC says the Anglicans have invalid orders, pointing out that a Pope declared them invalid is rather useless. Unless you think he did it for no reason. It is certainly not likely to convince someone who doesn’t already assume his authority on the matter is legitimate.
Anglican priests don’t understand themselves to have broken away from the Church. Most would say they are in schism, but part of the same universal Church. You are assuming that everyone agrees with Rome’s understanding of itself - that it is the only instantiation of the universal, catholic, apostolic church. But that isn’t so - a number of bodies consider themselves to be part of that same Church.
This was my point earlier. How can a priest who leaves the Church for another community, abandon his bishop and adopt a theology contrary to the True Faith, yet still intend to do what the Church intends? What he personally believes or intends is of no consequence. If sspx priests cannot validly absolve sins and witness a marriage without the faculties of the local bishop, then how can an apostate priest consecrate the Eucharist?
Regarding the Old Catholic Church, the above is factually false. The Old Roman Catholic, in the Netherlands, went into schism (not heresy) in 1726. The Old Catholic Church originated in Germany and Switzerland after Vatican I, and they do not accept papal infallibility as a dogma. You are confusing the two groups, who are in communion with one another, but are not the same thing.
Actually, with the issue of intent, what the person believes he is doing is precisely the point. That is what intent means. It is very similar to the concept of intent in secular law.
What is interesting to me is that many Old Catholics are far more liberal theologically than Anglicans, but the CC accepts their orders. It makes it a bit hard to take some of the talk about how separating oneself from the “true body” means the Eucharist is invalid seriously.
I would disagree. For a more true-to-source “definition” of the word, I cite what the Council of Florence (1431-1445) taught.
Your argument seems to be that he can intend to confect regardless of what the church does or says. Not quite the same thing.