Under what circumstances could an Anglican receive the Catholic Eucharist?

[FrDavid96]

And if being a priest is all that matters to giving good advice, than the priest in question should be able to give just the same answer as Fr David.

And at least there will be the opportunity for them to have a real conversation about the OPs whole situation. Often one sees advice on these boards that the parish priest is the first go-to guy on such issues, and that he should be heeded - sometimes even when he is giving bad advice as far as some are concerned.

Additionally - why should the OP take Fr David, who he doesn’t know, as seriously as someone he can meet? Of course it is totally unlikely, and my apologies to Fr David - but he could be anyone - maybe a strange Mormon out to surreptitiously give bad advice on Catholic boards??

And finally, he may be suspicious because of the statement that Anglicans do not believe in the need for valid orders - of course they do! The difference lies in whether they agree with the position that Anglican orders are invalid. And FWIW, the reason the CC thinks Anglican orders are invalid has nothing to do with transubstantiation. It really just doesn’t.

Once again, remember that I’m merely taking the canon law and explaining it. That’s very different from giving advice.

With regard to valid orders. Anglicans might indeed believe that a valid ordination is necessary for the Eucharist (I can’t make a blanket statement that all of them believe it, or that all divisions within Anglicanism believe in it). However, this I can state without any hesitation. Because Anglicans believe that they do have valid orders, when the fact is that they do not have valid orders (and this is the infallible teaching of the Church), that is an indication that their understanding of validity is flawed. It is simply not enough to declare a* belief in the word *“validity”–one must also *believe in the facts *necessary for validity.

If a person believes that an invalidly ordained “priest” is validly ordained, then such a person does not in-fact believe in the necessity of a valid ordination becuase such a person believes that an invalid ordination is an acceptable substitute for a valid one.

Lest there be any confusion about the invalidity of Anglican Orders, here is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger had to say in October 1998:

1. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed … or to be held definitively … with an act which is either defining or nondefining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a nondefining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as a truth that is divinely revealed … or as a truth of Catholic doctrine… Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.

11…With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations…

source: adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html

 

[FastLearner]

But, the pastor does not have the right to make that decision. That is under the purview of the bishop and thus, the individual would have to be referred to the Chancery.

No one is claiming that the pastor has the right. In fact, in my first post, I specifically mentioned that only the bishop has the authority.

The only thing I’m saying is that he should go talk to the pastor. The pastor can then address the situation. Whether that means the pastor asks the bishop for approval, or the pastor explains the stance of the Church in relation to the OP’s state is up to the pastor. I’m sure the pastor will give the same answer as Fr. David, but rather than giving an answer in 250 words, the pastor can have a 30 minute meeting to make sure that he has all the facts and that the OP appreciates the situation (rather than just knows the answer).

It’s almost as if some people are afraid of him asking a priest in a face-to-face situation, as if the priest might be incompetent and give the wrong advice. I don’t get that.

 

[Bluegoat]

But, the pastor does not have the right to make that decision. That is under the purview of the bishop and thus, the individual would have to be referred to the Chancery.

No one is saying that he would make the decision. Not one person has suggested that. Any more than Fr David, in giving an opinion, was making the decision.

However, by meeting in person he could get a much better feel for the OPs situation, he would presumably know his wife, he might very have some sort of previous relationship with the OP to build upon.

No one here showed any misunderstanding of what is meant by valid Holy Orders either. Clearly, if there are no valid Holy Orders than according to CC understanding there is no valid Eucharist. The Anglican understanding is identical. Again, the difference lies in the understanding of who has valid Holy Orders. The reasons for the CCs decision on Anglican Holy Orders has been set out quite clearly to be read by any interested person.

 

[Bluegoat]

With regard to valid orders. Anglicans might indeed believe that a valid ordination is necessary for the Eucharist (I can’t make a blanket statement that all of them believe it, or that all divisions within Anglicanism believe in it). However, this I can state without any hesitation. Because Anglicans believe that they do have valid orders, when the fact is that they do not have valid orders (and this is the infallible teaching of the Church), that is an indication that their understanding of validity is flawed. It is simply not enough to declare a* belief in the word *“validity”–one must also *believe in the facts *necessary for validity.

If a person believes that an invalidly ordained “priest” is validly ordained, then such a person does not in-fact believe in the necessity of a valid ordination becuase such a person believes that an invalid ordination is an acceptable substitute for a valid one.

Lest there be any confusion about the invalidity of Anglican Orders, here is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger had to say in October 1998:

1. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed … or to be held definitively … with an act which is either defining or nondefining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a nondefining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as a truth that is divinely revealed … or as a truth of Catholic doctrine… Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.

11…With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations…

source: adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html

Yes, I understand what you are saying; thinking one had validity, whereas in Truth one did not, would suggest there might be some fundamental misunderstanding of validity. Or perhaps that some unknowable element in human terms had not been fulfilled would be another possibility, and this could somehow be divinely revealed.

All of this assumes, a priori, though, that the Truth is indeed known, which I think is the sticking point. Perhaps if Pope Leo had just given a statement of fact without giving any reasons it would be more convincing, even to me as a non-Catholic, but his reasoning is a bit…suspect. If applied equally to Catholic ordinations and Orthodox ordinations it would give results the Church would not be happy with I think. Could he be giving bad reasons for something that was true, without relation to the reasons? Well, clearly people do this all the time so it can happen. I find though, that in this situation it doesn’t help to convince me that Rome is indeed infallible, but rather it makes me question the whole possibility. And if it isn’t infallible, then my a priori knowledge of the Truth of Anglican validity doesn’t exist, and I have to rely on his actual arguments.

 

[7_Sorrows]

i believe the only way and the best way is to convert. otherwise, i don’t think an anglican is able to receive in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

if you are already attending a particular parish and your wife is Catholic, i would discuss it with the priest.

even if you feel that you do have the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence, as another poster said, there is the matter of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

i was episcopalian/anglican and could not understand why i was not able to participate, but once i went through the conversion process, i did understand that there was a lot i needed to learn about what it meant to be Catholic and i had to do my first confession.
then i was properly received into the church with a ceremony. i met with the woman who did the RCIA on a one on one basis for about 6 weeks. if you are coming from an anglican background, and have already been baptized and confirmed in the anglican faith, they will usually try to get you through pretty quickly.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, I understand what you are saying; thinking one had validity, whereas in Truth one did not, would suggest there might be some fundamental misunderstanding of validity. Or perhaps that some unknowable element in human terms had not been fulfilled would be another possibility, and this could somehow be divinely revealed.

All of this assumes, a priori, though, that the Truth is indeed known, which I think is the sticking point. Perhaps if Pope Leo had just given a statement of fact without giving any reasons it would be more convincing, even to me as a non-Catholic, but his reasoning is a bit…suspect. If applied equally to Catholic ordinations and Orthodox ordinations it would give results the Church would not be happy with I think. Could he be giving bad reasons for something that was true, without relation to the reasons? Well, clearly people do this all the time so it can happen. I find though, that in this situation it doesn’t help to convince me that Rome is indeed infallible, but rather it makes me question the whole possibility. And if it isn’t infallible, then my a priori knowledge of the Truth of Anglican validity doesn’t exist, and I have to rely on his actual arguments.

I have read Pope Leo’s document, and I see nothing problematic about it. Neither does the Church. It has been upheld time and again, and has never been questioned by the Church–although individual persons have questioned it, the Church has not.

We have to put the issue of the invalidity of Anglican orders back into context. The reason why this is so important is because Pope John Paul II further explained the meaning of canon 844 when he made it clear that a part of the belief in the Eucharist which the person must exhibit before being admitted to Communion in those extreme circumstances, is a belief in the necessity of valid priestly ordination for the Eucharist to occur. The Pope was explaining to us that it is not sufficient that a person believe in the Eucharist as such, but must also believe in valid ordination (a necessary prerequisite for the Eucharist, as we all know). He further said that this condition cannot be dispensed.

What Pope John Paul II taught is that the truth of valid ordination must be both known and believed before a non-Catholic can be admitted to receive Communion. That’s what makes this subtopic here so important.

 

[Bluegoat]

I have read Pope Leo’s document, and I see nothing problematic about it. Neither does the Church. It has been upheld time and again, and has never been questioned by the Church–although individual persons have questioned it, the Church has not.

We have to put the issue of the invalidity of Anglican orders back into context. The reason why this is so important is because Pope John Paul II further explained the meaning of canon 844 when he made it clear that a part of the belief in the Eucharist which the person must exhibit before being admitted to Communion in those extreme circumstances, is a belief in the necessity of valid priestly ordination for the Eucharist to occur. The Pope was explaining to us that it is not sufficient that a person believe in the Eucharist as such, but must also believe in valid ordination (a necessary prerequisite for the Eucharist, as we all know). He further said that this condition cannot be dispensed.

What Pope John Paul II taught is that the truth of valid ordination must be both known and believed before a non-Catholic can be admitted to receive Communion. That’s what makes this subtopic here so important.

Yes, I certainly agree that an Anglican could not really be given communion in a Catholic Church - that’s not my beef at all. It applies to pretty much any schismatics really, even the Orthodox, (not that I am saying the Orthodox are schismatics, Orthodox lurkers!) since I think it could further be argued that one needs to accept the authority of the Pope, as the Pope understands it. I suppose the only way one could get around it would be to claim to accept that while also being in schism - difficult, though perhaps not impossible, there are such people out there.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, I certainly agree that an Anglican could not really be given communion in a Catholic Church - that’s not my beef at all. It applies to pretty much any schismatics really, even the Orthodox, (not that I am saying the Orthodox are schismatics, Orthodox lurkers!) since I think it could further be argued that one needs to accept the authority of the Pope, as the Pope understands it. I suppose the only way one could get around it would be to claim to accept that while also being in schism - difficult, though perhaps not impossible, there are such people out there.

Curiously enough, there’s no requirement that a non-Catholic (an Anglican to keep the example) accept the doctrines of the Church (ie belief in the Church) in order to receive Communion in these unusual circumstances. At what point do we draw the line? How much belief in the Eucharist and the Church is necessary? Can one truly believe in the Eucharist while maintaining contrary beliefs about the Church? I don’t know that it’s possible to answer these questions. But what I do know is that JPII explicitly said that one of the conditions is a belief in the necessity of a valid priesthood. That’s not a complete description of the requirements, but nevertheless it is a requirement which can never be waived. And if one believes that an invalid ordination is valid, that requirement can’t be met.

I must agree that there seems to be a enigma here because anyone who actually meets the requirements of canon 844 would be the same kind of person who would ask to be received into the Church. It seems to be that the Church is permitting something to happen, but it’s all but impossible for the conditions to be met. I’ve always been puzzled by this.

 

[Bluegoat]

Curiously enough, there’s no requirement that a non-Catholic (an Anglican to keep the example) accept the doctrines of the Church (ie belief in the Church) in order to receive Communion in these unusual circumstances. At what point do we draw the line? How much belief in the Eucharist and the Church is necessary? Can one truly believe in the Eucharist while maintaining contrary beliefs about the Church? I don’t know that it’s possible to answer these questions. But what I do know is that JPII explicitly said that one of the conditions is a belief in the necessity of a valid priesthood. That’s not a complete description of the requirements, but nevertheless it is a requirement which can never be waived. And if one believes that an invalid ordination is valid, that requirement can’t be met.

I must agree that there seems to be a enigma here because anyone who actually meets the requirements of canon 844 would be the same kind of person who would ask to be received into the Church. It seems to be that the Church is permitting something to happen, but it’s all but impossible for the conditions to be met. I’ve always been puzzled by this.

It would have to be a similar situation with regard to validity to the view Catholics have of the Orthodox? Since they think Orthodox have valid holy orders, and if we imagine that the Orthodox felt the same way about Catholics, then perhaps there would be some possibility of fulfilling that requirement. So perhaps theoretically it is possible, and who knows, such a group might appear. Or maybe some of those Catholic groups that have split off would even fall under that way of thinking?

I am not convinced, however, about the reasons proposed for the non-validity of Anglican orders. If it was simply stated to somehow be divinely revealed, well, I suppose such a thing is possible. But since the requirements as stated don’t seem to be the same as those for Catholic or Orthodox validity, it seems to me like some kind of doublespeak, or an attempt to justify an earlier political decision. Presumable the requirements would be the same for all - if not, it seems to me there is need of an explanation of why not.

 

[FrDavid96]

It would have to be a similar situation with regard to validity to the view Catholics have of the Orthodox? Since they think Orthodox have valid holy orders, and if we imagine that the Orthodox felt the same way about Catholics, then perhaps there would be some possibility of fulfilling that requirement. So perhaps theoretically it is possible, and who knows, such a group might appear. Or maybe some of those Catholic groups that have split off would even fall under that way of thinking?

That’s why there are 2 different canonical standards for giving Communion to the Orthodox vs. to Protestants. Because there are 2 different realities: valid orders vs. invalid orders.

I am not convinced, however, about the reasons proposed for the non-validity of Anglican orders. If it was simply stated to somehow be divinely revealed, well, I suppose such a thing is possible. But since the requirements as stated don’t seem to be the same as those for Catholic or Orthodox validity, it seems to me like some kind of doublespeak, or an attempt to justify an earlier political decision. Presumable the requirements would be the same for all - if not, it seems to me there is need of an explanation of why not.

The Church is convinced.

Anglicanism under Elizabeth I and Edward (can’t remember his number I’m going from memory) rejected the truths of the priesthood. The Anglican bishops had the expressed intention of “ordaining” candidates to an office that was very specifically “not-the-priesthood.” Catholics and/or Orthodox have never had that problem.

Once those validly ordained Anglican bishops “ordained” new priests & bishops to be “not-priests” and “not-bishops” Apostolic succession was lost.

Pope Leo explains all this.

 

[benedictgal]

It would have to be a similar situation with regard to validity to the view Catholics have of the Orthodox? Since they think Orthodox have valid holy orders, and if we imagine that the Orthodox felt the same way about Catholics, then perhaps there would be some possibility of fulfilling that requirement. So perhaps theoretically it is possible, and who knows, such a group might appear. Or maybe some of those Catholic groups that have split off would even fall under that way of thinking?

I am not convinced, however, about the reasons proposed for the non-validity of Anglican orders. If it was simply stated to somehow be divinely revealed, well, I suppose such a thing is possible. But since the requirements as stated don’t seem to be the same as those for Catholic or Orthodox validity, it seems to me like some kind of doublespeak, or an attempt to justify an earlier political decision. Presumable the requirements would be the same for all - if not, it seems to me there is need of an explanation of why not.

With all due respect, as a member of the Anglican ecclesial community, you would be convinced because that is what your ecclesial community teaches. It is not the Truth, as the Catholic Church sees it. Perhaps you should read Dominus Iesus. You can find the link here:

adoremus.org/910-00DomJesus.html

This section of the document, written by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when he served as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is the most telling:

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity rooted in the apostolic succession (53) between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: ‘This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him (54). With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth (55), that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church (56). But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (57).

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him (58). The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches (59). Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church (60).

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery (61), are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church (62). Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church (63).

The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection divided, yet in some way one of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach (64). In fact, the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities (65). Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (66).

What I highlighted in red, bold-faced type, specifically applies to the Anglican ecclesial community and all other Protestant ecclesial communities.

 

[Bluegoat]

Anglicanism under Elizabeth I and Edward (can’t remember his number I’m going from memory) rejected the truths of the priesthood. The Anglican bishops had the expressed intention of “ordaining” candidates to an office that was very specifically “not-the-priesthood.” Catholics and/or Orthodox have never had that problem.

Once those validly ordained Anglican bishops “ordained” new priests & bishops to be “not-priests” and “not-bishops” Apostolic succession was lost.

Pope Leo explains all this.

Pope Leo is on very shaky historical ground there, unless he has some kind of special knowledge the rest of the world doesn’t share.

 

[Bluegoat]

With all due respect, as a member of the Anglican ecclesial community, you would be convinced because that is what your ecclesial community teaches. It is not the Truth, as the Catholic Church sees it. Perhaps you should read Dominus Iesus. You can find the link here:

Has it occurred to you that some people become members of a church BECAUSE they think it’s arguments are persuasive, rather than simply accepting whatever is said by that organization? Obedience is an important virtue, but one can only be obedient having discerned a valid authority to be obedient to.

I don’t believe it because it is what the Anglican church tells me. I was not born an Anglican, I became one, on purpose, and much consideration of the other possibilities. Had I found the arguments against Anglican orders convincing, then I would have looked elsewhere.

I tend to presume Catholics find the Catholic claims to truth convincing or take them on authority because they have discerned that it is a valid authority. However, the number of times I notice people saying that others should accept the CCs authority to establish the validity of it’s authority is really quite astonishing.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
I tend to presume Catholics find the Catholic claims to truth convincing or take them on authority because they have discerned that it is a valid authority. However, the number of times I notice people saying that others should accept the CCs authority to establish the validity of it’s authority is really quite astonishing.

Since the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and the Anglican community was founded by Henry VIII in opposition to the Church founded by Christ, it seems that the one which has the responsibility to justify its own authority and more imporantly its validity would be Anglicanism.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Pope Leo is on very shaky historical ground there, unless he has some kind of special knowledge the rest of the world doesn’t share.

As I recall, he based that on the historical documentation of the rite of ordination as used in those cases - I think it is called the Edwardline Ordinal [circa 1552]. I doubt that is unavailable to anyone who seeks it. I think it was corrected in 1662; an admission that ordination had been invalid for about 110 years.

 

[Bluegoat]

As I recall, he based that on the historical documentation of the rite of ordination as used in those cases - I think it is called the Edwardline Ordinal [circa 1552]. I doubt that is unavailable to anyone who seeks it. I think it was corrected in 1662; an admission that ordination had been invalid for about 110 years.

That is indeed part of his argument.

The problem with this is that there have been times in the history of the RC church where the ordination rite was similarly lacking. This, however, is not considered to be a problem from the point of RC ordinations under those conditions. There are perfectly good reasons for not considering this to be a problem - it relates to the intent of the whole operation - but it comes down essentially to assuming the intent in the RC ordinations was good, and assuming the intent in the Anglican ordinations is bad. (Intent, as with criminal intent, is always internal, so impossible to know for sure, especially without some external indication.) Normal practice is to assume intent is good unless there is specific reason to believe otherwise. It also doesn’t matter if the nature of the action is not fully understood or even improperly conceived by the individuals in question, so long as their intent is to do what the Church has always done.
A comparison would be with consecration of the Eucharist - it isn’t an impediment if the priest does not fully understand the doctrine of transubstantiation, or even has a misunderstanding of it, as long as he intends to do what has always been done in the Church.

So the question would be - why is intent assumed to be good for RC ordinations, even if the form is imperfect, but not for the Anglican ordinations of the that period under the same kind of circumstances? When I said Pope Leo was on difficult historical ground, I meant that there is no evidence that their intend was deformed in the way it would need to be to make the ordinations invalid.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is indeed part of his argument.

The problem with this is that there have been times in the history of the RC church where the ordination rite was similarly lacking. This, however, is not considered to be a problem from the point of RC ordinations under those conditions. There are perfectly good reasons for not considering this to be a problem - it relates to the intent of the whole operation - but it comes down essentially to assuming the intent in the RC ordinations was good, and assuming the intent in the Anglican ordinations is bad. (Intent, as with criminal intent, is always internal, so impossible to know for sure, especially without some external indication.) Normal practice is to assume intent is good unless there is specific reason to believe otherwise. It also doesn’t matter if the nature of the action is not fully understood or even improperly conceived by the individuals in question, so long as their intent is to do what the Church has always done.
A comparison would be with consecration of the Eucharist - it isn’t an impediment if the priest does not fully understand the doctrine of transubstantiation, or even has a misunderstanding of it, as long as he intends to do what has always been done in the Church.

So the question would be - why is intent assumed to be good for RC ordinations, even if the form is imperfect, but not for the Anglican ordinations of the that period under the same kind of circumstances? When I said Pope Leo was on difficult historical ground, I meant that there is no evidence that their intend was deformed in the way it would need to be to make the ordinations invalid.

Once again, Pope Leo addressed this very issue in his letter.

1. It is important to bear in mind that this judgment was in no wise determined by the omission of the tradition of instruments, for in such a case, according to the established custom, the direction would have been to repeat the ordination conditionally, and still more important is it to note that the judgment of the pontiff applies universally to all Anglican ordinations, because, although it refers to a particular case, it is not based upon any reason special to that case, but upon the defect of form, which defect equally affects all these ordinations, so much so, that when similar cases subsequently came up for decision, the same decree of Clement XI was quoted as the norm.
2. Hence it must be clear to everyone that the controversy lately revived had already been definitely settled by the Apostolic See, and that it is to the insufficient knowledge of these documents that we must, perhaps, attribute the fact that any Catholic writer should have considered it still an open question.
3. But, as we stated at the beginning, there is nothing we so deeply and ardently desire as to be of help to men of good will by showing them the greatest consideration and charity. Wherefore, we ordered that the Anglican Ordinal, which is the essential point of the whole matter, should be once more most carefully examined.
4. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the “matter and form”. All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter and form”, it still pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form”. And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Order, the “matter” of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confiirmation.
5. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
6. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
7. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. **From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That “form” consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify. **

 

[Bluegoat]

Once again, Pope Leo addressed this very issue in his letter.

1. It is important to bear in mind that this judgment was in no wise determined by the omission of the tradition of instruments, for in such a case, according to the established custom, the direction would have been to repeat the ordination conditionally, and still more important is it to note that the judgment of the pontiff applies universally to all Anglican ordinations, because, although it refers to a particular case, it is not based upon any reason special to that case, but upon the defect of form, which defect equally affects all these ordinations, so much so, that when similar cases subsequently came up for decision, the same decree of Clement XI was quoted as the norm.
2. Hence it must be clear to everyone that the controversy lately revived had already been definitely settled by the Apostolic See, and that it is to the insufficient knowledge of these documents that we must, perhaps, attribute the fact that any Catholic writer should have considered it still an open question.
3. But, as we stated at the beginning, there is nothing we so deeply and ardently desire as to be of help to men of good will by showing them the greatest consideration and charity. Wherefore, we ordered that the Anglican Ordinal, which is the essential point of the whole matter, should be once more most carefully examined.
4. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the “matter and form”. All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter and form”, it still pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form”. And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Order, the “matter” of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confiirmation.
5. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
6. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
7. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. **From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That “form” consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify. **

If what he has said is correct, would it not equally apply to any Catholic or Orthodox situation? If so, I don’t see how it can be convincing.

 

[FrDavid96]

If what he has said is correct, would it not equally apply to any Catholic or Orthodox situation? If so, I don’t see how it can be convincing.

No, it would not apply to any Catholic or Orthodox situation.

It couldn’t possibly apply. The Church has never denied the office of the priesthood, as Anglicans certainly have done.

 

[Bluegoat]

No, it would not apply to any Catholic or Orthodox situation.

It couldn’t possibly apply. The Church has never denied the office of the priesthood, as Anglicans certainly have done.

What I meant, was would not the same criteria also apply to any of their ordinations? You can’t have it both ways - judging RC or OC ordinations on one basis, and Anglican ones on another, without simply making a mockery of the criteria in the first place.

There have been individual Anglicans who said all kinds of things about the priesthood, as have individual Catholics. However, the understanding of the Anglican Church did not change in the years under discussion. Among those who discussed such questions, which were certainly vigorous, the goal was to ascertain the Truth of what the Church did, not to somehow change it. That is, those individuals were looking to see if the Church had come to misunderstand the priesthood - the ultimate conclusion was that they did not, that Tradition was to be upheld as it was intact. There was never an attempt to change whatever it was that God had done.