Not merely politics, but all that stew together. Main point: the judgement on Anglican orders, in Apostolicae curae, is based on an intertwined judgement of sacramental form (in the ordinal) and sacramental intent.
Here’s a start. One of the last times I addressed this point here, slightly changed. I now quote me:
For a number of reasons, which normally are not considered in discussions in venues like this, in 1896, Pope Leo XIII issued an Apostolic Letter, Apostolicae curae, which made a number of assertions and judgements on Anglican orders, summed up by saying that they were absolutely null and utterly void. Hence Anglicans cannot confect such sacraments as require apostolic succession and valid orders. This judgement should be affirmed by all RCs, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Anglicans are open to a wider variety of reactions.
The sad and lengthy story of the subject is woven from many strands: historical, political, personal and theological. What I deal with is the theological, in such places as this. The judgment on Anglican orders in AC was based upon a supposed invalidity of two elements required for a valid sacrament: an intertwined consideration of sacramental form and sacramental intent. Each was judged as invalid, but each has to be considered in conjunction with the other to reach that conclusion. Technical details are involved: the invalid form was judged invalid for its failure to name the specific office to which the subject was being raised, and to note the full sacerdotal power of that office (i.e. to confect the sacrifice of the Eucharist). The form of the rite in question was found in the Edwardine Ordinal, which was used from around 1549, and replaced the Pontifical still used in Henry’s day, It was not unique in not naming the specific order to be conveyed, or its specific authority. Other rites that did not do so were considered by Rome to adequately convey valid orders. But it was not the fact that those elements were absent from the Edwardine ordinal, but that they were (apparently) deliberately suppressed, that made the form invalid, in Rome’s eyes.
The ordinal itself does not reflect sacramental intent, which inheres in the sacramental minister, in a particular sacramental action. As Apostolicae curae notes, this is normally considered an internal situation not accessible to judgement. If all other sacramental factors are normal; that is, valid in themselves, the sacramental intent is also considered to meet the standard for validity, to intend to do what the Church does (facere quod facit ecclesia, in that sacramental action. However, if there is some sacramental factor that might be used as an indicator of the internal intent of the minister, this might be considered as a means to permit a determinatio ex adiunctus of the sacramental intent. In* Apostolicae curae*, this was judged to be the use of the invalid form of the Ordinal, in the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559. ++Parker is a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopate.Hence if he was invalidly consecrated, apostolic succession is broken.
It is, in fact, not obvious just whose sacramental intent is meant, in Apostolicae curae, but the intent of the consecrators of ++Parker is taken as the correct interpretation. The work of (then Jesuit priest ) Francis Clark, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best exposition on this point. For the best understanding of the entire mess, I always recommend Fr. John J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, which concentrates on the personal, historical and political points, and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, which concentrates on the theological. Other titles are also available.
Much historical detail and other interesting minutia are passed over here, though, heaven knows, I’ve not always been so reticent. Possibly there are more questions.
After I smoke a pipe. The subject is long, tangled, and sad.
GKC
great explanation…i think the key word misses (even me) is “deliberately suppressed”…can you explain this further?