In general, I think you are looking for too simple a theory of the validity of a sacrament. I can’t help thinking there’s a false premise underlying each of your general questions.
- Why can a priest in a state of mortal sin still perform valid sacraments, but the holy orders establishing the line of Anglican priests are invalid that were performed by Catholic bishops, who no longer had valid authority? At what point did all of the sacraments these priests were performing become invalid?
I can suggest that you look at
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP_Q38_A2.html to see how St. Thomas tackles this question. Warning: it’s very confusing.
As I understand it, God does in fact work in the sacraments whenever there is an
intention to confer the sacrament (note, this is not the same as a perfect rightness of intention in every way) and the matter of the sacrament is handled in the prescribed manner. However, what fruit that sacrament bears–what grace, what merits resulting from faithful receipt of that grace–and what role the minister of the sacrament plays in that process of grace being conferred does vary by the relationship of the minister and recipient to Christ and His Church.
So, for an example which is not intended to represent the case of the Anglicans (I’m thinking of the Donatist controversy, actually), an heretical bishop who is cut off from the Church but still ordains other bishops or ordinary priests according to the proper form actually does ordain them. If he makes up his own form, they are not ordained. If he follows the form, but is only giving an example, no one gets ordained. But if he actually does ordain them, they’re ordained.
BUT then there’s the question of whether the grace that should be conferred with the ordination actually has been, or whether it has been received without having full effect, as the Baptism of someone who chooses to live in mortal sin, for example, might be. And surely in the case of someone who is ordained by an heretical bishop, and serves in the following of that heretical bishop, we can see that the grace of ordination is being defeated, in some severe ways. In the heretical bishop, it is being defeated along with all other grace, as he continues to commit mortal sins in his pursuit of his schismatical ministry (though we know we can hope for his repentance and Reconciliation, which will likely include some measure of acceptance of his being deposed, though in fact not every heretic who finally “gets it” has been deposed). In the priest serving the heretical bishop, it is being defeated as long as that priest fails, and leads his flock in failing, to seek their proper unity with the Church and the fulness of Christ. So that in order to make his ordination less self-defeating, the one who receives holy orders from the heretical bishop must seek full communion with the Church.
I suspect that the exact terms on which Anglican clergy relate to the Church’s ministers is subject to some pretty complicated liturgical, historical, and canonical analysis; I’m too new to this, and too little specialized in my knowledge, to help you untangle that. I do know that the Church actually does receive convert Anglican clergy as clergy, and even accommodates their rite, because of that complex history (and to make it easier to heal the schism and gain the unity of the Church). At the same time, there is somewhat lacking in the Anglican form (principally that unity with “all the bishops,” and “the bishop of Rome” that we hear mentioned in the Mass) which prevents us from believing that an Anglican communion is more than “in measure like” the true Eucharist.
Hope that helps. I’m sure someone else can help you more.
