Invalidating Intent

How the Intent of the Anglican Minister Invalidates the Proper Intent of the Sacrament

First I would like to begin by saying this is not an attack on the Anglican tradition as a whole. Within Anglicanism there are many traditions. And some neither hold to, nor care for, apostolic succession. According to Bishop George Cummins of the Reformed Episcopal Church,

the Episcopate is not of apostolic origin; that the Bishop is only primus inter pares, and not in any way superior in order to the Presbyter. We are acting on this principle. We set apart a Bishop to his work by a joint laying on of hands of a Bishop and the presbyters. I act as a Bishop, not claiming a jure divino right, or to be in any Apostolic Succession, but only as one chosen of his brethren to have the oversight. If others look upon me as retaining the succession, that does not commit us to their understanding [1]

Anglicans could, in theory, come to the same conclusion held by the Roman Catholic Church, and yet, still retain some form of their own tradition.

However, for Roman Catholics and Anglicans who see themselves within a broader Catholic tradition, interested in going into the issue, I recently had a debate on the subject with my friend James, a vicar in the Anglican church. It can be found here (with music) and here (without). Our debate was done with good spirit and I would like to thank James for bringing this issue to my attention, and for introducing me to the best Anglican apologia on this subject. What I will do here is present my argument in full, unopposed, and without the restraint of time. It is not in poor sportsmanship that I do it in written form, but out of a desire to say much more than I could have within a debate context.

Some History

The first thing I will note is that while it was the papal bull Apostolicae Curae that closed the issue of Anglican orders for Catholics as “absolutely null and utterly void” there was Catholic opposition to the notion and even debate proceeding 1896 in North America which Kenneth L. Parker and Daniel Handschy believe ultimately affected the discourse later on. The most notable American opponent being Archbishop Peter Kenrick writing against it over 50 years earlier [2].

Kenrick cannot be accused of being a blind follower of papal teaching, he regarded the issue as not one of infallible Catholic doctrine and wrote on the issue before Apostolicae Curae. In fact, he was no friend to Papal Supremacy and was an opponent of it during the First Vatican Council [3].

I will not touch too much on Archbishop Kenrick’s work, other than to say it was an issue long discussed among Catholic and nothing novel at the time of Apostolicae Curae. What I will say is that his criticisms of the form of the Edwardian Ordinal deserve some consideration, but from what Parker and Handschy claim, his criticisms of Parker’s consecration are as convincing as “the historicity of the translation of the holy house from Nazareth to Loreto” [4].

The Argument

First I would like to present my thesis brought up in our debate, and then go into detail addressing James’ points either brought up in our exchange or his work From Generation to Generation: The Validity of Holy Orders within Anglicanism. My argument can be formulated in the following syllogistic manner,

1 — If the form is changed with the intent of willing contrary to what the church does, then the sacrament is invalid

2 — The form in the new ordinals — the original and in its subsequent editions — was changed with the intent of willing contrary to what the church does.

C— the new ordinals were rendered invalid.

Note that my argument does not fully hinge on the issue of form, it only does so in part. While both Anglicans and Catholics agree that the form of the subsequent ordinals has changed, Anglicans deny this is sufficient to warrant any loss of succession. However, according to Apostolicae Curae, when

inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament [5]

Here we have to judge what warrants “in so far as it is manifested externally”. When something manifests externally we can look at the evidence behind the action. The example I used in my debate with James hinged on the Mormon church and baptism as a comparable case, but it is not the only one. This I will get to later, but first I wish to go over the four necessary elements of any sacrament.

Four Elements

1. A valid minister: for baptism, anyone is a potentially valid minister. For providing Holy Orders, only a valid bishop will do. As a side note, we use three bishops to ensure that the link is not broken.

2. The proper matter: for baptism, water is needed. For ordination, the laying on of hands is needed.

3. The proper form: for baptism: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. For ordination, it would be adherence to the designated prayers of consecration. Ordination does not have a strident formula as baptism does (this was given by Christ), but I will touch on it later.

4. The proper intent: The act of doing what the church does. In Baptism we intend on bringing someone into the church. In ordination, we intend on initiating someone into the church. In ordination, we intend on making someone a deacon, priest, or bishop, and their relevant powers, such as forgiving sins, and the power to offer sacrifice.

Invalid Intent

When it comes to an invalidating intent, we must first look to an erroneous view concerning what proper intent consisted of, which was confronted by the Church, and rejected. In the past, there were canonists such as Ambrosius Catharinus who held that “the material performance of the external rite, when it is performed freely, seriously, and without any jest,” suffices for the validity of the sacrament, even if the minister has a contrary interior intention. Now, the church has rejected this theory, but even it leaves in enough room to doubt “external intentions” [6]. Such a position is false according to Mirus citing the following case examples,

Pope St. Cornelius, in the year 251, said concerning Novatian: “He, by a certain imperfect and vain imposition of hands, tried to transmit the episcopacy to himself by force.” Firmilian of Caesarea, in the year 256, rejected the Baptism conferred by those obsessed. [An obsessed person is one whose body is physically controlled by a demon. It is unclear whether the term is here being used technically, or whether it refers to possession as well.] Nor can one hold up in objection the fact of the little children [or slaves: pueruli] baptized in play by St. Athanasius while he was still a boy, concerning whom Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, judged after an examination that they should not be rebaptized. For these baptisms were not deemed valid, unless because there appeared the sincere and true intention of baptizing.

It is because of these reasons that one must look beyond the mere performance and see the surrounding context to discern if the proper intent is there, otherwise, we’d be stuck with actors who baptize infants as validly baptizing because they’re trying to imitate a priest. James seems at first to buy into the Catharian notion of intent and poses the following issues, although not knowingly. However, because he qualifies his position with one sentence, he avoids falling into that error. He is correct when he says the following,

Any argument that focuses upon internal intent cannot be seriously considered without extreme qualification; certainly not by itself. An internal intention could be applied to any person in history who has the inconvenience of not being of your fancy. Furthermore, when one can point to serious sin or heresy committed by said person of history, the problem multiplies ad nauseum [7]

We must first understand that it is not just internal intent on its own that we need to consider, but also, to use the words of Pope Leo XIII, we are considering it “in so far as it is manifested externally”. To deny that the public exhibition of claims contrary to the proper intent of the sacraments count, then one would fall into Catharinus’ error. If you would not trust a priest who publically announces “every baptism I do today will be only performed as a mere example for other priests throughout the day”, we should not do the same with divines who swear affirmations to carrying out rites at odds with the church’s actions in her rites.

James brings up the following issue with intent manifested externally.

For entire generations, bishoprics were treated as little more than ways to enrich oneself and were bought and sold accordingly, especially after the fall of the Carolingian empire . One could easily claim that such heresy pointed to carnal intentions in the 20 minds of those who bought and sold ecclesiastical offices, and therefore invalidated all lines of Succession from which those lines proceed. But this sort of thinking would invalidate all Orders that they touched, and it seems that there would no longer be valid Orders left in all of Christendom, certainly the Western half. If this is the result of one (albeit prevalent) heresy, imagine putting all internal intentions on trial in such a way!

The issue that is neglected in this counterexample is that not only does it disregard the fact the heresy and its heretical intent have to be held alongside one’s will to do as the church does, but must be done for the sake of excluding what the church does. While greed and personal enrichment for the office are exhibited in the intention of the practitioner of simony, such an intention is not in contradiction to any essential component to what a priest or bishop is by nature, namely a sacrificing priest (see addendum at bottom for further citation).***

To quote Gaine,

while error does not exclude the intention to do what the Church does on the part of the minister of a sacrament, an intention against something of the substance of the sacrament does so exclude, and this is the essence of ‘defect of sacramental intention’ [8]

Gaine chronicles the precedence of this principle at play when considering the invalidity of marriage according to antecedent cases by the distinguished canonist Mgr. Pietro Gasparri

In the case of orders, however, does a denial of the essential truth of the sacrament fatally undermine the general intention of doing what the Church does? The question is of course relevant to all the sacraments, and once more Gasparri turns to the reaching and practice of the Church for illumination. He invokes the example of baptism where warning is given beforehand that there will be no internal effect in the soul, the very same example De Augustinis had used in favour of the validity of Anglican orders. The answer is, of course, that their error did not exclude the intention of doing what the Church does. Likewise, on the question of the marriage of a Jew who accepts the reality of dissolution, he quotes Innocent III, and on the marriage of Calvinists Benedict XIV, both upholding the validity of such marriages despite erroneous belief concerning indissolubility. Gasparri concludes: ‘[A]ccording to the doctrine and the practice of the Church, even when heresy contradicts the essence of the sacrament it does not necessarily exclude the intention of doing what the Church does.’ He explains that intention is an act of will and that the correct intention can exist quite happily in the soul of the heretical minister who for example may give no thought to his heresies while administering the sacrament. Even if he thinks erroneously about his heresy at the time (for example, while baptising, thinking that baptism has no interior effect), this belief can happily co-exist with the intention to do what the Church does, this intention being in no way affected or undermined by the heresy. He quotes Benedict XIV on marriage to the effect that the general will carries more ‘weight’ than the private error. Consequently the administration of the sacrament is directed solely by the intention to do what the Church does and not by the concomitant heresy which in no way affects the will, remaining an error rather than being the minister’s intention [9]

When one expresses a positive will contrary to the intentions of a sacrament, for instance, undergoing a marriage for the sake of rendering it dissoluble, one is acting contrary to something of substance within it. However, when one merely and in error holds that marriage is dissolvable, as Protestants and other non-Catholics tend to do, it can still co-exist with, but it does not contradict, the intent of the will.

While Mgr. Pietro Gasparri was in doubt over whether the introduction of the new ordinal did introduce a contrary will, I will save that issue for later. For now, it seems evident why a positive will to the contrary can invalidate a sacrament and how the example from simony does not hold water since the intent was not manifestly contrary to the essence of the sacrament.

Mormon Baptism, a Secondary Example.

Mormon baptisms would be another example of when baptism would be invalid since they deny the substantive newness of Christ’s baptism, which is what makes it different from John’s. Putting aside questions concerning lack of Trinitarianism, we read,

The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110–111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the “priest” (cf. D&C 20:38–58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3–11; Col 2,12–13). [10]

The proper intent of the minister is a hard thing to understand, but we must remember what qualifies as a failure of proper intent. There is intent on doing what the church does and intending what the church intends. Unlike Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans; Calvinists, Zwinglians, and Baptists deny baptism brings out regeneration and causes the remission of sins. Yet, Catholics would accept such baptism as valid. Why? Since they are still in agreement with us about what they are doing, namely bringing people into the church, such a baptism is still valid. It is not about intending on bringing out the same effects, or about intending as the church intends, but on intending as the church does. Mormons not only deny the effects of baptism but the newness of it which is essential to its nature as an institution of the New Covenant.

The Final Justification

The reason one cannot have a positive will contrary to the essential nature of intending the sacrament is the law of non-contradiction. If Kyle jumps in the air, and I have a will to act as Kyle acts, I cannot at the same time have a positive will to not bend my knees. If I also seek to ordain as Christ ordains, then I cannot will something contrary to that at the same time. While the particular case studies may be ignored by Anglicans, this basic principle cannot since it is grounded in natural reasoning.

One response to this is to say this line of reasoning renders the certitude of the sacrament invalid, I turn to Mirus who writes,

Concerning the validity of the sacraments one can have moral certitude, which suffices for acting prudently, and for dispelling anxieties of spirit. Thus Leo XIII: “When someone seriously and according to the ritual adheres to the due matter and form for confecting and conferring a sacrament, from this fact [considered according to the common manner in which men act] it may be inferred that he undoubtedly intends (with an internal intention) to do what the Church does.” For indeed, if there be any such, they are extremely rarely found, who have such malice that while they perform the sacrament with serious exterior, they internally withhold the intention; and in such a case, the truth of the opinion of Catharinus would profit little, since a minister as perverse as this could most likely secretly falsify the matter and form of the sacrament.

But in fact Christ provided thus far for the hierarchy, promising the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest the Church ever fail [11]

This also effectively answers James’ objection when he writes,

Aside from that, there is also the fact that inner intentions can never be truly known, especially at the moment of consecration [12]

James makes a further response.

James also writes,

this judgment of inner intent parallels the heresy of Donatism, the belief that the personal sin of one conferring a Sacrament negates what otherwise would have been given.

The issue here is that Donatism concerns only the character of the minister himself, not the will and intentions of the minister. The minister providing proper intent is just as vital to the sacrament as him providing the right matter. If the minister of baptism utilized Pepsi Crystal diluted somewhat with water, without the parent's knowledge, while he is no doubt of bad character, it is the improper matter invalidates the baptism. Same with the improper intention of the minister. While the bad character is a factor, it is not the invalidating factor.

Having addressed the criticism, provided the example from Mormon baptism, from the hypothetical of an actor baptizing a child, and the argument from an invalidating contrary will, I believe the conditional first premise has been fulfilled.

How a Change in Form is Evidence of a Contrary Intent

There is no doubt that the ordinal did change. In the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, we read

RECEIVE the holy goste, whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained: and be thou a faithful despensor of the word of god, and of his holy Sacramentes. In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy gost. Amen [13]

Here, any reference to the priesthood is eliminated and is not put back in until much later in 1662. Even there, what is put back in is not even sufficient to provide an unambiguous statement as to what constitutes the true powers of a priest. Here we read,

Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office, and work of a Priest, in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; And whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithfull dispenser of the word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen [14]

Here, the issue is the words “office” and “committed”, they only entail another ambiguous statement which does not tell the faithful in any unclear terms that the priesthood and all its respective powers are conferred by the Holy Spirit. To commit means “To give in trust; to put into the hands or power of another; to entrust; with to.” Here, the power is already presumed in the power of a recipient. While there is a commitment made to the order involved, it is not sufficient at communicating someone has bestowed a specific power unto you in addition to this.

Now, ambiguity in the text is not in and of itself disqualifying. In fact, James himself brings up how even ancient texts within the church allowed for similar formulas.

According to the liturgy scholar Dom Gregory Dix, in all of the ancient liturgies of the Church, both in the East and West, we see no mention of the office of the priest following the injunction to receive the Holy Spirit. St. Hippolytus of Rome, writing circa AD 215, gives no mention of the sacerdotal office or even of the Sacramental functions of a presbyter or priest . The early eastern liturgies likewise do not carry such a description . In fact, Dix goes through five liturgies ranging from the 3rd century to the 11th, none of which would feasibly pass the test of Apostolicae Curae. More damning, Dix states that no surviving liturgy from the first six centuries of the Church would consistently be approved by Apostolicae Curae: “If the conditions laid down for a valid ‘Form’ of Ordination to the Priesthood in Apostolicae Curae are indeed a necessity sine qua non, then there are now no valid orders anywhere in Catholic Christendom; for all the known forms for the first six centuries and more were as defective in this respect as the Edwardian Ordinals which Apostolicae Curae condemned .” [15]

While these formulas may not have any reference to the power of the Holy Spirit being conferred or don’t reference a particular office, the issue remains that the problem isn’t they are not present, the issue is they were removed. Here, the claim is that such action is evident but not proof, of a contrary intention. St. Hippolytus of Rome, for his silence on the nature of the sacerdotal office, is not removing any reference. It has not been demonstrated he and those in the Anglican communion share the same intent and hold the same theology on the matter.

There are examples where the form is the same, and yet the intent can invalidate one but not the other. To give an example from baptism,

Moralists raise the question of the validity of a baptism in whose administration something else had been added to the prescribed form as “and in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary”. They reply that such baptism would be invalid, if the minister intended thereby to attribute the same efficacy to the added name as to the names of the Three Divine Persons. If, however, it was done through a mistaken piety only, it would not interfere with the validity [16]

Here, the formula used by the two parties — those who intend to attribute an extra-efficiency and those who add a name through mistaken piety — are the same, the invalidating issue here is a difference of intent. The question is, are Anglicans more akin to the former or the latter?

Before weighing the evidence, it is important to point out that within the Catholic development of Canon Law post-1896, it is not only contrary professions that can be evidence of contrary intent, but also actions as well. Citing a case called Coram Civili of the Rota on 9 December 1992, Gaine writes,

This declaration of nullity was made on the grounds of a positive will to exclude children and a positive will to exclude the right to conjugai acts performed in a human manner on the part of the husband. Silvio himself was absent from the trial, but as Civili wrote in his decision, ‘The party’s confession is by no means necessary when the judge is able to achieve that certitude with other means taken from the acts and proofs, which he is to weigh in his conscience.’ In cases such as this one, such ‘other means’ may be ‘presumptions in conjecturing from known and determined facts immediately after the celebration of the wedding’. These determined facts, taken very largely from Zilma’s testimony (which was for good reason taken as reliable) included Silvio’s failure to consummate the marriage in a human way, instead breaking Zilma’s hymenal membrane on the edge of her bed and demanding anal and oral sex, which Zilma for her part attempted to resist. It is from the establishment of these facts by such testimony. That Civili deduced presumptions from which he reached certainty that the marriage was null and void. These presumptions were that Silvio had a positive act of will to exclude the right to sexual relations in a human manner and a positive act of will to exclude children [17]

If such developments have taken place, Catholics must wrestle with them when assessing Anglican Orders today. Anglicans themselves should also consider whether these actions should be taken into account if they were assessing a case of annulment and apply the principle in terms of the marriage. I think any Anglican of goodwill would, and if so, how would they apply it in the case of assessing orders? For consistency’s sake, this would be well worth looking into.

Even if the case were ruled incorrectly, the point still remains the external actions of those receiving the sacrament and those providing it need to take into account behaviors and affirmations to provide an assessment of intent.

Silvio’s actions, if not disqualifying are at least evidential of an invalidating intent and are not merely internal. A marriage taken for a carnal pretext of sex that always excludes the procreation of children is always invalidating. This is why, in part, so-called same sex 'marriage' is not marriage (albeit by design and not by intention), it cannot in principle admit procreation. Silvio demonstrates, with his action, an intention of doing something at direct odds with what the church does.

Ambiguous Evidence For The Clarity of the Ordinal

When it comes to the 3-fold office, Anglicans are quick to point out that the preface of the 1552 Ordinal would admit the offices of Priest, Deacon, and Bishop. James is no exception, he writes,

Recall in the Preface to the 1552 Ordinal that the desire was to continue the threefold Office: “It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles’ time there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons…And therefore, to the extent these orders should be continued, and reverently used, and esteemed, in this Church of England” [18]

The issue here is that the word “continue” is rather ambiguous and the Catholic historian Michael T. Davies, cites the following from the Catholic Dictionary of Theology,

This ambiguous word could possibly mean “to keep on with an existing practice”, but it also bears the meaning “to take up again; from a point of interruption”, and it was exactly this taking up again from the apostolic age that Cranmer had in view . . . In his Miscellaneous Writings (p. 117) there is a paper he wrote in 1540 where in answer to a question he says: “In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a bishop or a priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture; for election or appointing thereto is sufficient.” He puts the case that in some regions all bishops and priests have died, and says that it is not forbidden by God’s law that the king of that region should make bishops and priests, so that the Word of God should not remain unpreached [19]

If James does not wish to impose authorial intent onto the preface, that is fine, but at best we have an ambiguous passage. James goes on to make the following point,

If that were not enough, the specific rite for Ordaining to the Priesthood is called, “The Ordering of Priests”. Not just with the title: within the two quoted sections alone the explicit mention of the priesthood is given no less than four times. And finally, we see this injunction given at the end, no less than ten seconds after the injunction to receive the Holy Ghost: “Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments in this congregation where thou shalt be so appointed.” Contrary to the claims of Apostolicae Curae, the mention of the Priesthood and the Sacraments is all throughout the 1552 Ordinal [20].

The issue here is we have more ambiguity. While the word ‘priest’ is used, this isn’t enough to suggest such a priest is presumed to be conferred with sacerdotal power. Such a use of the term would be nominal. The number of times it is mention has little importance. Furthermore, the authority of ministering the sacrament does not tell us such a priest has been conferred with such power to consecrate the sacrament either since even in the Catholic church today, extra-ordinary ministers do minister the sacrament, despite not being priests.

Not only are the sacerdotal powers not mentioned in the ordinal, but the distinctiveness of the offices themselves also are not even well attested to. This was a point Apostolicae Curae brought up. There we read,

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 [20].

Now, James takes contention with such a claim and makes the following point,

One contention, given as proof in Apostolicae Curae that the English Reformers desired to change the understanding of Holy Orders, is that the 1552 Ordinal actually took away the words “for the office and work of a priest” found in the pre-Reformation Rites within England; their inheritors then replaced the phrase in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, realizing that it was a defect (as noted above, albeit the reinsertion would have been too late ) The first thing to note is that no positive argument can be made to back up this claim; we do not proclaim any denial of the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood in any of our formularies. As well, if the English Reformers wished to rid themselves of this they clearly would have washed away all traces of such language in the Ordinal, not merely one mention out of many. Finally, Saepius Officio addresses this claim and argues that the reason for the reinsertion had to do with debates with the Presbyterians still within the Church of England who were trying to argue that there was no distinction between a Bishop and a Priest (hence their name). This is likely the case, as the English Civil War had only just ended in the previous decade [21].

I would contest Saepius Officio unknowingly making the point for Apostolicae Curae. Assume it was true that the reason such a change was inserted because of disputes with Presbyterians. If the original ordinal was clear and sufficient, then there would be no reason as to bother including the office. It would have been sufficient to merely point to the preface or some other area if it were clear.

To give an analogy, suppose that I was to give my wife a card for her birthday, and in this card, I wrote her what I thought was a personalized message (remember authorial intent is not the main issue, but what the word means to the common person), or at the very least a message that said something which anyone could not say applied to them. I wrote “one year older, but another year closer to my heart”. Let’s even presume I wrote it with her in mind, but she takes it to be something from any Hallmark Card.

Next year, I decided to write “One year older this December 23rd, but another year where I say the words, ‘I love you’”. At this point, I would have modified it to included her birthday and her love of off-meter and near-rhyme. Now, in performing this act of modification, I might not have admitted I intended on drafting an impersonal message in my previous card, but in changing it in the message of the following birthday card, I’ve at least admitted prior message was too ambiguous for my audience by correcting it for their sake. Similarly, by their actions, the Anglicans have shown the previous ordinal lacked clarity as to provide a distinction of the office which the Presbyterians could take advantage of.

On the Introduction of Heresy in Contradiction to the Nature of the Priest.

The first thing we’re going to need to do is to define which doctrines are incompatible with the office and powers of the priest, and which ones are compatible. I contest that by affirming either one of the following two eucharistic heresies, one has bought into a doctrine at odds with the character of the priesthood,

(1) Denying the objective real presence of Christ.

(2) Denying the element of propitiation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

(3) Denying that Christ is present in the Eucharist at the moment of consecration, but rather at the moment of reception by the faithful.

The hard part about attacking the Anglican Church on the matter of the sacrifice of the Mass is that between the various groups within, the formularies seem to be written to allow for Calvinists who reject the objective real presence and Lutherans who affirm it. However, the fact remains, the articles lean more heavily to the a real presence that is not objective (one which is only present to the faithful, hence it is subjective, but not symbolic).

Now, to reject the objective real presence is not to reject the real presence, Calvin was not a Zwinglian and held that there was a real spiritual presence in the sacrament, but it was only available to those who were of the elect [22]. The issue with such a view — especially when combined with the view that the body is only consecrated by a minister and received by the congregation with faith — is that it makes the sacrament contingent not fully on the power of the priest, as required by doing what the church does, but on having the power to consecrate the sacrament in faith while giving it to a faithful gathering of believers.

This makes sense on a Calvinist system of salvation, since such people are not Christian to begin with, despite either their role as ministers or laity, hiding among the elect. However, for a Catholic or Lutheran, such sacraments work in and of themselves and hence must be objectively present even if all members in that congregation are wicked (priest and laity alike).

While the Anglican may make an appeal to Article 26, the point is still mute. That article deals with only wicked ministers, not one where they co-exist only with wicked laity. In such a case no one is giving anything with Christ’s spiritual presence because no one is there is receive it. If no one is there to receive it, then it is not there and the priest does nothing by virtue of his own power. This is contrary with the power of the priest as understood by the Catholic faith.

Article 28 and Receptionism

According to the 28th article of the 39 Articles of Faith, we read,

The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plains words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance revered, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped [23]

Within the first paragraph, there is an ambiguity, when we read the Eucharist is a “sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same”.

We can read this in one of two ways. Either,

1. To the degree someone properly receiving the bread and wine has faith, that is someone receiving Christ’s death.
2. To the degree someone is morally and properly receiving the bread and wine has faith, they are garnering the salvific benefits of Christ’s death. Otherwise, there is eating unto condemnation.

The former is not compatible with proper intention, but what is compatible would be the latter reading. However, the latter reading becomes less likely as we continue to read. For instance, we read “The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith”. Without faith, there aren’t any means of receiving and eating the Body of Christ. The power of the priest is not sufficient for providing the Body, but it must be received by someone of faith.

One possible objection is that the passage is merely speaking about the proper reception of the sacrament, but that was already addressed in the first paragraph of the article. Mentioning it twice would have been redundant. Furthermore, this passage is descriptive for how someone does partake, it is not prescriptive, or written as a warning for how one ought to receive.

A second more likely response is that the prior sentence “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten” indicates the Body of Christ is already present in the act of giving. The issue here is that there is an ambiguity, is the act of giving simultaneous to the act of the faithful accepting the sacrament, or is it prior? For instance, if I say “Sarah gave birth to Isaac, and Isaac was birthed” the act of giving birth was simultaneous to the first instance of Isaac being birthed. Conversely, if I say “I gave Socrates an offer and he accepted”, whether or not Socrates actually accepts the offer, he was still given it.

Intuitively, we should be more inclined to the first reading. Per the law of non-contradiction, something can be given in two ways; it can potentially be given, or actually be given. Take the offer made to Socrates, I did not actually give Socrates anything until he accepted it (excluding the possibility it was foisted on him, like ‘giving’ someone a black eye). Here the giving is only present as potential in the act of the offer. However, it was actually given when he is taking the money from my hand, or when the transfer was made directly into his bank account from mine.

Now, we have to ask the question, “is the body of Christ actually taken and eaten?”. If not, then God himself has not actualized his sacrament through the power of the priest. If so, then it would seem ad hoc to suggest “giving” is to be taken in the potential sense of being offered, while taking and eating is to be taken in the actual sense.

Since giving, taking, and eating are all active, and it is by faith whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten, then the act of giving is also actual only at that moment whereby the sacrament is given to someone in faith. Unless the body of Christ is stated to be offered, taken, and eaten, then it is more natural to conclude the giving is simultaneous to the act of taking and eating, which in turn are the only means of accepting.

To use an analogous situation, say we are trying to determine whether or not a person is providing his consent to a sale.

The consent is given, taken, and received, in the sale, only when saying “yes”. And the mean whereby the consent is received and taken in the exchange, is the hearing of two witnesses.

Here the consent isn’t actualized until and unless the person is overheard by two witnesses. Even if he assented, it can only be received as consent when it is verbally overhead. Until then such consent was passive.

Article 29 and the Exclusion of Lutheran Eucharistic Theology

Lutheran theology requires that when the wicked eat of the Lord Supper, they eat of it not spiritually, but only physically.

61] There is, therefore, a two-fold eating of the flesh of Christ, one spiritual, of which Christ treats especially John 6:54, which occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith, in the preaching and meditation of the Gospel, as well as in the Lord’s Supper, and by itself is useful and salutary, and necessary at all times for salvation to all Christians; without which spiritual participation also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary, but even injurious and damning [a cause of condemnation].

62] But this spiritual eating is nothing else than faith, namely, to hear God’s Word (wherein Christ, true God and man, is presented to us, together with all benefits which He has purchased for us by His flesh given into death for us, and by His blood shed for us, namely, God’s grace, the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life), to receive it with faith and appropriate it to ourselves, and in all troubles and temptations firmly to rely, with sure confidence and trust, and to abide in the consolation that we have a gracious God, and eternal salvation on account of the Lord Jesus Christ. [He who hears these things related from the Word of God, and in faith receives and applies; them to himself, and relies entirely upon this consolation (that we have God reconciled and life eternal on account of the Mediator, Jesus Christ),-he, I say, who with true confidence rests in the Word of the Gospel in all troubles and temptations, spiritually eats the body of Christ and drinks His blood.]

63] The other eating of the body of Christ is oral or sacramental, when the true, essential body and blood of Christ are also orally received and partaken of in the Holy Supper, by all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine in the Supper-by the believing as a certain pledge and assurance that their sins are surely forgiven them, and Christ dwells and is efficacious in them, but by the unbelieving for their judgment and condemnation,

64] as the words of the institution by Christ expressly declare, when at the table and during the Supper He offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine, which He calls His true body and true blood, at the same time saying: Eat and drink. For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way;

65] to which afterwards the other command adds still another and spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ says further: This do in remembrance of Me, where He requires faith [which is the spiritual partaking of Christ’s body).

This is in stark contradiction to the 29th article. The 29th article teaches,

The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing [25]

Anglicans affirm the spiritual eating but reject the carnal eating of the Eucharist. This article was affirmed by Matthew Parker himself, and there is good historical evidence to believe this as it was contained in Parker’s manuscripts [26]. This should call into question Parker’s own theology of the Eucharist and his own validity if he denies there is a sacrifice present to give. But putting that aside, we will focus on the whole of the Anglican communion.

Lutherans believe in both a spiritual and physical eating, but while rejecting the wicked could partake in the fashion of the former, did believe they could do so in the latter. When Anglicans deny the wicked “in no wise are…partakers of Christ”, the only sensible inference is that any physical or carnal appearance of partaking is no form of partaking at all.

There might be some contention that what is being adhered to is no more than what St. Augustine might be holding to, the issue here is that the article takes St. Augustine out of context,

In a word, he now explains how that which he speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and drink His blood. ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.’ This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwell in him. Consequently, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in who Christ dwelleth not, doubtless eateth not His flesh [spiritually] not drinketh his blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather doth he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgement, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man taketh worthily except that he is pure: of such it is said, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.’ [27]

While no doubt the person who does not eat Christ worthily does not eat Christ spiritually, he still eats and drinks it in a substantial sense wherein it brings judgment upon him. The Anglican might at this point object and say, “well the article itself says the wicked “do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing’”, but unlike Augustine, the article makes the qualification the wicked are still “no wise … partakers of Christ” which makes it hard to see how Christ is in any way or sense still present. Furthermore, Augustine does not add the option of “sign” to “sacrament”, implying the two had any real distinction, whereas article 29 makes it possible to eat the sign without the sacrament (otherwise why separate the two?). This is why the article has such a smack of reformed theology. Even the historical context behind this article’s constant omission and addition suggests a reformed reading. As an Anglican historian, Martin Davie explains,

after having been agreed by the bishops the article was subsequently omitted, either during the passage of the Articles through the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury or at an even later stage due the direct intervention of the Queen. The most plausible explanation for its omission was it was felt likely to create difficulties for those loyal to Rome who remained within the Church of England or to cause an impediment to a political or matrimonial alliance with the Lutheran states in Germany [28]

Do Anglicans have a Truly Sacrificial Theology?

Catholics believe the mass is an instance of what is called a propitiatory sacrifice, one where it can atone for our sins. Specifically our venial sins. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins. By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him [29]

Any true sacrifice requires that some form of propitiation occurs. For example, according to the council of Trent

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema [30]

The Orthodox are in full agreement with us on this point. According to the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem,

Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord. [31]

Anglicans deny this aspect of the Mass. In fact, it is in direct contradiction to Article 31.

The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits [32].

This article dates back to 1553 in the original forty-two articles and would entail a break from proper Catholic theology for those that affirmed it [33]. The first clause claims that all actual sin (both venial and mortal) would have been paid. The second clause denies priests offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt. Much has been said about the use of the term “masses” implying that the article is really speaking about mass as the notion that Christ is being re-sacrificed, and not re-presented.

However, there are two problems, the question regarding whether or not Christ is re-presented or re-sacrificed is immaterial, the question is “does Christ, where and when, re-presented, act to have any effect on the ‘remission of pain or guilt’?” and such a question must be answered positively or negatively. If one says “no”, they admit the Anglican priest is not a priest in the same sense a Catholic priest is.

If Anglicans say “yes”, then one would have to give some contorted logic about how the Mass can simultaneously be true while a “blasphemous fable”. They must also explain how it can be true that venial sins are forgiven in the Mass when all actual sins (which includes both venial and mortal sins) have already been forgiven and there are no other means of making satisfaction.

As to the plural form of Mass, this is merely a semantic point as well. To quote Davie,

On the other hand, Griffith Thomas argues that the use of the term ‘Masses’ rather than ‘Mass’ is not significant because: …the Church of Rome frequently uses the plural of the Mass, and the Council of Trent does the same thing without any idea of making a doctrinal distinction. Masses (in the plural) are merely several instances of the same thing, Mass. He also argues that nothing much, if anything, can be ‘argued from the phrase ‘commonly said’ which can be found several times in the Prayer Book to denote ordinary popular practices and usages; e.g. ‘Commonly called Christmas Day. [34]

Anglicans consider the Mass as another kind of sacrifice, to go into greater detail, Martin Davie writes,

Firstly, like the Passover, the Eucharist can be seen as a commemorative sacrifice in the sense that at the Eucharist, as we eat the bread and drink the wine, we recall the sacrifice of Christ offered for us and the benefits of that sacrifice become real and effective in our midst as we receive Christ’s body that was broken for us and his blood which was shed for us. Secondly, the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the sense that it is a key occasion at which we can offer ourselves to God as a ‘living sacrifice’ (Romans 12:2). As we receive Christ’s body and blood at the Eucharist we are united to Christ our great High Priest as the members of his body (1 Corinthians 10:17) [35]

There are two problems with this, the first is the Mass as a commemorative sacrifice, and as a living sacrifice, does not preclude Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, nor does it suffice as a necessity for the Christian priest. The second is that Jesus is rather clear when he institutes the Mass it is for the forgiveness of sins.

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:27–27)

It would be odd to say Christ was speaking in a literal fashion when speaking about his real presence in the host and only speaking in a memorial fashion when speaking about the host and the fact it is given for the forgiveness of sins. When Jesus says it 'is — rather than will be — poured out' he is speaking of it happening now, and since the future event of the crucifixion has yet to happen, he is not speaking of the atoning work of the new covenant.

The only real response the Anglican can give is Christ is present in two places, once in the future on the cross, and simultaneously on the table. However, that is historically precluded from what we know in the development of the term “spiritual presence” as understood by the English reformers in their own context.

Going back to article 28 we read the body is given in a heavenly and spiritual manner. However, this article had an earlier formula as found in the original 42-Articles written by Cranmer. There we read,

Forasmuch as the truth of Man’s nature requireth, that the body of one, and the self same man cannot be at one time in diverse places, but must needs be in some one certain place: Therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many, and diverse places. And because (as Holy Scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the world, a faithful man ought not, either to believe, or openly to confess the real, and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ’s flesh and blood, in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper [36]

While an objection could be made that this portion was deleted, the fact remains that it gives evidence what Cranmer, the drafter of the ordinal, believed the spiritual presence precluded. Namely, local presence. Furthermore, it entails he could not have understood forgiveness of sins to take place during the Mass. This gives greater legitimacy to the concern the ordinal was formulated to introduce error.

The fact also remains such a condemnation never came with a later reputation. This should tell us future Anglicans sought to do what this tradition sought to do, in contradiction to the Catholic faith.

Finally, words still have meaning within the language of Anglican theology, if the spiritual presence was defined in opposition to local presence, such a presence could not be there for the Anglican seeking any kind of continuity with their faith. The 42-Articles still had a time of legitimacy and men like Parker showed assent to it at one point, as did others within this communion.

No Man Can Serve Two Masters

When it comes to holding the Anglican religious tradition, part and parcel with it have been to uphold the 39-Articles and in their most sensible meaning.

RC Ryle gives a detailed look at how public the assent of the clergy had to be the articles,

I refer to two Acts of Parliament. One is called the 13th of Elizabeth, cap. 12, and entitled "An Act for Ministers of the Church to be of sound religion ." The other Act is called the 28th and 29th Victoria, cap. 122, and is entitled "An Act to Amend the Law as to the declarations and subscriptions to be made, and Oaths to be taken by the Clergy," and was passed in the year 1865.

The Act of Elizabeth, in the second section declares, that

"if any person ecclesiastical, or which shall have any ecclesiastical living, shall advisedly maintain or affirm any doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Thirty-nine Articles; and being convicted before the Bishop of the Diocese, or the Ordinary, or before the Queen's Commissioner in causes ecclesiastical, shall persist therein, or not revoke his error, or after such revocation affirm such untrue doctrine, such maintaining, or affirming, or persisting shall be just cause to deprive such person of his ecclesiastical functions; and it shall be lawful for the Bishop of the Diocese, or Ordinary, or such Commissioner, to deprive such person."

Comment on the evidence of this witness is needless. There is no way of honestly evading the edge and point of this yet unrepealed Act of Parliament. In a decision of all the judges, in the twenty-third year of Elizabeth, it was declared that the Act of 13th Elizabeth was made for avoiding a diversity of opinion, and that the "prevention of such diversity was the scope of the statute." ( Coke's Institut. 1865.) The provisions of this Act of Elizabeth are in full force at this very day, and form the basis of any proceedings against a clergyman in matters of religion.

The Act of the 28th and 29th of Victoria is even more remarkable than the 13th of Elizabeth. The seventh section requires every person instituted to any living, on the first Lord's Day in which he officiates in his church, "publicly and openly in the presence of his congregation, to read the whole Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and immediately after reading to make the declaration of assent to them."

Up to the year 1865, we must remember, a clergyman was required to read over the whole Morning and Evening Service as well as the Articles, and then declare his assent and consent to the use of the Book of Common Prayer. This was dispensed with by the Act of Victoria. But the requirement to read the Thirty-nine Articles was carefully retained! The result is, that every beneficed clergyman in the Church of England has not only declared his assent to the Thirty-nine Articles, but has done it in the most public way, after reading them over before his congregation. [37]

Ryle also reminds us that the main purpose of the articles was to quell a diversity of opinion, not to open them up to multiple interpretations. He marshals in the most rudimentary bits of evidence,

I mean the title of the Articles, which is prefixed to them in every complete and unmutilated Prayer-book. They are called, "Articles agreed upon for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinion, and for the stablishing of Consent touching true Religion." This title was first given to them by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Edward VI., 1552; and afterwards given a second time by Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, in 1562. I want no plainer language than the words of this title. The man who tries to get away from it and evade it is like a viper biting a file.

There can be no doubt, anyone who approves and shows assent to these articles, and the laws surrounding them are giving into heresy. One which is and remains manifested at odds against Trent, The Synod of Jerusalem, and Christ’s plain words at the last supper. They also are in contradiction with the objective real presence of Christ in the sacrament, leaving the powers of the priest contingent on his faith and the faith of the congregation rather than conferring them into his direct hands. They are lastly in contradiction with the nature of the sacrament, which is real and physical, not only spiritual and in one physical place (heaven) and present in a different sense.

None of Aristotle’s categories are needed, we must merely ask “is that bread the body of Jesus Christ himself, given to us for the forgiveness of sins here among us?” and then ask “is his presence forgiving sins at mass done to forgive any sin?”. If he is here in any less a sense than he is in heaven or on the cross, he is not really here. If he is not forgiving sins, he lies to his apostles.

No Anglican accepting the 39-articles can have our understanding of the priesthood. While Anglicans no doubt are one with us in that there is the 3-fold ministry of deacon, priest, and bishop, we disagree on what that constitutes the nature of each office. If the Orthodox and the Catholic communions are wrong, I would be happy to become an Anglican and submit to their order of priest, but so long as the sacrament is needed to forgive sin, I cannot. So long as

Conclusion

The ordinal was designed to admit heretical teaching, namely a contrary idea of the priesthood. Any reasonable reading of the 42-Articles, and later the 39-Articles of faith, are good evidence for this. It was not a priesthood able to minister a sacrifice capable of the pardoning of sin — since all actual sins were already pardoned at cavalry and the supper is just a commemorative sacrifice — nor was it one providing the real objective presence. The Lutheran understanding of the sacraments is precluded as well since the real presence of the sacrament is received only, not consecrated.

The formula of ordination, I would say, isn’t sufficient at establishing invalidity, but it is evidence of a heretical intent. Such intent is not just an internal one being speculated upon. It is externally manifested in the articles generations of Anglican divines have been told to uphold through the laws of civil government and her own church. In doing what the Anglican Church does, they are not doing what Christ did.

While they might have diversity between themselves, some more evangelical and some more catholic, clerics still cannot do as Christ does, while willing to do as their communion has done from the beginning. No public denouncing of their predecessors took place and Catholics are fully reasonable to believe they are continuing in that error.

For my mind to change, I would need not just an alternative reading of these articles but one is openly given and one unambiguously taught. They would also need to provide definitions of these words the common theologian would have understood within the communion. Someone could mean 'up' when they say 'down' but the question before us is what meaning would the text itself try and communicate to the average reader familiar with its terms.

Words of Encouragement

If I have an accurate account of the differences between our communions, Catholics, and (dare I say) our future reconciled brothers across the Tiber, can talk about where the dispute really is, not the validity, but the nature, of the priesthood. If Catholics are wrong, then validity is hardly at issue, we got a lot more wrong. If we are right, Anglicans need to realize they should become priests in a Catholic sense to continue their roles of succession.

The Anglican does not do any injury in accepting the unconditional ordination of our church because they are continuing in the proper intent handed down by the apostles, not the intent of those who were excommunicated for holding to Protestant dogmas that contravene the nature of a proper Catholic priesthood. There is a lot of catholicity that is still in the Anglican Church, even in the ordinal. All the Anglican does is take what was rendered latent and awaking it.

Footnotes

[1] Price, page 149. Annie Darling (1902). A History of the Formation and Growth of the Reformed Episcopal Church, 1873–1902

[2]Parker and Handschy, page 515, Eucharistic Sacrifice, American Polemics, the Oxford Movement and Apostolicae Curae, Journal of Ecclesiastical History.

[3] O’Shea, J.J. (1910). Francis Patrick and Peter Richard Kenrick. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

[4]Parker and Handschy, page 535, Eucharistic Sacrifice, American Polemics, the Oxford Movement and Apostolicae Curae, Journal of Ecclesiastical History.

[5] Pope Leo XIII, Paragraph 33. Apostolicae Curae, 1896.

[6] Christopher Mirus, On the Intention Required in the Minister of the Sacraments, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370

[7] Adam James, page 6, From Generation to Generation:
The Validity of Holy Orders within Anglicanism.

[8] Simon Francis Gaine, Page 21, Defect of Sacramental Intention: The Background of Apostolicae Curae.

[9] Ibid, page 15

[10] Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. The Question of the Validity of Baptism Conferred in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints http://w2.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

[11] Christopher Mirus, On the Intention Required in the Minister of the Sacraments, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370

[12] Adam James, page 7, From Generation to Generation:
The Validity of Holy Orders within Anglicanism.

[13]http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Priests_1549.htm

[14]http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/Orig_manuscript/ordinal.htm

[15] Adam James, page 5, From Generation to Generation:
The Validity of Holy Orders within Anglicanism.

[16] Fanning, W. (1907). Baptism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved September 1, 2020, from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

[17] Simon Francis Gaine, Page 19, Defect of Sacramental Intention: The Background of Apostolicae Curae.

[18] Adam James, page 7, From Generation to Generation:
The Validity of Holy Orders within Anglicanism.

[19] Michael T. Davies, page 42, The Order of Melchisedech: A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood. Link

[20]Pope Leo XIII, Paragraph 26. Apostolicae Curae, 1896.

[21] Adam James, pages 8–9, From Generation to Generation:
The Validity of Holy Orders within Anglicanism.

[22] John Calvin, page 619, The Institutes of the Christian Religion Volume II, link

[23] 1662 Book of Common Prayer, 39 Articles, spelling modernized.

[24] The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, The Holy Supper, 62–65http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

[25]1662 Book of Common Prayer, 39 Articles, spelling modernized.

[26] Martin Davie, Our Inheritance of Faith: A Commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles, 509

[27] Ibid, 511

[28] Ibid, 510

[29] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1394,

[30] Trent, Session XXII, Canon 3, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/twentysecond-session-of-the-council-of-trent-1489

[31] Council of Jerusalem, Dennis Bratcher, The Confession of Dositheus, Decree 17, http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

[32] 1662 Book of Common Prayer, 39 Articles, spelling modernized

[33] Martin Davie, Our Inheritance of Faith: A Commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles, 509

[34] Ibid, 530–531

[35] Ibid, 532–533

[36] Ibid, 497

[37]J.C. Ryle, On the 39 Articles, https://virtueonline.org/jc-ryle-39-articles

[38] Ibid

Addendum.

I was unsure of my answer on this matter, so I consulted the work of Cardinal Charles Journet who said, in following along with the first opinion given.

it will be remembered, bishops hold by divine law a power of confirming and ordaining which is proper to them. This power is ordinary, that is, not subject to limitation and always free from limitation. A heretical bishop, or a schismatic bishop, even one who is a simoniac or generally sinful, ordains illicitly but validly. Thus ordinations by such bishops ought not to be “repeated”. In consequence those Popes would be right who refused to do it, and those wrong who countenanced it

His work can be found here. It seems my reasoning as some ecclesial weight, but I still stand open to correction on this matter.