[quote="jinc1019, post:1, topic:305586"]
The Catholic Church has long taught, and correct me if I am wrong, that the Anglican Church lost it's apostolic succession by changing key beliefs in their church for a relatively brief period of time when the Reformation had really taken hold, I believe under King Edward.
The Anglican Church would argue that although they changed the actual rites, the rites were the same as the ones Catholics used to use (see link here anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf)
Catholics have responded that because the "intent" changed, their priesthood was invalidated, because intent is apparently a part of becoming a valid priest.
However, what I am confused about is this: At the time the changes were made, there were still validly ordained bishops in the Anglican Church. No one disputes this. And although the rites no longer included the language the Catholic Church was using, the intent of the bishops who were validly ordained may very well have been to keep the old "Catholic" tradition going. Further, the priests receiving the ordination may very well have believed that as well.
I guess what I am saying is, I don't see how the Catholic Church can make that argument considering we don't know what the intent was of all the people involved. While I have no doubts a majority of bishops did want to make those changes, it's very possible some of them did not and that they continued ordaining priests with the valid intent required by the Catholic Church and that some of the priests being ordained accepted ordination with the valid beliefs required as well. In fact, considering Catholicism was banned, it is EXTREMELY likely this exact event occurred and that a good amount of priests were validly ordained by valid apostolic bishops.
The usual explanation is that the break in Apostolic succession occurred at the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559: Parker being a bottleneck in Anglican episcopacy.
The intent question works something like this. Intent is an internal state, and thus is not directly discernible. Accordingly, the sacramental intent is normally taken to be valid, that is, as an intent facere quod facit ecclesia, assuming all other sacramental aspects are demonstrably valid (minister, subject, form, matter). However, if this is not the case, that is, if something (form, in this case) is not valid, the use of the invalid form can be taken to indicate that the sacramental intent is not to do what the Church does. The invalid form was taken to permit a *determinatio ex adiunctis *
The form was taken to be invalid, due to its not mentioning the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. It is true that there exist other forms/rites that the RCC does recognize as conveying valid orders, but which also omit that.. This was one of the points made in the rejoinder to Apostolicae Curae, sent in the names of the two CoE Archbishops (Saepius Officio). The counter-argument to that is that previous rites/forms were not constructed specifically to omit the sacrificial nature of the sacerdotal role. The Edwardine Ordinal, being constructed by whom it was, when it was, in the context it was, was judged to have been constructed to do just that, and presents the necessary clue, determinatio ex adiunctis *, as to invalid sacramental intent, no matter who was the minister. According to *Apostolicae Curae, the use of that form (the ordinal) was sufficient evidence that the sacramental intent was not to ordain to the priesthood, as the Church defined it. Had all else been the same, but the CoE continued to use the Pontificale Romanum, this judgment supposedly could not have been made.
I'm Anglican, I don't affirm Apostolicae Curae.