[quote="bill_karweik, post:1, topic:316445"]
I heard that episcopal priests can not have a valid eucharist. that back in 1500s they left out the word sacrifice about the eucharist in their odraination. Then it was change back. I know that they believe it is a sacrifice. Today alot of their priest have been ordained with bishops of the Old Catholic church who are reconized by the Catholic Church. so an episcopal may have a valid eucharist even when they use their own eucharistic prayer?
This is one of those things that keeps me active here. Mostly.
In 1896, Leo XIII issued the Bull Apostolicae Curae. The details of why this came about are multitudinous and complicated. The conclusion stated in Apostolicae Curae were (among at least one other conclusion) that Anglican holy orders were null and void and thus an Anglican priest could not confect a valid Eucharist. The logic behind this conclusion involved two of the elements necessary for a valid sacrament: form and intent.
The form for the ordering of priests and bishops, in the Edwardine Ordinal (the Rite by which Anglicans consecrated/ordained clergy), was judged to be defective, in that it did not reflect the sacrificial office of the priest, in offering the Eucharist. But this alleged defect of form had to be coupled with an assumption of defect of intention. Other, pre-existing Rites, that the RCC holds do transmit orders validly, also lack mention of the sacrifice. The difference here was held to be that the Edwardine Ordinal was specifically constructed, at that specific point in history, by the specific persons who wrote it, for a specific purpose. Hence the form was judged invalid.
The equally essential and intertwined judgment of defective intent, as judged under Apostolicae Curae, has to be that of the persons who used the Ordinal. Sacramental intent inheres in the sacramental action and minister, not in a Church, or in a document (Clark's ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION has a good chapter on this). So while the form itself was not exceptional (other Rites were constructed similarly), the circumstances under which the form was written were. And hence, the sacramental intent of those who used the form (usually taken to be at the consecration of ++Parker in 1559; Parker is a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy) was judged to have been invalid, invalidating the sacramental act of consecration (when coupled with the defective form).
As Apostolicae Curae says, sacramental intent is an interior state and not one that can be easily determined. Hence, if a priest uses the accustomed form, matter, subject, etc, the intent also would normally be judged valid, that is, to be facere quod facit ecclesia. Unless there is something in the sacramental act that allow a determinatia ex adiunctis. This is taken, in Apostolicae Curae to be the use of that particular defective form, as it was constructed. Hence, invalid intent and invalid form intertwined meant that no valid sacrament of order was conveyed.
The point in time that the use of the invalid form, by ministers with invalid intent (in Apostolicae Curae's reasoning broke apostolic succession is not explicit in the Bull, but it is usually taken to be at the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559. From that point, consecrations /ordinations in the Church of England were said to be invalid, and apostolic succession was lost.
The point about the Old Catholics, and later the PNCC and Anglicans is also complicated. In 1932, following the Agreement of Bonn, Anglicans and OC-Utrecht, entered into a full communion (a similar agreement was made with the PNCC in 1946). Among other things, this permitted joint consecrations with both OC and Anglican bishops consecrating the others episcopacy. Note that this does not involve OC bishops ordaining Anglican priests, but of consecrating, jointly, Anglican bishops. Logically, since bishops with valid but illicit orders (as the RCC judges the OCs to have been) convey valid but illicit orders (all other points being sacramentally valid - see Ott), this would suggest that the OCs lines were infused into Anglicanism, and were propagated as the Anglican bishops performed their own episcopal functions. Logically, I say, but AFAIK, Rome has never commented officially on this point.
This is the short version.