Posted on 08/07/2006 8:00:19 AM PDT by NYer
Eileen DiFranco sang the hymns, prayed and took Communion as she had done at countless other Catholic Masses.
But yesterday, for the first time, she led the service as an ordained priest - and received a warm reception from hundreds of Catholics and others.
"Nothing is impossible with our God," she told a congregation at the First United Methodist Church of Germantown. "Not even a woman priest."
Applause rippled across the steamy sanctuary, where many fanned themselves with programs titled: "First Mass. Eileen DiFranco."
DiFranco, 54, of Mount Airy, had participated in a July 31 ceremony that organizers say made her among the first women to be ordained in the United States by the organization Roman Catholic Womenpriests.
Roman Catholic dioceses in the country, including the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and the U.S. Conference of Bishops have pronounced the ordination invalid, saying church law allows only men to become priests.
"I feel I have been called out by my community to do this," DiFranco said in an interview. "It has been a nudging along the way by God and by people who know me."
In her homily, DiFranco said people today sometimes found "very little that is meaningful in the teachings of the church about Jesus." Churches that were full two generations ago, she said, "are emptying out, and parishes are closing... .
"Some think that a return to those pietistic days of yesteryear, where the laity knew its place and only the priests knew and spoke the words of God, will repopulate the seminaries and repack the pews."
But DiFranco said people were looking for more from the church. "The big issues that might have brought some of you here today remain unaddressed, untackled, unmentionable," she said.
A nurse at Roxborough High School, DiFranco has been an active member of the Church of the Beatitudes, a congregation of about 20 people in the Old Catholic community. The group rents space from Garden United Methodist Church in Lansdowne.
But DiFranco said she had felt led to hold her first Mass at the church in Germantown.
Twenty-three years ago yesterday, on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, she had gone to a peace rally in King of Prussia and was impressed by the warm greetings of a group of people there.
Members of the First United Methodist Church of Germantown were hugging and kissing one another - and she remembered wanting to be part of a church like that.
On another Hiroshima anniversary, DiFranco celebrated her first Mass at the church, speaking of peace, tolerance and God's love.
"We want to support Eileen and this movement" toward the ordination of women, said Carl Yusavitz, 61, a Mount Airy resident who attends St. Vincent's Catholic Church in Germantown.
"I consider Eileen a Catholic and a priest," he said. "Her validity is based on 'By their fruits, you will know them.' Eileen has wonderful fruits."
DiFranco's son, Ben, 17, who attends La Salle College High School in Wyndmoor, said his mother's service as a priest "is going to be a catalyst for women being ordained in the church."
"A couple of my friends say she is not a priest, that her ordination was not valid," said Ben DiFranco, who assisted his mother at the altar during the Mass. "But I also have friends who are really for it."
The Rev. Bernie Callahan of the Church of the Beatitudes said DiFranco's ordination and first Mass were a sign that "paths are being opened to Catholic women."
"This has happened at a grassroots level, and those things tend to be unstoppable," said Callahan, adding that DiFranco would be a regular celebrant at his church.
Janice Sevre-Duszynska, a Lexington, Ky., resident who was ordained a deacon during the July 31 ceremony, said DiFranco's priestly work was needed.
"We need women's interpretation of the Gospel," said Sevre-Duszynska, who attended DiFranco's Mass. "Most of the poor of the world are women and children. Where are their voices?"
Toward the end of her homily, DiFranco told the congregation that "in Jesus, there was never a disconnect... . The words excommunication and intrinsically disordered would not have been part of Jesus' vocabulary."
The congregation applauded and later greeted her and her husband, Larry, at the entrance to the church.
"It was wonderful," DiFranco said of the Mass. "I felt so lifted up."
This is from the Diocese of San Bernadino. I think it is quite clear that they don't view the Old Catholics as having much that is valid:
Also, Church Law teaches clearly that the Catholic members of Christ's faithful may lawfully receive the sacraments only from lawfully recognized and approved priests of the Roman Catholic Church. (Canon 844, section 1). This is most especially the case for the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Mass.4 A Roman Catholic who knowingly and consciously receives the sacraments of any Old Catholic church group formally and publicly destroys their unity of faith, worship, and life that exists with the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, it is very important to understand this fact: Even if a certain Old Catholic sacrament were valid, the Roman Catholic faithful are not permitted to receive such a sacrament lawfully and legitimately.
They go on to say:
Priestly ordination is a permanent and valid sacramental action. Merely because a priest joins another church group does not mean he ceases being a validly ordained priest. However, in order to function and serve the community, a Roman Catholic priest needs special permissions called "faculties" in order to function validly and lawfully. No minister of the Old Catholic church possesses faculties from the local Roman Catholic Bishop to administer any sacrament to any Roman Catholic member of the Bishop's Diocese.
Also, any Roman Catholic priest who formally joins another religion (either Christian or non-Christian), such as the Old Catholic church, is formally and totally separating himself from communion with the Roman Catholic Church and the tradition and primacy of the Pope. Church Law clearly teaches that such priests are forbidden to celebrate the sacraments and exercise any church office for the benefit of the people (Canon 1331, section 1, nos. 2 and 3; also, Canon 1336, section 1, nos. 1, 2, 3).
This is, IMO, a pretty clear statement on their validity of Holy Orders:
"Is it trite when Old Catholic ministers claim their sacraments are considered valid by our Church" Only a handful of sacraments of Protestant churches are considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the Roman Catholic Church does accept the Christian baptism of several Protestant denominations (e.g., Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and etc.). 2 However, the baptisms of other denominations are not be accepted as valid (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, and etc.).3 To determine if a sacrament is valid, it is important to study the situation on a case by case basis. It IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT ALL SACRAMENTS OF THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE CONSIDERED VALID IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The sacraments and rites of an Old Catholic church group may appear identical in form and language to those of the Roman Catholic Church. However, these Old Catholic rituals lack the essential unity with the Roman Catholic faith and tradition of the last 2000 years.
I hope this has cleared up why I feel the way I do about this situation.
Any Catholic can SAY anything he or she wants about their own opinion of what the Church teaches. All you have to do is read the Catechism to know what the Church ACTUALLY teaches.
"DiFranco has been an active member of the Church of the Beatitudes, a congregation of about 20 people in the Old Catholic community."
Ummm...the "old catholics" are a schismatic group that broke off from the Catholic church 100 plus years ago. I thought they already allowed women priests. so she is not Roman Catholic (or Eastern Catholic) or even Anglican. She is a "old catholic".
So why is the article implying that she is Roman Catholic?
Dear FJ290,
Thank you for posting all these excerpts that support precisely what I've said. ;-)
"A Roman Catholic who knowingly and consciously receives the sacraments of any Old Catholic church group formally and publicly destroys their unity of faith, worship, and life that exists with the Roman Catholic Church."
Of course. It's a schismatic act, generally, to receive sacraments outside the communion of the Church. That has to do with lawfulness, licitness.
That's why it says "lawfully receive..."
This excerpt specifically contrasts licitness with validity:
"Even if a certain Old Catholic sacrament were valid, the Roman Catholic faithful are not permitted to receive such a sacrament lawfully and legitimately."
The sacrament could be valid (real - at the consecration, the elements of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ), but nonetheless still be illicit.
Later on, in your last excerpt, it says:
"It IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT ALL SACRAMENTS OF THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE CONSIDERED VALID IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH."
Gee, I think I said something like this.
"To determine if a sacrament is valid, it is important to study the situation on a case by case basis."
Gee, I think I said almost precisely this. I specifically laid out the case that it is likely that many, perhaps most, Old Catholics no longer have valid sacraments and orders (save Baptism, of course), but that each case would have to be examined individually. Here is what I said:
"I believe that is why the Church doesn't speak publicly about their validity, because it would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis."
That says nothing, however, for the Polish National Catholic Church. It appears they may have preserved corporately valid sacraments and Holy Orders. When the Old Catholics began to ordain women, they broke off communion with the Old Catholics. And it is apparent that the discussions cited by the USCCB that occurred this year in May took as a premise that PNCC Holy Orders are valid.
"'Is it trite when Old Catholic ministers claim their sacraments are considered valid by our Church' Only a handful of sacraments of Protestant churches are considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the Roman Catholic Church does accept the Christian baptism of several Protestant denominations (e.g., Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and etc.)."
Actually, we accept the baptisms from most Protestant ecclesial communities. Almost anyone who baptizes with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit baptizes validly. A significant exception is the Latter Day Saints.
sitetest
Thanks, will do.
Dear FJ290,
"... a Roman Catholic priest needs special permissions called 'faculties' in order to function validly and lawfully."
I almost missed this. This is a little vague. A Catholic priest requires faculties from the local Ordinary in order to validly hear confessions and perform marriages. However, in an emergency where death could be imminent, a priest without faculties can validly hear a confession, as well.
But a priest without faculties can certainly say Mass validly, can certainly validly consecrate, although it would be illicit.
As well, even though a Catholic priest without faculties can't perform a valid marriage ceremony, we do recognize the marriages of non-Catholics when performed in their own Christian churches. In that sort of case, we wouldn't bother with the question of whether the minister was a validly-ordained Catholic priest. The requirements to follow Catholic form only apply to Catholics.
That being said, the question becomes more complicated if either party marrying was baptized Catholic.
Again, it would be necessary to evaluate the circumstances of each case on a case-by-case basis.
sitetest
*************
You're right. Just the first page of responses are less than satisfactory: Ask Edward Colimore
That's fine, but we're talking about orders, not "all sacraments". In particular, the sacrament of confession requires jurisdiction to be valid.
Also, most of what you cite talks about it being forbidden for Catholics to partake in those sacraments, not about their formal validity. Obviously Catholics can't participate in the sacraments of a schismatic group.
This is a silly argument anyway, since the Old Catholics are rapidly losing whatever validity they may have had by "ordaining" women.
Female priest has first MassThough not recognized by any diocese, she was ordained by Roman Catholic Womenpriests. "I feel I have been called... by my community to do this."
By Edward Colimore
Inquirer Staff Writer
Clearing the Record
The headline on this article, "Female Catholic priest has first Mass," erred in stating unreservedly that Eileen DiFranco was a Catholic priest. The Roman Catholic Church says that women cannot be ordained as priests and that her ordination was invalid. DiFranco was ordained through the organization Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which says the service was a valid Catholic ordination under apostolic succession.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will she. too, like Kathy Sullinvan Vannderburg, be excommunicated??
Her bishop needs to get on it right away!
************
She should be, as soon as possible and in a very public way. Immediate repudiation of this so-called "Mass" should occur, with a spokesman as high up in the Church as possible. Imho.
Yes, exactly. He can't become an "unpriest" or an "unbishop" any more than you can devise a way to become "unbaptised."
You have at least three people on this thread patiently trying to point out to you that "valid" and "licit" are two different concepts. You would do well to try to learn what "licit" means and how it differs from "valid."
SD
Excuse me, but I happen to know the difference between licit and valid. All I have asked is for someone to show me proof from the Vatican that their orders are valid and no one has been able to do that. I have, however, shown from the San Bernadino Diocese website that says "It IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT ALL SACRAMENTS OF THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE CONSIDERED VALID IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH."
Holy Orders are one of the seven sacraments. Where is an officical Vatican document stating their Holy Orders are valid? If this can be shown to me, then I will happily cede the point. From what I can find, there are people that claim that they are, but there is NO Vatican proof that they are considered valid. I can't find it in Canon Law, I can't find it at the Vatican website, where is this written in stone that their orders are valid?
Per the Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, Graves Ac Diuturnae, it says:
The serious and long-lasting plots and efforts which the new heretics who call themselves Old Catholics use daily in your country to deceive the faithful and to tear them away from their ancient faith, urge Us, as a duty of Our supreme apostolate, to zealously devote Our paternal care and attention to protecting the spiritual welfare of our children. We are aware, and We sorrowfully deplore the fact, that these schismatics and heretics who enjoy the favor of the civil authority exercise the ministry of their wicked sect in the region of the diocese of Basel as in other regions of your country while the religious freedom of Catholics remains publicly oppressed by schismatic laws.
So what these 3 Catholics are trying to tell me that we consider a heretical, schismatic's sect Holy Orders valid?
I would suggest that it would do well for you to consider what the Diocese of San Bernandino said:
"Is it trite when Old Catholic ministers claim their sacraments are considered valid by our Church."
Also, are we now going around saying that what Pope Pius IX called a "wicked sect" hellbent on tearing the RC apart, have valid Holy Orders?? These people haven't changed either considering their recent ordination of Roman Catholic women among other things.
The Catechism says that:
1576 Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the "gift of the Spirit,"63 the "apostolic line."64 Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.65
How can their Bishops be in the apostolic succession if they are a heretical, schismatic sect? How many One, Holy, Apostolic churches are there?
How can their priests be validly ordained, if their Bishops are not included in the apostolic succession?
The Church says that the Eastern Churches are the only ones that share that with us.
Dear FJ290,
"So what these 3 Catholics are trying to tell me that we consider a heretical, schismatic's sect Holy Orders valid?"
Short answer: yup.
You don't have to be an orthodox, in-communion-with-Peter Catholic to validly confer the sacraments (with the caveats expressed previously).
It is the heresy of Donatism to state that one must be orthodox and in communion with the Catholic Church to be able to administer valid sacraments.
Once a bishop is consecrated a bishop, he's a bishop forever. Even if he leaves the Holy Catholic Church and is degraded from his ecclesiastical and clerical offices, he is still validly a bishop.
Campion has described what is necessary for a sacrament, I won't repeat his excellent, lucid explanation. But ceasing to be in communion with the Catholic Church does not diminish the power of a bishop to ordain priests and consecrate other bishops.
"How can their Bishops be in the apostolic succession if they are a heretical, schismatic sect?"
If they were consecrated properly by valid bishops, these bishops then receive valid Holy Orders and a valid episcopacy, even if they have no jurisdiction, even if their orders are illicit, and even if they are out of communion with Peter.
"The Church says that the Eastern Churches are the only ones that share that with us."
As pointed out to you, that isn't what the Church says. Rather, she says that the Eastern Churches have apostolic succession, not that no one else has it. Even what you quote from the Diocese of San Bernadino concedes that some Old Catholics may still retain valid Holy Orders.
But of course, even the acknowledgement that the Eastern Churches have valid orders raises the question, why? Aren't they in schism, too?
Why do we recognize the validity of the Holy Orders of Russian Orthodox and various Slavic Orthodox Churches (granting for the sake of argument the idea that real estate confers validity)?
sitetest
You might want to demonstrate that better, then.
"Is it trite when Old Catholic ministers claim their sacraments are considered valid by our Church."
It is trite. Do you know what "trite" means? The San Bernadino diocese is ceding, for sake of argument, that their sacraments are valid. They are making the point that validity of sacraments is not the only point to consider. One must consider the schism and lack of licity.
Also, are we now going around saying that what Pope Pius IX called a "wicked sect" hellbent on tearing the RC apart, have valid Holy Orders??
YES, yes, yes.
What makes a satanic "Black Mass" so repulsive is not that a mockery is made of the rituals of the Mass. What makes it repulsive is that an actual priest with valid orders can bring about the Sacramental Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and then witness His desecration.
Validity and licity are two different things. Really. Have you figured out a way to become unbaptized yet? Please let us know.
Baptism changes you and it can not be undone. Ditto with Holy Orders.
SD
Really?? I haven't thrown around heresy charges at you just because I disagree with you. I don't agree with your charge either because it seems that the Catechism is stating EXACTLY that and I want to know why no one around here can produce documentation from the Holy See that these Old Catholics have valid Holy Orders.
Once again from the Catechism.
Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the "gift of the Spirit,"63 the "apostolic line."64 Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.65 have valid holy orders.
What makes a validly ordained Bishop?
For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic, in communion with the Holy See, free from censures, and must observe the laws prescribed for ordination. He cannot lawfully ordain any except his own subjects without authorization.
Holy Orders/Catholic Encyclopedia
Plus, I will ask again, if the Old Catholics aren't in the apostolic succession, how can any of their orders be valid?
Why do we recognize the validity of the Holy Orders of Russian Orthodox and various Slavic Orthodox Churches (granting for the sake of argument the idea that real estate confers validity)?
This might offer you an explanation, plus the fact that some Russian churches returned to full communion with the Holy see:
Russian - Russians who returned to communion with Rome in 1905. The liturgical language is Old Slavonic. An unknown number of the faithful in Russia, China, the Americas and Australia. Most Russian Christians are Russian Orthodox. Their Patriarch is the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow. Rites of the Catholic Church/EWTN
This has the Nihil Obstat on it:
Eastern Orthodoxy "One of the most tragic divisions within Christianity is the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. Both have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology, and both proclaim the same faith in Christ."
I mentioned this before too:
1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."
Now I will ask you this. If their orders and sacraments are so "valid" why don't I just go be an Old Catholic? Hey, sounds great to me. I don't have to listen to the Pope anymore, I can be a priest since I'm married, if I get ticked at my wife instead of working it out, I can just divorce her, no more confession for me, not necessary in the Old Catholic church, and I can go around claiming that my church is Apostolic even though they have on their website:
FAQ What is the Old Catholic Church?
The Old Catholic Church traces its roots to the 7th Century
Ah.. exactly why they have been successful at pulling people out of the RC.
You might want to demonstrate a little more charity in your responses to a fellow Catholic as I have been trying to demonstrate that without malice to you.
It is trite. Do you know what "trite" means? The San Bernadino diocese is ceding, for sake of argument, that their sacraments are valid. They are making the point that validity of sacraments is not the only point to consider. One must consider the schism and lack of licity.
They absolutely are NOT ceding that their sacraments are valid! Trite means boring or overused to the point of being threadbare. So let's rephrase their original statement using the dictionary definition of trite:
Is it trite when Old Catholic ministers claim their sacraments are considered valid by our Church."
It is boring and overused to the point of being threadbare that Old Catholic ministers "CLAIM" their sacraments are considered valid by our Church.
Okay, now tell me how that exactly expresses what you said? They are saying the oppposite of what you stressed. They are saying that their claims are boring, overused to the point of being threadbare.
Did you read the whole article by the Diocese? I'll post it again in case you didn't:
I will stress this once again and then I don't know what else to say on this subject. I have asked repeatedly for someone to show me documentation from the Vatican specifically stating (as they do with the Eastern Orthodox) that their orders are valid. No one will produce evidence to the contrary even though I have said I will cede the point if they can.
I have produced all kinds of documentation to try and back up what I am saying. Why is it that it doesn't seem to be a requisite for those in opposition to me? Wrappin it up here, show me the money!
Dear FJ290,
"I haven't thrown around heresy charges at you just because I disagree with you."
I haven't thrown any heresy charges at you, either. However, Donatism is defined a heresy, and one component of the heresy is to hold that a sacrament may not be administered by an unworthy minister of the sacrament.
Don't argue with me, argue with the Church. This was resolved in the fourth or fifth century.
"I don't agree with your charge either because it seems that the Catechism is stating EXACTLY that and I want to know why no one around here can produce documentation from the Holy See that these Old Catholics have valid Holy Orders."
I've provided some documentation that has as the underlying premise that the Church recognizes the validity of Polish National Catholic Church Holy Orders.
You've ignored it entirely. That's not my fault.
I've explained several times why the Church doesn't comment generally on Old Catholic Holy Orders - because many of them are now invalid.
You've ignored those explanations repeatedly and entirely. That's also not my fault.
On the other hand, nothing you cite from the Catechism specifically excludes the possibility of valid Holy Orders among at least some Old Catholics and/or PNCC.
Every one of your citations either does not bear on the question of the possibility of validity of Old Catholic or PNCC orders, or actually is evidence FOR the possibility of validity in at least some cases.
"What makes a validly ordained Bishop?
"'For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic, in communion with the Holy See, free from censures, and must observe the laws prescribed for ordination. He cannot lawfully ordain any except his own subjects without authorization.'"
No. You're wrong.
That is NOT what makes a VALIDLY consecrated bishop.
You have cited the Catechism about what makes a LICITLY (LAWFULLY) consecrated bishop. The preceding citation is not about VALIDITY.
Your citation is about what makes a LAWFULLY ordained bishop, not a VALIDLY ordained bishop.
One may be VALIDLY consecrated a bishop without being LAWFULLY consecrated a bishop.
You say you understand the difference between LICITNESS and VALIDITY, but the citation you offer demonstrates confusion between the two.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre VALIDLY consecrated four men to be bishops serving the SSPX. However, he did not LAWFULLY consecrate these men. They are not LICIT bishops. In fact, for the crime of receiving ILLICIT but VALID consecrations, these men are now excommunicated.
Their communion with the Catholic Church is broken.
Yet, should they consecrate other men to be bishops, those men will be bishops. These SSPX bishops have the power to consecrate VALIDLY men to the episcopacy. Even though they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.
Should the rupture between the SSPX and the Catholic Church become permanent, and a hundred years from now, the successors of Bishop Fellay and Williamson, et al, are still consecrating men bishops using the proper rites, etc., the SSPX will still have the Apostolic Succession, and will still have valid bishops.
And they will still not be in communion with the Catholic Church.
"Plus, I will ask again, if the Old Catholics aren't in the apostolic succession, how can any of their orders be valid?"
Well, the Old Catholics started out in the Apostolic Succession, and thus, if some of them have continued the line properly, they still have the Apostolic Succession.
"'Russian - Russians who returned to communion with Rome in 1905. The liturgical language is Old Slavonic. An unknown number of the faithful in Russia, China, the Americas and Australia. Most Russian Christians are Russian Orthodox. Their Patriarch is the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow.'"
"Rites of the Catholic Church/EWTN"
This citation is speaking about two different groups: Russian Catholics, and Russian Orthodox.
The first part of the citation talks about those Russians that returned to the Catholic Church.
The second part of the citation contrasts Russian Catholics with Russian Orthodox: "Most Russian Christians are Russian Orthodox. Their Patriarch is the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow."
So why do the Russian Orthodox have valid Holy Orders? Especially when there is a Russian Catholic Church to which Russians could belong, with an Old Slavonic liturgy and everything?
Why do we recognize the Holy Orders of a parallel Russian Church that IS NOT IN COMMUNION with the Catholic Church?
"Now I will ask you this. If their orders and sacraments are so 'valid' why don't I just go be an Old Catholic?"
Because it wouldn't be licit. You'd be violating Church law. If you were to join a Church not in communion with the Catholic Church, even though the Church had valid Holy Orders, valid sacraments, you'd be in schism with the CATHOLIC Church. You would cease to be a Catholic.
But if your new friends in your new-found schismatic sect had valid Holy Orders, then you would be able to receive valid sacraments, generally speaking.
sitetest
Dear FJ290,
"You might want to demonstrate a little more charity in your responses to a fellow Catholic as I have been trying to demonstrate that without malice to you."
Although I believe that you're posting without malice, nonetheless, your posts have a tone of stridency that gives some offense. Perhaps your frustration is showing through. As perhaps is SoothingDave's (and maybe even my own). Thus, perhaps you may wish to consider that any apparent lack of charity shown to you may be a reflection of your own posts to others.
"Okay, now tell me how that exactly expresses what you said? They are saying the oppposite of what you stressed. They are saying that their claims are boring, overused to the point of being threadbare."
Yes, boring because the claim is irrelevant, not necessarily untrue. The diocese is saying that the claim is trite because it's beside the point. Even if a particular Old Catholic group has valid sacraments, valid orders, it's illicit to join them, generally to receive the sacraments from them.
Thus, when the Old Catholics argue, "We have Apostolic Succession, we have Apostolic Succesion! We're Catholic because we have Apostolic Succession!" the diocese is saying, "Ho, hum. Who cares? Even if your particular group has Apostolic Succession, you are NOT Catholic, and it's a SIN to go off to your group!"
Thus, in the case of Old Catholics with valid orders (which is not all), if one receives the Eucharist from them, it is the Body and Blood of the Lord. But if there is not a lawful reason for one to be there, one is generally commiting a sin by receiving at such a place.
THAT'S the point of the diocese's post on this subject.
"No one will produce evidence to the contrary even though I have said I will cede the point if they can."
I have shown evidence that the Polish National Catholic Church (which derives its Apostolic Succession from the Old Catholic Church) is considered by the Catholic Church to have valid Holy Orders. It isn't from the Vatican, and it isn't explicit, but it is presumed in a USCCB document that I've cited.
The topic was determining rules under which Catholics and PNCCers could commune at each other's churches. This presumes validity of the Eucharist at the PNCC churches. Of course, to have a valid Eucharist, you need a validly ordained priest. And to have a validly ordained priest, you must have validly consecrated bishops.
There's no other way to get there from here.
"I have produced all kinds of documentation to try and back up what I am saying."
Nothing you've posted backs you up at all that there are no Old Catholic groups with valid Holy Orders, or that the PNCC does not have valid Holy Orders.
In fact, anything that you've posted on point actually is evidence to the contrary.
sitetest
From Charles Cardinal Journet's The Church of the Word Incarnate (Excursus II):
6. The Question Of So-Called ReordinationsThe answer given to the question of so-called "reordinations" will be greatly modified according as one adopts one or other of the theses concerning the distinction between bishops and priests in the line of order.
1. Let us briefly recall several facts. Leaving on one side the cases which are disputed at the historical level, we may reckon up five or six Popes who have proclaimed the nullity of ordinations made by anti-popes either in fact or presumption, schismatics, simoniacs, and have proceeded to fresh ordination. At the Roman Council of 769 Stephen III refused to recognize the ordinations of deacons, priests and bishops made by the usurper Constantine II and decided to reordain the bishops only.[247] John VIII (who nevertheless did not contest the validity of ordinations conferred by Photius at the time of his excommunication) [248] declared null the ordination conferred by the excommunicate Bishop Ansbert on the Bishop of Verceil, and this by a decision "without precedent in the history of the Popes".[249] Sergius III (904-11), following on the grim Council of Stephen VI, attacked the validity of the ordinations of Pope Formosus: "This was to pronounce a revision of ecclesiastical situations hitherto uncontested. As a result, doubt was cast on the validity of the most essential religious acts."[250] John XII of scandalous memory, dethroned by Leo VIII but reinstated for a brief period in 964, took advantage of the opportunity to declare null the ordinations of his rival.[251] St. Leo IX, in the course of his struggle against simoniacal ordinations, took a disconcerting decision; clerics ordained gratis by simoniacs were condemned to some penance and then allowed to exercise their Orders; ordinations made for money were for the most part considered as null, and repeated.[252] In 1088 Urban II reordained Daibert, who had been raised to the diaconate by the Archbishop of Mayence, who had been consecrated by schismatics.[253]
Side by side with this series of facts may be set another which stems from the origins of the Roman Church, [254] and is to be located with St. Augustine [255] and the great Scholastics [256] such as Anastasius II [257] and Pascal II [258]. Those who follow this authentic tradition maintain that certain sacraments, Order among them, can be dispensed validly even by schismatics.
Here we must note two things: (1) In none of the cases of so-called "reordination" was there any thought of annulling (in the proper sense of the word), and then repeating, ordinations which should have been valid. It was simply declared that ordinations which had been considered as valid had not in fact been so, and then true ordinations took place. The traditional doctrine, according to which the sacrament of Order confers an ineffaceable character and thus cannot be repeated, was fully appreciated and never forgotten: (2) In the case of Ansbert, who was truly a bishop but excommunicate, and in the case of bishops ordained within the Church but afterwards fallen into schism or simony, there was no question of contesting the validity of their own Orders, but the validity of their exercise: in other words they were from that point onwards denied the right of conferring valid ordinations. How are these facts to be explained?
2. According to the first explanation, 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. The latter decision would be misleading even if taken in good faith, and much more so if under the influence of personal animosity. But we should also note that no erroneous dogmatic definition was made by the Popes concerned. The dogma of the ineffaceable quality of the sacramental character and the impossibility of repeating true ordination was always safeguarded.[259] The only disputed question would be whether the Sovereign Pontiff can control the power of validly conferring Orders in schismatic or excommunicate bishops. My own answer would be that he cannot, since the exercise of this power is of divine law. But those who hold that it is purely of canonical law would answer in the affirmative. At present the question is still open, from the dogmatic point of view.
It is surprising to see how many writers, basing themselves one on another, have spoken in this connection of an obscuring of the dogma in question. Baisi cites a number of them: Many, Chardon, Saltet, Tixeront, Michel. AS against them he maintains his own thesis, that the Popes concerned should never have done anything but go on to valid ordinations. Yet he himself fails to see that whatever the theory adopted—of ordinations sometimes invalidly repeated, or ordinations valid all the time—to speak of an obscuring of dogma in this dubious question of reordinations is completely to distort the theological perspective of the matter.[260]
3. According to the second explanation bishops hold the ordinary power of confirming and ordaining which is proper to them, by simple canon law, and the Sovereign Pontiff can bind or loose this power at will. Hence, there seems to be no difficulty in explaining the conduct of the Popes. The Popes concerned could proclaim the nullity of ordinations and concern themselves with eventually making them valid inasmuch as, and during the period when, they had decided to limit as to validity the power of schismatic or excommunicate bishops—either of all schismatic bishops or those only who had been ordained by schismatics, either all simoniac bishops or only those in turn ordaining for money. This is the solution put forward by Baisi, among others.[261] At first sight it seems to clear up everything, but further consideration reveals it as not very helpful and itself the source of new problems. It does not explain how John VIII was able to recognize the validity of ordinations conferred by one excommunicate (Photius) and deny the validity of those conferred by another (Ansbert). It does not justify Pope Sergius III in denying the validity of ordinations conferred by another Pope, that is, Formosus. When concerned to pronounce upon the validity of Anglican ordinations the Popes, from Julius III to Leo XIII, have been interested in one point only: were these ordinations carried out according to the Catholic rite? The question of the possible invalidity of an ordination carried out according to the Catholic rite by a schismatical or heretical bishop did not enter their minds.[262] And finally, if the Popes were able (at the time of the schism of Michael Caerularius, for instance) to bind, even tacitly and for a time—in accordance with views said to have been those "of the large majority of the bishops and the ordinary magisterium"—the ordaining power of the orthodox bishops, what guarantee have we of the validity of ordinations in the Orthodox Church, a point today contested by none?
4. Thus, in my opinion, the theory which is imposed on any theologian who tries to elucidate the question of so-called reordinations is that of the Code of Canon Law—that which maintains that bishops differ from priests in the line of order by divine law.
247 Louis Saltet, Les reordinations, Etude sur le sacrement de l 'ordre, Paris 1907, pp. 102-4. He is not sure whether the Council considered Constantine as truly bishop
248 ibid., p. 143
249 ibid., pp. 148-52
250 ibid., pp. 155-6
251 ibid., pp. 169-70
252 ibid., p. 183
253 ibid., pp. 239-244. We need not put too much weight on the text in which Innocent III declares valid the sacraments administered by even a sinful priest "provided that the Church recognizes it" (Denz., 424)
254 "From the origins of Christianity, there are two different traditions. That of Rome states that Baptism administered outside the Church can, under certain conditions, be valid and need not be repeated. The Asian tradition considered Baptism administered outside the Church as null, and also that administered inside the Church by ministers of a certain degree of unworthiness; and it admitted the repetition of such a Baptism. At this early date there was almost always question of Baptism alone; but these decisions were based upon an idea which could hardly fail to be extended, later, to the other sacraments.... The African Church first of all followed the Roman usage but later on adopted the Asian. In the middle of the third century under Pope Stephen a conflict arose between the Churches of Rome and Africa, and this was the baptismal controversy" (Saltet, op. cit., p. 387) In 692 the attitude of the Quinisext Council shows that "The Greek Church did not admit the reordination of heretics either. This conclusion is justified in the Greek theology of the succeeding period" (ibid., p. 58)
255 The Donatists having admitted that "he who leaves the Church loses not Baptism but the power of conferring it", St. Augustine answered that neither the one nor the other was lost: "These two things are in fact a sacrament. Both are given by way of a consecration, the one to him who is baptized, the other to him who is ordained. Thus it is forbidden, in the Catholica, to repeat either the one or the other" (Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii, cap. 13, no. 28)
256 St. Thomas replies to the question "Can heretics and those who are excluded from the Church confer Orders?" (In IV Sent., d. 25, q. 1, a. 2) by enumerating four opinions: (1) They can confer Orders insofar as they are tolerated by the Church and not after their exclusion: (2) If they have been consecrated bishops within the Church, they retain the power to confer Orders, but the bishops ordained by them will not have this power: (3) They confer Orders validly, and even sacramental grace, on those who culpably have recourse to their good offices: (4) They validly confer Orders but not sacramental grace on those who culpably have recourse to them. This last view is the only correct one.
257 Saltet, op. cit., pp. 76-7
258 ibid., p. 267.
259 Cf. Leo XIII in his Apostolic Letter on the subject of Anglican ordinations: "Since the Church has always held it a constant and inviolable principle that it is forbidden to repeat the sacrament of Order, it would be impossible for the Apostolic See to allow and tolerate in silence a custom of this kind."
260 "Is so general and protracted an obscuring of dogma admissible in the Church? These authors seem to have a somewhat original idea of the infallibility of the Pope and the Church in general. For my own part I believe that if in a matter of this kind the Pope made a mistake, and the bishops too, and that for so long a time, then it must be said that the Church made a mistake in her ordinary magisterium. Yet we know that the Church is infallible in her ordinary magisterium. Ergo..." (Baisi, op. cit., pp. 152-3) There was no obscuring of dogma here. But we are not obliged to adopt Baisi's theory that in the above-mentioned cases all the Popes' ordinations were valid
261 op. cit., pp. 151-8
262 Leo XIII, Letter on Anglican Ordinations: "In his letter of 8th March 1554 to the Apostolic Legate, Julius III makes a formal distinction between those who, having been elevated in a regular manner and according to the rite, should be upheld in their orders, and those who, having not been elevated to Holy Orders, could be so elevated if they were worthy and fit. There is here a clear distinction of two real categories of men. To the first belong those who had really received Holy Orders, either before Henry's schism or after it, through ministers attached to error or schism, but according to the accustomed Catholic rite; to the second, those who, being ordained according to the rite of King Edward, had received an invalid ordination and therefore could in due course be raised to Holy Orders.... This principle provides the basis for the doctrine that all sacraments conferred according to the Catholic rite are valid even when the minister is a heretic or tin the case of Baptism] unbaptized."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (s.v. "Reordinations") notes: "But for several centuries past, the teaching of St. Thomas alone has prevailed and is accepted by the whole Church, to the effect that ordinations performed by heretical, schismatical, or simoniacal ministers are to be considered as valid." For all practical purposes Leo XIII accepted this with Apostolicae Curae, in the passage cited above by Journet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.