Female Catholic priest has first Mass

Gbcdoj, that is not evidence that they have valid orders from the Vatican or from Canon Law, which is what I asked for. I will state this as my final reply to this thread.

From the Encyclopedia of Catholicism Harper Collins 1989

Richard P. McBrien, STD

Professor of Theology

Notre Dame

Canon 844 permits Catholics permits Catholics who do not have access to a Catholic priest to receive Penance, Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick "from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid." This can be done "whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggest." This permission can most OBVIOUSLY be utlilized in relation to the Eastern churches not in union with Rome since the Catholic Church recognizes all of their sacraments to be valid. Occasions for the exercise of this permission could be illness, danger of death, or residence in a region where there are no Catholic priests.

Catholic ministers may also administer Penance, Eucharist, and the Anointing of the Sick to members fo non-Catholic Eastern churches "if they ask on their own accord....and are properly disposed." These sacraments can also be ministered to members of other churches who uphold the validity of these sacraments. The Holy See, however, has not identified those churches. But the canon does state that Catholic ministers may administer the sacraments to Christians who do not belong to the Eastern churches or churches similar to them if "they cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it." However, they have to share in the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and be properly disposed. Pg. 672

Yep, once again nary a mention of Old Catholics being among the churches you can validly receive Holy Communion or other sacraments. At this point, were I to be in a situation as described above, I would go to an Eastern church since it is specifically mentioned.

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.

Oh I see. Therefore, you justify lack of charity because you think my posts were lacking in them? Please show me where I implied heresy on your part or made biting sarcastic remarks to you.

Yes, boring because the claim is irrelevant, not necessarily untrue.

Right.. sure. I am getting a little frustrated now. That's a stretch to say that. I feel you have totally ignored the entire article put up by the San Bernadino Diocese. I'm done with this.

Dear FJ290,

I thought #141 was your last post to this thread?

LOL.

"Therefore, you justify lack of charity because you think my posts were lacking in them?"

Actually, I was just trying to encourage a little bit of self-reflection, and a little bit of human understanding. Guess those ideas went over like a lead balloon. ;-)

"Please show me where I implied heresy on your part..."

If you want to infer stuff, be my guest.

However, to say that one cannot administer sacraments because one has become a schismatic or a heretic is considered heresy. It's not my call. It was the call of the Church a very long time ago.

Since gbcdoj is looking in on this thread, I'll encourage him to be a little more specific. He's a lot better at it than I am.

"I feel you have totally ignored the entire article put up by the San Bernadino Diocese."

I read the article. Your posts don't suggest that you understand what it actually meant.

sitetest

Gbcdoj, you may have missed a previous post where I showed that Anglican orders are not valid and that if they come into our priesthood they have to be ordained according to our rites.

Here's a short reply from AskFather.net

When the Orthodox ordain, they use rites virtually unchanged since the days when Orthodoxy was in communion with Rome. In addition, we know from their writings that when they ordain, they intend to 1) pass on apostolic succession 2) to confect a change in the very being of the ordained so that the man now has 3) the *power*, not found among the laity, to absolve sin and 4)the *power*, not found among laity, to confect the Eucharist as a real and propitiatory sacrifice which is essentially one with the sacrifice of Calvary.

Pope Leo XIII, last century, stated that #3 and #4 above are so intrinsic to a valid priesthood that their absence in Anglican rites and professed faith caused invalidity, even if validly ordained bishops ordained Anglican priests with the Anglican Ordinal.

To sum up, the Orthodox possess valid apostolic succession, a correct theology of sacraments and the priesthood, and ritual books which adequately express the beliefs and intentions of a correct theology. The Anglicans in all likelihood do not possess apostolic succession, and even if strains of valid succession are present in some of their bishops, the theology and ritual books of Anglicanism are still considered to be grossly inadequate and in some cases, very Protestant in their liturgical theology.

Thus, Anglicanism cannot pass on a valid priesthood. In my opinion, an Anglican bishop could, with the right intentions, receive Holy Orders from a valid bishop, using our ritual books. But in order to validly pass on Holy Orders, he and the ordinandi would have to set aside Anglican rites, use our ritual books and publicly and explicitly profess submission and assent to a truly Catholic doctrine of the sacraments and the priesthood.

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely in Christ,

Fr. Angel Sotelo

I thought #141 was your last post to this thread?

There was another reply to me from you so I thought I should respond.

I read the article. Your posts don't suggest that you understand what it actually meant.

I think it's possible that you know exactly what it means but refuse to see the handwriting on the wall.

Since gbcdoj is looking in on this thread, I'll encourage him to be a little more specific. He's a lot better at it than I am.

No offense to him, but he didn't produce any documentation from the Vatican either.

I guess the reason no one does that is because they can't. It's not there.

FJ290,

I'm at a bit of a loss to where you get the idea that non-Catholics, except for the Orthodox, can't validly consecrate. It certainly isn't in the quotation from Fr. McBrien that you posted:

the canon does state that Catholic ministers may administer the sacraments to Christians who do not belong to the Eastern churches or churches similar to them

Canon 844 §3 states "This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches." This is an explicit recognition that it is possible for non-Catholics who are not members of the communion of the Orthodox Churches to possess valid, but objectively illicit, celebrations of the sacraments.

I have not seen an official statement from the Holy See that some Old Catholics have valid Orders but, conversely, it's certainly true that you have presented no statement that they don't have such orders. Moreover, it is quite possible for them to have such orders, according to the principles of Catholic theology outlined by the encyclopedia article I cited and Cardinal Journet's discussion of the point. It is the common theological opinion in the Catholic Church that the Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht (to be distinguished from the American Old Catholics) possess valid Orders, as does the Polish National Catholic Church.

As far as being able to receive communion in a so-called old Catholic Church under the provisions of can. 844 (moral necessity, absence of spiritual danger, and no access to a Catholic priest), my understanding is that the validity of the American Old Catholic orders is usually considered doubtful, not because of their schism or heresy but because of certain other reasons. Hence this should not be permitted. The PNCC with its valid orders would be a different story. In any case such conditions simply do not exist here in America and any protestation of can. 844 for regular attendance and reception of the Sacraments at a non-Catholic Church, even an Orthodox Church (though they don't usually permit Catholics to receive), would be ignorant or in bad faith.

Gbcdoj, you may have missed a previous post where I showed that Anglican orders are not valid and that if they come into our priesthood they have to be ordained according to our rites.

Hmm, not sure why you'd think that? My post to you did contain a discussion of the reasons for the invalidity of Anglican orders: the Anglicans rejected the Catholic theology of the priesthood and re-wrote their ordination ritual to make it clear that they weren't ordaining priests, simply appointing leaders for a congregation. If you'll consult "Apostolicae Curae," the Bull of Leo XIII on the invalidity of Anglican orders, you'll see that it's possible for a non-Catholic to confer orders validly. That the Anglicans were not members of the Catholic Church is not put forth by the Pope as a proof of the invalidity of their orders:

For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted. [. . .]
With this 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. [. . .]
Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

FWIW, Msgr. Leonard Graham, a former Anglican bishop, was ordained conditionally (sub conditione) as a Catholic priest, because of the participation of Old Catholic bishops in Anglican episcopal consecrations during the 40s and 50s (the Anglican rite was employed). The same is true for Fr. John Jay Hughes. This was done upon consultation with the Holy See, in view of the unquestioned validity of the orders of these Old Catholic bishops. My source is Cardinal Hume:

While firmly restating the judgment of Apostolicae Curae that Anglican ordination is invalid, the Catholic Church takes account of the involvement, in some Anglican episcopal ordinations, of bishops of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht who are validly ordained. In particular and probably rare cases the authorities in Rome may judge that there is a "prudent doubt" concerning the invalidity of priestly ordination received by an individual Anglican minister ordain in this line of succession.
There are many complex factors which would need to be verified in each case. It is most unlikely that sufficient evidence will normally be available, but in Dr. Leonard's case, very full documentation was available which enabled the authorities in Rome to reach a judgment, and in this particular case that judgment was that a "prudent doubt" exists. Of course, if there were other cases where sufficient evidence was available, the balance of that evidence may lead the authorities to reach a different judgment.
After extensive research and careful consideration of the factors necessary for validity, the authorities in Rome instructed me to ordain Dr. Leonard to the priesthood conditionally, in accordance with the norms of Canon 845.2. In such a case, during the course of the ordination liturgy the church prays that almighty God will grant the candidate the grace of the Catholic priesthood in case he has not received it through his ordination celebrated in the Anglican Communion.