This is an explanation from the Catechism, hate to repeat it again, but you asked:
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."
The Eastern churches were with us from the beginning and have much more in common with our doctrines/beliefs than other churches. Indeed, as you pointed out they are soft on divorce and disagree with us on original sin. I'm not too sure about contraception, I will have to do further research that. I will take your word for it. These are issues that indeed put a stumbling block before us for full unity with them. That said, the Orthodox are part of the historic ecclesiastical communities created by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. To say that they aren't, would be to deny our own heritage in Church history.
The Polish National Church circa 1897 and the Old Catholic Church circa 1870 can not make that claim of being present in the time of Apostolic history.
That has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of their orders.
A valid sacrament requires (one more time) valid form, valid matter, a valid minister, a valid recipient, valid ministerial intent (typically, the intent to do what the Church does; it doesn't imply orthodoxy of belief), and valid intent on the part of the recipient (in an adult, the intent to receive the sacrament). The history of the group the minister or recipient belong to doesn't matter, as long as they're validly ordained in succession from the Apostles.
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, covers this extensively. (Ott was the standard text on dogmatics in the immediate pre-Vatican II era.)
Dear FJ290,
What you quote from the Catechism doesn't explain why the Orthodox have valid sacraments, including Holy Orders, just that they DO have valid sacraments and orders. And it doesn't say that the Polish National Catholic Church, and at least some of the Old Catholics DON'T have valid sacraments and Holy Orders.
"The Eastern churches were with us from the beginning and have much more in common with our doctrines/beliefs than other churches."
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. However, it doesn't matter, directly.
Again, the validity of the sacrament does not lie in the belief of the minister of the sacrament. If one has proper matter and proper form, and the minister of the sacrament does what the Church intends to do, then the sacrament is valid.
The belief that one must hold orthodox belief for sacraments one performs to be valid is Donatism.
"Indeed, as you pointed out they are soft on divorce and disagree with us on original sin. I'm not too sure about contraception, I will have to do further research that."
Some Orthodox are tougher on contraception than others, but it is my understanding that most Orthodox Churches believe that the question of contraception should be left to the couple in consultation with their spiritual father. My understanding is that the Orthodox permit contraception as a concession to human weakness.
"That said, the Orthodox are part of the historic ecclesiastical communities created by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. To say that they aren't, would be to deny our own heritage in Church history."
Are you saying that the validity of Orthodox sacraments and Holy Orders is a function of real estate? What about the Russian Orthodox Church? Moscow wasn't exactly part of the historic communities founded by the Apostles. Some of the slavic Orthodox Churches trace to Ss. Cyril and Methodius, not to any of the Apostles.
I think that after all this time, there is concern about the Old Catholics in that now most (all?) of them are ordaining and consecrating women, and it is possible that many no longer do what the Church intends to do. 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.
But there isn't any reason in principle that I know of why their orders couldn't be valid, if a denomination continues to intend to do what the Church does.
sitetest
Dear FJ290,
Concerning the Polish National Catholic Church, according to this USCCB article, there is "well-established mutual recognition of Holy Orders and other sacraments celebrated by bishops and priests of either church."
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2001/01-088.shtml
The dialogue of which you speak isn't about whether or not we recognize their Holy Orders, but rather, under what circumstances Catholics should be permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament in PNCC churches. Such a discussion presupposes the validity of PNCC orders.
sitetest