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.
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
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
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.
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