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