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
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.