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
You might want to demonstrate a little more charity in your responses to a fellow Catholic as I have been trying to demonstrate that without malice to you.
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.
They absolutely are NOT ceding that their sacraments are valid! Trite means boring or overused to the point of being threadbare. So let's rephrase their original statement using the dictionary definition of trite:
Is it trite when Old Catholic ministers claim their sacraments are considered valid by our Church."
It is boring and overused to the point of being threadbare that Old Catholic ministers "CLAIM" their sacraments are considered valid by our Church.
Okay, now tell me how that exactly expresses what you said? They are saying the oppposite of what you stressed. They are saying that their claims are boring, overused to the point of being threadbare.
Did you read the whole article by the Diocese? I'll post it again in case you didn't:
I will stress this once again and then I don't know what else to say on this subject. I have asked repeatedly for someone to show me documentation from the Vatican specifically stating (as they do with the Eastern Orthodox) that their orders are valid. No one will produce evidence to the contrary even though I have said I will cede the point if they can.
I have produced all kinds of documentation to try and back up what I am saying. Why is it that it doesn't seem to be a requisite for those in opposition to me? Wrappin it up here, show me the money!