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!
Dear FJ290,
"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."
Although I believe that you're posting without malice, nonetheless, your posts have a tone of stridency that gives some offense. Perhaps your frustration is showing through. As perhaps is SoothingDave's (and maybe even my own). Thus, perhaps you may wish to consider that any apparent lack of charity shown to you may be a reflection of your own posts to others.
"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."
Yes, boring because the claim is irrelevant, not necessarily untrue. The diocese is saying that the claim is trite because it's beside the point. Even if a particular Old Catholic group has valid sacraments, valid orders, it's illicit to join them, generally to receive the sacraments from them.
Thus, when the Old Catholics argue, "We have Apostolic Succession, we have Apostolic Succesion! We're Catholic because we have Apostolic Succession!" the diocese is saying, "Ho, hum. Who cares? Even if your particular group has Apostolic Succession, you are NOT Catholic, and it's a SIN to go off to your group!"
Thus, in the case of Old Catholics with valid orders (which is not all), if one receives the Eucharist from them, it is the Body and Blood of the Lord. But if there is not a lawful reason for one to be there, one is generally commiting a sin by receiving at such a place.
THAT'S the point of the diocese's post on this subject.
"No one will produce evidence to the contrary even though I have said I will cede the point if they can."
I have shown evidence that the Polish National Catholic Church (which derives its Apostolic Succession from the Old Catholic Church) is considered by the Catholic Church to have valid Holy Orders. It isn't from the Vatican, and it isn't explicit, but it is presumed in a USCCB document that I've cited.
The topic was determining rules under which Catholics and PNCCers could commune at each other's churches. This presumes validity of the Eucharist at the PNCC churches. Of course, to have a valid Eucharist, you need a validly ordained priest. And to have a validly ordained priest, you must have validly consecrated bishops.
There's no other way to get there from here.
"I have produced all kinds of documentation to try and back up what I am saying."
Nothing you've posted backs you up at all that there are no Old Catholic groups with valid Holy Orders, or that the PNCC does not have valid Holy Orders.
In fact, anything that you've posted on point actually is evidence to the contrary.
sitetest
From Charles Cardinal Journet's The Church of the Word Incarnate (Excursus II):
6. The Question Of So-Called ReordinationsThe answer given to the question of so-called "reordinations" will be greatly modified according as one adopts one or other of the theses concerning the distinction between bishops and priests in the line of order.
1. Let us briefly recall several facts. Leaving on one side the cases which are disputed at the historical level, we may reckon up five or six Popes who have proclaimed the nullity of ordinations made by anti-popes either in fact or presumption, schismatics, simoniacs, and have proceeded to fresh ordination. At the Roman Council of 769 Stephen III refused to recognize the ordinations of deacons, priests and bishops made by the usurper Constantine II and decided to reordain the bishops only.[247] John VIII (who nevertheless did not contest the validity of ordinations conferred by Photius at the time of his excommunication) [248] declared null the ordination conferred by the excommunicate Bishop Ansbert on the Bishop of Verceil, and this by a decision "without precedent in the history of the Popes".[249] Sergius III (904-11), following on the grim Council of Stephen VI, attacked the validity of the ordinations of Pope Formosus: "This was to pronounce a revision of ecclesiastical situations hitherto uncontested. As a result, doubt was cast on the validity of the most essential religious acts."[250] John XII of scandalous memory, dethroned by Leo VIII but reinstated for a brief period in 964, took advantage of the opportunity to declare null the ordinations of his rival.[251] St. Leo IX, in the course of his struggle against simoniacal ordinations, took a disconcerting decision; clerics ordained gratis by simoniacs were condemned to some penance and then allowed to exercise their Orders; ordinations made for money were for the most part considered as null, and repeated.[252] In 1088 Urban II reordained Daibert, who had been raised to the diaconate by the Archbishop of Mayence, who had been consecrated by schismatics.[253]
Side by side with this series of facts may be set another which stems from the origins of the Roman Church, [254] and is to be located with St. Augustine [255] and the great Scholastics [256] such as Anastasius II [257] and Pascal II [258]. Those who follow this authentic tradition maintain that certain sacraments, Order among them, can be dispensed validly even by schismatics.
Here we must note two things: (1) In none of the cases of so-called "reordination" was there any thought of annulling (in the proper sense of the word), and then repeating, ordinations which should have been valid. It was simply declared that ordinations which had been considered as valid had not in fact been so, and then true ordinations took place. The traditional doctrine, according to which the sacrament of Order confers an ineffaceable character and thus cannot be repeated, was fully appreciated and never forgotten: (2) In the case of Ansbert, who was truly a bishop but excommunicate, and in the case of bishops ordained within the Church but afterwards fallen into schism or simony, there was no question of contesting the validity of their own Orders, but the validity of their exercise: in other words they were from that point onwards denied the right of conferring valid ordinations. How are these facts to be explained?
2. According to the first explanation, it will be remembered, bishops hold by divine law a power of confirming and ordaining which is proper to them. This power is ordinary, that is, not subject to limitation and always free from limitation. A heretical bishop, or a schismatic bishop, even one who is a simoniac or generally sinful, ordains illicitly but validly. Thus ordinations by such bishops ought not to be "repeated". In consequence those Popes would be right who refused to do it, and those wrong who countenanced it. The latter decision would be misleading even if taken in good faith, and much more so if under the influence of personal animosity. But we should also note that no erroneous dogmatic definition was made by the Popes concerned. The dogma of the ineffaceable quality of the sacramental character and the impossibility of repeating true ordination was always safeguarded.[259] The only disputed question would be whether the Sovereign Pontiff can control the power of validly conferring Orders in schismatic or excommunicate bishops. My own answer would be that he cannot, since the exercise of this power is of divine law. But those who hold that it is purely of canonical law would answer in the affirmative. At present the question is still open, from the dogmatic point of view.
It is surprising to see how many writers, basing themselves one on another, have spoken in this connection of an obscuring of the dogma in question. Baisi cites a number of them: Many, Chardon, Saltet, Tixeront, Michel. AS against them he maintains his own thesis, that the Popes concerned should never have done anything but go on to valid ordinations. Yet he himself fails to see that whatever the theory adopted—of ordinations sometimes invalidly repeated, or ordinations valid all the time—to speak of an obscuring of dogma in this dubious question of reordinations is completely to distort the theological perspective of the matter.[260]
3. According to the second explanation bishops hold the ordinary power of confirming and ordaining which is proper to them, by simple canon law, and the Sovereign Pontiff can bind or loose this power at will. Hence, there seems to be no difficulty in explaining the conduct of the Popes. The Popes concerned could proclaim the nullity of ordinations and concern themselves with eventually making them valid inasmuch as, and during the period when, they had decided to limit as to validity the power of schismatic or excommunicate bishops—either of all schismatic bishops or those only who had been ordained by schismatics, either all simoniac bishops or only those in turn ordaining for money. This is the solution put forward by Baisi, among others.[261] At first sight it seems to clear up everything, but further consideration reveals it as not very helpful and itself the source of new problems. It does not explain how John VIII was able to recognize the validity of ordinations conferred by one excommunicate (Photius) and deny the validity of those conferred by another (Ansbert). It does not justify Pope Sergius III in denying the validity of ordinations conferred by another Pope, that is, Formosus. When concerned to pronounce upon the validity of Anglican ordinations the Popes, from Julius III to Leo XIII, have been interested in one point only: were these ordinations carried out according to the Catholic rite? The question of the possible invalidity of an ordination carried out according to the Catholic rite by a schismatical or heretical bishop did not enter their minds.[262] And finally, if the Popes were able (at the time of the schism of Michael Caerularius, for instance) to bind, even tacitly and for a time—in accordance with views said to have been those "of the large majority of the bishops and the ordinary magisterium"—the ordaining power of the orthodox bishops, what guarantee have we of the validity of ordinations in the Orthodox Church, a point today contested by none?
4. Thus, in my opinion, the theory which is imposed on any theologian who tries to elucidate the question of so-called reordinations is that of the Code of Canon Law—that which maintains that bishops differ from priests in the line of order by divine law.
247 Louis Saltet, Les reordinations, Etude sur le sacrement de l 'ordre, Paris 1907, pp. 102-4. He is not sure whether the Council considered Constantine as truly bishop
248 ibid., p. 143
249 ibid., pp. 148-52
250 ibid., pp. 155-6
251 ibid., pp. 169-70
252 ibid., p. 183
253 ibid., pp. 239-244. We need not put too much weight on the text in which Innocent III declares valid the sacraments administered by even a sinful priest "provided that the Church recognizes it" (Denz., 424)
254 "From the origins of Christianity, there are two different traditions. That of Rome states that Baptism administered outside the Church can, under certain conditions, be valid and need not be repeated. The Asian tradition considered Baptism administered outside the Church as null, and also that administered inside the Church by ministers of a certain degree of unworthiness; and it admitted the repetition of such a Baptism. At this early date there was almost always question of Baptism alone; but these decisions were based upon an idea which could hardly fail to be extended, later, to the other sacraments.... The African Church first of all followed the Roman usage but later on adopted the Asian. In the middle of the third century under Pope Stephen a conflict arose between the Churches of Rome and Africa, and this was the baptismal controversy" (Saltet, op. cit., p. 387) In 692 the attitude of the Quinisext Council shows that "The Greek Church did not admit the reordination of heretics either. This conclusion is justified in the Greek theology of the succeeding period" (ibid., p. 58)
255 The Donatists having admitted that "he who leaves the Church loses not Baptism but the power of conferring it", St. Augustine answered that neither the one nor the other was lost: "These two things are in fact a sacrament. Both are given by way of a consecration, the one to him who is baptized, the other to him who is ordained. Thus it is forbidden, in the Catholica, to repeat either the one or the other" (Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii, cap. 13, no. 28)
256 St. Thomas replies to the question "Can heretics and those who are excluded from the Church confer Orders?" (In IV Sent., d. 25, q. 1, a. 2) by enumerating four opinions: (1) They can confer Orders insofar as they are tolerated by the Church and not after their exclusion: (2) If they have been consecrated bishops within the Church, they retain the power to confer Orders, but the bishops ordained by them will not have this power: (3) They confer Orders validly, and even sacramental grace, on those who culpably have recourse to their good offices: (4) They validly confer Orders but not sacramental grace on those who culpably have recourse to them. This last view is the only correct one.
257 Saltet, op. cit., pp. 76-7
258 ibid., p. 267.
259 Cf. Leo XIII in his Apostolic Letter on the subject of Anglican ordinations: "Since the Church has always held it a constant and inviolable principle that it is forbidden to repeat the sacrament of Order, it would be impossible for the Apostolic See to allow and tolerate in silence a custom of this kind."
260 "Is so general and protracted an obscuring of dogma admissible in the Church? These authors seem to have a somewhat original idea of the infallibility of the Pope and the Church in general. For my own part I believe that if in a matter of this kind the Pope made a mistake, and the bishops too, and that for so long a time, then it must be said that the Church made a mistake in her ordinary magisterium. Yet we know that the Church is infallible in her ordinary magisterium. Ergo..." (Baisi, op. cit., pp. 152-3) There was no obscuring of dogma here. But we are not obliged to adopt Baisi's theory that in the above-mentioned cases all the Popes' ordinations were valid
261 op. cit., pp. 151-8
262 Leo XIII, Letter on Anglican Ordinations: "In his letter of 8th March 1554 to the Apostolic Legate, Julius III makes a formal distinction between those who, having been elevated in a regular manner and according to the rite, should be upheld in their orders, and those who, having not been elevated to Holy Orders, could be so elevated if they were worthy and fit. There is here a clear distinction of two real categories of men. To the first belong those who had really received Holy Orders, either before Henry's schism or after it, through ministers attached to error or schism, but according to the accustomed Catholic rite; to the second, those who, being ordained according to the rite of King Edward, had received an invalid ordination and therefore could in due course be raised to Holy Orders.... This principle provides the basis for the doctrine that all sacraments conferred according to the Catholic rite are valid even when the minister is a heretic or tin the case of Baptism] unbaptized."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (s.v. "Reordinations") notes: "But for several centuries past, the teaching of St. Thomas alone has prevailed and is accepted by the whole Church, to the effect that ordinations performed by heretical, schismatical, or simoniacal ministers are to be considered as valid." For all practical purposes Leo XIII accepted this with Apostolicae Curae, in the passage cited above by Journet.