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
Oh I see. Therefore, you justify lack of charity because you think my posts were lacking in them? Please show me where I implied heresy on your part or made biting sarcastic remarks to you.
Yes, boring because the claim is irrelevant, not necessarily untrue.
Right.. sure. I am getting a little frustrated now. That's a stretch to say that. I feel you have totally ignored the entire article put up by the San Bernadino Diocese. I'm done with this.