No, I did not miss it. Interesting comment I found by a priest, Father Robert Auman, on Ask Father.net
He said that no Bishop can be validly ordained that is outside the communion of the Catholic Church.
Another priest stated, Father John T. Zuhlsdorf, that if the Old Catholics orders were valid at one time, they certainly aren't now because the Bishops that were validly ordained in the Roman Catholic Church that broke with Rome and went over to the OCC, had now all died off, therefore making null and void apostolic succession.
I am aware that in May of 2006 there was some progress for unity with the Polish National Church. One of their demands is that we recognize the validity of their orders.
Here's my question to you, layman to layman. The Polish National Church is actually not as splintered as the Old Catholics churches. Many of the Old Catholic churches are independents. Neither church entity recognizes the Papacy, the Polish National Church says that original sin is not passsed on to succeeding generations and they reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The Old Catholic church is known for admitting unrepentant homosexuals into their "priesthood" and accepting homosexuals into their laity without repentance. The OCC doesn't reject divorce or contraception.
With those points in mind, how could any of their clergy be validly ordained?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia on Holy Orders:
"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.
Therefore, any subject outside the Church, rejecting her teachings, wouldn't be a lawful ordination. Do you see my point?
Dear FJ290,
I'm not sure that I can agree with Fr. Auman's or Fr. Z's analysis. Why, then, would the Holy Orders of the Orthodox not have failed, then?
Bishops have the capacity to consecrate a baptized man to be a priest or a bishop. They may not have papal permission or approval, but that isn't required for the ontological change to be effected when bishops consecrate.
We don't hold that a bishop or priest must be worthy, or even orthodox in his theology necessarily for his sacramental actions to be valid.
"With those points in mind, how could any of their clergy be validly ordained?"
Well, the Orthodox don't accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, reject the doctrine of Original Sin, and permit divorce and remarriage, and are often a little soft on contraception. Why do we consider their Holy Orders valid?
"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."
"Lawful" is licit. There is no question that these consecrations aren't licit.
Validity is a separate question.
What is licit is what is legal. What is valid is what actually occurs. An act may be illicit but valid.
The consecrations of the SSPX bishops were valid, but extremely illicit.
sitetest
You're confusing "lawful" with "valid"; they aren't the same things. "Lawful" (or "licit") means permitted by law; "valid" means the sacrament actually did something; it wasn't just a sham.
Nobody outside the Catholic Church is lawfully ordained, but some may be validly ordained.
Therefore, any subject outside the Church, rejecting her teachings, wouldn't be a lawful ordination.
Absolutely true. However, if the ordination had proper form (the words of the ordination liturgy itself), proper matter (imposition of hands), a valid minister (a validly ordained bishop), a valid recipient (a baptized male), and valid intent (the intent to ordain; intent to confer Holy Orders), it would be valid but not licit or lawful.