American Catholic Church

[cmodrmac]

I agree with GKC -I also agree that this link will go no farther-from the Roman catholic viewpoint only they have the right to determine what is valid and what is not-we respectfully disagree

the Old catholic Churches are really few in the Christian community-the sole exception is the Polish National catholic church with over 25,000 members -most in the Pennsylvania-Western New York -Chicago environs-the Vatican has approached them-and they are allowed to receive commuinon-thus illicit in this case does not equal invalid

 

[twf]

Marriages and Confessions in a schismatic church are invalid because there is a lack of jurisdiction. I can’t explain why the other sacraments were judged invalid as well.

We have to be careful here. Marriages contracted by Catholics in a schismatic church are invalid, because Catholics are bound by canonical form for contracting a valid marriage. Thus, a putative marriage attempted by two Catholics before an SSPX priest, who lacks jurisdiction, is invalid. On the other hand, a marriage contracted between two baptized Protestants, or two baptized members of another Church, even if “schismatic”, can still be both valid and sacramental.
GKC: Your initial comments on valid but illicit applies quite nicely to questions concerning the Eucharist and ordination, but it gets sticky when marriage and confession enter the mix.

 

[GKC]

We have to be careful here. Marriages contracted by Catholics in a schismatic church are invalid, because Catholics are bound by canonical form for contracting a valid marriage. Thus, a putative marriage attempted by two Catholics before an SSPX priest, who lacks jurisdiction, is invalid. On the other hand, a marriage contracted between two baptized Protestants, or two baptized members of another Church, even if “schismatic”, can still be both valid and sacramental.
GKC: Your initial comments on valid but illicit applies quite nicely to questions concerning the Eucharist and ordination, but it gets sticky when marriage and confession enter the mix.

I’ve noticed that before. There is another point or two that requires a little differentiation amongst the sacraments, as to validity. I became interested in the whole question around 16-18 years ago, in reading some of my focus areas in history. The Eucharist and ordination/orders get the most attention, but matrimony, back pre-reformation, is also of interest. When the subject was a little more straight forward. And I tend to think in those terms.

History is complicated.

 

[twf]

I’ve noticed that before. There is another point or two that requires a little differentiation amongst the sacraments, as to validity. I became interested in the whole question around 16-18 years ago, in reading some of my focus areas in history. The Eucharist and ordination/orders get the most attention, but matrimony, back pre-reformation, is also of interest. When the subject was a little more straight forward. And I tend to think in those terms.

History is complicated.

True. Prior to Trent, if my recollection is correct, Catholics could still contract a valid marriage without canonical form…it would just be illicit.

 

[marymary1975]

And as I said, schismatic would not invalidate any sacrament, assuming the schismatics possessed valid/illicit orders, and all other factors (form, intent, matter and subject) were valid. If there was a form problem, that would be problematic, certainly, but would also be relative to that specific case and that particular form.

I doubt we will get much further in this discussion.

It is incorrect to say that their sacraments are valid because there are many cases of people who inadvertently either got married, got their kids baptized or had first communions on this church only to then go to a catholic priest to tell them that either they don’t have a valid catholic marriage, the kid has to do first communion again or that the baby is not catholic. Again I am not discussing it, I know it for a fact because I do know actual cases and I know actual cases exactly with the American Catholic Church and our Diocesis given the number if cases has been pretty vocal warning people to not go to this church to get sacraments or to hear masses because you can’t even fulfill the mass requirement there. Any sacrament you take there even mass or confesiiin would be like if you go to an episcopal church.

 

[marymary1975]

That’s getting at it. So, a civil marriage would raise a diriment impediment, requiring a civil divorce, to proceed to Joe and Christine being joined in the RCC validly. Hence, such a civil divorce would clear the impediment, and no occasion for seeking a decree of nullity would arise. Yes?

No, if Joe is baptized catholic his marriage has a lack of form defect. Hr has to get a civil divorce and after that speak with the catholic priest to obtain a lack of form annulity which is very simple and quick process (may not even take a week).

 

[FrDavid96]

It is incorrect to say that their sacraments are valid because there are many cases of people who inadvertently either got married, got their kids baptized or had first communions on this church only to then go to a catholic priest to tell them that either they don’t have a valid catholic marriage, the kid has to do first communion again or that the baby is not catholic. Again I am not discussing it, I know it for a fact because I do know actual cases and I know actual cases exactly with the American Catholic Church and our Diocesis given the number if cases has been pretty vocal warning people to not go to this church to get sacraments or to hear masses because you can’t even fulfill the mass requirement there. Any sacrament you take there even mass or confesiiin would be like if you go to an episcopal church.

There can be no single answer to the question “valid or not valid?”

It varies depending on the circumstances, and exactly which sacrament.

If this “church” performs a baptism using water and the Trinitarian formula, it’s a valid baptism. That’s why we cannot say that everything is invalid.
Unless it’s danger-of-death no person baptised by them would be considered a Catholic. Anyone baptised by them would still have to be either received into the Catholic Church or the local pastor would supply what was lacking in the baptism.

The Catholic Church would not recognize any of their “first Communions” as equivalent of Catholic First Communion—no matter what. However, their Eucharist might (just might) sometimes be valid. Some of their priests are former Catholic priests, validly ordained. Some are not. Validity of their [attempted] Eucharist would depend first upon the ordination of the “priest” and if he was validly ordained, then other factors would be considered. Again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If two people who were born as members of this “church” get married in the presence of one of their ministers, it would be a valid marriage. If either party was ever Catholic, it would not be a valid marriage. Yet again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I do not doubt that in the exact circumstances you describe, the Catholic priest determined that every attempt at a Sacrament was invalid in that particular case. But that does not necessarily translate into saying that every attempt at a Sacrament made by them is automatically invalid.

Yes, Catholics should be warned against participating. No doubt. And under no circumstances should any Catholic ever actively seek Sacraments from them. However, the question of “valid or invalid?” just does not have a single answer.

In danger of death, any validly ordained priest can absolve a penitent. If one of their priests is a former Catholic priest (and some are, though most are not, as far as I know), then he can still validly absolve a dying person.

 

[GKC]

There can be no single answer to the question “valid or not valid?”

It varies depending on the circumstances, and exactly which sacrament.

If this “church” performs a baptism using water and the Trinitarian formula, it’s a valid baptism. That’s why we cannot say that everything is invalid.
Unless it’s danger-of-death no person baptised by them would be considered a Catholic. Anyone baptised by them would still have to be either received into the Catholic Church or the local pastor would supply what was lacking in the baptism.

The Catholic Church would not recognize any of their “first Communions” as equivalent of Catholic First Communion—no matter what. However, their Eucharist might (just might) sometimes be valid. Some of their priests are former Catholic priests, validly ordained. Some are not. Validity of their [attempted] Eucharist would depend first upon the ordination of the “priest” and if he was validly ordained, then other factors would be considered. Again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If two people who were born as members of this “church” get married in the presence of one of their ministers, it would be a valid marriage. If either party was ever Catholic, it would not be a valid marriage. Yet again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I do not doubt that in the exact circumstances you describe, the Catholic priest determined that every attempt at a Sacrament was invalid in that particular case. But that does not necessarily translate into saying that every attempt at a Sacrament made by them is automatically invalid.

Yes, Catholics should be warned against participating. No doubt. And under no circumstances should any Catholic ever actively seek Sacraments from them. However, the question of “valid or invalid?” just does not have a single answer.

In danger of death, any validly ordained priest can absolve a penitent. If one of their priests is a former Catholic priest (and some are, though most are not, as far as I know), then he can still validly absolve a dying person.

And if they possess episcopal lines from a validly consecrated but schismatic bishop, as it seems to have been alleged, the question of the validity (not the licitness) of their orders and hence of sacramental actions depending on those orders, is another complicating factor, per Ott, p. 458.

If the problem in the case at hand was related to sacramental matter or form what is the contemporary definition of the matter and form in the sacrament of matrimony? I have read conflicting statements on that, and think I see another one, in this discussion .

But in general, what you are saying here is roughly what I was trying to convey, on the corresponding points. It seemed to be an overstatement to say all the sacramental actions were necessarily invalid.

 

[GKC]

No, if Joe is baptized catholic his marriage has a lack of form defect. Hr has to get a civil divorce and after that speak with the catholic priest to obtain a lack of form annulity which is very simple and quick process (may not even take a week).

Ok. Then what is the definition of valid form, in the sacrament of matrimony? And what constituted the defect? I have read more than one assertion on this.

 

[GKC]

It is incorrect to say that their sacraments are valid because there are many cases of people who inadvertently either got married, got their kids baptized or had first communions on this church only to then go to a catholic priest to tell them that either they don’t have a valid catholic marriage, the kid has to do first communion again or that the baby is not catholic. Again I am not discussing it, I know it for a fact because I do know actual cases and I know actual cases exactly with the American Catholic Church and our Diocesis given the number if cases has been pretty vocal warning people to not go to this church to get sacraments or to hear masses because you can’t even fulfill the mass requirement there. Any sacrament you take there even mass or confesiiin would be like if you go to an episcopal church.

Which would seem to say that, contrary to the assumption of this discussion, ab initio, these folk do not possess episcopal lines from a schismatic validly consecrated bishop, thus negating all the comments which assumed a valid but illicit minister of the sacraments…

But the question of the relationship between the Episcopalians and the OCs/Utrecht and the PNCC, post 1932 and 1946, respectively, would open up another can of worms, again looking to the implications of Ott, p. 458.

 

[GKC]

True. Prior to Trent, if my recollection is correct, Catholics could still contract a valid marriage without canonical form…it would just be illicit.

Since the subject as found in the 16th century is one of the two main points of focus for my interest in the overall question of sacramental validity and what is required for it, what was the requisite sacramental form of matrimony at the time (pre-Trent), if you recall it? And what was your source?

Learning things is always good.

 

[FrDavid96]

And if they possess episcopal lines from a validly consecrated but schismatic bishop, as it seems to have been alleged, the question of the validity (not the licitness) of their orders and hence of sacramental actions depending on those orders, is another complicating factor, per Ott, p. 458.

Yes, a complicated matter. Which is why I avoided it (as you might have noticed)

If the problem in the case at hand was related to sacramental matter what is the contemporary definition of the matter in the sacrament of matrimony? I have read conflicting statements on that, and think I see another one, in this discussion .

It’s not the matter of the sacrament as such. It’s more about jurisdiction. Who can receive the vows? If one party is (or ever was) Catholic, then a Catholic minister must receive the vows (or a dispensation from form). If neither is Catholic, then anyone can receive the vows. It’s not the giving-of-vows that matters (in this thread), it is who receives them.

But in general, what you are saying here is roughly what I was trying to convey, on the corresponding points. It seemed to be an overstatement to say all the sacramental actions were necessarily invalid.

Yes. We cannot simply answer “yes” or “no.” We cannot say “always invalid.”

 

[GKC]

Yes, a complicated matter. Which is why I avoided it (as you might have noticed)

It’s not the matter of the sacrament as such. It’s more about jurisdiction. Who can receive the vows? If one party is (or ever was) Catholic, then a Catholic minister must receive the vows (or a dispensation from form). If neither is Catholic, then anyone can receive the vows. It’s not the giving-of-vows that matters (in this thread), it is who receives them.

Yes. We cannot simply answer “yes” or “no.” We cannot say “always invalid.”

I think you are correct. Though my interest in the subject leads me to consider, from the historical view, what was the valid form/matter/intent/minister/subject of the sacraments, at a given point (which isn’t contemporary). As before the issuing of SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS with respect to the form/matter of Holy Orders.

History is complex.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think you are correct. Though my interest in the subject leads me to consider, from the historical view, what was the valid form/matter/intent/minister/subject of the sacraments, at a given point (which isn’t contemporary). As before the issuing of SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS with respect to the form/matter of Holy Orders.

History is complex.

So if a couple got married, let’s call the husband Henry and we’ll call the wife, what?, how about Catherine? What’s the chance that the priest did not have proper jurisdiction? What would it have been sometime very early in the 16th century? Does my hypothetical situation correspond to yours?

 

[GKC]

So if a couple got married, let’s call the husband Henry and we’ll call the wife, what?, how about Catherine? What’s the chance that the priest did not have proper jurisdiction? What would it have been sometime very early in the 16th century? Does my hypothetical situation correspond to yours?

Yep. As to that point.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yep. As to that point.

While I have not researched it myself, my instincts tell me that if it were that easy, someone would have thought of that at the time, especially considering the volumes of canonical research that was done and the expertise of the canonists. If it turned out that the minister who received the vows lacked the necessary jurisdiction (whatever that was at the time) it would be one of history’s greatest ironies (or most pathetic jokes).

I’m looking up the actual facts for the following paragraph:
-]I cannot find the answer, but given that he was king at the time, I suppose the Archbishop of Canterbury was the officiant, and as primate he would have had jurisdiction. Not facts, but I rather think that would be the case./-]

The ceremony was a relatively quiet one in a chapel. Still researching for actual facts.

 

[marymary1975]

There can be no single answer to the question “valid or not valid?”

It varies depending on the circumstances, and exactly which sacrament.

If this “church” performs a baptism using water and the Trinitariancatholics u it’s a valid baptism. That’s why we cannot say that everything is invalid.
Unless it’s danger-of-death no person baptised by them would be considered a Catholic. Anyone baptised by them would still have to be either received into the Catholic Church or the local pastor would supply what was lacking in the baptism.

The Catholic Church would not recognize any of their “first Communions” as equivalent of Catholic First Communion—no matter what. However, their Eucharist might (just might) sometimes be valid. Some of their priests are former Catholic priests, validly ordained. Some are not. Validity of their [attempted] Eucharist would depend first upon the ordination of the “priest” and if he was validly ordained, then other factors would be considered. Again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If two people who were born as members of this “church” get married in the presence of one of their ministers, it would be a valid marriage. If either party was ever Catholic, it would not be a valid marriage. Yet again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I do not doubt that in the exact circumstances you describe, the Catholic priest determined that every attempt at a Sacrament was invalid in that particular case. But that does not necessarily translate into saying that every attempt at a Sacrament made by them is automatically invalid.

Yes, Catholics should be warned against participating. No doubt. And under no circumstances should any Catholic ever actively seek Sacraments from them. However, the question of “valid or invalid?” just does not have a single answer.

In danger of death, any validly ordained priest can absolve a penitent. If one of their priests is a former Catholic priest (and some are, though most are not, as far as I know), then he can still validly absolve a dying person.

This is exactly what I said originally. If a child is baptized there under the trinitarian formula the baptism is valid but the child would have to be eventually brought up into the catholic church. A marriage between two baptized catholics with no dispensation at all would not be valid. Their first communions are not recognized by the church. And we cannot fulfill the mass obligation on Sundays there.

The problem is many of these churches call themselves only catholic churches and if you ask they will say that they are in communion with Rome, so particularly Hispanics or Catholics that are not fluent in English and don’t know about them go there looking to get their kids baptized into the catholic church to later find that the kid has to be brought into thechurch or to do first communion tthinking that it was RCC to later find that their first communions are not valid. Same with marriage two baptized catholics go there thinking that they getting married under the RCC to later find that the church didn’t have jurisdiction.

Obviously if two people born within this church and who belong to this church marry under this church then it is valid but that wasn’t the case I meant. I meant two baptized catholics bounded by canon law.

 

[GKC]

This is exactly what I said originally. If a child is baptized there under the trinitarian formula the baptism is valid but the child would have to be eventually brought up into the catholic church. A marriage between two baptized catholics with no dispensation at all would not be valid. Their first communions are not recognized by the church. And we cannot fulfill the mass obligation on Sundays there.

The problem is many of these churches call themselves only catholic churches and if you ask they will say that they are in communion with Rome, so particularly Hispanics or Catholics that are not fluent in English and don’t know about them go there looking to get their kids baptized into the catholic church to later find that the kid has to be brought into thechurch or to do first communion tthinking that it was RCC to later find that their first communions are not valid. Same with marriage two baptized catholics go there thinking that they getting married under the RCC to later find that the church didn’t have jurisdiction.

Obviously if two people born within this church and who belong to this church marry under this church then it is valid but that wasn’t the case I meant. I meant two baptized catholics bounded by canon law.

We really weren’t disagreeing about much.

 

[GKC]

While I have not researched it myself, my instincts tell me that if it were that easy, someone would have thought of that at the time, especially considering the volumes of canonical research that was done and the expertise of the canonists. If it turned out that the minister who received the vows lacked the necessary jurisdiction (whatever that was at the time) it would be one of history’s greatest ironies (or most pathetic jokes).

I’m looking up the actual facts for the following paragraph:
I cannot find the answer, but given that he was king at the time, I suppose the Archbishop of Canterbury was the officiant, and as primate he would have had jurisdiction. Not facts, but I rather think that would be the case.

AFAIK, the point was never raised. It certainly wouldn’t have been, in the response to Henry’s Great Matter, the issue being not jurisdiction, but whether Hank’s marriage to Katherine was valid or not due to the assertion in his causa that the dispensation he received from Julius to marry Arthur’s widow was ultra vires. There was another, stronger point, which Wolsey urged on Henry, as to an undispensed, but diriment, impediment of the justice of public honesty, as a basis for a decree of nullity, but Henry didn’t try that approach.

Though the entire system of impediments/dispensation/decrees of nullity at the time was mind-bogglingly complex (and pointedly so, for the simultaneous management both the making and breaking of dynastic marriages for reasons of state, and the control by the Church of the sacrament of matrimony as a sacrament) in one sense it was much simpler. The issue of jurisdiction was less likely to arise.

Henry and Catherine were wed in the chapel of the Observant Friars at Greenwich, Henry and his father were quite fond of them. Once upon a time. Who officiated I haven’t found yet, but I got a dozen bios of Hank to check over. Possibly ++Warham, yes.

 

[FrDavid96]

The are schismatic and no, their sacraments are not valid at all. I know this for a fact because I know a case of someone who mistakenly took a sacrament in the american catholic church just to discover a few years later that it was not valid in the catholic church. Their baptism if done under the trinitarian formula is seen as any other christian /non catholic baptism, the baptism itself is valid but the child is not catholic. Same as if it woukdnbe an episcopal baptism for example. So beware, they ate not part of the catholic church and their sacraments are not valid.

I rpeat to you, that the catholic church diocesis said that they are NOT valid. The catholic church itself had them to do the sacrament twice because the RCC is saying that it is not valid. Two baptized catholics who happened to marry in this church would have a lack of form defect. As I said I am very familiar with actual cases out of this church and their sacraments are not valid.

There can be no single answer to the question “valid or not valid?”

This is exactly what I said originally. If a child is baptized there under the trinitarian formula the baptism is valid but the child would have to be eventually brought up into the catholic church. A marriage between two baptized catholics with no dispensation at all would not be valid. Their first communions are not recognized by the church. And we cannot fulfill the mass obligation on Sundays there.

The problem is many of these churches call themselves only catholic churches and if you ask they will say that they are in communion with Rome, so particularly Hispanics or Catholics that are not fluent in English and don’t know about them go there looking to get their kids baptized into the catholic church to later find that the kid has to be brought into thechurch or to do first communion tthinking that it was RCC to later find that their first communions are not valid. Same with marriage two baptized catholics go there thinking that they getting married under the RCC to later find that the church didn’t have jurisdiction.

Obviously if two people born within this church and who belong to this church marry under this church then it is valid but that wasn’t the case I meant. I meant two baptized catholics bounded by canon law.

If you read the part I’ve put into red, you’ll see that it was not exactly what you said originally.