Like I said, Valid but Illicit. And I will continue to say so.
The Great Schism did not occur over a theological issue (ie. the original posters “minor differences” is an accurate comparison); the Orthodox Church was not and is not heretical. My point was to show that both sides of the Great Schism consider the other the schismatic. Someone cannot achieve a meaningful dialogue with a schismatic church until they can respect and understand how others view their own church as schismatic. The end on that issue.
I did not ignore terms. I tried to illuminate the difference between valid and illicit. I often see this missing in the posts on this site, probably because of people with little or no education in canon law. I also see a strong legalism that undermines arguments. Legalism is appropriate in issues of licitness (licit means legal) but it is the wrong approach when considering validity. And it was typified in the trigger response.
The Old Catholic Church is referenced indirectly in Dominus Iesus whereas, as far as I can recall, the Orthodox Church is explicitly referenced. Regardless, the point stands.
On the point about Anglicans, put it in context with the discussion on succession. Old Catholic bishops have participated in Anglican incardination for at least a hundred years, possibly longer. There is a good argument that they now hold valid apostolic succession, if not for the recent asparagus issue you bring up. And contrary to what I read, every Anglican I have asked claims to teach transubstantiation. There are severe problems with the continued assertion that Anglican sacraments are consistently invalid. The problem is in the asparagus, which I brought up first. I’m trying to hold some level of academic discussion. There are people reading these posts that are not Roman Catholic and everyone here should see an opportunity to influence their perspective. As I said before, legalistic arguments are for talking
to Roman Catholics not for influencing others. There are weaknesses in the Roman perspective, especially when it rests solely on being
Roman. It appears CIRCULAR and LEGALISTIC and people shrug it off and thank God they are not part of the One True Church. Is that what you want?
Schismatic is very different than heretical. So there are a lot of people that can feel insulted, not just you and me. Heretical = theological deviation. Schismatic = ecclesiastical deviation. For example, the Old Catholic perspective is that Rome caused an ecclesiastical deviation when it asserted Papal Infallibility over a thousand years into the show and after bad examples, like the internal schism. Its like a fight in the schoolyard, who threw the first punch? Which is a very similar fight seen in the Great Schism. And if you consider papal infallibility to be essential doctrine, you’re not serving the ecumenical interests of Dominus Iesus (papal statement) with your approach here. The primary code of canon law is that all other code should promote the interests of justice. The review of sacramental validity of other Catholic denominations has to be a continuous circumspect process, as Dominus Iesus is proof.
Whether female priests are anathema or impossibility, unfortunately they are reality. Bishops in the relevant denominations have attempted to “schism” only to face an ultimatum over church property—leave everything your community built up and start over or stay under a female archbishop. We should all try to use empathy for the contemporary developments in these denominations. Rote recitation is NOT going to bring anyone closer to a better world.
And on a final point, all of the issues of validity and licitness are common questions WITHIN the church, by its own clergy on a day-to-day basis. It gets VERY involved often with case-specific rulings that are not open to public review.
The distinguishing term in Roman Catholic Church is ROME. I see RC abbreviations in posts, it is no different to simply state Rome it is a common practice. That was a false point of contention if there ever was one and will not be entertained further. There are other Churches that Rome acknowledges as Catholic, whether they are considered to be in full or partial communion is secondary in order, as is your new topic on Rites, for instance, I’ve seen the posts on SSPX.
Valid but Illicit.
JGMendes4049 offered substantive argument. I think my main point of difference would be in expressing the uncertainty over both Episcopal and Old Catholic succession. I tried to communicate that in the first post but apparently people jump the gun here. The trouble spot on the succession issue deals with interaction between the two and the nature of their interactions now:
episcopalchurch.org/page/old-catholic-churches-union-utrecht
archive.episcopalchurch.org/79425_128343_ENG_HTM.htm
eurobishop.blogspot.com/2011/05/us-presiding-bishop-katharine-jefferts.html
