American Catholic Church

Can anyone tell me anything about the American Catholic Church, and do they have valid sacraments?

My guess that would depend on the state of their Old Catholic episcopal lines. But those sacraments requiring valid apostolic succession certainly would not be considered licit, by Rome, in any case.

It’s a schismatic liberal Catholic group, literally confesses itself to be “Catholicism, but with communion for the divorced, married priests, womens ordination and same sex marriage”.

As for its sacraments I would assume they are valid if indeed received from the Old Catholic union, but as pointed out they are illict in the eyes of Rome. Not that they’d care much I guess.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=946946

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.

IF their episcopal orders are valid, as was the case with the original OCs/Utrecht, their sacraments requiring a valid clergy would be valid/illicit, assuming all other sacramental requirements were equally valid. Logically.

They are not valid. I am telling you because I know someone whose kids received two sacraments in there by one of their priest thinking that the sacraments were valid. When they moved and went to the catholic church the church stated that the sacraments were not valid in the Catholic church. If you marry there is not valid. If you get a baptism there the child is not part of the catholic church and a first communion is not valid. The case I know the first communion had to be done again in the catholic church and the kid become catholic only after doing the first communion in the actual catholic church. There are quite a few cases just like that out of the american catholic church and another schismatic fake catholic church that is pretty well spread in the south of the US.

Schismatic does not necessarily mean invalid. If a schismatic bishop possessing valid apostolic succession (as was the case with the original OCs), ordains to the priesthood, such ordinations are valid, though illicit (Ott/FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458). If, that is, all other aspects of the ordination, or of any other sacramental action (form, matter, intent, subject/recipient) are likewise valid.

Certainly, a baptism in any circumstances other than within the RCC does not mean the recipient is a member of the RCC. But if all aspects of the sacramental action are valid (and the minister need not be RC, or even Christian), the baptism is valid. The recipient is validly baptized, though not formally a member of the RCC. Similarly, a marriage not performed within the RCC is still recognized as a legal marriage, but not a sacramental one.

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.

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.

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.

Lack of jurisdiction is what results in illicitness (assuming validity in the sacramental action, per Ott).

Illicit yes, but it also results in invalidity.

QUAERITUR: Why are SSPX Masses valid, but not marriages or absolutions?

Excellent link. And, in a sense, I had apprehended that, in part, when I said that a marriage not performed in a sacramental (RCC) setting was recognized as legal, but not as sacramental.

Bookmarked that.

Thank you.

The only thing that makes a marriage sacramental is the baptismal status of both spouses. The word you’re looking for is “valid”. A church marriage performed without canonical jurisdiction can be legally valid in the eyes of the state, but canonically illicit and invalid. Sacramentality isn’t a question when a marriage is invalid.

In this instance, I see what you are saying.

If so, in what circumstances would such an invalid/legal marriage serve as an impediment to a valid (in the RCC’s eyes) marriage.

I am not sure I understand your question. Do you mean, what happens if Joe “marries” Susan in the American Catholic Church, and then Joe attempts to marry Christine in the Roman Catholic Church? I am not actually sure. Joe is not actually married in the eyes of the Church, but he is married in the eyes of the state, and therefore not entirely free to contract marriage with Christine. I would think that the standard procedure for any diocese would be to require that Joe obtain a civil divorce from Susan before he can prepare to marry Christine.

I think the first marriage, even if not sacramental, would need to be annulled by the RC Church, in addition to seeking civil divorce.

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?

Oops. Posted before I saw this. That was my original guess. Or perhaps the decree of nullity would merely so state, as to the civil divorce requirement. Certainly any such consideration would include the observation that no valid marriage had occurred?

Added, for terminological precision: Though I would not say that what might occur is the RCC annulling a marriage, but that it would declare no valid marriage had occurred (decree of nullity).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.