An Exchange With An "Old Catholic"

[CutlerB]

A few of you may have heard of the “Old Catholic Church”. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, they are a “sect organised in German-speaking countries to combat the dogma of Papal Infallibility.”

In the Anglican parish I am still at (until the end of August), there are not only Anglicans. Among the parishioners one will find many of them of course, but there are also quite a few Catholics, Old Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and others.

Yesterday, I received a message from one of the “Old Catholics”, and we got into talking theology. I’d like to share with you a few select passages from his messages. I thought it might spark some discussion.

Before I begin, let it be noted that he is actually German so the quotes from his first message (which was written in English) may be a bit bumpy. I shall translate the quotes from the second e-mail, which was in German. Here we go.

From the original message

Furthermore, as you probably know, the Old Catholic church is of Roman Catholic denomination and this church is recognised as “Church” at the Holy See in Rome.

The sacraments [administered] by Old Catholic priests are recognised in the Roman Catholic Church because the Old Catholic Church maintained its apostolic succession.

Although we are catholic we have full communion with the Anglicans. Old Catholics belong to the liberal High Churches. Its liturgy is roman-catholic, incl. their ordination. You will not see any differences.

90% of the church members are Roman Catholic (me too).

From the reply to my reply

A characteristic of the Roman Catholic Church is its pugnacity, because many opinions encounter each other in it. It has always been a characteristic of that Church to have these tensions within her, far more than outsiders might think.

From my experience, you will find only a minority in any Roman Catholic parish who actually accept all doctrines of the Church.

I, for my part, accept neither the Dogmas concerning the Pope, nor the exclusivism which, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the Life of Christ. that isn’t tragic, however, since I hardly know one Roman who accepts these positions.

We Catholics can live with these tensions and live our daily life as we think best, because faith doesn’t come from higher dogmatic principles, but is something individual and has a very personal spirit.

I didn’t convert because I had a problem with the Roman Catholic Church’s dgmas, but because I experienced the Hierarchy as a judicially constituted, judgemental Church, that punishes, excludes and divides, instead of opening its arms wide. I find the practice of Excummunication, which one incurs already by changing one’s tax ID [note: German Church tax], particularly bad. Faith has no place there anymore.

I am very suspicious of the Hierarchy, which won’t change in the near future. On stage, things are totally different from what they are behind it. Even as an Old Catholic, I feel Roman, including the relationship with the Pope, I love the Roman spirituality and liturgy and especially the Real Presence.

I would like to explicitly encourage you to have yourself shaken by the Romans. To be Roman means to endure diversity, to accept both one side and the other. To admire this diversity together with Christ in the Eucharist and to thank Him for it is Catholicism, not Marian dogmas and other Infallibilities.

The Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction may have developed from a long tradition. Together with his infallibility, he can – theoretically – pronounce binding dogmas apart from councils form the loggia. That is something totally repugnant to Church Tradition, added to the Catholic Faith and thus un-Catholic.

It may be hardly relevant, but theologically these two Dogmas result in the devaluation of Sacred Councils.

Only Ecumenical Councils can, in Church Tradition, pronounce binding doctrines, but no individual. Neither has the Power of the Keys ever been understood as an instrument of power in the Early Church. Rather, it was an unlocking for the Love of God, since Christ is the Key of Love.

Vatican II relativised these two Dogmas a little, resulting in many Old Catholic priests returning to the Roman Church. The previous two Popes have even encouraged a new discussion of the role of the Pope. But you probably know that.

That shall suffice. I invite your questions, comments and other thoughts.

 

[JerryZ]

To me it is simple,

Jesus instituted A Church and gave the Keys to 1 Apostle, Peter.

He is fully present today in Pope Francis, God will preserve HIS Church from the gates of hell till the end of time.

Therefore I am happy to be counted with Pope Francis and by extension with Jesus’s sheeps.

Peace

 

[SonCatcher]

There isn’t much to go on, since the full context of the conversation is missing. However, I do have some (name removed by moderator)ut in response to the following one-liners:

I didn’t convert because I had a problem with the Roman Catholic Church’s dgmas, but because I experienced the Hierarchy as a judicially constituted, judgemental Church, that punishes, excludes and divides, instead of opening its arms wide.** I find the practice of Excummunication, which one incurs already by changing one’s tax ID [note: German Church tax], particularly bad**. Faith has no place there anymore.

Changing one’s tax ID involves making a formal and public act of apostacy. If a person makes it known publicly that he does not consider himself Catholic, he necessarily also announces he does not wish to participate in Catholic sacramental life. The “excommunication” he objects to is simply the Church’s acknowledgement of that person’s public repudiation of the Chuch.

The Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction may have developed from a long tradition. Together with his infallibility, he can – theoretically – pronounce binding dogmas apart from councils form the loggia. That is something totally repugnant to Church Tradition, added to the Catholic Faith and thus un-Catholic.

This is incorrect. No dogma can be pronounced by any means (whether council or by the Pope) in conflict with existing dogma.

 

[CutlerB]

There isn’t much to go on, since the full context of the conversation is missing.

Maybe I can give you the context, if you could explain what you’d be looking for.

 

[bsroufek]

Belief and obedience to the Pope is an act of faith, a gift of grace. Without this belief, much in the Church unravels and one finds oneself “picking and choosing” what to believe in Church Tradition and Teaching. This includes belief that the Councils are the authority, not the Pope.

I don’t actually know of an instance where Papal approved Church Council officially stated something which the Holy Father rejected, but the Councils submit to the Holy Father’s approval.

Really, though, belief in the Pope can be derived from the words of Christ, with which we are familiar. So it is really a disobedience to Christ to disbelieve in the Pope or the Catholic Church.

The sin of disobedience comes with a price in grace and understanding.

 

[SonCatcher]

Maybe I can give you the context, if you could explain what you’d be looking for.

What he’s responding to. Much of what he wrote may be technically correct but it requires further dialog to really discern his understanding on the matter. It would be a start to know what you wrote to him previously. It would be even better to carry on a full conversation with him. However, the language barrier makes it difficult for me to do. If there were a German-speaking version of Tim Staples, that would be ideal.

 

[Elizium23]

There is a spectrum of belief among Old Catholics. Some of them ordain women, which is clearly a loss of apostolic succession.

 

[CutlerB]

What he’s responding to. Much of what he wrote may be technically correct but it requires further dialog to really discern his understanding on the matter. It would be a start to know what you wrote to him previously. It would be even better to carry on a full conversation with him. However, the language barrier makes it difficult for me to do. If there were a German-speaking version of Tim Staples, that would be ideal.

Here’s what I wrote in its entirety, to which he responded with the quotes named “From the reply to my reply” above. The first section was started on his initiative.

Indeed, I am planning to study Catholic theology. I do not feel I should become a priest, though. At least for the time being.

I do know a bit about the Old Catholics, including their retaining Apostolic Succession after the schism in the 19th century after Vatican I. I gather they have women priests, as you say, which the Catholic Church would see as a potential threat to maintaining Apostolic Succession.

I’ve never attended an Old Catholic service, since there aren’t any of their churches around my place. But then, there’s hardly anything around my home!

Please don’t feel offended if I say I do not believe the Old Catholics (and even the Anglicans) are an option for me in the future. Over the last two years, I have done deep research and concluded that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ founded, which to resist I cannot justify. Along with that, I believe every single doctrine and dogma of the Catholic Church, including Papal Primacy and Infallibility, which has been part of Sacred Tradition all along.

 

[po18guy]

The Old Catholics have demonstrated the folly of Papal infallibility through the application of Old Catholic infallibility. Curious. Very curious.

 

[SonCatcher]

Here’s what I wrote in its entirety, to which he responded with the quotes named “From the reply to my reply” above. The first section was started on his initiative.

Given that exchange, it seems that his second message was not in response to you at all but was an attempt on his part to justify why he separated himself from the bishop of Rome.

There is noting you can do to convince him. You have already explained your position. Just pray for him and tell him that your are doing so.

 

[CutlerB]

Given that exchange, it seems that his second message was not in response to you at all but was an attempt on his part to justify why he separated himself from the bishop of Rome.

There is noting you can do to convince him. You have already explained your position. Just pray for him and tell him that your are doing so.

I’ll see what comes. I have, however, replied to his last message, but that reply is in German and about twice the length of his message. All I really do in there is reinforce Papal Infallibility.

 

[CutlerB]

NEWS! He has replied, in a quite long email. Once I’ve read through it, I shall supply more information. Let this be quoted to begin with, though:

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to respond in detail and will thus terminate the discussion with this message.

 

[CutlerB]

After an exhausting and exhaustive response to his message, I am ready to post. I shall quote extensively this time.

It’s exciting that one can look at the same big “book”, believes in the same God and still arrives at very different conclusions, even different Christologies.

I consider the dogmatisation of Vatican I and II problematic, because: The scene with the Keys is only in Matthew, with no parallels in Mark, Luke or John. At most in John with the “Tend my lambs” or Luke’s “I’ve prayed for you…”

There is evidence that the part with the Keys was added to Matthew after he had written it, that is, not written by him.

The first time the Key-passage was interpreted was around AD 220 by Tertullian, and by St Cyprian after that, 200 years after Peter’s death. Cyprian viewed it not as directed to Peter alone, rather, “in Peter” the power of binding and loosing was given to all Apostles and their successors. The certainty of salvation [unsure what he means] lies with all bishops, not with the Roman one alone: Peter was nothing else than first among equals. Among the Apostles, Peter never claimed supremacy, although he was considered first among “brothers”.

Only around AD 440 was Pp. Leo I (a man of the aristocracy with good relations to the Imperial court) the first to claim, in his “pelnitudo potestatis”, that only one Bishop could be the successor of Peter in Rome. [wording in German is ambiguous]

The Roman Church’s claim to be “without stain” and always to teach the true and saving Faith took root in the Western Church only slowly, and was never uncontested (which is an important detail, since it shows a continuity).

Die growing power of the Roman Pontiff was always accompanied by strong criticism and even caused schisms, which were against Peter’s original charge to maintain unity.

The Tradition of the Papacy’s position was no continuity but development. Since Leo I people have been divided over its claims to power, never united, which Christ’s Words of Institution really meant.

The growing claims of the Papacy always correlated with a mixing of temporal and spiritual power. …] Thus, in face of all the historical developments and interpretations, it is very problematic to interpret the Dogmas relating to the Pope as the Will of Christ. One would have to dogmatise the forbidding of ordination of women, since Abp. Müller, PP JP II and PP Benedict claim that was the Will of Christ.

The coming-to-be [German: “Zustandekommen”] of the Dogmas of Vatican I is highly controversial. Not just because the character of an Ecumenical Council was absent, but also because only a minority of those eligible to vote were in attendance. Most of them left beforehand in protest. But, as you say, the Dogmas were reinforced by Vatican II, even though slightly modified. [note: I did not say they were modified.]
The objections to these dogmas are slowly being accepted by the Church. I quote: “In today’s ecumenical talks the Roman Catholic side acknowledges the legitimacy of some concerns towards this doctrine” (Churches and ecclesial communities, Commission on Dialogue of the international Roman Catholic and Old Catholic dialogue commission) [note: I’ve never heard of this.]

I neither question the Primacy of the Pope, nor that an accumulation of power can be observed in Church history, which can be seen from your quote from the Second Council of Lyon Tthe Crusades, which are now regarded as unchristian, were a main topic of this Council too). But what was never abandoned was the conciliar character of the Church. It is particularly interesting that the convocation and conduction of Councils in the ancient Church shows little to no involvement of the Bishops of Rome. At all Councils matters of faith were discussed, and the episcopal members of the Councils acted on their own apostolic authority. Only at a later time, which thought Papal involvement to be necessary for the decrees, did the matter appear as though the Councils of the first millennium were celebrated with Papal authority. …] The Papal dogmas revoke this character trait of the Church, even though Councils took place after them, lacking ecumenical character. That means that a Council is no longer required for Dogmas. The Dogmas after Vatican I are highy controversial in contemporary Catholic Theology and require a great leap of faith to accept. That is new, uncatholic or at least neo-catholic.

The Power Christ speaks of is not worldly, since His Kingdom is not of this world. His Kingdom is Life in fulness, a Kingdom of Love. The life and preaching of the Apostles has little in common with the understanding of the office since the Middle Ages, in my opinion. Sometimes I wonder whether the Church would excommunicate the Apostles and the female Apostle [German: Apostelin] (i.E. Junia, Junias is a forgery).

I don’t question Papal Primacy, but the dogmatisation.

 

[CutlerB]

Concerning Excommunication
I twiddled the Church tax too, since I pay it to the Diocese of the Old Catholics, which is also a Church of Jesus Christ, in Germany now. I am now excommunicated by the RC Church. A system of contribution like that of the US (donations) exists in Austria as well. If an American moved to Germany and didn’t pay the tax (because he doesn’t tell the authorities) but went to church regularly and donated as he wished, shouldn’t he be excommunicated by your rationale?

…]

The Bishops’ Conference just decrees that whoever leaves the Church for whatever reason is excommunicated. Those who leave, declare their disapproval of the Church of Christ, and that’s that! It’s interesting though, that this simply isn’t the case. Many keep their faith. it was Peter’s faith brought him the Key, not his material contribution. It was neither Jesus’ nor the Apostles’ practice to exclude those who believed in the Real Presence from Communion. …] I find your position very uncharitable and judgemental and it allows the conclusion that your Christology is not based on love. It makes a great difference if once leaves because he doesn’t want anything to do with the Church and Christ, or if he converts because he wants to continue his faith in another group of pilgrims which shows him greater closeness to Christ. Apart from that it is not the RCC’s teaching that the Church of Christ is reduced to a legally constituted Church (Cardinals Lehmann and Meisner). She lies within Apostolic Succession and it is disputed among historians whether the succession of the Roman Church has always been retained in purity. One should remember that neither among Popes nor Bishops has there always been the intention of apostolic ordination, which is required for a valid ordination, to accept a spiritual office of shepherd, the original office. In Germany, and other countries, there were centuries in which only Nobility were ordained Bishop and one must doubt that Christ calls only Nobility. More likely, there was a great deal of other calculus involved, as history shows. It is thus to be doubted that the proper intention was always given. In spite of all that, one knows very litte about the first Popes. Historians can’t even say who presided over Rome after Peter. Linus, Cletus, Anacletus? Some Popes came into office by dubious means, so the line of names doesn’t necessarily show the line of true Popes, and there were gaps.

Finally, one must acknowledge that many ways lead to God (John Paul II). In the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ invites, since He is truly present in the Eucharist. Do you really believe Christ would say “Because you’re Old Catholic or Orthodox or don’t pay Church tax, you aren’t invited anymore”?

 

[SonCatcher]

Your friend argues from selected texts that he does not even bother to quote. It is impossible to discern the context without proper references. He also failed to even attempt to refute evidence which shows that Primacy of the bishop of Rome was recognized as early as the first century. Read this tract for more information.

Regarding this statement:

If an American moved to Germany and didn’t pay the tax (because he doesn’t tell the authorities) but went to church regularly and donated as he wished, shouldn’t he be excommunicated by your rationale?

If this American were never asked, then he had neither the opportunity to confirm nor deny his faith. The reasoning doesn’t apply to him at all.

it was Peter’s faith brought him the Key, not his material contribution.

St. Peter publicly denied Christ three times. This act damaged his relationship with Christ. Before Peter could be fully reinstated in his office, he had to reaffirm his faith three times.

Sadly, the rest of his comments, regarding succession of bishops, et cetera are more damaging than he could imagine. Not only do they attack the office of the clergy, in general, they undermine the integrity of all Christianity. Thankfully, there is no truth to them.

 

[CutlerB]

Sadly, the rest of his comments, regarding succession of bishops, et cetera are more damaging than he could imagine. Not only do they attack the office of the clergy, in general, they undermine the integrity of all Christianity. Thankfully, there is no truth to them.

One of the things he says is that neither Vatican I nor Vatican II were ecumenical councils. Vat I supposedly had some shortage of attendance out of protest, is that anywhere near the truth? I have reminded him several times that all of his arguments come through his “Old Catholic” lens, substituting his/their supposed authority for that of the Catholic Church in declaring what is ecumenical and what isn’t.

 

[fhansen]

A few of you may have heard of the “Old Catholic Church”. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, they are a “sect organised in German-speaking countries to combat the dogma of Papal Infallibility.”

In the Anglican parish I am still at (until the end of August), there are not only Anglicans. Among the parishioners one will find many of them of course, but there are also quite a few Catholics, Old Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and others.

Yesterday, I received a message from one of the “Old Catholics”, and we got into talking theology. I’d like to share with you a few select passages from his messages. I thought it might spark some discussion.

Before I begin, let it be noted that he is actually German so the quotes from his first message (which was written in English) may be a bit bumpy. I shall translate the quotes from the second e-mail, which was in German. Here we go.

From the original message

From the reply to my reply

That shall suffice. I invite your questions, comments and other thoughts.

In terms of his attitude towards authority he sounds quite Protestant-or schismatic in any case. With a dash of schizophrenia as well maybe.

 

[cmodrmac]

The term “Old catholic” really covers a very braod area. In the USA there are the :

]

1. 
   *]Old Catholics
   *]Old roman catholic Church
   *]Ecumenical Catholic Church
   *]Liberal Catholic Church
   these are really just a few: They really are indistinguishable in dogma from the present day Episcopal Church (ECUSA) -I supect that the adherents just have not yet made the leap to be considered Protestant
   
   A large number of the small conregations focus on one or more groups such as Churches where the Priest and most of the flock are Gay - or divorcees or other
   
   I do believe the Polish National Catholic Church is somewhat different - with more stringent compliance with roman doctrines
   
   I believe that Rome considers the Holy orders of the Clergy valid but illicit
   
   Overall numerically small the largest being the PNCC and presenting little doctrinal influence in the Christain community as a whole