Anglicans and Old Catholics

[Psalm45_9]

I have just recently read that the Anglicans and Old Catholics are in union. Does this then make the Old Catholics Protestants and not Schismatics? The reason for me asking is because Anglicans, with the exception of baptism, do not have valid sacraments, whereas Old Catholics do, at least I think. Could someone help me here. Also, when did Anglicans lose valid Apostolic Succesion?

 

[Tom]

Psalm45:9:

I have just recently read that the Anglicans and Old Catholics are in union.

I’m not familiar with the term “old catholic” i’m 53 am I an “old” Catholic??? LOL

 

[Psalm45_9]

Old Catholics are a group of “Catholics” that broke away from the church after Vatican I, they do not believe in Papal infallibility. From one of their websites I have found some ironic things. They permit married clergy, contraception, but speak against same sex unions and abortion. I do not see married clergy as big of an issue as the other one. The Eastern Catholics also permit married clergy. Oh, I believe Old Catholics ordain women also now, not too old huh?

 

[Tom]

o.k., so they are not really Catholic. Just another Protestant Church. I guess that makes 35,001?

 

[GAssisi]

Old Catholics are generally regarded as those Catholics which broke from Rome because of the papal definitions of Vatican I. However, their origins really go back to the schismatic See of Utrecht which was set up in the 1870’s(?).

Old Catholics were in communion with the Anglicans in the 1920’s. They broke communion with them in the 1970’s (I think) when Anglicans began ordaining women.

I am not sure, but it is likely they reestablished communion with them because the Old Catholics currently ordain women and bless same-sex unions as well. The Polish National Catholic Church broke communion from the Old Catholic Party in 2003 because of the said innovations within the Old Catholic communion of Utrecht.

In the 1980’s, the PNCC expressed their desire for full unity with the Catholic Church. Currently, we have an agreement of limited intercommunion with the Polish National Catholic Church.

God bless,
Greg

 

[boppysbud]

Just to further complicate things there is a big difference between Utrect/European Old Catholics, and American Old/Indepent Catholics.

Utrect recognises none of the American Old Catholics, who are usually unhappy Anglicans. There are probably a couple hundred American Old/Independent Catholic jurisdictions varying from “Liberal Catholics” (new age, metaphysical, complete with psychics, and spirit guides/chaneling, but with seven sacraments) to pre Vatican II types with the Tridentine Mass (usually in Eglish however).

Things they have in common are usually tinyness (in fact some of these churches seem to exist on the 'net only, or consist of one Bishop with a living-room or garage Cathedral, who may or may not have a flock). And going to elaborate lengths to “prove” their apostolic succesion

 

[boppysbud]

Do a web search for Tony Begonja, and his many pages about American Old/Independent Catholics. It will amase you.

 

[metal1633]

Psalm45:9:

I have just recently read that the Anglicans and Old Catholics are in union. Does this then make the Old Catholics Protestants and not Schismatics? The reason for me asking is because Anglicans, with the exception of baptism, do not have valid sacraments, whereas Old Catholics do, at least I think. Could someone help me here. Also, when did Anglicans lose valid Apostolic Succesion?

I could look up the exact issue, but its getting late. Here is a run down. King Edward, which one I dont remember, Changed the Rite of Ordination to the point where the form became Invalid. It was changed back eventually but by then it was too late. All current Anglican Clergy trace their “Succession” to a handfull of bishops, all of whom were invalidly ordained during the time of the above mentioned King Edward.

 

[GKC]

metal1633:

I could look up the exact issue, but its getting late. Here is a run down. King Edward, which one I dont remember, Changed the Rite of Ordination to the point where the form became Invalid. It was changed back eventually but by then it was too late. All current Anglican Clergy trace their “Succession” to a handfull of bishops, all of whom were invalidly ordained during the time of the above mentioned King Edward.

Close. You thinking of Edward VI, and the Edwardine Ordinal. The issue was much more fundamentally the intent involved, rather than the form, since the form is the same as a number of rites of consecration which Rome does recognise as valid, with respect to the issues raised in Apostolicae Curae. And the choke point was the consecration of Archbishop Parker, using the Edwardine Ordinal, under Elizabeth I, in Dec., 1559.

GKC