Is Catholic Charismatic church autonomous or autocephalous?

[Ani_Ibi]

frnate:

Feel free to peruse two sites (such as they are.) This should give you an idea about us.

holyccc.org (Unofficial, created and maintained by me I might add)
and
mysite.verizon.net/M-boyle/CCChurch.html (Official)

I thought you did not have anything on the internet?

Thank but I generally do not respond to invitations to check out whole websites. As folks post points of view, they may also post quotes and links from websites to support their points of view. At that time, I may also check out the rest of the website.

 

[frnate]

I thought you did not have anything on the internet?

Go back and read the posts. I said we do not have our lines of succession in electronic format.

Thanks but I generally do not respond to invitations to check out whole websites.

You’re giving us a little more credit than you should. It will probably take you about five minutes to look at every page on both websites.

As folks post points of view, they may also post quotes and links from websites to support their points of view. At that time, I may also check out the rest of the website.

Uh…whatever dude. I was just trying to be friendly.

Peace,
+N

 

[frnate]

I’ll give a quick general run down of the different lines we have and supply specifics as they become available. IOW as I type them up

Two lines from Utrecht.
Two lines from Duarte Costa
Antiochene
Albanian Orthodox
Russian Orthodox (Ofiesh)
Non Juring
RCC thru Mexico
Coptic
Armenian Uniate
Chaldean Uniate
Syro-Gallican
Mariavite
Anglican
Syro-Chaldean
Syrian Malabar

To name a few.

Peace,
+N

 

[Philthy]

Or…Rome could abandon the unfounded novelty of Primacy of Jurisdiction. Just a thought

Yes, of course - just a thought. But a thought unrelated to the topic: whether the church in question is autocephalous or not. In order to be autocephalous with respect to the Catholic Church, recognition of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is mandatory. The church in question does not recognize such and is, therefore, NOT autocephalous with respect to the Catholic Church. Very simple. If you wish to start a thread on the validity of Papal Supremacy you should start another thread.
+N:
That’s only valid if the Petrine Primacy as defined by Rome actually exists, which it doesn’t.
Peace,
+N

Like I said, if you wish to debate the validity of such claims, great. But if you wish to discuss the topic of the thread *with respect to the Catholic Church *then there is no discussion:
the Catholic Charismatic Church, whatever it is, is not in communion with the Catholic Church. Again, very simple.

 

[Tomster]

I’ll give a quick general run down of the different lines we have and supply specifics as they become available. IOW as I type them up

Two lines from Utrecht.
Two lines from Duarte Costa
Antiochene
Albanian Orthodox
Russian Orthodox (Ofiesh)
Non Juring
RCC thru Mexico
Coptic
Armenian Uniate
Chaldean Uniate
Syro-Gallican
Mariavite
Anglican
Syro-Chaldean
Syrian Malabar

To name a few.

Peace,
+N

Outside of France, the Jansenists principally found adherents in the Netherlands, where they found themselves able even to organize a society for their schism.

The Vicar Apostolic Peter Codde, a Jansenist, refused to subscribe the formulary of Alexande VII, and this drew upon him suspension in the time of Clement XI (1702), and Theodore von Kock was named pro-vicar in his stead. Be he, as well as his successor, met with violent opposition from the States General, as also from the vicariate of Utrecht, acting under the influence of Quesnel, which vicariate also refused to subscribe the formulary, and at a later date would not receive the Bull “UNIGENITUS,” and appealed to an ecumenical council. The schism was completed by the vicariate of Utrecht declaring itself to be the cathedral chapter, and in the year 1723 elected Cornelius Stenhoven as archbishop; he was consecrated on October 15, 1724, by the suspended titular bishop of Babylon, Dominic Varlet, a partisan of Jansenism. The schismatic party then applied for the confirmation by the Holy See of Stenhoven’s election, but in 1725 Benedict XIII refused to ratify the uncanonical proceeding. In spite of this, after the death of Stenhoven (April 3, 1725), the schismatics proceeded to the election of a new archbishop, who was recognized by the Apostolic See as little as the former one had been. In order to maintain the schism, Archbishop Meindarts nominate two suffragan bishops - one for Haalem in 1742, to whom the cathedral chapter of that place refused obedience; and one for Deventer in 1757, whom the chapter also rejected. On September 13, 1763, the schismatic bishops hels a pseudo-synos in Utrecht, at which three bishops, six canonists, and nine parish priests were present; here the parish priests had also deciding votes. Clement XIII, on April 30, 1765, rejected the resolutions.

So much for the Utrecht line.

Tomster

 

[frnate]

Yes, of course - just a thought. But a thought unrelated to the topic: whether the church in question is autocephalous or not. In order to be autocephalous with respect to the Catholic Church, recognition of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is mandatory. The church in question does not recognize such and is, therefore, NOT autocephalous with respect to the Catholic Church. Very simple.

If you’ll look at the subject you’ll notice that it doesn’t say:

“Is Catholic Charismatic Church autonomous or auotcephalous with respect to the Catholic Church?”

I will grant you that Rome may not recognize us as either autonomous or autocephalous. I believe we may have inferred two different lines of thought from the same subject line. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

If you wish to start a thread on the validity of Papal Supremacy you should start another thread.

Uh, dude, as I recall, correct me if I’m wrong here, my post was in response to your interjection of the subject of Papal supremacy when you said:

It wont happen unless you are prepared to acknowledge the Pope as the vicar of Christ in the sea (sic) of Peter possessing the authority ordained by Christ.

I did not mean to upset you, I apologize.

Also, I did start a thread on the subject of Papal supremacy, it seems to have petered out tho (no pun intended ), perhaps you would like to take a crack at answering me, everyone else seems to have given up.

…the Catholic Charismatic Church, whatever it is, is not in communion with the Catholic Church.

I will point out that inter-communion between Rome and the CCC is not the subject of this thread either. Perhaps a new thread on that is in order as well.

Again, very simple.

Even more simple would be to look at my signature. I have never claimed and would promptly correct anyone else who tried to claim for me that the Catholic Charismatic Church is in communion with Rome. Again, I apologize if my intent was not clear. (Tho I don’t know what else I could do to make it any clearer than to put it in my sig. )

Peace,
+N

 

[frnate]

So much for the Utrecht line.Tomster

Hmmmm…I wonder which statement holds more water, the above quote from my friend Tomster or Dominus Iesus…hmmmmm. Sorry my friend, you’ve been trumped by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Peace,
+N

 

[YinYangMom]

If you’ll look at the subject you’ll notice that it doesn’t say:

“Is Catholic Charismatic Church autonomous or auotcephalous with respect to the Catholic Church?”

…

I will point out that inter-communion between Rome and the CCC is not the subject of this thread either. Perhaps a new thread on that is in order as well.

Perhaps you’d generate a more fruitful discussion, then, if you ask a moderator to move this thread to the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

Right now you are asking this question in the Apologetics forum where everyone here is prepared to speak with regard to the Roman Catholic Church. Since your question is exclusive of Rome’s point of view it seems it doesn’t belong here and obviously you’re not getting the type of responses you were hoping to get.

 

[frnate]

Perhaps you’d generate a more fruitful discussion, then, if you ask a moderator to move this thread to the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

Right now you are asking this question in the Apologetics forum where everyone here is prepared to speak with regard to the Roman Catholic Church. Since your question is exclusive of Rome’s point of view it seems it doesn’t belong here and obviously you’re not getting the type of responses you were hoping to get.

Good suggestion, perhaps the OP will take your advice.

Peace,
+N

 

[Philthy]

If you’ll look at the subject you’ll notice that it doesn’t say:

“Is Catholic Charismatic Church autonomous or auotcephalous with respect to the Catholic Church?”

OK, I was operating on the assumption that autocephalous, with respect to a church (vs a bishop) means:

"(of a church) having its own head or chief bishop, though in communion with other Orthodox churches."

According to such a definition the question of autocephality is inseparable from the consideration of," with respect to whom are they in communion?" If that is not the definition as you intended it, please restate it with small simple words…
+N:

I will grant you that Rome may not recognize us as either autonomous or autocephalous. I believe we may have inferred two different lines of thought from the same subject line. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Ok - no problem as far as misunderstanding - that happens all the time.
+N:
I have never claimed and would promptly correct anyone else who tried to claim for me that the Catholic Charismatic Church is in communion with Rome. Again, I apologize if my intent was not clear. (Tho I don’t know what else I could do to make it any clearer than to put it in my sig. )

Peace,
+N

Apology accepted although I don’t feel you did anything necessitating one.
So what, then, is it you would like an answer to regarding your church? Should Rome accept it into their communion?

 

[frnate]

"(of a church) having its own head or chief bishop, though in communion with other Orthodox churches."

According to such a definition the question of autocephality is inseparable from the consideration of,“with respect to whom are they in communion?” If that is not the definition as you intended it, please restate it with small simple words…

How about some medium sized words?

I see where you’re coming from, I think, when you say that autocephality of a given body is inseparable from the consideration of the issue: “with whom do they enjoy communion?”

It is possible for both of us to accept as literal, the definition you have supplied. The confusion here, imo, stems from the RC paradigm that she is the only orthodox church. Folks in my position are not limited in that way. Sure, we examine other communions and decide whether or not to participate in their administration of the Sacraments (or vice versa) if they are “orthodox.” It is that our benchmarks for orthodoxy do not necessarily include mandatory adherence to the RC notion of papal supremacy, but for the RCC it is a deal breaker, so to speak.

So what, then, is it you would like an answer to regarding your church?

I’m not the one who asked the question. It was my answer to the OP which began the furor.

Should Rome accept it into their communion?

That would be lovely, we accept her, and in God’s good time she will once again accept us. As I said previously, I pray that it is my lifetime.

Peace,
+N