Old Catholic Church?

[GKC]

Sorry, maybe I should have reworded my statement that I am not aware of any declaration from the Vatican on a change in its stance on apostolic succession of Old Catholic bishops. As far as I know, we still do recognise the the apostolic succession of Old Catholic bishops.

Unfortunately, GKC, Vatican still do not recognise the validity of Anglican orders, even though some provinces, at least, do hold to positions closer to Catholic doctrines than Old Catholic ones. But as you know that is historical - and a grevious wound on the body of Christ.

In my country, the threat of Islamisation has brought many Christian churches together, not just Cahtolics and Anglicans. And I am glad to say that Pentecostals, Protestants and Catholics are beginning to discover that we have more that unite us than divide us and this unity is needed for us to confront the Islamisation that is affecting the Christian Church. You know, when we have cross-denominational prayer sessions for our church and country, you can’t tell who is Catholic and who is not - except that some Catholics cross themselves after the prayer. Something to think about.

I meant my reply to be attached to the post prior to yours. Drat.

I don’t know of any RCC pronouncement on what is going on amongst the OCs/Utrecht, either.

And nope, no change is Apostolicae Curae’s position. No reason to expect one, given the current state of the Anglican world.

And as to the idea of crossing oneself after prayer (or at any other appropriate points in the Mass), yes, many Catholics do. Happens at my parish, every Mass.

GKC,* Anglicanus-Catholicus*

 

[jimkhong]

I don’t know of any RCC pronouncement on what is going on amongst the OCs/Utrecht, either.

And nope, no change is Apostolicae Curae’s position. No reason to expect one, given the current state of the Anglican world.

And as to the idea of crossing oneself after prayer (or at any other appropriate points in the Mass), yes, many Catholics do. Happens at my parish, every mass.

GKC,* Anglicanus-Catholicus*

Anglicans in my country are not Anglo-Catholics. They share a seminary with Protestants and therefore end up more Protestants than Anglicans. I don’t think they are your type, GKC.

 

[GKC]

Anglicans in my country are not Anglo-Catholics. They share a seminary with Protestants and therefore end up more Protestants than Anglicans. I don’t think they are your type, GKC.

My type is getting rarer, true.

Some folk think that is a good idea.

GKC

 

[commenter]

My type is getting rarer, true.

Some folk think that is a good idea.

GKC

The potential recipients who have your blood type aren’t happy you are rare.

 

[jimkhong]

The potential recipients who have your blood type aren’t happy you are rare.

Stumbled into the wrong discussion?

 

[GKC]

The potential recipients who have your blood type aren’t happy you are rare.

I have a rather common type. But AFAIK, a specific medical condition precludes me as a donor.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

The potential recipients who have your blood type aren’t happy you are rare.

Stumbled into the wrong discussion?

Right discussion, I think, although the metaphor seems stretched a little thin.

 

[TarkanAttila]

It would not be accurate to say that an attempt at female ordination would “throw away” their orders, absent a more general and binding declaration from pertinent authority. Certainly, the sacrament of orders would not be confected in any particular instance, and there might eventually be a judgement on sacramental intent, as reflected in such actions. But not merely from the attempt at female ordination.

GKC

Hi, GKC - would it be appropriate to call you a “continuing Anglican”?

Basically, you are saying that, as long as it basically tacks on “and women can, too” and doesn’t change its understanding of what happens when a man is ordained to priesthood, it may still possess a valid priesthood?

Well, as long as Rome has said nothing about it, I guess that makes sense…

I know we accept PNCC orders… but that was before the OCC started ordaining women…

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC - would it be appropriate to call you a “continuing Anglican”?

Basically, you are saying that, as long as it basically tacks on “and women can, too” and doesn’t change its understanding of what happens when a man is ordained to priesthood, it may still possess a valid priesthood?

Well, as long as Rome has said nothing about it, I guess that makes sense…

I know we accept PNCC orders… but that was before the OCC started ordaining women…

Yep. Continuing Anglican.

Not exactly what I meant, but close. I meant that an existing valid priesthood is not “extinguished” (rendered invalid) by an attempt to confect the sacrament invalidly (with an invalid subject). Unless, as noted, there is an authoritative declaration that the attempt somehow becomes generalized as a determinatio ex adiunctis, to declare that anyone attempting to ordain an invalid subject revealed by that fact a general invalid sacramental intent. That would make future ordinations for anyone that judgement was rendered on, invalid (I’m guessing). But it would not address the validity of orders conferred before the change to an invalid subject. So the Utrecht OCs might be declared to have lost the ability to confer valid orders, from a given point. But not that they never had such an ability.

Best answer is: no authoritative statement as to consequences means no more than that an invalid subject (or form, or matter, or intent) invalidates that particular sacramental action.

Or to put it another way: Beyond my pay grade.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[jimkhong]

Yep. Continuing Anglican.

Not exactly what I meant, but close. I meant that an existing valid priesthood is not “extinguished” (rendered invalid) by an attempt to confect the sacrament invalidly (with an invalid subject). Unless, as noted, there is an authoritative declaration that the attempt somehow becomes generalized as a determinatio ex adiunctis, to declare that anyone attempting to ordain an invalid subject revealed by that fact a general invalid sacramental intent. That would make future ordinations for anyone that judgement was rendered on, invalid (I’m guessing). But it would not address the validity of orders conferred before the change to an invalid subject. So the Utrecht OCs might be declared to have lost the ability to confer valid orders, from a given point. But not that they never had such an ability.

Best answer is: no authoritative statement as to consequences means no more than that an invalid subject (or form, or matter, or intent) invalidates that particular sacramental action.

Or to put it another way: Beyond my pay grade.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

I think the question is also that if there was an attempt to confer orders on an invalid subject, would subsequent attempts to confer orders on a valid subject be valid.

If we look at the experience of the Anglican Communion (which is of course only for persuasive argument rather than a binding one here), bishops who view women ordination to be invalid continue to accept being in communion with bishops who have ordained women even if they do not accept the validity of the orders of the women so ordained.

The problem in the Anglican Communion arose with the consecration of women bishops as it would be dificult to distinguish men priests who were (considered by some provinces) invalidly ordained by a invalid woman bishop from those who were validly ordained by a man bishop - unless they bring around some certificate stating who ordained them, I guess. The problem was still manageable if women were only ordained to the priesthood and not the episcopacy - you can tell a woman priest from a man priest, well, most of the time anyway.

I know we accept PNCC orders… but that was before the OCC started ordaining women…

Also, it needs to be noted that the PNCC broke away from the Old Catholics because of the issue of women ordination, among others.

 

[GKC]

I think the question is also that if there was an attempt to confer orders on an invalid subject, would subsequent attempts to confer orders on a valid subject be valid.

If we look at the experience of the Anglican Communion (which is of course only for persuasive argument rather than a binding one here), bishops who view women ordination to be invalid continue to accept being in communion with bishops who have ordained women even if they do not accept the validity of the orders of the women so ordained.

The problem in the Anglican Communion arose with the consecration of women bishops as it would be dificult to distinguish men priests who were (considered by some provinces) invalidly ordained by a invalid woman bishop from those who were validly ordained by a man bishop - unless they bring around some certificate stating who ordained them, I guess. The problem was still manageable if women were only ordained to the priesthood and not the episcopacy - you can tell a woman priest from a man priest, well, most of the time anyway.

Also, it needs to be noted that the PNCC broke away from the Old Catholics because of the issue of women ordination, among others.

As to the first para, yes, that would be the question. Absent an authorative pronouncement, one must remain in doubt.

As to the second para, that is the case currently in the Communion, but not with respect to all Anglicans.

As the the third para. Yep. That is one practical problem, to be sure.

GKC

 

[TarkanAttila]

As to the first para, yes, that would be the question. Absent an authorative pronouncement, one must remain in doubt.

Actually, there may be precedent here. There have been several unlawful consecrations in the history of our church. Two bishops who come to mind immediately are Ngô Đình Thục and Marcel Lefebvre. They were both excommunicated for unlawful consecrations, but the consecrations (of men, granted) still stick. And of course there’s the Orthodox, who we consider to have valid orders even after almost a millennium of illicit ordinations.

As the the third para. Yep. That is one practical problem, to be sure.

GKC

Thank God being a married doesn’t invalidate episcopacy.

 

[GKC]

Actually, there may be precedent here. There have been several unlawful consecrations in the history of our church. Two bishops who come to mind immediately are Ngô Đình Thục and Marcel Lefebvre. They were both excommunicated for unlawful consecrations, but the consecrations (of men, granted) still stick. And of course there’s the Orthodox, who we consider to have valid orders even after almost a millennium of illicit ordinations.

Thank God being a married doesn’t invalidate episcopacy.

Agreed. It would be a given that an invalid sacramental intent would invalidate the sacramental action. Problem would be what reveals internal intent, in a given case.

GKC

 

[whoisdiss]

Actually, they’re not Protestants. They are within the Catholic tradition but not in communion with Rome.

 

[commenter]

Actually, they’re not Protestants. They are within the Catholic tradition but not in communion with Rome.

There is no firm boundary around the term “Protestant”. I have known Baptists who denied they are Protestant because, they say, they did not originate during the Reformation but directly from the ancient Church. Anglicans and Lutherans “are within the Catholic tradition but not in communion with Rome”. Yet some would say Anglicans are Protestants, and almost everyone now would say Lutherans are, though Luther I suppose would identify himself as Catholic. He might have identified himself as an old Catholic, in the sense he wanted to reverse some of the recent abuses and errors.

If Luther - in hindsight - can now be labelled as a Protestant, it seems reasonable to now put that Protestant label on Old Catholics who a few centuries later also wanted to turn back the clock but maintain the “real, pure” Catholic faith, without the accretions. The difference between them and Luther is that they would turn back the clock to a date later than what Luther, or Cramner, wanted.

 

[jimkhong]

There is no firm boundary around the term “Protestant”. I have known Baptists who denied they are Protestant because, they say, they did not originate during the Reformation but directly from the ancient Church. Anglicans and Lutherans “are within the Catholic tradition but not in communion with Rome”. Yet some would say Anglicans are Protestants, and almost everyone now would say Lutherans are, though Luther I suppose would identify himself as Catholic. He might have identified himself as an old Catholic, in the sense he wanted to reverse some of the recent abuses and errors.

If Luther - in hindsight - can now be labelled as a Protestant, it seems reasonable to now put that Protestant label on Old Catholics who a few centuries later also wanted to turn back the clock but maintain the “real, pure” Catholic faith, without the accretions. The difference between them and Luther is that they would turn back the clock to a date later than what Luther, or Cramner, wanted.

I would caution against giving labels to people that they did not ask for. In the eyes of some, we Catholics are followers of the Anti-Christ.

Old Catholics do not see themselves as Protestants while modern day Lutherans generally do - and as Catholic as well - (I say generally as there could be some Lutheans who do not, there being many Lutheran churches big and small). So, I will respect their right to the labels that they call themselves in the same manner I expect to be respected by calling myself a Catholic, while reserving to myself (and my Church) the right to respond to them according to the criteria that I (and my Church) have set for those labels, but only when the situation calls for such a response to those labels.

 

[commenter]

I would caution against giving labels to people that they did not ask for. In the eyes of some, we Catholics are followers of the Anti-Christ.

Old Catholics do not see themselves as Protestants while modern day Lutherans generally do - and as Catholic as well - (I say generally as there could be some Lutheans who do not, there being many Lutheran churches big and small). So, I will respect their right to the labels that they call themselves in the same manner I expect to be respected by calling myself a Catholic, while reserving to myself (and my Church) the right to respond to them according to the criteria that I (and my Church) have set for those labels, but only when the situation calls for such a response to those labels.

You are right we should be cautious about putting labels on people. But we also have a responsibility to people who may be searching for the “Catholic Church” and find places that present themselves as such, but are not connected to the Catholic Church.

In the USA, hardly any person or group identifies itself as “Protestant” anymore - a big change from 1960. When I hear or read that word being used, it usually is by a Catholic. If the PNCC (or Methodists for instance) would prefer not to be called Protestant,
we should avoid that term. But I would not automatically grant every group the label they claim.

Some Christian groups identify themselves as synagogues, actively recruiting Jewish college students. (Recruiting is fine, but we should classify them as churches). I have no problem with the PNCC evangelizing people; I do have a problem that, where I live, they seem to focus heavily on recruiting Catholics, with the message that they are a Catholic church.

It doesn’t mean much to say that certain groups are “in the Catholic tradition”. Are there any Protestant groups that are not in the Catholic tradition? The PNCC, Lutherans, Methodists, even perhaps Baptists, might in effect accept what was the Catholic tradition, prior to a certain cut-off year. The Old Catholics might accept Catholic tradition up to 1800, some Baptists everything up to 400, about when the NT canon was established; Methodists and Lutherans would have a cut-off year somewhere between 400 and 1800.

That is an oversimplification. I am guessing that the LCMS for instance, might, today, be more in the Catholic tradition than many liberal Old Catholic groups.

Should we call every group Christian because they claim that label? What about cults?
I’m just saying that we need to be cautious about the term Catholic. My belief is that among other things a Catholic is a Christian in union with the Pope. Other people might be better Christians than many of us, but not necessarily Catholic.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, they’re not Protestants. They are within the Catholic tradition but not in communion with Rome.

Keep in mind that if we say that the Old Catholics are Protestants (and note that I said “if”) that does not necessarily mean that they are not Catholic. Anglicans (and Lutherans for that matter) are catholic **and **protestant (or “Catholic and Protestant” depending who your grammar teacher is) so it’s entirely reasonable that Old Catholics could be in that boat as well.

 

[GKC]

Keep in mind that if we say that the Old Catholics are Protestants (and note that I said “if”) that does not necessarily mean that they are not Catholic. Anglicans (and Lutherans for that matter) are catholic **and **protestant (or “Catholic and Protestant” depending who your grammar teacher is) so it’s entirely reasonable that Old Catholics could be in that boat as well.

Sounds about right to me.

GKC

 

[commenter]

Keep in mind that if we say that the Old Catholics are Protestants (and note that I said “if”) that does not necessarily mean that they are not Catholic. Anglicans (and Lutherans for that matter) are catholic **and **protestant (or “Catholic and Protestant” depending who your grammar teacher is) so it’s entirely reasonable that Old Catholics could be in that boat as well.

I think people are mingling 2 things that need to be considered apart.
My personal preference is:

Individuals: that the term “Catholic” be used for those whose thinking is currently more or less with the Pope as Vicar of Christ. I think G K Chesterton was Catholic before he ever joined a Catholic Church. If someone identifies as Catholic, I am not in a position to judge they are not, even if they don’t go to any Catholic Church or belong to another, or are a horrible sinner but not yet excommunicated.

groups: We can’t judge individuals, but we can judge groups. I believe a parish, congregation, denomination or institution isn’t Catholic unless it is in direct relationship to a Catholic diocese, ordinariate, or in some other way directly under the Magisterium. By my view, most American colleges founded as Catholic are not so, at present. I also would not consider a parish in the Continuum or LCMS or PNCC as Catholic, though it may be filled with individuals who are, and very good ones, and in some cases sacraments or orders considered valid by the RC.

Then again, that’s just my preferences, based on how crucial I view the Magisterium as part of the definition of Catholicism. Perhaps some new category of “Via Media” be developed that would include those who would want to be thus classified. I can’t even persuade my wife to agree with any of my preferences, so my chances with strangers on the internet…