Old Catholics

[Restless_Heart_1]

I understand that the so-called “Old Catholics” went into schism as a result of the definition of Papal Infallibility from Vatican I, but that’s all I know. Beyond that, who and what are they exactly, and what is their standing today?

 

[Brendan_64]

They are very liberal. Not at all in Communion with Rome, not part of the Catholic Church, they are now part of the Anglican Communion. We are not permitted to go to their Masses. Their priests (the male ones anyway as they now also have women ‘priests’) are valid due to to Apostolic succession, so they do have a valid Eucharist.

I would steer well clear of them, except for a life and death emergency.

 

[LoyalViews]

They are very liberal. Not at all in Communion with Rome, not part of the Catholic Church, they are now part of the Anglican Communion. We are not permitted to go to their Masses. Their priests (the male ones anyway as they now also have women ‘priests’) are valid due to to Apostolic succession, so they do have a valid Eucharist.

I would steer well clear of them, except for a life and death emergency.

This is true. The Union of Utrecht has been in full communion with the Anglican Communion since the Bonn Agreement; the Union of Utrecht being the original, true-blue Old Catholics we talk about.

The Union operates on a very Catholic frame, but the teachings of the Church(es) aren’t necessarily so. You can also see the spectrum of low, broad, and high Churchmanship within the Communion.

 

[Fuerza]

Aside from what has already been said, Old Catholic is also kind of an umbrella term for the various splinter groups that have their origin directly or indirectly in the Union of Utrecht. As noted, the “mainstream” Utrecht churches are very liberal and allow things like female ordination and gay marriage. Some other groups, such as the Old Roman Catholic Church, North American Old Roman Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church (they seem to be going by National Catholic Church now, at least in my town) are much more conservative, and could actually be said to be closer to Eastern Orthodoxy in theology, but still differ with Rome over some key issues.

The Utrecht churches are generally considered by Rome to have valid orders, but with the increase in female ordinations and inter-communion with various Anglican/Episcopalian groups, I would imagine that this will eventually change. I have not heard of any questions concerning the validity of those other groups I mentioned, and at least the orders of the PNCC are definitely still recognized.

 

[commenter]

Aside from what has already been said, Old Catholic is also kind of an umbrella term for the various splinter groups that have their origin directly or indirectly in the Union of Utrecht. As noted, the “mainstream” Utrecht churches are very liberal and allow things like female ordination and gay marriage. Some other groups, such as the Old Roman Catholic Church, North American Old Roman Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church (they seem to be going by National Catholic Church now, at least in my town) are much more conservative, and could actually be said to be closer to Eastern Orthodoxy in theology, but still differ with Rome over some key issues.

The Utrecht churches are generally considered by Rome to have valid orders, but with the increase in female ordinations and inter-communion with various Anglican/Episcopalian groups, I would imagine that this will eventually change. I have not heard of any questions concerning the validity of those other groups I mentioned, and at least the orders of the PNCC are definitely still recognized.

Good summary. I think you captured the “spread” tendency that is characteristic of Protestant communions. Time after time, a group of sincere Christians wants to preserve, or restore, the fullness of Catholic belief, but without some recent innovations by Rome. So they say, “we accept everything before X date, but reject as unscriptural or untraditional Rome’s actions or doctrines since then”.

Anglicans said Rome was mostly ok until just a few years before Anglicanism. Lutherans push the date when Rome went off track somewhat earlier, etc. Calvinist traditions push X date, when Rome went off track, even earlier. The Old Catholics, like the others, were united at first. They said Rome went off track more recently. But inevitably they respond to modern times by rejecting half the beliefs held by their founders, and much of the beliefs held by fellow Old Catholics. The same pattern as Protestantism.

The PNCC was started when Polish immigrants felt their needs were ignored by Irish bishops in the USA. Later, they connected with Old Catholics, to establish apostolic succession. Since their Polish ethnic base is assimilating, they now brand themselves as “NCC”, and, where I live, try to recruit any Catholics who have a grudge with the local bishop. I don’t have a problem with individuals, including Lutherans on CAF, who choose to identify as Catholic. I do have a problem with churches that use that term as a recruitment. That said, I think ecumenical efforts with the PNCC have potential, though not with the liberal wings of Old Catholics (I. e. abortion, marriage, etc).

 

[Fuerza]

Good summary. I think you captured the “spread” tendency that is characteristic of Protestant communions. Time after time, a group of sincere Christians wants to preserve, or restore, the fullness of Catholic belief, but without some recent innovations by Rome. So they say, “we accept everything before X date, but reject as unscriptural or untraditional Rome’s actions or doctrines since then”.

Anglicans said Rome was mostly ok until just a few years before Anglicanism. Lutherans push the date when Rome went off track somewhat earlier, etc. Calvinist traditions push X date, when Rome went off track, even earlier. The Old Catholics, like the others, were united at first. They said Rome went off track more recently. But inevitably they respond to modern times by rejecting half the beliefs held by their founders, and much of the beliefs held by fellow Old Catholics. The same pattern as Protestantism.

The PNCC was started when Polish immigrants felt their needs were ignored by Irish bishops in the USA. Later, they connected with Old Catholics, to establish apostolic succession. Since their Polish ethnic base is assimilating, they now brand themselves as “NCC”, and, where I live, try to recruit any Catholics who have a grudge with the local bishop. I don’t have a problem with individuals, including Lutherans on CAF, who choose to identify as Catholic. I do have a problem with churches that use that term as a recruitment. That said, I think ecumenical efforts with the PNCC have potential, though not with the liberal wings of Old Catholics (I. e. abortion, marriage, etc).

Well said. As to your last point, I think that the biggest obstacles to reunification with the PNCC will not be larger points like papal supremacy or even their allowance of married bishops (for which I know there is precedent in the early Church and in theory could be allowed), but actually “smaller” non-negotiable items like divorce/remarriage and the allowance of birth control. I actually think the last two items will pose a larger obstacle than the “big things” to reunion with the Orthodox as well, but that’s another thread.

 

[commenter]

Well said. As to your last point, I think that the biggest obstacles to reunification with the PNCC will not be larger points like papal supremacy or even their allowance of married bishops (for which I know there is precedent in the early Church and in theory could be allowed), but actually “smaller” non-negotiable items like divorce/remarriage and the allowance of birth control. I actually think the last two items will pose a larger obstacle than the “big things” to reunion with the Orthodox as well, but that’s another thread.

The biggest barrier to unity with OC’s, PNCC, and everybody else continues to be Catholics, ourselves. People perceive most of us as not especially prayerful or particularly loving. Even when we present the fullness of truth, accurately, people don’t notice it, because they think it has not transformed most current Catholics much. Me included.

 

[LoyalViews]

The biggest barrier to unity with OC’s, PNCC, and everybody else continues to be Catholics, ourselves. People perceive most of us as not especially prayerful or particularly loving. Even when we present the fullness of truth, accurately, people don’t notice it, because they think it has not transformed most current Catholics much. Me included.

I somewhat agree. It’s the whole aesthetic of modern Catholicism, apparently. I find many Anglicans, Protestants, and the like are far more concerned with who attends Mass/service than Contemporary Catholics. Capitalisations intentional.

 

[commenter]

I see “Old Catholics” as part of a continuum. They started having concerns about recent developments in the Church after a given year - say sometime in the 1800s - then broke off, or if you prefer, restored it. The Lutherans and Anglicans did the same thing, they accepted Catholicism as authentic up to a given year, then broke off from it (or restored it). Other Protestant Churches did the same thing, but with earlier dates.

Some people today say the Catholic Church was right, up to 1958, but not authoritative since then. Can Lutherans, and Sedevacantists then be considered “Old Catholics”? Couldn’t the category of Old Catholics include all Christians except RC and EO? I think Evangelicals consider the Catholic Church a/k/a the Early Church to have been reliable in the very early centuries - for instance, until the NT was solidified in the 4th century. Are Evangelicals “Old Catholics”?

Some people would group denominations by other criteria, like sacraments; but I think the historical criteria I described is also relevant, as a continuum. I would not put Sedevacantists in a “Catholic” category over here, as opposed to Methodists, over there, but what they have in common is crucial.

 

[ChadS]

I see “Old Catholics” as part of a continuum. They started having concerns about recent developments in the Church after a given year - say sometime in the 1800s - then broke off, or if you prefer, restored it. The Lutherans and Anglicans did the same thing, they accepted Catholicism as authentic up to a given year, then broke off from it (or restored it). Other Protestant Churches did the same thing, but with earlier dates.

Some people today say the Catholic Church was right, up to 1958, but not authoritative since then. Can Lutherans, and Sedevacantists then be considered “Old Catholics”? Couldn’t the category of Old Catholics include all Christians except RC and EO? I think Evangelicals consider the Catholic Church a/k/a the Early Church to have been reliable in the very early centuries - for instance, until the NT was solidified in the 4th century. Are Evangelicals “Old Catholics”?

Some people would group denominations by other criteria, like sacraments; but I think the historical criteria I described is also relevant, as a continuum. I would not put Sedevacantists in a “Catholic” category over here, as opposed to Methodists, over there, but what they have in common is crucial.

I wouldn’t think so. From what I understand “Old Catholic” refers to a very specific group with a very specific origin and history. Lutherans and Sedevacantists are exactly that – Lutherans and Sedevacantists. To lump them in with the Old Catholics, in my opinion, is not correct.

There are groups and splinter ecclesial communities that attempt to trace their ordinations back to some of the original Dutch Bishops that left the Catholic Church to prove their ministers have valid apostolic succession (thus making them equal on some level with actual Catholic priests and bishops – even if their group went off the rails theologically a hundred years ago). This is what some people call the “Dutch Touch.”

ChadS

 

[commenter]

I wouldn’t think so. From what I understand “Old Catholic” refers to a very specific group with a very specific origin and history. Lutherans and Sedevacantists are exactly that – Lutherans and Sedevacantists. To lump them in with the Old Catholics, in my opinion, is not correct.

There are groups and splinter ecclesial communities that attempt to trace their ordinations back to some of the original Dutch Bishops that left the Catholic Church to prove their ministers have valid apostolic succession (thus making them equal on some level with actual Catholic priests and bishops – even if their group went off the rails theologically a hundred years ago). This is what some people call the “Dutch Touch.”

ChadS

You might be right that lumping groups together is not totally accurate, but I am trying to find a better category for “Catholic” than lumping together any group that has the word “Catholic” in their name.

Everything in your second paragraph could also apply to Sedevacantists, and many similar types, except they are more recent. You will find detailed trees showing how “A” got his episcopal succession from “B” and passed it on to C, D, and E. Whether all those ordinations are recognized by Rome, maybe or maybe not. They have groups and splintered communities, too. You might argue that - at the time of origin - the OC’s were one theology and Sede’s another. But OC’s and Sede’s have both spread out to multiple, contradictory theologies and practices. So, Sede’s are OC’s? And don’t OC’s also believe, in effect, that there is no current authoritative pope over all Catholicism?

 

[ChadS]

You might be right that lumping groups together is not totally accurate, but I am trying to find a better category for “Catholic” than lumping together any group that has the word “Catholic” in their name.

Everything in your second paragraph could also apply to Sedevacantists, and many similar types, except they are more recent. You will find detailed trees showing how “A” got his episcopal succession from “B” and passed it on to C, D, and E. Whether all those ordinations are recognized by Rome, maybe or maybe not. They have groups and splintered communities, too. You might argue that - at the time of origin - the OC’s were one theology and Sede’s another. But OC’s and Sede’s have both spread out to multiple, contradictory theologies and practices. So, Sede’s are OC’s? And don’t OC’s also believe, in effect, that there is no current authoritative pope over all Catholicism?

I understand the Old Catholics rejected the dogma of Papal Infallibility after the First Vatican Council. However, I don’t know their official position on the Pope. However, since they are in full communion with Anglicans and other non-Catholic sects they might not recognize any Pope.

Although similar to sedevacantists it seems to me this position is quite different. Sedevacantists see the See of Peter as being empty, while perhaps non-Catholics don’t even recognize a See of Peter as existing for one to even be empty.

I agree with you, I don’t like to lump together groups just because they call themselves Catholic. Of course anybody with a few bucks and a pen can start a group that calls themselves Catholic, however that doesn’t necessarily make them Catholic. For me the real litmus test is where they stand in relation to Rome and the See of Peter and how they are viewed by Rome also.

Anybody can say they believe anything and use the same words Catholics use, but that doesn’t mean they actually do believe those things the way Catholics understand it. One example is when people say they believe in the “real presence” when it is spoken by more liturgically-minded high church Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians. Usually their denominations reject anything resembling a “real presence” as understood by Catholics and their ministers don’t claim to have any authority to confect a “real presence.” Yet, some members of those groups will tell you what their ministers do and use Catholic language, but when you do get a definition of what they believe you see quickly it’s not a Catholic understanding.

ChadS

 

[commenter]

I understand the Old Catholics rejected the dogma of Papal Infallibility after the First Vatican Council. However, I don’t know their official position on the Pope. However, since they are in full communion with Anglicans and other non-Catholic sects they might not recognize any Pope.

Although similar to sedevacantists it seems to me this position is quite different. Sedevacantists see the See of Peter as being empty, while perhaps non-Catholics don’t even recognize a See of Peter as existing for one to even be empty.

I agree with you, I don’t like to lump together groups just because they call themselves Catholic. Of course anybody with a few bucks and a pen can start a group that calls themselves Catholic, however that doesn’t necessarily make them Catholic. For me the real litmus test is where they stand in relation to Rome and the See of Peter and how they are viewed by Rome also.

Anybody can say they believe anything and use the same words Catholics use, but that doesn’t mean they actually do believe those things the way Catholics understand it. One example is when people say they believe in the “real presence” when it is spoken by more liturgically-minded high church Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians. Usually their denominations reject anything resembling a “real presence” as understood by Catholics and their ministers don’t claim to have any authority to confect a “real presence.” Yet, some members of those groups will tell you what their ministers do and use Catholic language, but when you do get a definition of what they believe you see quickly it’s not a Catholic understanding.

ChadS

I think you covered it.

 

[PJM]

I understand that the so-called “Old Catholics” went into schism as a result of the definition of Papal Infallibility from Vatican I, but that’s all I know. Beyond that, who and what are they exactly, and what is their standing today?

You’re speaking of the Pious X group who ARE is SCHISM from the RCC at this time

 

[ChadS]

You’re speaking of the Pious X group who ARE is SCHISM from the RCC at this time

Old Catholics are a specific group that left the Catholic church after Vatican I (ca. late 1860s) due to the teaching on Papal Infallibility, while the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Marcel Lefebvre, has issues (to put it mildly) with Vatican II (ca. 1960s).

ChadS

 

[oremosjuntos]

Old Catholics are a specific group that left the Catholic church after Vatican I (ca. late 1860s) due to the teaching on Papal Infallibility, while the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Marcel Lefebvre, has issues (to put it mildly) with Vatican II (ca. 1960s).

ChadS

Right, although the Old Catholics seem to be more than willing to separate themselves, while to my knowledge, those in the SSPX have issues with at least a few things proposed by the Second Vatican Council. However, I think they would be more concerned with the way some things changed after the council, which as any other Catholic, is concerning to think about. To clarify, the SSPX is NOT in schism. Don’t worry so much about that, I’ve met people myself who claim to be Catholic, but hold positions contrary to most of the teachings of the Church. Let’s reach a mutual understanding and stop the attacks. Before we reach our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, let’s make up and fight arm-in-arm with our own. Our struggle is their struggle. Let’s be strong and fight for Christendom in our society.

JJS:thumbsup:

 

[gracepoole]

Old Catholics are a specific group that left the Catholic church after Vatican I (ca. late 1860s) due to the teaching on Papal Infallibility, while the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Marcel Lefebvre, has issues (to put it mildly) with Vatican II (ca. 1960s).

ChadS

And the SSPX is not in schism.

 

[Brendan_64]

Old Catholics are a specific group that left the Catholic church after Vatican I (ca. late 1860s) due to the teaching on Papal Infallibility, while the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Marcel Lefebvre, has issues (to put it mildly) with Vatican II (ca. 1960s).

ChadS

There is a MAJOR difference here. The Old Catholics are not part of the Catholic Church, they are part of the Anglican communion. The SSPX are part of the Catholic Church. There is a huge difference between having some issues with some of the contents of a couple of documents from Vatican II but still remaining within the Church (the SSPX), and walking awa to separate yourself from the Church and now being part of the Anglican Communion (Old Catholics).

The situation of Old Catholics and the situation of the SSPX are not remotely comparable. The SSPX remain part of the Roman Catholic Church (they are our brothers and sisters within the Catholic Church), the Old Catholics have left the Church and are part of the Anglican Communion now.

Before we reach our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, let’s make up and fight arm-in-arm with our own. Our struggle is their struggle.

Yes indeed.It is troubling that within our Church there somethimes seems to be a willingness to engage with Christians from non-Catholic denominations while at the same time those within our Church, such as the SSPX (who have some disagreements but remain Catholics) are treated as being almost ‘beyond the pale’.

 

[PJM]

old catholics are a specific group that left the catholic church after vatican i (ca. Late 1860s) due to the teaching on papal infallibility, while the society of st. Pius x, founded by marcel lefebvre, has issues (to put it mildly) with vatican ii (ca. 1960s).

Chads

thanks!

 

[ChadS]

There is a MAJOR difference here. The Old Catholics are not part of the Catholic Church, they are part of the Anglican communion. The SSPX are part of the Catholic Church. There is a huge difference between having some issues with some of the contents of a couple of documents from Vatican II but still remaining within the Church (the SSPX), and walking awa to separate yourself from the Church and now being part of the Anglican Communion (Old Catholics).

The situation of Old Catholics and the situation of the SSPX are not remotely comparable. The SSPX remain part of the Roman Catholic Church (they are our brothers and sisters within the Catholic Church), the Old Catholics have left the Church and are part of the Anglican Communion now.

You are absolutely correct and I did not intend for my post to imply that they have similar positions. I was only responding to a post that seemed to confuse the Old Catholics with the SSPX, which they are most assuredly not the same.

ChadS