The Netherlands Catholic Church was Autonomous?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gregory_I

Guest
Form the Old Catholics website:

In the year 1145, at the request of the Holy Roman Emperor, Conrad III, Blessed Pope Eugene III granted the See of Utrecht the right of election of its own bishops. The Fourth Council of the Lateran confirmed this grant in 1215. In 1520, Pope Leo X in the Bull, Debitum Pastoralis, granted to the See of Utrecht and its 57th Bishop, Phillip of Burgundy, the right of adjudication of its own affairs without reference to the tribunals of the Holy See. The Theological Faculties of Paris and the Louvain, in 1717, verified this privilege, known as the Leonine Privilege. Both of these grants have been exercised by the See of Utrecht from the time of their promulgation and were of extreme importance during the period of the Counter Reformation when the ultramontane party questioned the rights of the See of Utrecht. In spite of the attempts of the Counter Reformers during that difficult period to suppress it, the See of Utrecht elected successive prelates who were consecrated by Bishop Dominique Marie Varlet, Bishop of Babylon-in partibus who was then resident in Utrecht. The difficulties resulting from the activities of the Counter Reformers caused the Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands to become an autonomous part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So There was an Autonomous Church of the Western Rite in Western Europe! 🙂 Interesting what you learn.
 
Gregory_I said:
So There was an Autonomous Church of the Western Rite in Western Europe! 🙂 Interesting what you learn.
Click to expand...
Actually, this sort of arrangement was far more widespread than one would guess at first.

The uniform type of church governance one sees today probably dates from the age of Concordats, which I think begins with Napoleon I.
 
I read that before. It took some digging to find out that the See of Utrecht is not currently in communion with Rome (I do not know whether they are in communion with any other church at this time). I researched this because there is/was an Old Catholic church near my home (much nearer than any Catholic church) and I needed to make sure of their standing before visiting.
 
Hesychios said:
It has two meanings, but perhaps the most significant from the Catholic point of view is that the See at Rome does not control the See at Utrecht, and does not name the bishop there.
Click to expand...
I guess more important than that is that Catholics cannot go to Mass to fulfill holiday obligations to churches who are not in communion with Rome, nor can they receive any sacrament as they are deemed invalid. Except for baptism which can be done by anyone in emergency cases, or if the Orders are recognized valid, confession when there is danger of death.
 
Hesychios said:
It has two meanings, but perhaps the most significant from the Catholic point of view is that the See at Rome does not control the See at Utrecht, and does not name the bishop there.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s the most significant. The most significant is that the See of Utrecht isn’t part of the Catholic Church.
 
Hesychios said:
It has two meanings, but perhaps the most significant from the Catholic point of view is that the See at Rome does not control the See at Utrecht, and does not name the bishop there.
Click to expand...
Genesis315 said:
I don’t think that’s the most significant. The most significant is that the See of Utrecht isn’t part of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I would put it this way.

The See of Utrecht is not in communion with the Catholic Church.
 
Genesis315 said:
I don’t think that’s the most significant. The most significant is that the See of Utrecht isn’t part of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Yet they have valid bishops, and a valid Mass. In fact all of their sacraments are valid according to your church.

They are essentially participating in the same ecclesiology that they had for centuries on during the time when they *were *considered part of the Catholic church.
 
Hesychios said:
Yet they have valid bishops, and a valid Mass. In fact all of their sacraments are valid according to your church.

They are essentially participating in the same ecclesiology that they had for centuries on during the time when they *were *considered part of the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
I believe that some parts of the Old Catholics have lost this validity. They go around ordaining women to be priests and bishops.

But as I said, the significant thing is that they are not in commuion with the Catholic Church.
 
Hesychios said:
Yet they have valid bishops, and a valid Mass. In fact all of their sacraments are valid according to your church.

They are essentially participating in the same ecclesiology that they had for centuries on during the time when they *were *considered part of the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Actually, their confessions (and I think marriages also) would be invalid under canon law, except in danger of death.
 
MarkThompson said:
Actually, their confessions (and I think marriages also) would be invalid under canon law, except in danger of death.
Click to expand...
Why would that be?

Are we to suppose that their own canons tell them their confessions and marriages are invalid?
 
ByzCath said:
I believe that some parts of the Old Catholics have lost this validity. They go around ordaining women to be priests and bishops.

But as I said, the significant thing is that they are not in commuion with the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I suppose that they would say the significant thing is that your church is not in communion with the Catholic church.

I am just being a devil’s advocate here.
 
Hesychios said:
I suppose that they would say the significant thing is that your church is not in communion with the Catholic church.

I am just being a devil’s advocate here.
Click to expand...
How would the EOC or OOC deal with a Bishop that did not obey the Patriarch and did something like ordain women?

Of course you and I both know that the EOC and OOC, being as unchanging as they are, would never allow that type of thing.
 
But what would this mean for the man who goes to churches in the Utrecht diocese? Like me? I have never heard anything about this and am quite shocked to hear it.
 
Hesychios said:
Why would that be?

Are we to suppose that their own canons tell them their confessions and marriages are invalid?
Click to expand...
As to confessions, valid absolution requires not just valid Holy Orders but also faculties granted by the appropriate canonical authority. (See Canon 966). I’m less certain about marriages, but I think the same situation obtains.

As to what their own canons say, I guess that’s important to them, but with all due respect it really has no bearing on how a Catholic would view the validity of their sect’s sacraments. Just because a group (e.g., Anglicans) thinks and claims that their own sacraments are valid (e.g., Holy Orders) doesn’t mean they are.
 
Confessions and marriages in the Orthodox church are presumed valid, so it may not be the case that those of this diocese are invalid. The matter is not so easily determined.
 
MarkThompson said:
… Just because a group (e.g., Anglicans) thinks and claims that their own sacraments are valid (e.g., Holy Orders) doesn’t mean they are.
Click to expand...
Well, this could apply just as much to your church’s sacraments, from someone else’s point of view.

In fact, while I would bet most Anglican’s would probably assume your church’s sacraments are valid in spite of your attitude towards them, some Orthodox would not be so willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think it is best not to judge. **“But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter …”**Matt 23:13 D-R

We surely don’t want to be counted among that bunch!
 
JacktheCatholic said:
How would the EOC or OOC deal with a Bishop that did not obey the Patriarch and did something like ordain women?

Of course you and I both know that the EOC and OOC, being as unchanging as they are, would never allow that type of thing.
Click to expand...
The case of the Utrecht church is not as clear cut and simple as all that.

It has been a while since I have thought about it, so my explanation will be rough, but historically local churches, even in the west, had a much greater self government in the past. The Spanish church, the French church, and further back into their predecessor churches were much more like self governing institutions.

The church at Utrecht was governed under such arrangements in medeival centuries, even into the age of persecution under the Protestants. They were the ‘recusant church’, the underground Catholic church under persecution by the Protestants.

When the Catholic faith was liberated in the Netherlands, the Vatican moved to install it’s own appointed bishops in the territory of the Utrecht Archdiocese. They were apparently hoping they could make the old line of bishops collapse as they did elsewhere, but that did not happen. So then there were two Catholic churches in the country.

I don’t care one way or another about the “little church” of Utrecht, it could collapse today and I wouldn’t care, but it’s history (still available for us to study) serves as a vivid reminder that buried under the history of centuries, before the Napoleonic wars and the subsequent Concordats, that local churches in Europe had a different sort of ecclesiology than we know of today.

If nothing else it is an interesting topic. :coffeeread:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top