The Old Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TrueLight

Guest
I didn’t know whether to put this in non-catholic religions, but this is what I found:
The term, Old Catholic Church, is a common way of describing a collection of Ultrajectine Christian national churches that originated with groups that split from the Roman Catholic Church over certain doctrines, most importantly that of Papal Infallibility. These churches are not in communion with the Holy See of Rome, but their Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches is in full communion with the Anglican Communion[1] and a member of the World Council of Churches.[2] The formation of the Old Catholic communion of Germans, Austrians and Swiss began in 1870 at a public meeting held in Nuremberg under the leadership of A. Döllinger. Four years later Episcopal succession was established with ordination of an Old Catholic German bishop by a prelate of the Church of Utrecht. In line with the “Declaration of Utrecht” of 1889, they accept the first seven ecumenical councils and doctrine formulated before 1054, but reject communion with the pope and a number of other Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. They have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church notes that they have recognized Anglican ordinations since 1925, that they have full communion with the Church of England since 1932, and have taken part in ordination of Anglican Bishops.[3]
Click to expand...
Also:
The Archdiocese of the Old Catholic Church in America is an Old Catholic Christian denomination founded in 1941 by Francis Xavier Resch. It is not a member of, or in full communion with, the Union of Utrecht of the Old Catholic Churches.
Click to expand...
Do they still consider themselves Catholics? Are these the same as Anglo-Catholics?

Are they considered Catholic like the SPPX or not Catholic at all?

Anyone have more information on them?
 
TrueLight said:
Well at least they say in response to “The Lord Be With You”, “And With Your Spirit”. LOL.

Mass

I am confused as to why they call themselves “old Catholics”.

So are their masses are considered valid or not?
Click to expand...
The Old Catholics split from the Church after the 1st Vatican Council. Originally their doctrine was basically the same as Catholic doctrine but, as is often the case with schismatics, they eventually went off the deep end. These days they reject a lot of traditional Catholic teaching, especially moral teaching.

Their masses might be valid as they did originally have valid orders, but they have also modified the liturgy so, depending on what they now say/do/believe, they may now be invalid.

Stay away.
 
They are the typical example how a group of former Catholics deteriorates outside of the root, the Magisterium. They have married priests, charismatics, ordain women and bless homosexual marriages. (in this later two they differ from the Polish National Church with similar views).
 
wsxyz said:
The Old Catholics split from the Church after the 1st Vatican Council. Originally their doctrine was basically the same as Catholic doctrine but, as is often the case with schismatics, they eventually went off the deep end. These days they reject a lot of traditional Catholic teaching, especially moral teaching.

Their masses might be valid as they did originally have valid orders, but they have also modified the liturgy so, depending on what they now say/do/believe, they may now be invalid.

Stay away.
Click to expand...
Anyone know the major contentions they had with Vatican I? I know this is a long time ago. It’s interesting to note though that after each Vatican Council, there was a split.
 
TrueLight said:
Well at least they say in response to “The Lord Be With You”, “And With Your Spirit”. LOL.
Click to expand...
But shouldn’t “Dominus vobiscum” be “(The) Lord (is) with you” like it is in Polish?😉

Unless we conjugate “to be” as “I be, you be, he be, we be, yawl be, deh be.”🙂
 
ProVobis said:
But shouldn’t “Dominus vobiscum” be “(The) Lord (is) with you” like it is in Polish?😉

Unless we conjugate “to be” as “I be, you be, he be, we be, yawl be, deh be.”🙂
Click to expand...
I think the verb is not conjugated because conjugation necessarily adds tense to it. (“Is” for the present tense, “was” for past tense, “will be” for future, etc.)

By not conjugating, the verb, it is hoped that timelessness would be better conveyed.
 
SonCatcher said:
I think the verb is not conjugated because conjugation necessarily adds tense to it. (“Is” for the present tense, “was” for past tense, “will be” for future, etc.)

By not conjugating, the verb, it is hoped that timelessness would be better conveyed.
Click to expand...
Seems to me the subjunctive really isn’t necessary. Gloria in excelsis Deo is translated without the verb: “Glory to God in the highest” so it’s possible to do it. It appears as if there’s a little inconsistency here. I don’t understand why anyone would want to preserve the “timelessness” of this.
 
I think is wrong to describe the early or later Catholic Church as the Old CC.It would be more accurate to say the developing Church.From starting with 12 Apostles and Christ we nnow have the plus 1 billion member Catholic C.Many have seen the Church as undergoing dramatic changes in Its history and I guess I would agree to a certain point.But the changes were necessary and couldn’t have been avoided.
 
valentino said:
I think is wrong to describe the early or later Catholic Church as the Old CC.It would be more accurate to say the developing Church.From starting with 12 Apostles and Christ we nnow have the plus 1 billion member Catholic C.Many have seen the Church as undergoing dramatic changes in Its history and I guess I would agree to a certain point.But the changes were necessary and couldn’t have been avoided.
Click to expand...
That’s what they call themselves - the old Catholics.
 
TrueLight said:
Anyone know the major contentions they had with Vatican I? I know this is a long time ago. It’s interesting to note though that after each Vatican Council, there was a split.
Click to expand...
Councils usually were called to resolve crisis. It is natural, that always there are dissenting groups, some from right, some from left.
 
TrueLight said:
Anyone know the major contentions they had with Vatican I? I know this is a long time ago. It’s interesting to note though that after each Vatican Council, there was a split.
Click to expand...
Papal Infallibility was the big issue, I believe.
 
Yes, papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction. In some cases, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as well.

There are many descendants of the original Old Catholics. But there were “Old Catholic type” groups even before the 19th century.

The Hussite Utraquists of the 15th century are a good example. At one time, they were fairly general throughout Bohemia and were “Catholic” in every which way save for their married priesthood, the right to grant the Chalice to the laity (if they wished) in Communion and their veneration of specifically Hussite martyrs such as Jan Hus, Jerome of Prague, King George of Podebrady, Michal Polak and the 240 Hussite Martyrs of Kutna Hora. For them July 6th, the burning of Hus, was a day of fasting and to join in the fast of that day was to mark oneself as an Utraquist Hussite.

There was also an Orthodox branch of the Hussites, headed by one Bishop Konstantinos Anglikos who was ordained/consecrated at Constantinople. A number of Hussites in this century joined the Czech Orthodox Church and there are those who see in Orthodoxy the ultimate goal of the Hussite movement. The Czech Orthodox Church does commemorate (although not publicly venerate) Hus and the Hussite martyrs.

The Polish National Catholic Church is a modern-day carbon copy of the Utraquists (and also, incidentally, has Jan Hus in its calendar, along with Savonarola and Peter Waldo).

Czech Orthodox writers are in earnest about canonizing Hus and Jerome of Prague as Orthodox saints. In fact, we now know that Jerome was baptized into the Orthodox Church in Latvia when he was there and his Orthodox baptismal certificate has been found. This would finally explain why Jerome of Prague kept referring to his allegiance to the “Orthodox faith of the Fathers” during his trial and burning on May 30, 1416. There are voices there who are in favour of his Orthodox canonization.

We also have, I believe, a former Polish National Catholic parish up here that, under Bl. John Paul the Great, came into union with Rome (and has married clergy etc.).

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Yes, papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction. In some cases, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as well.

There are many descendants of the original Old Catholics. But there were “Old Catholic type” groups even before the 19th century.

The Hussite Utraquists of the 15th century are a good example. At one time, they were fairly general throughout Bohemia and were “Catholic” in every which way save for their married priesthood, the right to grant the Chalice to the laity (if they wished) in Communion and their veneration of specifically Hussite martyrs such as Jan Hus, Jerome of Prague, King George of Podebrady, Michal Polak and the 240 Hussite Martyrs of Kutna Hora. For them July 6th, the burning of Hus, was a day of fasting and to join in the fast of that day was to mark oneself as an Utraquist Hussite.

There was also an Orthodox branch of the Hussites, headed by one Bishop Konstantinos Anglikos who was ordained/consecrated at Constantinople. A number of Hussites in this century joined the Czech Orthodox Church and there are those who see in Orthodoxy the ultimate goal of the Hussite movement. The Czech Orthodox Church does commemorate (although not publicly venerate) Hus and the Hussite martyrs.

The Polish National Catholic Church is a modern-day carbon copy of the Utraquists (and also, incidentally, has Jan Hus in its calendar, along with Savonarola and Peter Waldo).

Czech Orthodox writers are in earnest about canonizing Hus and Jerome of Prague as Orthodox saints. In fact, we now know that Jerome was baptized into the Orthodox Church in Latvia when he was there and his Orthodox baptismal certificate has been found. This would finally explain why Jerome of Prague kept referring to his allegiance to the “Orthodox faith of the Fathers” during his trial and burning on May 30, 1416. There are voices there who are in favour of his Orthodox canonization.

We also have, I believe, a former Polish National Catholic parish up here that, under Bl. John Paul the Great, came into union with Rome (and has married clergy etc.).

Alex
Click to expand...
Very interesting history.

So are they considered Catholics by the church, even if in schism, or not Catholic at all?
 
Here is the website of the Polish Natinal Catholic Church

It does not say that they are united with Rome, in any way the elect bishops for themselves

pncc.org/?page_id=6
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top