Talk:Old Catholic Church

Article is false

The "Churches" here who are calling themselves "Old Catholic" can not be listed with the Churches he Union of Utrecht. The article must be separated in Old Catholic Church (Union of Utrecht) and "Other Old Catholic Churches". The listed groups aren't Old Catholic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.4.79 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 May 2009

While it's important to distinguish which churches are and are not affiliated with the Union of Utrecht, it would not be NPOV to say that churches that are not in communion with Utrecht aren't Old Catholic. It's similar to the situation among Anglicans - most Anglican churches are part of the Anglican Communion, but those that aren't (such as those taking part in Continuing Anglicanism) are still Anglican. +Angr 17:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. These so-called "Old Catholic Churches" are mostly splinter groups of wandering bishops who are illegitimately consecrated and their members are under 100 people. They suggest relations to the Old Catholicism but there aren't any. These splinter groups are not based on Old Catholic tradition and history although they distribute untruths against the Old Catholicism and the true Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Union. The most impertinent of them say that they adhere to the true Old Catholicism and are not member of the Union because of modernist tendencies into the Union. They have never been members of true Old Catholic Churches. These Un-Old Catholic groups damage the good reputation of the Utrecht Union.

The article must be seperated. --92.105.4.79 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We do have a separate article on the Union of Utrecht. But because of WP:NPOV, it is not Wikipedia's place to decide what churches are and are not "true" Old Catholic Churches. We can only go by what reliable sources say, or failing that, how the churches describe themselves. Incidentally, there are certainly churches that used to be in the Union of Utrecht and no longer are. +Angr 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This NPOV does not say, that two Churches or more must be listed in one article. In German it is also seperated like it HAS to be. There are articles about Altkatholische Kirche and Altkatholische Kirche (Begriffserklärung) as you know. And also the Anglican Churches you gave for example are not listed in the

Documentation

Can anyone find the "concession" from Pope Leo X?--Foititis (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have any more information about other non-european jurisdictions?--Foititis (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of View is not neutral

The first person plural is used at some points which clearly compromises objectivity. The article contains a number of statements which seem partisan. For example, "rather like gold tested by fire" in the section Post Reformation Holland - first period is clearly biased. As I am not familiar with the history involved, I don't trust myself to rewrite it without introducing errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenCSimmons (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Old Catholic Propaganda

• The Old Catholics, by Anthony Cekada in The Roman Catholic Magazine, 1980. This post keeps appearing on the external links page. The Roman Catholic Magazine is not a Roman Catholic publication but a very conservative schismatic group's publication. The irony of his anti-Old Catholic article is that if the Old Catholics don't have valid orders, then neither does his group. His premise would be that Apostolic Succession would not pass to liberals. I don't think an unscholarly note from an ultra conservative schismatic is needed for the wiki page to be fair and balanced.--Foititis (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would argue otherwise with this point. The Roman Catholic Magazine is a publication of The Society of St. Pius X, a group which schismed with the Vatican in 1983. However, this article was written in 1980, when the group was still in communion with Rome and this magazine was viewed as portraying legitimate Roman Catholic opinion. While there certainly is a degree of hostility in the article, that does not negate the fact that Cekada, in 1980, was publishing an article as a priest in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. There are also other Roman Catholic publications, including the Encyclopedia Catholica articles on Dollinger, Arnold Matthew Harris, and the Ultrajectine movement, which concur with Cekada's views. I think this argument is reflective of the fact that no one has written a truly neutral article here about Old Catholicism. It would probably be best to start from scratch and re-write the article from a non-Catholic, Roman or Old, perspective. Articles regarding Islam can serve as a model of how to objectively balance the human aspect of these sects with the fact that one group views the other as schismatic. Perhaps the anthropologic method can suggest format?Stew312856 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Conference of North American Old Catholic Bishops

This section should be included, but I don't think its section needs to be as long as the the entire history section of the OCC. If you have more to say about it, make a separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.35.162 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

History is not accurate

The history section says that "...in 1125 Pope Eugene III gave Utrecht the right to elect its own bishops...."

Honorius II was the pope in the year 1125, so either the date or the name is incorrect. I have not been able to find the documentation to fix this (yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynnwagner (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I found another site which says 1145. That would make more sense. If I am wrong, please correct me.--Foititis (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Conrad II also died in 1039, so he wasn't there under Honorius II or Eugene III. I think it is Conrad III. I am changing it to say Conrad III, but if I am wrong, please correct me. --Foititis (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The History Section says, "This was affirmed by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215" which canon 23? "--Foititis (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How many new Old Catholics and old Old Catholic are there?

Are there more or fewer than 100,000? How about 500,000? More? Less?71.134.42.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that there are fewer than 40,000 in the whole of Europe. Probably even fewer in the rest of the world. Most definitely less than 100,000.--70.90.111.113 (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

These numbers might be debatable or not, but some numbers must appear in article (with references, of course). Now, readers can't tell if article is about a handful of friends or about a religion with millions of members (or anything in-between).--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Old Catholic Church have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird sentence

"The Union of Utrecht has not welcomed any non-continental European community to join the Union with the exception of the Polish National Catholic Church."

What is this supposed to mean? Poland is in continental Europe so it would not be an exception to this rule, if this is a rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.233.71 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Polish National Catholic Church. It's based in the US, not in Poland.--Pere prlpz (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The PNCC was a US branch of the Union of Utrecht that never existed in Poland but was a collection of "Slavic" communities that had formed in the US and then joined the Utrecht Union. They eventually withdrew from the Utrecht Union. The Utrecht Union has extended membership to some Old Catholic groups outside of Europe besides the PNCC. They too have withdrawn. Presently one parish of the PNCC has chosen to remain within the Utrecht Union. While the core of the Utrecht Union remains stable ... groups that have been admitted in recent history have withdrawn for theological reasons (ordination of women and inclusion of homosexuals fully within the Church are the main reasons given.)

American so-called "Old Catholicism" is historically not accurate and source citations are highly questionable

Under "Old Catholicism in America" The first paragraph reads,

"In 1913, Bishop Mathew with permission of the Continental Old Catholic bishops consecrated Rudolph Edward de Landen Berghes as a bishop to work among the Scottish.[12]"

The above quote is incorrect, and the citation is not credible. As is typical with independent Catholics in the U.S., many quote their "church's" "historical documents," which contains layers of historical inaccuracies perpetuated through the years from one ind. bishop to another. Clyde B. Moss is an Anglican scholar whose book "The Old Catholic Movement" is still considered by Old Catholic (Union of Utrecht) scholars as one of the most accurate historical books about Old Catholicism written in English. Moss clearly and accurately states that Bishop Mathews consecrated two Roman Catholic priests on June 13, 1910 without consulting and without permission from the Union of Utrecht's college of bishops (the IBK). He did not follow the college's "statutes," which governs matters of episcopal consecration among other things. Further, and I quote, Moss clearly informs his reader that Mathews did not inform "a) his fellow bishops, b) [the consecrations were done] in secret, c) without assistants, d) while the candidates were of another communion." See C.B. Moss, "The Old Catholic Movement" p. 302. Later that year (1910) Mathews seperates himself from the IBK and the Old Catholic Communion in his infamous "Declaration of Autonomy and Independence." Thus, the above quote is historically wrong, and there are many other inaccuracies too numerous to correct in this section.

Actually there are historical documents within the archives of the Utrecht Union as well as within the Anglican Communion that verify the accuracy of the statement about Bishop de Landis Berghes being ordained at the request of the "Continental bishops". Although Utrecht does not easily grant access to its archives the documents are there. Also, there are documents in the Lambeth Palace collection in Canterbury, UK.

Those independent groups in the U.S. who call themselves "Old Catholic" are canonically not part of the communion of the historical Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht. This is a reality one just cannot argue against persuasively. Of course, one can call themselves Old Catholic, or whatever else, but the reality is that they are ind. groups with skewed histories, ideologies (liberal and conservative), very small, comprised mostly of clergy or those who want to be clergy with minimal lay involvement, and other half-truths about who and what they represent -- which is as numerous as the stars. Further, most American ind. groups are Roman Catholic persons masking themselves under the title of "Old Catholic" knowing very little about Old Catholic (Union of Utrecht) theology and its dynamic eucharistic ecclesiology.

For more reading on this topic see Robert W. Caruso, "The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in North America" (Berkely, CA: Apoceyphile Press, 2009). It has received positive reviews from Old Catholic (Union of Utrecht) scholars and reputable Catholic scholars here in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.129.51 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Article uses opinion

The 2nd sentence of the article "The Old Catholic Church remained faithful to the original teachings of the Church and the Roman Church split from the Old Catholic Church over certain doctrines, most importantly that of Papal Infallibility" is a statement of opinion rather that fact. A sound case can be made for the Catholic Church's assertion that papal infallibility was in fact part of the faith that came from the apostles. The use of the term "Roman Church" instead of the commonly accepted "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" is also problematic.--JR (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)