Talk:Old Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article is false[edit]

The "Churches" here who are calling themselves "Old Catholic" can not be listed with the Churches of the 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 (talkcontribs) 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 separated. --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)
WP:NPOV does not say, that two Churches or more must be listed in one article. In the German Wikipedia it is also separated like it HAS to be. There are articles about de:Altkatholische Kirche and de:Altkatholische Kirche (Begriffserklärung) as you know. And also the Anglican Churches you gave for example are not listed in the article about the Anglicans. And what is also important: none of the Groups I mean has ever been member of the Union. (Only the Church in Slovakia, which became a sect, was a member of the Union but it decided to become a splinter group - because of illegal consecration a bishop from an episcopus vagans). The truth must be accepted, and the truth is that those groups have not any connection to the Old Catholicism. They do say that they are Old Catholics but there is no relationship. I also can't go and call myself to a bishop and found "the Roman Catholic Church in Europe". But those splinter groups do exactly that: they steal name and history of an other church and they act as Old Catholic Churches although they are not. Neutrality is not affected if we separate the article in Old Catholic Church (only Utrecht Churches) and "Other Old Catholic Churches" (not in Communion with Utrecht), but neutrality would be destroyed if we accepted the pretension of some splinter groups and gave them the right to act as churches they are not. --92.105.4.79 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pope Leo X's "concession"[edit]

Can anyone find the "concession" from Pope Leo X? --Foititis (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-European jurisdictions[edit]

Does anyone have any more information about other non-european jurisdictions? --Foititis (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Conference of North American Old Catholic Bishops[edit]

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)

The conferenceofoldcatholicbishops.org website changed in 2012.[1][2] It looks as if the incorporation of the groups historic content, from its old site into its new site, was not completed. The new site does not contain any contact information, does not contain a list of any member groups or individuals, does not contain any outbound links, in my opinion someone forgot to complete the transition. For example, the history page is missing in the 2012 version. From the conferenceofoldcatholicbishops.org's History at the Wayback Machine (archived March 4, 2012), it seems that there was a survey conducted and the CNAOCB was four bishops who met twice in 2006. Do these four bishops still meet, moreover, are there any congregations involved in this? The old site didn't names any congregations that may have been involved.[3]
References
  1. ^ "[home page]". conferenceofoldcatholicbishops.org. [s.l.]: Conference of North American Old Catholic Bishops. Archived from the original on 2012-03-28. Retrieved 2014-06-02. 
  2. ^ "[home page]". conferenceofoldcatholicbishops.org. [s.l.]: Conference of North American Old Catholic Bishops. 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-08-17. Retrieved 2014-06-02. 
  3. ^ "Unity Statement". conferenceofoldcatholicbishops.org. [s.l.]: Conference of North American Old Catholic Bishops. Archived from the original on 2012-03-04. Retrieved 2014-06-02. 
--BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

History is not accurate[edit]

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

Pope 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 (talkcontribs) 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

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 [sic] Berghes as a bishop to work among the Scottish."

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. Claude 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 Moss, Claude B. The Old Catholic Movement. p. 302.  Later that year (1910) Mathews separates 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. 174.20.129.51 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

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 Landas 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonvsc (talkcontribs) 21:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
[citation needed] This seems like a fringe theory or a pious fraud from the early 20th century. Is there a verifiable and reliable source for this? That is, after they had announced that Mathew had "given up communion with the other Old Catholics" when he acted against the Convention of Utrecht in 1910, those same UU member Churches, or their IBC bishops, actually conspired with Mathew to violate their own protocols and authorized a non-member, i.e. Mathew, to consecrate a non-UU bishop? --BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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 Caruso, Robert W. (2009). The Old Catholic Church: understanding the origin, essence, and theology of a Church that is unknown and misunderstood by many in North America. Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press.  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)