Talk:Independent Catholicism

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

Breakaway Catholic Churches[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion on this topic was closed after three years resulting in no consensus. --WTF? (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the new article "Breakaway Catholic Churches" should be merged with this or deleted. --Lima (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(my former comment erased). I've have a look on both articles and, definetively they don't deal with the same subject. There is some overlap (most breakaway RC churches qualify as Independent but not the reverse). So I would vote NO for a merger/deletion. See below a more detailed rationale --Wllacer (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The last thing that Wllacer wrote (that breakaway churches are independent, but independent are not necessarily breakaway) is really salient; and, is, ultimately, the reason why the two articles should remain separate. Breakaway churches are formed, for the most part, by dissatisfied members of the chruch body that's being broken away from. And, of course, such breakaway churches are, by definition, independent (of the broken-away-from body). But many independent churches are formed for entirely other reasons, with no specific dissatisfaction, necessarily, with any larger church body, involved; and with the founders of the new church not even necessarily being members of the broken-away-from church. So it is just plain categorically incorrect to treat "breakaway" as synonymous with "independent." Breakaway churches are, in fact, a subset of independent churches. For that reason, seriously, even the mention of this part of the argument involving "breakaway" vs "independent" really needs to be removed from the top of this talk page because it fundamentally distracts the reader from whatever OTHER issues there might legitimately be regarding this article. And I haven't looked at the "Talk" page for the Breakaway article yet, but I now will and if there's a discussion like this going on there, I'm going to post this point there, too. Just tryin' to help. --Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talkcontribs)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merged. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links[edit]

The following discussion is marked as answered (Wikipedia is not a directory or linkfarm). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

Is this section in the article meant to be an advertising repository of links to other various churches? Kjnelan (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is value in having links to the various Independent Catholic Churches, not as an advertising repository of links, but so those interested may read for themselves how these Churches describe themselves; but perhaps better would be just one link - to the Independent episcopal churches page on the website. It categorizes these churches into: Byzantine, Old Catholic, Tridentine or Traditionalist, Reformed Catholic, Independent Anglican, and Celtic; gives a very short but accurate description of each category. It maintains an extensive, arguably very complete, listing of the Independent Catholic Churches (and other "Independent episcopally-ordered Churches"). Since seems to be highly objective and ecumenical, perhaps a link to it could replace all the others in this section. --Gladfelteri (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:LINKFARM. External links section should point to such indexes or information relevant to the article (see WP:EXT). I will try to compile such links and replace that section with them. --Metagignosko (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple ordinations[edit]

The following discussion is marked as answered (the word "sequential" was added). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

My change has been changed re this. I see the problem: does "multiple ordinations" refer to one ceremony where a multiplicity of men is ordained (which is quite acceptable to Catholics, but not really to Orthodox) or a multiplicity of ceremonies (subsequent to one another) where the same man is ordained repeatedly? --Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The latter, often sub conditione. --Midnite Critic (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks! Ok, I added the note '(i.e. sequential)' to make it clear for me. I have seen the phrase 'multiple ordinations' used by Orthodox in the sense of what they also call 'cluster ordinations' which they don't practice. --Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I read in the "Independent Catholic churches" article (this version) that:

Some bishops receive several consecrations in an attempt to secure a more diverse claim to apostolic succession, for example, Bishop Hugh George de Willmott Newman.


Independent clergy have often received multiple ordinations/consecrations in an attempt to ensure a broad and diverse claim to apostolic succession. Though perhaps less prevalent than in the past, the practice continues; for example, Archbishop Peter Paul Brennan of the African Orthodox Church, one of four who were conditionally ordained to the episcopate by the excommunicated Catholic Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo on 24 September 2006, claims to have been first consecrated on 10 June 1978, and subsequently conditionally consecrated a number of times prior to the ceremony conducted by Archbishop Milingo. Also, in 2007, various independent Catholic bishops in the UK underwent multiple mutual reconsecrations "as a gesture of unity".

I also read in the "Hugh George de Willmott Newman" article (this version) that:

On April 10, 1944 Newman was consecrated a bishop by William Bernard Crow, whose own consecration derived from the Armenian Catholic Church. Over the ten years 1945 to 1955, Newman engaged in cross-consecrating, where he and another bishop would consecrate each other to give each the other's lines of succession.
Newman consecrated, or shared cross-consecration with, at least 32 bishops. Today, there are hundreds of bishops around the world, perhaps thousands, with a lines of succession deriving through Hugh de Willmott Newman.

I don't understand the concepts of "several consecrations in an attempt to secure a more diverse claim to apostolic succession", "shared cross-consecration", or "multiple mutual reconsecrations 'as a gesture of unity' ".

The Newman article cites The Encyclopedia of American Religions. The 2009 edition of a newer version titled Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions states that:

Episcopally led churches have traditionally based their legitimacy on their ability to trace their line of succession from the original 12 apostles. That is, for a bishop to be validly consecrated, and thus able to validly ordain priests, that bishop must himself be consecrated by a validly consecrated bishop. Thus, the story of the independent Old Catholic jurisdictions in America is the story of the search for legitimacy through ever more valid consecrations. In the 1980s, it became common for independent bishops to receive multiple consecrations, especially after changing allegiance to a different jurisdiction.[1](p84)

At the same time, the independent movement developed an antiauthoritarian character. Most of its bishops were self-appointed and maintained relatively miniscule followings. They have pressed for recognition of orders while demanding an independence of jurisdiction from those who granted orders. As an attempt at legitimization, they have sought recognition or reconsecration by bishops of one of the Eastern Orthodox or non-Chalcedonian churches (often after being rebuffed by the archbishop of Utrecht, the head of the Old Catholic Church).[1](p83)

By the 1990s, the several lines of apostolic succession had become well established in the person of a large number of the independent bishops; thus the need for reconsecration services of newer bishops, so notable in the 1980s, became unnecessary. The different lineages were passed simultaneously, and the practice of multiple consecrations has largely disappeared.[1](p84)

[...] Willmott Newman can be credited with introducing an increasingly common practice among the autonomous bishops, that of seeking numerous reconsecrations in order to legitimize an otherwise minuscule ecclesiastical jurisdiction by having its bishop embody a wide variety of lines of apostolic succession, both East and West. Such jurisdictions would symbolize the ecumenical church.[1](p84)

Are these understood as conditional ordinations and consecrations? There should be a paragraph in the article about this.


  1. ^ a b c d Melton, J. Gordon, ed. (2009). "Western Liturgical Family, Part I: The Western Catholic Tradition". Melton's encyclopedia of American Religions (8th ed.). Detroit: Gale. pp. 75–88. ISBN 978-0-787-69696-2. Retrieved 2014-06-21 – via Gale Virtual Reference Library. (subscription required (help)). 

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have today (19 Aug 2014) done some work on the "Holy orders" section of the "Independent Catholic churches" page and also some further re-work on the page on HGWW, with an objective of addressing the concerns and comments voiced above (dated 23 June 2014). I have tried to express the matters without resorting to un-defined jargon or technical terms. I hope User BoBoMisiu may now consider that the situation is improved. What I have now written is probably about the best I am going to be able to achieve without going into an over-lengthy explanation and teach-in. If it is judged to be less than satisfactory, perhaps someone else would like to attempt to improve the situation please. Diakonias (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

The current editorial perspective negatively judges the subjects of the article at various points and so does not meet the neutrality guidelines. Such assertions are not backed by references. Additionally, the "ecclesiology" section only considers the responses of church bodies who are not the subject of the article. While relevant, it is too long in what it does cover and incomplete in not covering the actual ecclesiology of the subject churches. --Metagignosko (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific so that other editors can consider your suggested improvements. --Tb (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are examples:

Many have embraced the model of parish organisation in which a bishop, not a priest, is the pastor of a parish. This model enables those who wish to become bishops to rationalise the process even when there are no other members of the clergy in the group. Thus, a high percentage of Independent clergy end up seeking ordination to the episcopacy. Congregations tend to be minuscule and sometimes even non-existent.

No citations. Negative characterization. Epistemologically dubious statement concerning the internal mental state of subjects (wishes, rationalizations) with no citation of scientific research that may be performed to ascertain such mental states.

In the United Kingdom there are several who make a substantial income by conducting marriages and/or funerals, from high church to humanist or even pagan in character, leading to the charge that these people see ministry as a career rather than as a vocation.

No citations. Negative characterization. If there is such a "charge," it should be cited from reliable sources.

Yet, others would argue that the views of Utrecht, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy are of significant importance as is it they who are universally regarded as been the guardians of the definition of apostolic succession. The claims of the Independent movement to apostolic succession are rejected by the very churches which the Independent clergy accept as guardians, and to which they appeal.

No citations. If there are such "others" they should be cited from reliable sources.
The conclusions of the Ecclesiology section, as much of the rest of the article, seems to largely consist of original research. The second paragraph is notable in this regard, many conclusions with no citations. And, as I stated above, it is odd to have such a long section nominally presented to be the ecclesiology of the subjects of the article which has nothing to say about that topic. Instead it should be retitled something like "Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox reactions to Apostolic claims," and substantially shortened. If there are no reliable sources to cite for the conclusions stated, it will need to be removed. --Metagignosko (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Whoever tried to "fix" these problems, though, made the same sort of errors, only from a different POV. There are some seriously opinionated claims here now, plus unattributed quotes or opinions and the invoking of nonexistent statistics. Those which stood out for me I marked with tags, but some editor who's competent with the topic will have to rewrite those passages in a more appropriate tone (and possibly with a more appropriate content). --Rafu (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic[edit]

See extensive discussion at Talk:History of the term "Catholic"

An editor has decided to introduce the Roman Catholic terminology war here. I object. "Roman Catholic" is a term often used by, among other things, the actual people to whom it refers (including examples carved into stonework of churches, web sites, official documents from the See of Rome, and elsewhere). No aspect of the manual of style takes a position on such things, and the argument that the term should be avoided is itself the expression of a POV, which is in part designed to further an agenda in which the term "Catholic" refers only to those churches in communion with the Diocese of Rome. In articles which are (as this one) explicitly about other Catholic churches, it is particularly offensive to have this going on. --Tb (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate actual discussion on the point. The new edits are, in my opinion, quite mistaken, and if they seek after compromise, I'd like to see the various parties express themselves before the change is made. --Tb (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to mention that it appears (from reading everything including the past history) there is no direct link to the actual term "Catholic" in the entire article. There is a whole definition of the word which is separate and apart from any church entity. I believe (personal opinion here) there does need to be some sort of distinction between the various "Catholic" denominations. The term "Roman Catholic Church" (see Roman Catholic), though only recently used, is generally accepted to mean the "Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome...". The term "Independent Catholic" has come to mean any "Catholic" Church not in union with the Bishop of Rome (also known as the pope) and further distinctions exist such as "Old Catholic", Orthodox, Free, African, and a whole host of others. It is, in my opinion, extremely difficult to read through an article that mentions only the catholic church and no other distinction. There needs to be definition in place to understand the actual divergences or differences which may or may not lie in the practice of worship and/or allegiance to a hierarchy.
It may seem as if this is a matter of mincing words, but semantics can be an important factor in any definition as there must be agreed upon definitions and accepted norms in order to be able to get across what one is saying. To simply say "the catholic church is..." is very misleading as there are many different types of catholic church. Are you talking about a particular denomination, a particular style of, or are you even talking about a church's universality in belief of God.
So, though I have not made any substantial edits to this page, I feel semantics are important here and a general accepted norm does need to be established to ensure distinction and to avoid greater future confusion. Said norm needs to be published and agreed upon by any person editing the page before said edits are made. --Kjnelan (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is an Independent Catholic Church?[edit]

After reading the article I went into some doubt about what qualifies as such. My first reading seemed to be just a hodgepodge of self styled "catholic" minority denominations. Not until I perused some of the web references could i get a clear understanding of what the article is about (it is described in the introduction but I didn't get it at first, to much noise to info ratio).

According to this an ICC is a "community faith which has an episcopal order for which it claims is in apostolic succession and to have valid sacraments (esp. Eucharist)" but are not in communion with any of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, or the Oriental Churches".

Readers will note that i have taken out two denominations from the not in communion clause. The Old Catholics and the Anglican Communion. The first because they fit perfectly into the definition of independent; without treating them, a good deal of the phenomenon is almost unintelligible -the article starts with them- and in more than one sense is the paradigmatic case. The Anglicans, at least the Anglo Catholics, claim to be catholic in the above definition, but are nowadays not acknowledged as such by none of the "Old Three". In this sense -and but for its volume- she is just another Independent "Church"

You will also note that the definition matches almost "verbatim" the requisites of Dominus Iesus for calling a christian denomination a Church, according to Rome. The Catholic Church happens to be the only one which has developed a certain juridical system on testing the "apostolic succession" (more on a case law style, but anyhow), which seems to have been more or less silently accepted as a "standard" (on a side note, i do am a RC, so i'm bound to it, anyway; and yes i know a number of Orthodox theologians would even deny validity to RC orders, ...)

There is a wild diversity of ICC, but with the exception of the Anglican "chaos", most seem not to claim inheritance from the Reformation. I'd say it could also a common characteristic, but I'll leave it for someone more expert in "denominational taxonomy"

The phenomenon of the episcopi vagantes, while important for some of the Independents (mostly american ones) is absolutely irrelevant for others. --Wllacer (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your second sentence starts... According to this.... According to what specifically? Where is that definition? Is it something you've come up with as a result of your many searches? I'm not trying to be combative, I'd genuinely like to know as yours is the first attempt in a long time to actually try to fix this article.
I too searched and after going through many of the sites listed in the External Links section of the article, it appears the commonly accepted definition of Independent Catholic is any catholic entity which is not in communion with the Holy See (i.e. The Bishop of Rome, or what is commonly referred to as the "Pope" in the Roman Catholic Church.) But that is also my own take on what they are trying to convey though I did word that somewhat from Dominus Iesus since that document uses the term communion to describe churches who have broken away from, but still celebrate with the Roman Catholic Church.
Perhaps the intro should be worded simply and not with POV! I'll take a stab at it. See what you think. Let's fix this article!!! Kjnelan (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Is St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (St. Louis, Missouri) an Independent Catholic Church?--WlaKom (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic succession[edit]

See extensive discussion at Talk:Apostolic succession
  • No consensus was reached about the importance of apostolic succession in Independent Catholic churches.
  • No "test of apostolic succession" was added to the article.
    BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Something of this kind should be in the article. Below is a proposed outline of a test of apostolic succession. Although I believe catholics and easterns would agree, this reflects mainly a RC approach. I'll try to get detailed references for each case, but for now i'm a little short of time. Assuming the ordination is valid (i.e. is both formally correct, the intention was present, and free of simony; more below) more or less the probability would be in this order (higher first):

  • The movement was started by one or more legitimate bishops of one of the "Big Three"
  • The creator of the line of succession was ordained by one legitimate bishop of one of the "Big Three"
  • The creator of the line of succession was ordained by one "legitimate" bishop of an independent Church of the first two kinds
  • The creator of the line of succession was ordained by one bishop of the former kinds, but of a very different rite
  • The creator of the line of succession was ordained by one bishop whose ordination is already suspect
  • No one knows who initiated the line of succession

Each case should include examples, such as:

And mention exceptions. For example, Milingo's ordinations are rejected for lack of intent (it's very doubtful that he still believes in the episcopal order, and there is some suspicion about his mental health; in the case of bishop Pierre_Martin_Ngô_Đình_Thục's the last cause is the most commonly referred (but not solely). For the Anglican Communion please see Apostolic_Succession#Roman_Catholic_judgments. Neither the SSPX, nor Rome formally consider (as of 2009) their relation as "schismatic" but merely as "canonicaly irregular" (See Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X). If the evolution would result in a total breakup, then orders had to be mutually recognizable. --Wllacer (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that only applies to those who actually voice a concern regarding "legitimate succession". Since there are many groups in the independent movement that do not really care one way or the other, or have aligned themselves with the "orthodox" or "Old Catholics" or other denominations and therefore fall under their umbrellas, I don't think it would be useful to this article.
I do like the line above that states, Most church[es] created by episcopi vagantes aren't even recognized outside themselves. I think that line should even enter the article somewhere, though I'd like to see the source for that as I have several sources against that statement; Apostolicae Curae, "The Old Catholic Church has received valid Episcopal consecration" Algermissen, Konrad. Christian Denominations. , Ott, Ludwig (1952). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. p. 456.  which states: "Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (set. Certa). Cf. D 855, 860; CIC 2372." and several others.
All of these are common documents, but my understanding is there are new documents which even reverse what His Holiness the Pope stated before he was elected to be the Bishop of Rome. Dominus Iesus, was issued during the reign of Pope John Paul II, June 16, 2000, and signed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000. Refer to Section IV: Article 17 which states in part: "Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in the communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches..."
I would actually feel more comfortable if this remained an informational article about the Independent Catholic Church as a movement rather than a debate... How will the test improve the article? Kjnelan (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Kjnelan, I would suggest leaving the proposed test out, and just present the claims of this group of Churches. For that matter, implying that these Churches are not recognized outside themselves shows bias on the part of the writer. Each other individual Church concerned by the existence of this group of Churches and its claims are the ones to challenge the validity of their claims themselves for their own people as well as for the general public in their own official statements. An informational article in an Encyclopedia should simply present the claims, doctrines and so forth of this group of Churches as they describe themselves; or simply note that their claims and doctrines are and have been controversial and leave it at that. Those who have questions about the Independent Catholic Churches may contact their own Church (or any other Church) for its opinions about them. --Gladfelteri (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
A statment on about this subject is: "As a website, we struggle with two ecumenical principles: Each community should be allowed to describe themselves to others according to its own self-understanding, and it is not our function to express judgement upon the legitimacy of any of the communities listed on our site, not upon the self-description offered by these communities" (Independent episcopal churches). The website continues with this statement which is at the heart of this and arguably any discussion of this family of Churches: "Our struggle occurs because many churches describe themselves in a manner that challenges the self-understanding of other churches."
That last sentence, in my humble opinion, makes these Churches by their very nature - by their very existence, controversial and to many committed members of other Churches, inherently upsetting to at least some degree whether they are aware of it or not, no matter how objective and impartial they may otherwise be. So perhaps it is best to simply avoid any evaluation of the validity of these Churches and their apostolic successions in the text of the article, and let various other Churches do that themselves on their own internet sites and in their other publications. --Gladfelteri (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
My proposal was not intended to open up a debate about the merits of the apostolic succession of any of the churches, but rather as a "walking guide" for outsiders through the maze. When I came around the phenomenon of the ICC. I needed a framework for classification in order to understand it. I tried the "Mother Church" method, but it didn't work beyond the first generation, and not always. I tried the "theological family", but was even worse. Only as I tried an (blatantly confessional) approach based on the above schema (aided with the two other approaches) I could get some overview. Just (if you allow me) take Gladfelteri's Community. It's styled as Lutheran, as came out of the Missouri Synod. but it's theology looks squarely RC. Apostolic succession is claimed via primarily the Duarte-Costa line (if i have understood it correctly), so -pending further research- this Community comes into my second or third group, so I can pin it down in a mental map. By the way, I hope not to need this knowledge anymore in the shortest time possible ;-)
I accept that perhaps a so obviously laden approach as mine, might not be workable for Wikipedia, but I think there is a need for outsiders to get some schema based on claimed primary Succession, but not simply a division by such-and-such line (too many to be practical)
Kjnelan, I got the impression of just the opposite, that for these churches the apostolic succession claim is paramount, unless it becomes only a container for not mainstream churches with episcopal constitution. This is the reason why i tried to group them in degrees of probability. This is one of the problems of the article; not being an organized movement there must be some limits of what comes in.
And being absolutely personal and a bit blunt. When somebody claims an unknown line, i.e. not Utrecht, not Duarte, not Thuc, not Mathew, not Vilatte, etc.; or an "esoteric" line, i.e. going further down my list; it raises more than simple eyebrows on me. WP has to strive for objectivity, which in my honest opinion isn't exactly the same as gullibility. --Wllacer (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patrickinmpls, please put your comments separated from those of the other users, and sign them. I don't mind being formatted for the sake of discussion but not "edited". You made it in a way it looks as I had written it, which is NOT the case. As I presume you're a newcomer I simple move your comments and my counter arguments down here. --Wllacer (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The movement was started by one or more legitimate bishops of one of the "Big Three"
— User:Wllacer 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please enumerate, Lefebvre, and who else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickinmpls (talkcontribs) 13:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I left it open because history gives you some surprises. Think of formal schisms of local churches –or at least an organized body– where the legitimate bishop is the head. From the top of my head, and for the sake of this article, undoubtedly the original Utrecht Church and the Costa-Duarte line (Brazilian National Church). Lefebre's, Antônio de Castro Mayer's and the Chinese Patriotic are distinct in the sense their groups wouldn't consider themselves an Independent Church; moreover Castro's successor is already in full communion with Rome, and many chinese "official" bishops maintain some kind of (not too underground) links with Rome.
If Milingo were to openly head a schismatic group then he would qualify here for this group (as sometimes appear). But none can be sure about him.
Thuc ordained irregular bishops, but never headed a schismatic body (in the second group then). Nor Mathews or Vilatte line would qualify here, because they were NOT regular members of the church which consecrated them bishops. --Wllacer (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Milingo's ordinations are rejected for lack of intent (it's very doubtful that he still believes in the episcopal order, and there is some suspicion about his mental health
— User:Wllacer 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also many would reject the consecration because it happened in 1969 after the new rite of episcopal consecration was introduced by Pope Paul VI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickinmpls (talkcontribs) 13:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Milingo was the first –or at least in the first batch– bishop ordained with the new Pontifical, but this has absolutely no bearing on Rome's view of his ordinations. If you were a staunch "sedevacantist" maybe, but only to the extent that you wouldn't consider ANY consecration with the new Pontifical as valid. --Wllacer (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If I could just interject here a second – about Mathew, he was most definitely a "regular" member of the UU until he issued A Declaration of Autonomy And Independence in 1910, and there exist opposing positions even within the UU as to the validity of his succession, most of the derogatory positions being polemical – certainly some bishops/clergy of his succession have been reconciled with Utrecht since and positive dialogue has existed between some "independent" Old Catholic churches and Utrecht. "Canonically" speaking, one must accuse Mathew of being a formal "schismatic" from the UU, for he was most definitely a recognised member of that Church's hierarchy before his secession from it. The Mathew succession has even been accepted or pronounced upon as "valid" even by Roman Catholic investigators. If it weren't for the distinct negative bias of this article I would offer citations, but frankly, noting that despite some excellent observations and suggestions here, no changes have been effected, I hardly see the point. --Periti (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to have some more info about Mathew. My knowledge is at best sketchy, but if I remember correctly, Mathew was at the time of his ordination married, while then valid canons in Utrecht demanded celibacy at least for bishops. There were also complains about intention after 1910 (but who knows!) So your statement comes as a bit of a surprise to me (i'm not aware of bishops/priests of the Mathew lines being received with at most conditional ordination in the Church. Ops, sorry, in the RC Church ;-)
On the other hand, even acknowledging Mathew's and Villate's ordinations as valid, before them they were NOT members of the Church which ordained them. In Mathew's case, if i remember correctly, it was done explicitly for creating a new independent body but in communion with the UU. Maybe we both are right and is part of a "grey area".
For the time being i'm still following a policy of not editing articles, but I still hope someone can pick up the suggestions in this talk page and rewrite this article. --Wllacer (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Faith and Practice[edit]


I removed the sentence which stated: "In the mind of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic and Utrecht churches such beliefs as theosophy and reincarnation would render invalid any ordinations regardless of the rite employed in the ceremony."

I've searched through many RCC documents regarding this statement and while it is incongruent with RCC teaching, there is nothing which states the belief in such would render the ordination of anyone invalid. It is considered as improper teaching as evidenced by:, but again, nothing has been found to support the sentence.

That sentence was also POV which adds to the other discussions above. We need to remember this is an article ABOUT the Independent Catholic Movement, not a chance to condemn, ridicule, or denigrate. Kjnelan (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are several aspects in this question, from a Catholic point of view. Heretics DO confer valid orders (this is a consensual view since Augustinus in the West) as long it is done according to the "rules" and with the proper intention (cf. Apostolicae Curae, nr 33 passim). An open question is, though, if doctrinal drift (esp. regarding order) does openly negates "proper intention". A case in point -more mainstream- would be the discussion around "Old Catholic" orders after its recent development.
In the East, the Augustinian view never has been fully acknowledged, so it is not uncommon to see opinions negating the validity of even "simply schismatic" orders. --Wllacer (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Liberal Catholic Church for BoBoMisiu's comment, added in this 2014 edit, about divergent belief and internal intention. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


European-American University[edit]

The following discussion is marked as answered (the citation is deleted). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

We're including references to degree mills now? The so-called European-American University is well-known among legitimate and accredited academia, and among anti-degree/diploma-mill activists, as a mill. No question about it. How is it, then, that any Wikipedia article can, with a straight face, link to it? Plus, the specific thing to which that reference linked is gone, now, in any case... so it's basically a dead link (though if someone would first figure out that to which it was linking, and then search for it on the European-American University (and I use the word "university" loosely, in this case) website, who knows... said someone might be able to figure out what should be the new and corrected link. However, we shouldn't, in my opinion, allow reference links to degree mills, regardless...
...or so, at least, it is my opinion. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talkcontribs)

A European-American University article was deleted in 2010 the "concern was: Does not appear to meet any of the notability requirements for inclusion". European-American University Press ( uses which is on the Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business. The link is dead but Archived August 20, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.. The archived section, from, that contains information on Mathew uses content attributed to the Old Catholic Church Wikipedia article. The link to the Wikipedia article is not a permanent link to a stable unique page version. I believe it violates the WP:CIRCULAR policy and I removed it. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ealing schism[edit]

Mathew was not the first. He joined the Ealing schism. Also, other independent ecclesial communities in Great Britain were organized earlier. For example, the adventist Catholic Apostolic Church was organised in 1835. Another example is Jules Ferrette's attempts. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Independent Catholic churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Philippine Independent Church[edit]

I removed the Philippine Independent Church from this list because it is much closer to Anglican churches, or even the Polish National church than independent Catholic churches. It broke away from the Spanish dominated Catholic church during the Philippine Revolution/Philippine-American War period. It shares a seminary with the Episcopal Church of the Philippines and has some unitarian beliefs. It is in communion withe the Anglican Communion. It doesn't claim to be Catholic. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as there are no objections. (non-admin closure) Bradv 02:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Independent Catholic denominationsIndependent Catholicism – Since list of denominations moved to List_of_Christian_denominations#Independent_Catholicism, that would be a more proper name, since it covers the beliefes, positions etc. and not a list of denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


What specifically is missing, Chicbyaccident? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, not sure what you mean? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This tag you had placed in December. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right. The "confusing tag" suffices. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I take it that it's not a very well written article in general. But now is your opportunity to give you two cents as to what in particular is confusing or lacking about it. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)