Can someone explain the 'Old Catholic' title in this forum?

[Michie]

This is not to start a nasty discussion. I'm genuinely curious as to why the title Old Catholic is used. Can someone explain? :)

[Mysterium_Fidei]

The Old Catholic Church is a Christian Church which goes by said name, and shares this forum with the Anglicans.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

See this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t1161975-the-utrecht-union-of-old-catholic-churches.html

[Michie]

Ah, thank you. I'll come back if I have questions. :thumbsup:

[gitlance]

Not to mention that quite a few of us Anglo-Catholics around here tend to be rather traditionalist...

[Protestante]

So is Old Catholic same as Roman Catholic?

[masuwerte]

No.

[gtsecc]

Old Catholic:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1161975-the-utrecht-union-of-old-catholic-churches.html

[Wigglesworth]

This thread is from November 2005. I just happened to click into it as I was hopping through the past, as I often do.

Check out Lance's post from his Anglican period.

Time flies. Seasons change. It's something to contemplate - how people change greatly in what they believe theologically or churchilogically in such a short time.

I'm one of those who changed. When I came to CF, I had never heard of Old Catholics. I was a Pentecostal inquiring about Episcopalianism. I had spent some time in two different Catholic forums, and decided I didn't want to remain there. Then, I think I found CF by doing a Google search on the Episcopal church. Learning about Old Catholics caused me to find a PNCC parish near my home that I'd never known existed.

It's been a nice ride for the most part.

Time flies. Seasons change.

:crossrc:

[kiwimac]

Old Catholics are an independent church in communion with the Anglican See at Canterbury.

[PadreEgan]

I think it is important to make the fact known that the Polish National Catholic Church is no longer part of the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht and is not in any communal agreement with the Anglican Communion.

Peace.

[kiwimac]

Yes,

The PNCC was removed from our communion because they refused to even consider the ordaining of women.

[PadreEgan]

While the PNCC was booted from the Union of Utrecht (which I consider a blessing!), it was the PNCC who ended the communion with the Anglicans. Yes, over the ordination of women, but more for the change in teachings and beleifs on the Eucharist and the blessing of gay unions.

[dv81]

Our Church is the only one that has been here since the time of Jesus which some churches find offensive, you know... instead of saying the "first church", they say "old church"

It's the fasion these days to change with the times, no matter if God is a CONSTANT:doh:

things like " new apostilic bible" "new church of God" makes it's seem friendly instead of blasphemous.:sorry:

[Aymn27]

Our Church is the only one that has been here since the time of Jesus which some churches find offensive, you know... instead of saying the "first church", they say "old church"

It's the fasion these days to change with the times, no matter if God is a CONSTANT:doh:

things like " new apostilic bible" "new church of God" makes it's seem friendly instead of blasphemous.:sorry:
If you're looking for the Papist, they're over in OBOB - I believe you're in the wrong forum.

[gtsecc]

There are some Anglican papists.

[Aymn27]

There are some Anglican papists.
Really? seems like an oxy-moron to me....

[gtsecc]

Really? seems like an oxy-moron to me....
Not really.
THink about it.
Anglicans [pray for the reunion of the Church, and if Rome changed the magisterium and Papacy to allow Bishops the autonomy they originally had, we could all join back. The structure of the church, synodality, implies Primacy. Not Papacy, but Primacy. Read http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9204 (http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9204)

Excerpt:


ZIZIOULAS: When someone speaks of “primacy of honor” he wants to exclude the right of the primate to exercise jurisdiction over the rest of the bishops. But it seems to be a rather ambiguous formula. There seems, in fact, not to exist, even in the Orthodox Church, “a simple primacy of honor”…
Why?
ZIZIOULAS: In the Orthodox Church, for example, in the absence of the Patriarch or during the vacancy of his throne there can be no episcopal elections or the performance of any “canonical acts”. Can you then describe the primacy of the patriarch as “a simple honorr”?
Has this formula other contents?
ZIZIOULAS: The expression “simple primacy of honour” is used to stress the fact that all bishops, from the Pope and the patriarchs down to the least of bishops are equal from the point of view of priesthood (hieratikós).
But this is a traditional principle for both Orthodox and Roman Catholics too…
ZIZIOULAS: With a fundamental difference between them however, namely that the Roman Catholics would apply this equality only to the level of sacramental grace which does not involve automatically the exercise of jurisdiction (the missio canonica), while the Orthodox would make no such distinction.
Do you judge these ideas to be correct?
ZIZIOULAS: These positions seem to overlook certain facts present in the Orthodox tradition and faith too: the simple and obvious fact that synodality cannot exist without primacy. In Orthodox tradition there has never been and there can never be a synod or a council without a protos, or primus. If, therefore, synodality exists jure divino, primacy also must exist by the same right.

[Aymn27]

Not really.
THink about it.
Anglicans [pray for the reunion of the Church, and if Rome changed the magisterium and Papacy to allow Bishops the autonomy they originally had, we could all join back. The structure of the church, synodality, implies Primacy. Not Papacy, but Primacy. Read http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9204 (http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9204)

Excerpt:


ZIZIOULAS: When someone speaks of “primacy of honor” he wants to exclude the right of the primate to exercise jurisdiction over the rest of the bishops. But it seems to be a rather ambiguous formula. There seems, in fact, not to exist, even in the Orthodox Church, “a simple primacy of honor”…
Why?
ZIZIOULAS: In the Orthodox Church, for example, in the absence of the Patriarch or during the vacancy of his throne there can be no episcopal elections or the performance of any “canonical acts”. Can you then describe the primacy of the patriarch as “a simple honorr”?
Has this formula other contents?
ZIZIOULAS: The expression “simple primacy of honour” is used to stress the fact that all bishops, from the Pope and the patriarchs down to the least of bishops are equal from the point of view of priesthood (hieratikós).
But this is a traditional principle for both Orthodox and Roman Catholics too…
ZIZIOULAS: With a fundamental difference between them however, namely that the Roman Catholics would apply this equality only to the level of sacramental grace which does not involve automatically the exercise of jurisdiction (the missio canonica), while the Orthodox would make no such distinction.
Do you judge these ideas to be correct?
ZIZIOULAS: These positions seem to overlook certain facts present in the Orthodox tradition and faith too: the simple and obvious fact that synodality cannot exist without primacy. In Orthodox tradition there has never been and there can never be a synod or a council without a protos, or primus. If, therefore, synodality exists jure divino, primacy also must exist by the same right.

Ok glenn -
1) If that happened then you wouldn't really be a "papist" in the terms I'm talking about - the papacy as jurisdictional authority on all matters and the "infallible" chair of Peter
2) You REALLY have an unhealthy fixation on this Zizioulas dude.:P

[gtsecc]

Yeah, he is one of ++Rowan's favorites also.

[Aymn27]

Yeah, he is one of ++Rowan's favorites also.
oh, that REALLY makes me wanna run out and buy up all his books...not.

[gtsecc]

Well, what would motivate you to buy someone's book?

[Aymn27]

Well, what would motivate you to buy someone's book?
I was j/j dude....geesh are you always so serious?

[QuantaCura]

The Old Catholics rejected the First Vatican Council and a schism erupted. Maybe an Old Catholic can clarify this. This is found on multiple official websites (like the two cited):

http://www.oldcatholicchurch.org/occhistoryoccna.html
http://occna.org/old_catholic_history.htm

"The dissenters, while holding the Church in General Council to be infallible, were unwilling to accept the proposition that the Pope, acting alone in matters of faith and morals is infallible."

I don't see how this position is teneble given papal infalliblity was proclaimed at a General Council. Obviously I do not wish to debate the doctrine here, but I am just curious as to how Old Catholics square these beliefs.:scratch:

[Aymn27]

The Old Catholics rejected the First Vatican Council and a schism erupted. Maybe an Old Catholic can clarify this. This is found on multiple official websites (like the two cited):

http://www.oldcatholicchurch.org/occhistoryoccna.html
http://occna.org/old_catholic_history.htm

<H3 style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=2><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext">:scratch: The official schism occured in 1054 - therefore there was no "official" council to reject.....just a thought

[QuantaCura]

:scratch: The official schism occured in 1054 - therefore there was no "official" council to reject.....just a thought

Sorry, I fixed my post. Give it another look :) That quote is based on a speech at Vatican I by one of the leaders who led the break with Rome. (Bishop Josip Strossmayer (1815-1905) speech at Vatican I).

We all accept the Councils after the Oriental Orthodox schism concerning Chalcedon--I don't see how schisms make any further Councils no longer authoritative (anyway, Lyons II and Florence were reunion councils where everyone was present and both asserted papal supremacy). People leave the Church, sadly, it happens. But the Church goes on. I don't think Old Catholics try to argue they were not in Communion with Rome before Vatican I, do they? That position doesn't seem to have any historical basis.

[gtsecc]

The forth council denotes Primacy, but not papacy, as it has evolved. Pope Gregory the Great lambasted his Bishops for calling him Pope, saying it undermined the authority of Bishops.

[QuantaCura]

The forth council denotes Primacy, but not papacy, as it has evolved. Pope Gregory the Great lambasted his Bishops for calling him Pope, saying it undermined the authority of Bishops.

I don't want to debate papal authority here--that's not appropriate for this forum anyway (but as aside, Vatican I cites St. Gregory on that very issue so as to make sure no one came away with the erroneous opinion that the authority of all bishops was not upheld in its own right). Ok, enough of that, if you want to discuss the papacy, take to GT or Ecclesiology :P

My question concerns specifically the Old Catholic position which holds General Councils to be infallible, but rejects papal infallibility, which was defined at a General Council. If they reject that Council as authoritative, where do they draw that line at which Councils are authoritative and what is the reason for drawing the line thusly?

I hope I don't sound debative--I'm just trying to udnerstand the Old Catholic position, and as you can see, I am thoroughly confused :o

[gtsecc]

They don't accept Vatican 1 or 2.
Primacy is alluded to in the 4th council.
Papacy is an issue of Vatican 1.
So, they acept primacy, but not Papacy.

[QuantaCura]

They don't accept Vatican 1 or 2.
Primacy is alluded to in the 4th council.
Papacy is an issue of Vatican 1.
So, they acept primacy, but not Papacy.

You're not following what I'm getting at. :)

I know they reject Vatican I and the Papacy. Forget about the papacy for a minute.

Let me put this in more general terms.

The Old Catholics accept the infallibility of General Councils according to their websites. Doctrine A was proclaimed at a General Council. The Old Catholics then reject Doctrine A as being false. How does this square with their belief that General Councils are infallible?

[gtsecc]

I am not sure what you are saying.
Their removal of themselves, makes the council "not eccumenical."
The Copts accept the councils, but they only find 3 to be eccumenical.
The Orthodox accpet the councils, but only find 6 or 7 eccumenical. (the seventh can only be affirmed at 8, and the 8th council hasn't happened fo rthem, since they were nto there.)

[QuantaCura]

I am not sure what you are saying.
Their removal of themselves, makes the council "not eccumenical."
The Copts accept the councils, but they only find 3 to be eccumenical.
The Orthodox accpet the councils, but only find 6 or 7 eccumenical. (the seventh can only be affirmed at 8, and the 8th council hasn't happened fo rthem, since they were nto there.)


Ok, things are getting a little clearer. Did they remove themselves before the Council made its decisions or after? It seems they did so afterwards, because their reason for leaving didn't exist until after the Council's proclamation. Correct me if I am mistaken concerning the timetable of events.

Either way, how do Old Catholics decide which councils are infallible and which are not? How many validly ordained bishops need to be present? If a handful of bishops decide not to participate in a Council, is it therefore invalid? I don't know of any Ecumenical Council where every single validly ordained bishop participated.

[gtsecc]

It is not the number of Bishops, but rather the acceptance of it as a council, at the next council.

[Wigglesworth]

Old Catholic bishops from Holland were not welcome at Vatican I. If everybody was not invited to the party, it's not an ecumenical council.

The "Old Catholic" tradition developed, because the Roman See hindered the administration of the church in Utrecht in the 1700s. The differences between Rome and Old Catholics did not result from Vatican I. There were two competing churches in Utrecht before Vatican I - the one loyal to Rome, and the Old Catholic one.

:crossrc: