This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have started to read this article and have added something about English speaking Old Catholics as it's important to draw the distinction between Continental European Old Catholics who tend to speak Dutch and German and those from the UK and USA. I'm happy to assist with this article although I suspect that too much has been drawn from a rather biased article that relies on 'history'. Forgive me any bluntness on my part but I'm new to wikipedia. -- Father Stuart1 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The "Old Catholic" comes from the Dutch "oud Katholieke", which is how the people in Utrecht described themselves when the Jesuits entered Holland in the 1850s, to "re-establish" a Catholic hierarchy — ignoring the existing churches. The Roman parishes/dioceses were the "new Catholics", while the existing church in Holland were the "old Catholics" — lower-case "old".
"Old Catholic" (upper-case "Old") has been used in the sense of a separate denomination (Utrecht always thought of itself as an integral part of the Roman Communion, just separated from Rome by unfortunate politics) only since the 1870s. The first paragraph is a fair statement of the position of the German-speaking communities that came out of the Roman Communion in 1870, over the issue of Papal Infallibility (Vatican I). Utrecht had attempted to take part in Vatican I, but were rebuffed by Pius IX, and thus became open to the idea of a completely separate Church.
+Sam'l Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop (Not in communion with Utrecht and the European Old Catholics)
--
User:Samlb (sig added by
Sam Spade (
talk ·
contribs) 11:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC))
At American Catholic Church in the United States, someone added the comment, "This church belongs to the family of the Old Catholic sects." Is that true? I assume it must mean outside of the Union of Utrecht, however, if there are no Utrecht churches in the United States (except the Episcopal Church). -- Angr/ comhrá 21:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the paragraph dealing with the origin of the Utrecht church and its originating schism is rather POV. It is not "the evil jesuits" who caused the schism, but the refusal of Codde and his predecessor (who, btw, both never were Bishops of Utrecht but Apostolic vicars of the Netherlands authorized solely by papal nomination, and titulary bishops - Codde was titled Archbishop of Sebaste) to obey Roman teaching and orders. Summoned for his deeds Codde did get a full hearing in Rome but failed to convince anyone of his cause. And, the schism actually didn't happen until long after Codde's death, when in 1723 the Utrecht cathedral chapter illegally elected a successor bishop (Cornelius Steenhoven) who got himself consecrated by a rogue (excommunicated) missionary bishop he had made contact with. Later they created - again without roman permission - two other Dioceses (Haarlem and Deventer) to have enough Bishops to consecrate a new one should one of them die.
Of course Rome had named a replacement for Codde, but he - as well as his later successors, were denied entry to the Netherlands by state officials intent on furthering the schism. Only after the Netherlands constitution of 1848 Catholics had the necessary religious freedom to rebuild the church institutions within their own country. (Catholic affairs in the Netherlands had been run by papal emissaries in Cologne in the meantime)
The antagonism between "evil" Jesuits and god fearing Dutch is mostly a propaganda invention of newly created Utrecht religion. -- Wefa 16:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if I did a good enough job, but I tried to clean it up a little and restore a NPOV. Please let me know what more must be done to remove the Clean up tag. -- Kf4bdy 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The change of the first sentence to include the word minor is strictly an American view as there are many Old Catholics in great number in Europe. While they may be a minor church in the US there are not a minor church worldwide. -- Kf4bdy 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am from the Netherlands and well-informed as to this subject. It is not "Petter" Codde, but either Petrus or Peter. "Petter" is not a Dutch name; it might ridiculously sound like "Capper" in English. And Codde was Apostolic Vicar of the Northern Netherlands, provinces above the Rhine, as in those areas - heavily Protestantized in the cities and in many regions - the 1559 Diocesan structure was already completely dissolved by 1620. Not in vain, was Petrus Codde named Apostolic Vicar (Missionary Bishop) to the "Mission of Holland". The Jesuits did not establish rival sees, though Jansenism vs. Jesuit spirituality was one of the causes of the Codde conflict, which however was not very important in the 1723 unlawful consecration by a Lebanese Missionary Bishop (who went there from Rome).-- 82.72.148.85 15:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to include some information on when and how it came to be that the Old Catholics are in communion with the Anglican churches. The article mentions that this is the case, but doesn't explain when or how, though someone earlier on this talk page says it happened in the 1930s.
Also, I know that at least certain Anglican churches are in communion with certain Lutheran churches. Does this mean that, by transitivity, the Old Catholics are in communion with Lutherans? -- Saforrest 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Earlier I changed the caption under the woman presiding over the Eucharist, correctly identifying her as a 'priest', as opposed to a 'priestess'. Nevertheless User:Smith2006 changed it back. I'm not sure quite why this was, but as both the Priest article and the Old Catholic website cited [1] in the footnotes refer to ordained women as 'priests', so should this article. -- aliceinlampyland 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC).
I removed the following because it is almost entirely POV. If someone would like to clean it up then it might be worth placing back in the article, but as it is it appears to be more of an advertisement for their church.
"In Britain the Old Catholic movement has various claimants but most are un-orthodox in their teaching or practice and have moved far beyond the original parameters of the founding Churches of Old Catholicism; even the Utrecht Union has, in it's desire to express more fully a "communion" with other 'mainstream' churches, chosen increasingly more 'liberal' interpretations of Faith, Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. However, the
Old Catholic Church in Europe, formerly a mission-province of the Old Catholic Church in the USA (with traceable ancestry direct to Archbishop Matthews) is the only remaining orthodox Old Catholic jurisdiction in Great Britain; orthodox by virtue of it's remaining true to the expression of the Catholic Faith and Apostolic tradition as was practised by the original Old Catholic Churches. The OCCE does not for example, ordain women into the Sacred Ministry, neither does it participate in the sacrilegious practice of "sharing" Apostolic Succession by virtue of "ecumenical" co-consecrations (subconditional or otherwise). The OCCE is a member of the World Council of Churches through membership of the ICCC and the only Old Catholic denomination in Britain to be such, it also enjoys cordial relations with other orthodox Old Catholic Churches internationally."
Anyway, I am open to criticism but I think this was the right thing to do. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On WikiEN-L, someone who appears to be Rev. Lawrence Harms, the founder of ACCUS, has asked to be put in the External Links section "Old Catholic Churches" as accus.us. Would some editor experienced with the article take a look? Thanks. -- William Pietri 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For starters let me just start with I am a Christian.
Christ's Gospel - Christ is a faith claim, it is the Greek word for the Hebrew word Messiah, which means (the) "anointed one" (of god). Christ's Gospel means the good news of the anointed one of god. While I agree I doubt this qualifies as NPOV under wiki standards.
provide a witness that is fully inclusive of all of God's beloved children - aside from the obvious religious overtones(which are likely not POV), even if one begins with the idea that we are all god's beloved children, and that the faithful provide witness whether or not to condone gay actions is still a hot button with in the church. Just because A has a strong predilection and B and A believe in the goodness of god does not mean that A has a right to live out that predilection. What about Alcoholism? Do Old Catholics tell alcoholics to drink to their hearts content? Or Nymphomania? Do they tell them they can pick up partners indiscriminately? I should hope not. Do Old Catholics accept these people as beloved children of god, do they endeavor to include them? I should hope so(though I have little personal experience with Old Catholics in any matter). Fighting your inner most desire is no easy matter, it is in fact an extraordinary burden to ask of people. But there are times when people committed to a certain set of ideals should be asking each other to do this, and should stand up and say, people who disagree with us can dialogue with us, but can not have positions of instruction unless they agree not to instruct upon this. To say that in asking C despite a predilection for D is so extraordinary a burden that a benevolent god what never ask you to do it is an interesting position. But to apply it selectively is disingenuous, to use such language for it's selective application could hardly be called NPOV, it manages to assume many things about God, enough to offend most Christians and Non-Christians alike.
PS. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument, I'm not saying being gay is as bad as nymphomania or alcoholism, just that I'm tired of hearing the 'would a benevolent god...' argument by people who only half mean it. -- Jethro 82 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I tried to find a best fit template for marking the much too technical section Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. The problem with the section is that it has a main article, but the section is as large as the main article. The main article is somewhat easier to read than the section. The problem with the section is about this: it uses a very technical way to defend the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands' right to call itself an Old Catholic Church and blame the split-off on the Pope! It does so by describing the history in excruciating detail, while the main thread is almost hidden by religio-jargon like in partibus infidelium, ipso facto, null and void. The main thread is as I interpret it:
This crude sketch contains the information that must remain in the section, in order to keep the article coherent - but most details could go to the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at this article with a view to merging into here? It seems to have been created by someone unfamiliar with wikipedia, and is unsourced. Thanks, -- Seth Bresnett • ( talk) 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
...is it needed or useful to have a link to every different "Old Catholic" congregation? This has shown up large on some people's SPAM-radar, and may be challenged by someone on the grounds of " WP:NOT#LINKFARM". 68.39.174.238 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This section contained no reference to Canada, so I changed the name to "The United States". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.63.216 ( talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This statement: "The Old Catholic Church holds close to ideas of
ecclesiastical
liberalism and is not associated with the
Roman Catholic Church nor general
protestantism"
is very vague and raises more questions than it answers. The first link,
ecclesiastical, is a redirect to
ecclesiology, which is "the study of the theological understanding of the Christian church", but
liberalism is an article about "a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal". It is therefore completely unclear what "ecclesiastical liberalism" is supposed to mean, since the theological understanding of the Christian church has nothing to do with theories of government and politics. Not associated with the
Roman Catholic Church? Well, it's associated with it to the extent that it broke off from the RCC and even today, at least here in Germany, a large proportion of Old Catholics did not grow up in the Old Catholic Church, but are rather disaffected former Roman Catholics. Not associated with general
Protestantism? First of all, the word "Protestantism" is capitalized in English, but more importantly, since the
Bonn Agreement of 1931, the Old Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Anglican Communion, which suggests a rather close degree of association. Or is the implication that Anglicans aren't "general Protestants"? What is the added value of this sentence? —
An
gr
14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the Old Catholic tradition seem significantly closer in faith to Eastern Orthodoxy than any other Christian tradition (including Anglicanism and Lutheranism)? -- Deusveritasest ( talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have started to read this article and have added something about English speaking Old Catholics as it's important to draw the distinction between Continental European Old Catholics who tend to speak Dutch and German and those from the UK and USA. I'm happy to assist with this article although I suspect that too much has been drawn from a rather biased article that relies on 'history'. Forgive me any bluntness on my part but I'm new to wikipedia. -- Father Stuart1 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The "Old Catholic" comes from the Dutch "oud Katholieke", which is how the people in Utrecht described themselves when the Jesuits entered Holland in the 1850s, to "re-establish" a Catholic hierarchy — ignoring the existing churches. The Roman parishes/dioceses were the "new Catholics", while the existing church in Holland were the "old Catholics" — lower-case "old".
"Old Catholic" (upper-case "Old") has been used in the sense of a separate denomination (Utrecht always thought of itself as an integral part of the Roman Communion, just separated from Rome by unfortunate politics) only since the 1870s. The first paragraph is a fair statement of the position of the German-speaking communities that came out of the Roman Communion in 1870, over the issue of Papal Infallibility (Vatican I). Utrecht had attempted to take part in Vatican I, but were rebuffed by Pius IX, and thus became open to the idea of a completely separate Church.
+Sam'l Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop (Not in communion with Utrecht and the European Old Catholics)
--
User:Samlb (sig added by
Sam Spade (
talk ·
contribs) 11:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC))
At American Catholic Church in the United States, someone added the comment, "This church belongs to the family of the Old Catholic sects." Is that true? I assume it must mean outside of the Union of Utrecht, however, if there are no Utrecht churches in the United States (except the Episcopal Church). -- Angr/ comhrá 21:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the paragraph dealing with the origin of the Utrecht church and its originating schism is rather POV. It is not "the evil jesuits" who caused the schism, but the refusal of Codde and his predecessor (who, btw, both never were Bishops of Utrecht but Apostolic vicars of the Netherlands authorized solely by papal nomination, and titulary bishops - Codde was titled Archbishop of Sebaste) to obey Roman teaching and orders. Summoned for his deeds Codde did get a full hearing in Rome but failed to convince anyone of his cause. And, the schism actually didn't happen until long after Codde's death, when in 1723 the Utrecht cathedral chapter illegally elected a successor bishop (Cornelius Steenhoven) who got himself consecrated by a rogue (excommunicated) missionary bishop he had made contact with. Later they created - again without roman permission - two other Dioceses (Haarlem and Deventer) to have enough Bishops to consecrate a new one should one of them die.
Of course Rome had named a replacement for Codde, but he - as well as his later successors, were denied entry to the Netherlands by state officials intent on furthering the schism. Only after the Netherlands constitution of 1848 Catholics had the necessary religious freedom to rebuild the church institutions within their own country. (Catholic affairs in the Netherlands had been run by papal emissaries in Cologne in the meantime)
The antagonism between "evil" Jesuits and god fearing Dutch is mostly a propaganda invention of newly created Utrecht religion. -- Wefa 16:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if I did a good enough job, but I tried to clean it up a little and restore a NPOV. Please let me know what more must be done to remove the Clean up tag. -- Kf4bdy 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The change of the first sentence to include the word minor is strictly an American view as there are many Old Catholics in great number in Europe. While they may be a minor church in the US there are not a minor church worldwide. -- Kf4bdy 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am from the Netherlands and well-informed as to this subject. It is not "Petter" Codde, but either Petrus or Peter. "Petter" is not a Dutch name; it might ridiculously sound like "Capper" in English. And Codde was Apostolic Vicar of the Northern Netherlands, provinces above the Rhine, as in those areas - heavily Protestantized in the cities and in many regions - the 1559 Diocesan structure was already completely dissolved by 1620. Not in vain, was Petrus Codde named Apostolic Vicar (Missionary Bishop) to the "Mission of Holland". The Jesuits did not establish rival sees, though Jansenism vs. Jesuit spirituality was one of the causes of the Codde conflict, which however was not very important in the 1723 unlawful consecration by a Lebanese Missionary Bishop (who went there from Rome).-- 82.72.148.85 15:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to include some information on when and how it came to be that the Old Catholics are in communion with the Anglican churches. The article mentions that this is the case, but doesn't explain when or how, though someone earlier on this talk page says it happened in the 1930s.
Also, I know that at least certain Anglican churches are in communion with certain Lutheran churches. Does this mean that, by transitivity, the Old Catholics are in communion with Lutherans? -- Saforrest 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Earlier I changed the caption under the woman presiding over the Eucharist, correctly identifying her as a 'priest', as opposed to a 'priestess'. Nevertheless User:Smith2006 changed it back. I'm not sure quite why this was, but as both the Priest article and the Old Catholic website cited [1] in the footnotes refer to ordained women as 'priests', so should this article. -- aliceinlampyland 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC).
I removed the following because it is almost entirely POV. If someone would like to clean it up then it might be worth placing back in the article, but as it is it appears to be more of an advertisement for their church.
"In Britain the Old Catholic movement has various claimants but most are un-orthodox in their teaching or practice and have moved far beyond the original parameters of the founding Churches of Old Catholicism; even the Utrecht Union has, in it's desire to express more fully a "communion" with other 'mainstream' churches, chosen increasingly more 'liberal' interpretations of Faith, Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. However, the
Old Catholic Church in Europe, formerly a mission-province of the Old Catholic Church in the USA (with traceable ancestry direct to Archbishop Matthews) is the only remaining orthodox Old Catholic jurisdiction in Great Britain; orthodox by virtue of it's remaining true to the expression of the Catholic Faith and Apostolic tradition as was practised by the original Old Catholic Churches. The OCCE does not for example, ordain women into the Sacred Ministry, neither does it participate in the sacrilegious practice of "sharing" Apostolic Succession by virtue of "ecumenical" co-consecrations (subconditional or otherwise). The OCCE is a member of the World Council of Churches through membership of the ICCC and the only Old Catholic denomination in Britain to be such, it also enjoys cordial relations with other orthodox Old Catholic Churches internationally."
Anyway, I am open to criticism but I think this was the right thing to do. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On WikiEN-L, someone who appears to be Rev. Lawrence Harms, the founder of ACCUS, has asked to be put in the External Links section "Old Catholic Churches" as accus.us. Would some editor experienced with the article take a look? Thanks. -- William Pietri 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For starters let me just start with I am a Christian.
Christ's Gospel - Christ is a faith claim, it is the Greek word for the Hebrew word Messiah, which means (the) "anointed one" (of god). Christ's Gospel means the good news of the anointed one of god. While I agree I doubt this qualifies as NPOV under wiki standards.
provide a witness that is fully inclusive of all of God's beloved children - aside from the obvious religious overtones(which are likely not POV), even if one begins with the idea that we are all god's beloved children, and that the faithful provide witness whether or not to condone gay actions is still a hot button with in the church. Just because A has a strong predilection and B and A believe in the goodness of god does not mean that A has a right to live out that predilection. What about Alcoholism? Do Old Catholics tell alcoholics to drink to their hearts content? Or Nymphomania? Do they tell them they can pick up partners indiscriminately? I should hope not. Do Old Catholics accept these people as beloved children of god, do they endeavor to include them? I should hope so(though I have little personal experience with Old Catholics in any matter). Fighting your inner most desire is no easy matter, it is in fact an extraordinary burden to ask of people. But there are times when people committed to a certain set of ideals should be asking each other to do this, and should stand up and say, people who disagree with us can dialogue with us, but can not have positions of instruction unless they agree not to instruct upon this. To say that in asking C despite a predilection for D is so extraordinary a burden that a benevolent god what never ask you to do it is an interesting position. But to apply it selectively is disingenuous, to use such language for it's selective application could hardly be called NPOV, it manages to assume many things about God, enough to offend most Christians and Non-Christians alike.
PS. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument, I'm not saying being gay is as bad as nymphomania or alcoholism, just that I'm tired of hearing the 'would a benevolent god...' argument by people who only half mean it. -- Jethro 82 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I tried to find a best fit template for marking the much too technical section Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. The problem with the section is that it has a main article, but the section is as large as the main article. The main article is somewhat easier to read than the section. The problem with the section is about this: it uses a very technical way to defend the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands' right to call itself an Old Catholic Church and blame the split-off on the Pope! It does so by describing the history in excruciating detail, while the main thread is almost hidden by religio-jargon like in partibus infidelium, ipso facto, null and void. The main thread is as I interpret it:
This crude sketch contains the information that must remain in the section, in order to keep the article coherent - but most details could go to the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at this article with a view to merging into here? It seems to have been created by someone unfamiliar with wikipedia, and is unsourced. Thanks, -- Seth Bresnett • ( talk) 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
...is it needed or useful to have a link to every different "Old Catholic" congregation? This has shown up large on some people's SPAM-radar, and may be challenged by someone on the grounds of " WP:NOT#LINKFARM". 68.39.174.238 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This section contained no reference to Canada, so I changed the name to "The United States". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.63.216 ( talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This statement: "The Old Catholic Church holds close to ideas of
ecclesiastical
liberalism and is not associated with the
Roman Catholic Church nor general
protestantism"
is very vague and raises more questions than it answers. The first link,
ecclesiastical, is a redirect to
ecclesiology, which is "the study of the theological understanding of the Christian church", but
liberalism is an article about "a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal". It is therefore completely unclear what "ecclesiastical liberalism" is supposed to mean, since the theological understanding of the Christian church has nothing to do with theories of government and politics. Not associated with the
Roman Catholic Church? Well, it's associated with it to the extent that it broke off from the RCC and even today, at least here in Germany, a large proportion of Old Catholics did not grow up in the Old Catholic Church, but are rather disaffected former Roman Catholics. Not associated with general
Protestantism? First of all, the word "Protestantism" is capitalized in English, but more importantly, since the
Bonn Agreement of 1931, the Old Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Anglican Communion, which suggests a rather close degree of association. Or is the implication that Anglicans aren't "general Protestants"? What is the added value of this sentence? —
An
gr
14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the Old Catholic tradition seem significantly closer in faith to Eastern Orthodoxy than any other Christian tradition (including Anglicanism and Lutheranism)? -- Deusveritasest ( talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)