Talk:Old Catholic Church/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes — the ACCUS is derived from the Duarte-Costa Line, out of Brazil, and are not in communion with the . +S.B.Bassett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.180.24 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, i think it's very important to distinguish here between Old Catholics and Independent Catholics. Many non-Roman Catholic bodies in North America, although valid, are not Old Catholic. Old Catholics or Old Roman Catholics in North America can really be considered 'Independent' as none are in communion with Utrecht. But many Independent Catholics are not true Old Catholics as they are not recognized by Utrecht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannucky (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Catholic Church in the United States 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Utrecht schism 

message: 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)
replies: text: How many Old Catholics are there in Europe? I have never been able to get a good figure. There are no really good figures for the number of American Old Catholics, but since the European ones are state-supported, theoretically there should be good numbers -- when bureaucrats dispense money, they want documentation. +S.B.Bassett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.36.122 (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor

message: 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)
thread_title:  Take note! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Communion with Anglicans 

message: 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  in the footnotes refer to ordained women as 'priests', so should this article. --aliceinlampyland 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The term priest is completely acceptable. It is best to leave it that way for the sake of consistency if nothing else. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 09:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. "Priestess" is POV. --Midnite Critic 12:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Philologically speaking, priestess is a more appropriate term as in English "priest" is one of the few masculine words, the feminine form being, of course, "priestess". However, I agree that in this case it is more likely a POV issue than anything else. An easy way around this problem would be to reword "woman priest" to "women in the priesthood" or some such. --PioMagnus (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Priestesses" vs Priests 

message: 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. 
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)
replies: text: As the author and after reflection - this was indeed the right thing to do! However, I will "clean it up" and resubmit. The thinking here was not so much to advertise a particular church but rather to mention what of the "Old Roman Catholic Church" exists in Great Britain as opposed to the "Liberal Catholic Church" sects which predominate the Old Catholic scene. I think my further contribution might be under the heading "Old Catholicism in Great Britain" with a brief treatment discussing the different "churches" identified as "Old Catholic" and their different emphasis. --LloydVG 09:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. Thank you. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 10:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV additions 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have added the link. Thanks for the heads up! --Kf4bdy talk contribs 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACCUS request to be in External Links section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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:
* Pope Eugene III and 4th Lateran Council granted See of Utrecht right to elect bishops at vacancy, this occurred in 12th and 13th century.
* During the reformation wars, the See of Utrecht remained active and alive in secret,
* In 1691 the Apostolic Vicar Petrus Codde was accused of Jansenism from the Jesuits,
* Two papal commissions exonerated Codde, but yet Pope Clement XI suspended him,
* This was deeply unpopular among Dutch Catholics, and Codde kept his role for 2 years till he resigned in protest,
* The dissatisfied priests of Utrecht waited in 20 years to elect a replacement, and during this schism, Utrech attracted many Roman Catholic dissenter priests,
* The Dutch Calvinists tolerated the See of Utrecht because of the schism,
* therefore this separate Old Catholic Church body exists.
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)
thread_title: Cleanup Jargon

message: 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)
replies: text: Seth, I'm interested why you would like to merge these two articles and yet you haven't called for the merger of Anglican_ministry and 'Anglican'? That merger of the two Anglican articles would only be equitable and just wouldn't it? --Spiorad (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Catholic Ministry 

message: ...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)
replies: text: I removed them. Completely unneeded. нмŵוτнτ 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  section 1.3 The United States and Canada 

message: 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)
replies: text: The only explicit similarity I'm aware of is the fact that the Old Catholics omit the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed. One Old Catholic priest told me, though, that the Church is theologically neutral on the question of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son or just from the Father. When they say "proceeds from the Father", according to him, what they mean is "proceeds from [at least] the Father [and maybe the Son too]". He said really the only reason they leave out the filioque is because it's a later addition, not present in the oldest version of the Creed; it was probably accidentally imported from the following line "who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified". —Angr 05:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodoxy