So why do they call themselves old catholics? In my home town (Fribourg, Switzerland), what we called “old catholics” were followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was very conservative. The web site for Saint Matthew Church describes the “old catholic church” as being more liberal than the catholic church. I’m off to read their history of the Old Catholic Church, but in the meantime, I would appreciate any knowledge from other posters. (Bricker, you know I’m looking to you for this.)
Quand les talons claquent, l’esprit se vide.
Maréchal Lyautey
There’s at least 3 groups of “Old Catholics”, other than the recent Lefebvre group:
The Church of Utrecht, which separated from Rome in 1724 over some dispute or other;
The Old Catholics of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, which separated from Rome shortly after Vatican I adopted the doctrines of papal infallibility and the unviersal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope in 1870;
Small groups of slavic origins, e.g. some Polish and Croatian churches.
The Old Catholics generally agree on the Declaration of Utrecht, 1889, which accepts the primitive teachings of the Church, but disputes the doctrines of Vatican I concerning the Pope, as well as the dogma of the Imaculate Conception of Mary.
There are several splinter groups of “Old Catholics.” They generally believe that they are practcing the faith as it was in the ancient Church. They trace their origins to the East/West schism, in which the primacy of the Pope was questioned (the West allowing for a Supreme Pontiff, and the East saying that the Pope was simply a Patriarch - “first among equals,” but no more.
The belief that several ecumenical councils were a bit off base has pretty much defined the movement. They support the vitiation of papal authority from Lyons II (which affected a temporary re-unification with the Greek Church, and support the original decree of Constance, which asserted the superior authority of an ecumenical council over the Pope. The council later rescinded this decree, but the Old Catholics hold to that view to this day.
They similarly dispute the decrees of Vatican I with respect to the Pope, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
They are not in union (obviously) with the Holy See, and do not have valid apostolic succession, as far as the Holy See is concerned.
I’d have guessed that Vatican II would have been pretty much of a non-issue to them, except that some of the statements on ecumenism and, especially, collegiality would have been more to their liking.
Uhh, just to be nosy, Arnold, but if neither you nor your fiancee are Old Catholic, why have you selected this particular deacon to officiate? (I’m not challenging his qualities or your decision, however, if one of you are RCC and any future issues of canon law come up, the paperwork will be horrendous straightening it all out. The RCC will recognize the marriage, of course, but there will be bunches of little legal issues that will require special documentation.)
Several reasons. The main one being that we know her and have been at several weddings where she was the officiant and liked her “style.” She is very accomodating and willing to work with the couple to help us determine the traditions we want to incorporate in the wedding ceremony.
My fiancee and I have been raised Roman Catholic. I currently am an atheist, my fiancee is religious but not a practicing Roman Catholic. I would be uncomfortable having a RCC wedding, since I am no longer a believer and my fiancee doesn’t practice. The only reason we would do it is for the happiness of family members (which is not a bad reason in my opinion.) In any event, we decided to go the “non-denominational” route.
Are you sure about the Succession? That would be pretty hard to justify.
The original Utrecht split was over the Jansenist controversy. Essentially, some RC teachers were condemned by the RCC for taking a too nearly Protestant position in interpreting certain passages in Augustine. It might have come to nothing, but the Church was feeling paranoid at the time, and started punishing, for example, nuns who refused to sign a statement that such-and-such a book was heretical on the entirely sensible grounds that, having never read it, they couldn’t very well swear an oath about what it said. (They offered to sign a statement saying that they understood that the Church called it heretical, and that they accepted the Church’s judgement in the matter, but the authorities wanted all or nothing.) Although Jansenism was officially rejected by the Church, it had a strong influence on Irish-American RC thought, which is why American stereotype comedy nuns are so much like stereotype comedy puritans.
The Old Catholic Churches were in intercommunion with the Anglican (“Episcopal”, in the USA) churches since the 30’s, although they quarreled in the 70’s over the issue of ordaining women. I’m not sure what the situation is at present.
Note: the label “Old Catholic” is also used by some hairier groups. Find out if these people are in communion with the See of Utrecht. If they aren’t, they may still be OK, but they might be loonies. At any rate, you might find the Episcopal Church more convenient for long-term purposes. Most Old Catholic churches in the USA cater to specific ethnic groups.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Arnold, I admit to being too nosy. I see no problem with your choice. For people who are planning to hang around the RCC, I just don’t like to see them caught up in unnecessary legal hassles without forewarning.
Have a nice wedding and a great life.
For what it’s worth, I assumed the “no apostolic succession” comment by negative inference: if a church has valid apostolic succession and valid priests and sacramental practices, then they may, under certain circumstances, by eligible for eucharistic reciprocity in times of need. The Old Catholics are not. This is not as rock-solid reasoning as it might be, I admit.
Thanks to all for your postings. I read the information on the church web page, and it seems that what posters have said here is essentially correct.
I guess the “old catholics” at Saint Matthew (and most other “old catholic” churches) have nothing to do with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre split with the RCC at the time of Vatican II, his main disagreement (as far as I can tell) being with the “Novus Ordo Missae”, which means (I think) allowing the mass to be said in languages other than Latin.
tomndebb, I don’t think you were being nosy. You were trying to warn me of potential pitfalls, since you didn’t know my reasoning. Thank you for the advice.
John W. Kennedy, the church I mentioned is in communion with the See of Utrecht. As far as why we chose this deacon, I guess it should be pretty clear from my above post that it wasn’t due to doctrinal considerations.
I will be meeting with the deacon tomorrow night and will post to the group if I learn anything relevant to the original topic.
