What are "Old Catholics"? (Schisms with confusing names)
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- A video explaining the origins of the "Old Catholics", a peculiar schism with a troubled past.
Sources:
St. Jerome Letter #15: www.newadvent....
Catholic Encyclopedia Volume VII, 1910: books.google.c...
Ecumenical Council Vatican I: www.papalencyc...
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: www.abebooks.c...
Apostolicae curae (On the Nullity of the Anglican Orders): www.papalencyc...
Don’t necessarily read these. They are at times written from a very hostile perspective. But they were consulted for clarity on the situation. I did not often find it.
Catholics Without Rome by Bryan Geffert
The Old Catholic Movement by CB Moss
This is magisterium: the Council is the magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church. We must be demanding and strict on this point. The Council should not be negotiated in order to have more of these... No, the Council is as it is. And this problem that we are experiencing, of selectivity with respect to the Council, has been repeated throughout history with other Councils.
It makes me think of a group of bishops who, after Vatican I, left, a group of lay people, groups, to continue the “true doctrine” that was not that of Vatican I: “We are the true Catholics”. Today they ordain women. The strictest attitude, to guard the faith without the Magisterium of the Church, leads you to ruin. Please, no concessions to those who try to present a catechesis that does not agree with the Magisterium of the Church.
- Pope Francis, Adress to Participants in the Meeting Promoted by the National Catechetical Office of the Italian Episcopal Conference, 30.01.2021
The problem with Pope Francis' statement is that much of Vatican Council II is not in continuity with prior church councils.
I have fallen in love with your videos, man! Great editing and writing. I hope your mission develops further and reaches many more. God bless!
Thanks! I have been trying to put more effort into the animation quality the last few months.
false information. but okay if you think the pope is the head of the catholic or whatever church it's your good right........ but I can't find anything in the bible about a 'pope'... Jesus called St. Peter a rock of the church. Not a pope. The old catholic Church IS a Catholic Church.. This information is false......... like the pope isn't the head of any church only a bishop. nothing more. There is one head.. God . Nobody else is.
These are really good short clips
Thanks
false information. but okay if you think the pope is the head of the catholic or whatever church it's your good right........ but I can't find anything in the bible about a 'pope'... Jesus called St. Peter a rock of the church. Not a pope. The old catholic Church IS a Catholic Church.. This information is false......... like the pope isn't the head of any church only a bishop. nothing more. There is one head.. God . Nobody else is.
It is a very big deal who's mentioned as pope in the Te igitur. Consequently, when someone is named who is clearly not the pope, such as Francis, it reveals more what kind of "faith" it is.
We no longer have widespread options to receive the sacraments from priests. We cannot go to those, for example, who clearly deny dogmas, such as No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church, engage in false worship with non-Catholics, and accept the new order & its false popes (who have committed these atrocities).
If you no longer have options to receive the sacraments maybe it's time to consider returning to the one church Christ established.
false information. but okay if you think the pope is the head of the catholic or whatever church it's your good right........ but I can't find anything in the bible about a 'pope'... Jesus called St. Peter a rock of the church. Not a pope. The old catholic Church IS a Catholic Church.. This information is false......... like the pope isn't the head of any church only a bishop. nothing more. There is one head.. God . Nobody else is.
You forgot to mention that: 1) The first split was due to war around the 1200s, and 2) Pope Francis has recognized the validity of their Apostolic Succession and Sacraments. 3) As stated by the Vatican while they are not in Communion with Rome they have not been excommunicated. Any Old Catholic is welcome in attending a Roman Church and any Roman Catholic may attend an Old Catholic Church if traveling or in an emergency. 4) The Polish National Church split from Utrecht to maintain its conservative doctrines. 5) The Polish National Catholic Church does not Bless same-sex couples as the Roman Catholic Church does nowadays under the instructions of Pope Francis.
1) Isn't super relevant to the new split. 2) isn't in question - and is also true of the Orthodox. The question is whether the sacraments are licit not whether they are valid. 3) Again, is also true of the Orthodox. Any valid rite can be used in an emergency. That doesn't mean there's no personal sin of schism if you willingly join a Church that has separated itself from Rome through false doctrine. 4) Is also irrelevant, since the aim was not to cover every permutation of every schism - but to talk about the essentials of a particular schism I found interesting - and one with the potential to confuse laypersons because of the deceptive naming. Schisms are many by the very nature of this sin, and covering them all would be very difficult. 5) Blessings of homosexual unions as unions are not permitted in any church, for the sin of sodomy is always and everywhere immoral.
@@CatechesisVids Our bigot brother here made this face-less video pointing fingers and forgetting all the abuses committed to this day by Rome, ignoring the Dominus Jesus written by Pope John Paul II in which the Old Catholics are considered of Valid orders among with the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church. Something tells me he isn't even an ordained Ministry or he would know better. Submit to Rome or Perish in hell is the doctrine of the ignorant.
@@avanunitedministriesAre you Catholic? Frankly, you don’t sound like one.
@@avanunitedministries nobody said they have invalid orders.
Why haven't they merged with the Orthodox?
That makes no sense
Just because they disagree with the Catholic Church it doesn't mean there's sufficient overlap to merge with another schism - particularly when even the Orthodox aren't all in communion with one another.
Many of these "Catholics" are more aligned with some liberal Protestant groups.
Because unity is a Grace. Not born of human action
They would be utterly rejected by the Orthodox.
How do they differ from those who reject Vatican II?
They reject Vatican 1
the pope does not exist in the bible... so is only a bishop nothing more.
false information. but okay if you think the pope is the head of the catholic or whatever church it's your good right........ but I can't find anything in the bible about a 'pope'... Jesus called St. Peter a rock of the church. Not a pope. The old catholic Church IS a Catholic Church.. This information is false......... like the pope isn't the head of any church only a bishop. nothing more. There is one head.. God . Nobody else is.
false information. but okay if you think the pope is the head of the catholic or whatever church it's your good right........ but I can't find anything in the bible about a 'pope'... Jesus called St. Peter a rock of the church. Not a pope.
God incarnate: "upon this rock I will build my church"
You: "yeah he was just some guy"
The odd thing here is that you accuse others of precisely what you do: You accuse other of misusing the term "Catholic" as you habitually do so, pretending that it only applies to those associated with Rome.
Are you completely unaware that, historically, ALL Christians were "catholic" and that the universal/catholic church was anywhere that Christ was present? Or were you aware of that and are deliberately bearing false witness in an attempt to confuse and deceive others while you promote yourself?
"You accuse other of misusing the term 'Catholic' as you habitually do so, pretending that it only applies to those associated with Rome."
The "Old Catholic" are pretenders, who steal the name by which people know the faith God started for brand recognition, while opposing the successor of Peter. That they call themselves Catholic does not mean I need accept them as such.
"Are you completely unaware that, historically, ALL Christians were 'catholic' and that the universal/catholic church was anywhere that Christ was present?"
That's not really relevant to how the word is used today, as words can change in meaning - being either univocal (singular in meaning) or equivocal (understood in multiple senses). The many purported followers of Christ today today are not universal, but only those united to the universal church in its fullness - the Roman Church.
In a certain sense only those united to the united Church can even properly be called Christians. As Pope Pius XII said, "To be Christian one must be Roman; one must recognize the oneness of Christ's Church, that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles"
And yet at the same time, Unitatis redintegratio says, "For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
So as you can see, even a word like "Christian" can be used equivocally, to mean different things in different contexts.
@@CatechesisVidswrites, regarding the actual history of "Catholic": 'That's not really relevant....'
Ah, I see. So you are knowingly, deliberately engaging in deception and wordplay regarding the word "catholic."
"The Old Catholics steal...."
The reality of course is that the "Old Catholics" 'stole' nothing. They simply wished to continue to follow and practice the faith as taught by Christ and the apostles. It was the Church of Rome that was continually adding to, changing, and distorting the faith. Once Rome attempted to formally define and assert Papal Supremacy, a significant group of authentic catholic Christians decided that they could not continue down that road. It was Rome that left the path, not the "Old Catholics." But nice try at attempting to twist the truth and confuse others.
It is interesting that you seem to want to believe and tell others that it it the group that was continually adding to the Gospel that is the "true church" while it is those who wanted to remain true to the early, authentic teachings that is the false one. Anyone with any sense can see that such a position is completely backwards.
Why is it that you are knowingly, deliberately engaging in deception? What is your motivation? Are you able to promote Rome without engaging in deception?
@@CatechesisVids, okay, so apparently you are knowingly engaging in deception. Thank you for confirming this.
Our bigot brother here made this face-less video pointing fingers and forgetting all the abuses committed to this day by Rome, ignoring the Dominus Jesus written by Pope John Paul II in which the Old Catholics are considered of Valid orders among with the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church. Something tells me he isn't even an ordained Ministry or he would know better. Submit to Rome or Perish in hell is the doctrine of the ignorant.
@@philoalethia that is a really dumb comment
This is good information in order to differentiate the Catholic Church under the Pope and Magisterium and false “catholic churches”. 🎚 3:15
the pope does not exist in the bible... so is only a bishop nothing more.
false information. but okay if you think the pope is the head of the catholic or whatever church it's your good right........ but I can't find anything in the bible about a 'pope'... Jesus called St. Peter a rock of the church. Not a pope. The old catholic Church IS a Catholic Church.. This information is false......... like the pope isn't the head of any church only a bishop. nothing more. There is one head.. God . Nobody else is.