I spoke to an Old Catholic Bishop to-day, and he claimed, as have all Old Cahtolcis I have ever spoken to, that the Old Catholic chruch has apostolic successon, through rimer, and eventurlaly back through peter and the 12.

They also claim to hold recognised valid orders from Rome.

In shrt, rome recognises their ordination as vlaid, and reconises their proests as true preosts, and their succesion is genuinely Apostolic.

Is thisz truth?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 16, 2004

Answers

I spoke to an Old Catholic Bishop to-day, and he claimed, as have all Old Cahtolcis I have ever spoken to, that the Old Catholic chruch has apostolic successon, through rimer, and eventurlaly back through peter and the 12. They also claim to hold recognised valid orders from Rome.

In shrt, rome recognises their ordination as vlaid, and reconises their proests as true preosts, and their succesion is genuinely Apostolic.

Is thisz truth?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 16, 2004.

No, it isn't. The "Old Catholic" denomination has nothing to do with Catholicism. It is a schismatic group which split from the Catholic Church shortly after Vatican I, primarily over the issue of papal infallibility. The sect does not have apostolic succession, a valid priesthood, or valid sacraments, though they claim to have all three.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 16, 2004.

They claim the Vatican recognises their orders...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 16, 2004.

Why would they care what the Vatican says, considering that they have formally rejected the authority of the Vatican over them?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 16, 2004.

That is what they claim however...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 16, 2004.

Are you sure about that, Paul? The Greek and Russian Orthodox have also been considered schismatic, yet it is absolutely true that their orders are considered valid by Rome. Vatican II lists the Orthodox as "churches" and recognizes their orders. Why would this not also hold true with a schism within the west by the Old Catholics? Certainly the Old Catholics would be considered illicit and schismatic, because not in communion with Rome, but why would that make their orders invalid? The orders of the Patriarch of Constantinople did not become invalid because he rejected papal supremacy, but he *did* thereby create a terrible sin of division.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), October 16, 2004.

You have a good point there Michael. I thought I might do a little research on the question, but quickly found that there is very little orthodox, unbiased information available online. The sites supporting the orders of the Old Catholic Church are invariably schismatic Old Catholic sites, while sites condemning the movement as a heretical outgrowth of Jansenism are, curiously, almost always schismatic "Traditionalist" sites. I asked my pastor about it this morning, but he wasn't familiar with the Old Catholic churches at all. When I have a chance I'll see what is available in the diocesan library, and if I discover anything new I'll post it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.

I have read where the Church does not deny that the SSPX mass is valid, (though illicit, but claims that they do not have the faculty to hear confession. How can they be given one sacrament but denied another. It makes one wonder about anything said by anybody.We live in very confusing times. Lord help us!

-- Moe (234rew567@ab.com), October 19, 2004.

Moe,

The sspx leaders were excommunicated by the Pope, as is anyone who "formally adheres" to their schism. There's an article on excommunication in the Catholic Encyclopedia as relates to priests, it seems that when sacraments are valid, it's for the benefit of the faithful, remembering back, I'm not sure that marriage or confession were still valid, but you should read it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 19, 2004.