Talk:Liberal Catholic Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
got ordained in the Ancient Catholic Church ... (1913).
Is it clear what is meant? I guess it is the so-called Altkatholische Church (formed after 1870 by those Catholics who rejected the papal infallibility). (See Old Catholic Church.)
If so, is Ancient Catholic Church the appropriate term?
Sebastjan
I got this from a book on the subject of Leadbeater (The Elder Brother, by Gregory Tillett). From that source it seems the Ancient Catholic Church was a splintergroup, not much more than a Bishop - as much a break away organization as the Liberal Catholic Church itself was (or started out as - it is now worldwide). How else could the whole movement have become the Liberal Catholic Church - if it hadn't been small to start with? I would hesitate to change it into Altkatholisch without more evidence that it was indeed that movement that it came from.
kh7 10:46 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] "got Ordained in the Ancient Catholic Church"
The Ancient Catholic Church in Great Britain is a totally separate independent Sect that originated in England having been founded by various disaffected Anglican Clergy, who personally believed that the Holy Orders they received in the Church of England were of no true spiritual value, and that the Order of Priesthood as practiced in the Anglican Church was nothing more than being called to a civil servant position.
Bishop Arnold Harris Mathew was consecrated Bishop for the "Old Catholic" Church of Great Britain and Ireland, by the Old Catholic Bishops of Utrecht, Deventer, and Harlem. There were three Bishops of the Old Catholic Church in Britain by 1916. By the end of that year, Bishop Mathew withdrew from communion with the Old Catholic Church of Holland, over what he perceived as a tendency towards "Modernism" and Anglicanism. It was after this venture that he resigned from the Old Catholic Church of Great Britain and Ireland and made his submission to the local Roman Catholic Authorities, with a request that he be permitted to function as a simple priest. It was during the period that his request was being considered by the Roman Catholic Bishop that Bishop Mathew passed away.--68.38.190.114 01:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Andrew Simon
- See Ancient Catholic Church. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Good recent edits!
Good edits, User:Rchamberlain~!
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Differences of the Divisions
It is no longer required that bishops in the LCC USA have a vegetarian diet. There are at least three bishops that I personally know who are not vegetarian. It is also important to show why the two groups differ. It should also be known that the LCC USA does not view the LCCI as a Synod, but a schism. I also updated the page with the second schism that took place in 2003. I have also tried to bring the page into a more neutral point of view, since the original was clearly written by a member of the LCCI. --Jay4rest 04:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
--Actually, the original article was most likely written by the LCC USA and was not neutral at all. I revised it to include information about the LCCI, and since then it has undergone several more revisions. To say that the LCC USA considers the LCCI a schism would reflect the views of the LCC USA, but I would still dispute the neutrality of that claim, as the members of the LCCI consider themselves to be the original Liberal Catholic Church just as much as the LCC USA does. The difference is that the LCC USA does not wish to recognize the LCCI or any other church within the Liberal Catholic movement other than its own.
[edit] Apostolic Succession
The Liberal Catholic Church 'has preserved an episcopal succession which is acknowledged as valid throughout the whole of those Churches of Christendom which maintain the Apostolic Succession of orders as a tenet of their faith.' This statement is a direct quote from the LCC's own Statement of Principles, and is unfounded. The Roman Catholic Church holds Apostolic Succession, but certainly does not regard the succession in the LCC has necessarily valid. That Church would hold it suspect. Regarding claims that the RCC does not recognise LCC orders, a Liberal Catholic bishop published this letter; Rome and Liberal Catholic Orders
Rev. L. K. Langley Sydney, Australia
The Advent 1997 The Liberal Catholic [a journal] mentions a 1931 decision on the validity of our Orders made by the Roman Catholic Church, and how the document was destroyed during World War Two. The fact is that the letter was never destroyed in a library fire, because it was never there in the first place. Yet the story seems to have a life of its own and resurrects from time to time.
It has appeared, to my knowledge, in the September 1944 Australian Provincial News, the Winter 1976 Ubique and the Winter 1990 Gnosis magazine. It is a pity that the story has became sanitised since the Ubique report by omitting reference to "a Belgian member of our Church having been jailed for a few months". As the alleged document was the work of a master forger, the jail episode may be the only true part of the whole saga.
The Sydney Roman Catholic apologist, Fr. L. Rumble, was made aware of the story in 1954 and made enquiries in Belgium and Rome. He published the results in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review of March 1958, complete with denials from the relevant authorities. This and further research he summarised in the Sydney Catholic Weekly of 19 July, 1962 as follows:
"The document is a forgery, a verdict of which I did not obtain final and positive confirmation until 1958. Since the document was alleged to have been sent to the Cardinal Archbishop of Mechlin (Malines) in Belgium, I first wrote there. That was in 1955. A search by the Chancellor of the Archdiocese revealed no such document preserved in the Archives, as it would have been had it in fact been received. In 1956 I wrote to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, in Rome, only to be told that no question had ever been put to that Congregation on the subject, and that no answer to it had ever been given. In 1957, I wrote to the Congregation of the Holy Office, and was informed that neither that Congregation nor any other had ever issued a document concerning the matter. In 1958, one of the best historians among the Liberal Catholic clergy in England, having read an article on the subject I had published in America, wrote to me in a letter dated August 14, that the document is definitely spurious, and that it was forged for some unscrupulous members of the Liberal Catholic Church by an equally unscrupulous 'member of the Roman Catholic Church in Brussels, Belgium'. This honest admission was from the Rev. Alban W. Cockerham, of Leeds, England, who naturally deplored the circulation of such a forged document ".
I am grateful to the Archives of the British Orthodox Church for copies of the articles mentioned, plus associated correspondence. This material will be deposited in our Australian Provincial Archives for future reference, with the hope that this matter can be finally laid to rest. The connection with the British Orthodox is through Fr. Cockerham (who was re-ordained by Mar Georgius in 1956 while apparently retaining his L.C.C. membership). The name of Albert Frank Duquesne, who was a Liberal Catholic clergyman in Belgium circa 1930-1932 is mentioned in their archives as "the too famous author of the 'false document of Utrecht"' and as the producer of a 1953 document purporting to be from Roman theologians declaring Mar Georgius' Orders as valid. Fr. Cockerham denied the authenticity of this document too. [www.lcc.cc/tlc/lxvi1/rome.htm]
I suggest the churches of the Orthodox Communion hold a similar view.--Gazzster 12:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
