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.
- I'm not sure how to take that. There doesn't appear to be any neutrality issue in speaking that the LCC views the LCCI as a schism. There was in fact originally the Liberal Catholic Church existing in many countries (of which the Liberal Catholic Church of the USA is one of its provinces), and then several of the churches broke away from the LCC and formed the LCCI. That's a schism, regardless of how the LCCI members may feel about it. As this article is about the Liberal Catholic Church (and not the LCCI) I do not see how this is an issue. JN322 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
--Actually, the LCCI is the legal "Liberal Catholic Church" in America. The article is not about the LCC or the LCC USA, but about "Liberal Catholicism" in all its forms. The LCC USA has declared that there is no "Liberal Catholic movement," and that they themselves (and the LCC) are the only true and valid church. If you study the history of the schism leading to the LCCI, you will find that the LCC had strayed from the intentions of the church's founders (Leadbeater and Wedgwood). The founders of the church did not want the church to be an exclusive vehicle for Theosophists, but rather to be open to all people. While the LCC continued along its exclusive Theosophical path, the rest of the church stayed true to principle. The replacement of Hampton was anything but legal, and the LCC was even in violation of the laws of California. The majority of Americans supported Hampton.
---"Actually, the LCCI is the legal "Liberal Catholic Church" in America." Ok, that's America, not the entire world. The article is not about "Liberal Catholicism", its about the Liberal Catholic Church. Furthermore, I have studied the schizm, and leadbeater's work. Go read the Science of the Sacraments and then tell me the founders thought Theosophy to be straying the path. Leadbeater was at odds with the Old Catholics regarding theosophy which was one of the reasons for the development of the LCC in the first place.
--Leadbeater said that the LCC was not created to appeal solely or even primarily to Theosophists. That is almost an exact quote--if you don't believe me, I will post the exact quote. Hampton himself was a Theosophist. I am also an esotericist, but not a Theosophist. I have read The Science of the Sacraments, as any Liberal Catholic should. One would have to be dim in order to overlook the esoteric elements involved here. What seems to be missed is that the Church was meant to be all-inclusive, not exclusive. If the church discriminates against non-Theosophists, then they are doing the same thing other Catholics did to them, and Leadbeater was expressly against this attitude. And, if the church in America is legally called "The Liberal Catholic Church" and its clergy were part of the original entity called "The Liberal Catholic Church," then the church in America is and was always "The Liberal Catholic Church," like it or not...so this article is about the church in America as well as the church in the rest of the world.
Also: --"Leadbeater was at odds with the Old Catholics regarding theosophy which was one of the reasons for the development of the LCC in the first place." --This statement is not even true. Mathew broke with the Old Catholics before the Liberal Catholic Church was even formed, and Leadbeater's opinions had nothing to do with it because he was an Anglican priest.
[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)
[edit] No Neutrality
Are the sections about "another reform" really necessary or revelant to this Liberal Catholic sect? It is embarassingly obvious from the text that what should have been an objective, balanced article about this denomination has degenerated into a tit-for-tat tug of war between every Tom Dick or Harry trying to inject their own bias into the article. As it stands now, the entire article is tainted by too many individuals imposing their personal or political agenda.
Suggestion: scrap the entire article, re-write it without the sectarian spitting contest and LOCK the article!
User: Zorro 0:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The unfortunate thing is that each of these seperate entities all have very similar names. I would like to perhaps see all the schisms condensed into one section. JN322 06:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yes, neutrality issues, and Apostolic Succession again
I too am concerned for sections of the article. For instance, this passage:
'The Liberal Catholic Church draws the central inspiration of its work from an earnest faith in the living Christ. It holds that the vitality of a church gains in proportion as its members not only revere and worship a Christ who lived two thousand years ago, but also strive to affirm in their lives the eternal Christ of whom St. John (VIII,58) speaks: "Before Abraham was, I am." It is the Christ who ever lives as a mighty spiritual presence in the world, guiding and sustaining His people.'
Is it just me, or does it read as if it is a passage from some devotional work? Parts of it sound suspiciously like quotations, and if they are, they should be cited as such. The language should be objective, avoiding implied praise or denigration. Quotations should be contextualised in objective statements.
I am also still concerned for this paragraph:
'The Liberal Catholic Church "recognizes seven fundamental sacraments, which it enumerates as follows: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Absolution, Holy Unction, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders. To ensure their efficacy to the worshipper, it guards with the greatest care the administration of all sacramental rites and 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" (Statement of Principles). However the Roman Catholic Church has not publicly made any such affirmation of Liberal Catholic orders.'
That the Apostolic succession in LCC orders is recognised 'throughout the whole of those Churches of Christendom which maintain the Apostolic Succession ' is manifestly false, as I demonstrated above in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. In the case of that church, those orders would be at the least questionable, on account of suspected breaks in the succession and defect in rite according to RC theology. And the ordination of a woman is certainly regarded as invalid by the RCC magisterium. I am aware of no statements, public or otherwise, by Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican authorities recognising LCC orders. If the author is aware of such documents, he or she must cite them. It is perhaps relevant to note here that the LCC is not a member of the World Council of Churches. As the article stands, the author is simply quoting the LCC Statement of Principles as if asserting a fact.At least some elements of the LCC recognise the problems of making such a claim. On the website of LCC International, referenced below the article, the relevant part of the Statement of Principles has been modified to read 'it (the LCC Church) has preserved an Episcopal succession that is valid, as understood throughout the whole of those Churches in Christendom that maintain the Apostolic Succession as a tenet of their faith.' This statement is less assuming than the one it replaces. Even so, what is understood as Apostolic Succession varies from denomination to denomination. The RCC does not recognise Anglican orders, for example, while some Orthodox communions do.
I certainly am not criticising the LCC on theological grounds. Nor do I deny that they have a right to claim apostolic succession if they wish to do so. But I do object to magnificient statements being made as facts when they are not. I think the author should state something like, 'the LCC claims that all apostolic churches recognise its orders, though the RCC has not made any such statement.' If other churches have, references should be cited.--Gazzster 13:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the Sacraments & Apostolic Succession section to reflect a more objective and balanced treatment, since no-one wants to deal with the issues I raised --Gazzster 05:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
--I deleted your addition. Sorry, but there is in fact evidence that Rome considers the Orders and Sacraments of the LCC valid. I have seen such document, but do not possess it at the moment. I am trying to re-obtain it. Incidentally, however, to judge the worth or validity of the LCC by what Rome thinks is to miss the point of what it means to be Liberal Catholic. At any rate, the document was provided by a Liberal Catholic priest who is no longer with the church. This is all I can say about it until I lay eyes on it again: The letter was written by the Vatican Charge D'Affairs in Washington DC stating that the Roman Rite accepts the Holy Orders of the LCC. The letter was written by Monsignor Clemente Faccini (the pope's official representative) to the government of the USA. It was written to a priest in the Roman Diocese of Dallas, Texas. I do not know the reason for the letter, but I think it had to do with a ruling or decision the Dallas priest had to make about something sacramental done by an LCC priest. The letter dates to December, 1980.
Hi there! I'm glad someone is addressing this issue. I was beginning to think the editors did not care. So cheers. Now, can I make something clear? I am not trying to 'judge the worth or validity of the LCC by what Rome thinks', and, quite frankly, I'd like you to show me where I have. I used to be a member of the LCC, and that's why I'm here- the topic still interests me. Yes, I am a Roman Catholc now. However, as I've said, I'm not criticizing the LCC itself on theological or any other grounds. I'm merely pointing out that this article has made a claim as if it were a fact without citing references. I refer, of course, to the claim tht the orders of the LCC is recognised by all other churches claiming apostolic succession. Now, the article can report that the church makes that claim. Why not? But it cannot assert that it is a fact without citing sources. That's my beef- no sources. And I'm worried because other sections of the article are tainted by POV. There are tags on the article. OK. So let's take your source. Now you cannot revert an edit on the basis of a source which you looked at once and cannot now cite. That is, I'm afraid, unWiki. But let's have a look at the info you give us. A Monsignor Clemente Faccini, Vatican Charge d'Affaires to the United States government, wrote a letter to a priest in Dallas, Texas, in 1980. Now, Charge d'Affaires is not a diplomatic rank conferred by the Vatican. The diplomatic equivalent would be pro-nuncio or apostolic delegate.The Apostolic delegates to the United States in 1980 were Archbishop Jean Jardot, who served from May 23 1973 to June 27 1980. He was succeeded by Cardinal Pio Laghi, who served from Dec 10 1980 until 1984. In 1984 his title was changed to pro-nuncio, and he continued to serve in the United States until 1990. So, merely on the basis of the information you have supplied the source you cite (or rather, don't cite) is false. So I think you'd better rethink about reverting the edit. I don't know what the RCC says about LCC orders. So I'm not stating that it says they are invalid. I do know this, however: the RCC regards the ordination of a woman as invalid, so if a woman consecrated bishop ordains, those ordinations are, in RCC eyes, invalid; the RCC does not regard the LCC and the Old Catholic Church and its other offspring churches to in full communion with itself; the RCC scrutinises changes in rite, especially in the form of a sacrament, before passing judgement. But why do we confine ourselves to the RCC? What about other apostolic churches? The Anglican Communion, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox? What do they say about LCC orders? Again, if this article is to make magnificient claims, they must refer to these churches as well. Thanks for discussing this. I welcome further discussion, but could you please sign your contribution to this talk? Ta.--Gazzster 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
