Talk:Liberal Catholic Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

"got Ordained in the Ancient Catholic Church"

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)

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)

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.

Resolution of the Dispute

In the part of the article "in dispute" I entered the phrases "according to church teaching" and in the first paragraph of the next section "According to the Liberal Catholic Church's Statement of Principles" in order to make these paragraphs objective. Is there any way the "In Dispute" tag can be removed? If it can be, thanks. Kevin Scott Marcus (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to the original author

To obtain an objective study of the history of the Liberal Catholic Church, I suggest the book "The Many Paths of the Independent Sacramental Movement" by Dr. John Plummer. Plummer, a member of an independent Catholic Church (though not the LCC) does a thorough study on the various independent sacramental churches, Catholic and otherwise. He does several well-written sections dealing with the history of the Old Catholic Church of Holland and how the Liberal Catholic Church descended from the Old Catholic movement, even detailing the succession of bishops and some of the personal circumstances surrounding their ordinations. Plummer's book is both respectful of the independent sacramental movement and of academic objectivity at the same time. He does not whitewash controversies, disputes, or scandals but covers all events relavent to the churches covered without bashing or debunking any of them. I highly recommend this book to all who are interested in this subject. Kevin Scott Marcus (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

LCC Theosophia Synod

This section reads way too much like hagiography for a neutral article. It sounds like it was ripped from someone's website wholesale. -- jackturner3 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Which is a shame. It could be an interesting little article is the language was more encyclopedic.--Gazzster (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We Strongly Object to the mischevious deletion of historical information about the Liberal Catholic Church-Theosophia Synod. Someone with a conflict of interest is obviouly vandelizing our copy and deleting it. As an integral part of The Liberal Catholic Movement we have a valid right to present our story. In the interests of journalistic integrity we urgently request that the administrators of this wiki site take appropriate action to prevent this vandelizing of our information. Rev. William Delahunt, Administrative Vicar. LiberalCatholicChurch@webtv.net ~ ~ ~ LiberalCatholicChurch (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Two editors, one of whom is me, have been reverting your edits. Please have a read of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Pleae also note that edits to Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. The whole article is unreferenced per WP:CITE, and is in need of a great deal of work to make it WP:NPOV. Thanks, Per Ardua (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fr. William, I have been deleting your insertion of the Theosophia Synod information. It does not belong on the LCC page, as you are not LCC. The Theosophia Synod Church has it's own page, and your church information should be there. You can also place your information on the lib cath movement page, where all splinters of the LCC can post their unique status. I am not deleting your information to discredit your church, but to clean up the LCC page so that those who are looking for the original LCC church can read about it. Those looking for one of it's splinters like the LCCI or your Theosophia Synod can do so without reading about the other dozen different churches using the Liberal Rite. Jasonvoss (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Schism's

Now that there is a Liberal Catholic Movement page, I see no reason to have mention of any church except the original and reform LCC groups. All others, including the LCCI, can have their own pages with a history and description in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonvoss (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Do you not consider the LCCI to stem from the original church in the same way that the Reform church does? I am deleting the Reform group from the front page, as it is not the original church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.132.183 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Church Background

The entity known in Britain as the Liberal Catholic Church is not the Liberal Catholic Church in the United States. It does not possess the legal right to use that name here. This was decided in a court of law. Thus, the LCCI (the true and legal "Liberal Catholic Church" in the USA) deserves a place in the church background section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.44.224 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Archbisop of Utrecht" Frederick James?

At least in the Dutch Old Catholic Church, there never was an archbishop named Frederick James, let alone a homosexual and Theosophist. See the the of Old Catholic Archbishops of Utrecht here on Wikipedia. Theosophy has never been a part of the teachings of the Union of Utrecht's Old Catholic churches. Ethelred Unraed (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ack, nevermind, I just realized I misread the passage because of the punctuation. Still, proper use of semicolons would make it clearer that Frederick James is *not* the Archbishop in question; that would have been Archbishop Gerardus Gul. Ethelred Unraed (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

a christian church

Of course, I understand that people think of the LCC as something very Theosophical but unfortenly they misunderstand one very crucial point. There is probably no person LCC that is a member of the Theosophical movement but perhaps some in the church accepts theosophy and like it. The church, in Sweden, which I have visited do not have much connection to theosophy so LCC should be under "Part of a series on Christianity" because it is a Christian church. There are many churches that do not have anything against Theosophy and yet not fall undert the term "Theosophy". LCC celebrates the christian mass/liturgy and talk about christianity. They accept all religions but LCC is 100% christianity. theosophy movement is something else but lcc has nothing against it of course even i LCC IS A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. therefore lcc should be Part of a series on christianity! ave maria! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusisthemessiah (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Veneration of Saints and Mary

I think it is important to include a section on liberal Catholic Mariology and Hagiography, since the official website states that they honor, venerate, and pray to Mary and the saints, and even use devotions such as the rosary. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sacramental beliefs

I think the theological beliefs of the Sacraments and the church should have a section in the article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Probably irrelevant, given that the suggestion was made in 2007, but given the low level of activity and an obvious lack of expertise within the editorial community, locking the article seems to me to be a bad idea. Slowly the article has moved toward NPOV, it appears less biased now that these discussions lead me to believe it was... Doctorambient (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2011 (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)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 (talk)

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)

My cursory research shows me that there IS such a thing as a Vatican Charge d'Affaires. Of course, without the letter we don't know for sure--the second hand info we have concerning the letter could very well be incorrect, but we shouldn't assume the letter is a forgery.

Signed, Anonymous Liberal Catholic who does not want to create a Wikipedia account.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 (talk)

Anonymous- Your 'cursory research', unsourced, is NOT sufficient to edit this article, which should be obvious. You are in effect asking us to make an act of faith in 'second hand' information, which, by your own admission, 'could very well be incorrect'. Obviously, if the second hand information is incorrect (you told us you had seen the letter, not known about it second hand), then the authenticity of this letter is doubtful too. You do not need this illusory letter to demonstrate if the Vatican has 'such a thing as Vatican Charge d'Affaires'. You can demonstrate this from other sources if it is indeed true. I have gone to the trouble to do this research, and have demonstrated above that it is not true.--Gazzster 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is the letter, which I have in fact seen. The information which I claim might not be correct is the information about the author of the letter. I did not recall who wrote the letter, and thus the information written above was gotten second hand, although I do know that it was from the Vatican. That the author was a Charge d'Affaires is the information which I have gotten second hand. However, I do know that there is in fact such a thing as a Vatican Charge d'Affaires, as I have seen a written reference to one. You can claim all you want that it's not true. I don't really care, as I believe you are wrong. As I said, I am attempting to get a copy of the letter again. As far as I know, Rome considers the LCC orders to be "valid but illegal."

I found this interesting paragraph on a website: "Our Church has preserved the seven Catholic Sacraments, and we have strictly maintained the Apostolic Succession of our Holy Orders of Bishop, Priest and Deacon in an unbroken line since our original affiliation with Rome. Our sacraments and Holy Orders are absolutely and completely valid and authentic, and The Liberal Catholic Church is a part of the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church, regardless of what Roman Catholic clergy claim or would have you believe." The church maintains an unbroken line from the Old Catholics through Bp. Mathew.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 (talk)

I have no problems with your church stating that. And I have no problems with that being reported in an encyclopedia. What I have said, clearly and repeatedly, is that if the article is going to state that LCC orders are recognised as valid by other apostolic churches, it needs to cite sources. 'I don't really care, as I believe you are wrong'? I'm right, you're wrong, so raspberries to you?!Do not let your religious feeling, which I respect, cloud your objectivity as an editor.--Gazzster 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My belief is not based on "religious feeling," it is based on having seen a letter from a representative of the Vatican which states the LCC orders are valid.

Good recent edits. Looks like the 'objectivity' pendelum is swinging back into balance.

The section on Apostolic Succession says (and I quote) "It CLAIMS an unbroken apostolic succession through the Old Catholics, and CLAIMS that its orders are 'acknowledged as valid throughout the whole of those Churches of Christendom which maintain the Apostolic Succession of orders as a tenet of their faith" (from The Liberal Catholic Church Statement of Principles)" (emphasis mine). Unless my own grammar is really bad, it seems the article is merely QUOTING The Liberal Catholic Church Statement of Principles (and citing the source) and not making any assertion that such "claims" are true or false. On one hand, the LCC, like anyone else, can make any claim they wish whenever they wish. On the other hand, it is not clear whether the criticism is leveled against the article, which would be appropriate to this forum, or whether the criticism is leveled against these claims, which would be out of place here.

Good job otherwise.

- Another Anonymous Liberal Catholic who does not want to create a Wikipedia account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.221.20 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to have known the history of this section. Before I edited it to the statements you quote, the Statement of Principles of the LCC were simply quoted without any qualification. In fact, it was not even in quotations, so noone could tell it was a claim or a statement of fact. This implied that other Apostolic churches did in fact recognise LCC orders. This is incorrect. The exchange between the previous contributor and myself is understood in the context of those edits.By the way, it does puzzle me why people here are unwilling to sign their contributions.--Gazzster 03:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All points well taken and conceded. - Prof T in the LCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.221.20 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the RCC recognizes the Old Catholic orders as valid but illicit, and our orders stem from them. What you are claiming most likely refers to the RC belief that churches whose core teachings are at variance with Rome are not recognized as valid by Rome. The LCCI does not even have theosophical teachings, so I fail to see how this argument is relevant to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, if the RCC does recognise LCC orders, cool- i've no gripe. But how do we know? We need a statement by the RCC, which to date, no-one has been able to cite. While the LCCI may not have theosophical teachings, other branches do. Certainly the branch I belonged to in South Australia followed Wedgewood, Leadbeater and Besant.

Forgive me if you are already aware of this, but the RCC is guided by the following criteria in judging the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders;

1. valid matter ( the laying on of hands - here, I think, no problem)
2. valid form (the words accompanying the laying on of hands, which express the intention of the ordaining bishop)
3. proper subject (a baptised male- the ordnation of a woman is considered invalid)
4. a validly ordained bishop (here the RCC may have problems with tracing a line of episcopal succession that they would recognise as valid).
5. proper intention - which may be as simple as the intention to do what the ecclesial community regards as sacred.

Then there is also the problem of the other apostolic churches: Anglican, Orthodox, etc. Authorities need to be cited on their behalf too. Don't got me wrong- i'm not trying to refute LCC orders. But this is an encyclopedia. And statements need to be verifiable.--Gazzster 04:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is said; the RCC recognizes the Old Catholic orders as valid but illicit. My question is, does the Union of Utrecht reconize the validity of the orders of any of the "Wondering Bishops"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopi_vagantes Maybe someone should contact the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht and ask them if the Liberal Catholic Churches are valid and licit (another word for legal); since they claim succession through them. Would Union of Utrecht in the Netherlands claim any ties at all with the Liberal Catholic Church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.50.175 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A response to the 2011 question by the contributor at 208.106.50.175 –

After Mathew died in 1919, the Union of Utrecht's (UU) International Old Catholic Bishops' Conference (IBC) declared in 1920 that Mathew's "consecration was obtained mala fide and that consequently it is null and void." Peter-Ben Smit explained, in Old Catholic and Philippine Independent Ecclesiologies in History, that in 1913, "ties of the IBC with Mathew were formally severed", and after World War I, the IBC "distanced itself more from the 'episcopus vagans' Mathew and those ordained and consecrated by him." Consecrations derived from Mathew were not recognised by the IBC. In the 21st century, the Old Catholic Church of British Columbia (OCCBC), a Liberal Catholic Movement church, was once a probationary member of the UU; the OCCBC's orders are derived from Mathew and the OCCBC claimed that the union accepted the validity of their orders; but this is contradicted by documents on the OCCBC website. The OCCBC bishop was told by an IBC bishop the next year, among other issues, both that the OCCBC bishop's consecration was derived through the LCC and that "the line of Matthews succession is there and is not recognized by Utrecht".

A response to the 2007 question by Gazzster –

Anglican Communion bishops published a statement in 1920 Lambeth Conference resolution 64 that elements of theosophical teaching "are irreconcilable with the Christian faith as to the person and mission of Christ and with the missionary claim and duty of the Christian religion as the message of God to all mankind" and warned Christians "who may be induced to make a study of theosophy by the seemingly Christian elements contained in it, to be on their guard against the ultimate bearing of theosophical teaching." In 1920 Lambeth Conference resolution 27 and 1958 Lambeth Conference resolution 54 they stated that they do not regard the Old Catholic Church in Great Britain, its extensions overseas, and "'episcopi vagantes' who call themselves either 'Old Catholic' or 'Orthodox,' in combination with other names" "as properly constituted Churches, or recognise the orders of their ministers." While the LCC was ambiguous about the validity of Anglican orders in the 1926 Statement of Principles, Summary of Doctrine, and Table of Apostolic Succession, it explicitly required that they are to be conferred conditionally to previously ordained Anglican candidates to LCC ministry.

Going back to the 2009 edit by the contributor at 63.148.191.50 and the editor's claim that the Holy See had recognized LCC ordination –

I see that the claims are without a citation. They are unsubstantiated and it seems to me that the contributor at 63.148.191.50. was a victim of a pious fraud circulated within the sect. The RCC has records in archives and histories about its important acts, so it is reasonable to assume that if the Holy See had recognized LCC ordination it would be documented. A single letter to a priest would not be the instrument for an act defining doctrine; according to 1983 Code of Canon Law "authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated" and is in some cases retroactive (canon 16 §2) while "interpretation in the form of a judicial sentence or of an administrative act in a particular matter, however, does not have the force of law and only binds the persons for whom and affects the matters for which it was given" (canon 16 §3). The RCC publishes its acts in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), an official gazette.

For example, in 1919 Pope Benedict XV confirmed a 1919 Congregation of the Holy Office statement that it is illicit for Catholics to enroll in theosophical societies, take part in their gatherings, or read their publications because theosophical doctrines are irreconcilable with Catholic doctrines – the text was published in AAS and is also found in the Enchiridion Symbolorum (DH 3648). "Christianity defends duality, reincarnation defends a dualism in which the body is simply an instrument of the soul and is laid aside." According to the Catholic Church's International Theological Commission, the error of reincarnation is "an outright negation of the central affirmations of Christian revelation" and "the rejection of the Christian doctrine of salvation" because, through reincarnation, "the soul is its own saviour by its own efforts. Its soteriology is one of autoredemption, which is diametrically opposed to the heteroredemption of Christian soteriology. [...] The whole doctrine concerning Church, sacraments and grace stands or falls on this central point. The serious nature of the doctrines involved here is thus evident, and it can readily be understood why the Church's magisterium has rejected [... reincarnation] categorizing it as a theosophism." Google searches (search Vatican for "indifferen*", search Vatican for "pantheis*", search Vatican for "reincarnat*") demonstrates that magisterium of the RCC is clear about differences in doctrines. The First Vatican Council canons about God in Dei Filius anathematized the belief "that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same" (DH 3001–3002, 3023–3025). Pope John Paul II explained that this canon confirmed that pantheism "is contrary to faith."

I am citing the LCC's 1926 Statement of Principles, Summary of Doctrine, and Table of Apostolic Succession because it was before the vehicle for Maitreya, Jiddu Krishnamurti, resigned from his adventist role in 1929 and the official documents of the LCC were modified in 1930 in response. LCC doctrine 4 stated, in 1926, that "The state of the world is such that His near advent may confidently be expected." LCC bishops only ordain candidates who generally agree with the Statement of Doctrine. Becoming an integral part of the Fellowship of the World-Religion, it accepted the "Basic Truths of Religion" in 1925 as an official doctrine. "The World Religion, of which all special religions are integral parts - whether or not they recognize their places in the World Order" states, among other things, that "each human being evolves by successive life-periods." "It holds that a theology can only justify itself and be of permanent value in so far as it partakes of the character of a theosophy." These beliefs are "identical" to the beliefs studied in Brahmavidya. "Its fullest and most living presentation in these modern days [1926] is to be found in the literature of the Theosophical Society." The doctrines common to "to all the great religions of the world" "form that true Catholic Faith, which is Catholic because it is the statement of universal principles in Nature." These doctrines are found in the Unity of all religions section of the article.

"Rome and Liberal Catholic orders" was published in The Liberal Catholic in 1998. The author is Laurence Langley, a LCC priest and archivist. It is copied in the Apostolic Succession section on this talk page. From the article, it is clear that a fraud, which claimed the Holy See had recognized LCC ordination, was perpetrated in the 1930s and debunked by the 1950s. There may be other documents like it. I have read several claims online about purported recognition by the RCC of other ordinations. A common feature of the way those claims are presented online is without context or evidence or arguments but with logical fallacies such as false analogies, false continuums, and genetic fallacies. For example, claims about the OCCBC are found in the Arnold Mathew, Liberal Catholic Movement, and Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe articles and disputed here and here.

In the Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ordinations "always entail promises" to God (CCC n. 2101). This entails a belief in God of Christianity not the concept of god in Hinduism as found in Brahmavidya. Love of God is the greatest commandment (Mark 12:30, Matthew 22:37). 1983 CIC canon 846 §1 states that "the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority." In the Catholic Church's Rites of Ordination of a Bishop, of Priests, and of Deacons a bishop-elect is "questioned in the presence of the people on his resolve to uphold the faith" and one of the promises made by the bishop-elect is to "resolve to guard the deposit of faith, entire and incorrupt, as handed down by the Apostles and preserved by the Church everywhere and at all times" (n. 40). This preparatory rite is important (n. 8). The standard, in the Latin Church's 1983 CIC canon 845 §2, is if "a prudent doubt still exists" after a "a diligent inquiry" is completed to determine whether the baptism, confirmation, and orders "were actually or validly conferred, they are to be conferred conditionally" because according to canon 845 §1 they "cannot be repeated" and according to canon 290, "validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid." The RCC requires that the minister confers a sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if that is lacking then the sacrament is not fulfilled (DH 1312). In other words the sacrament does not happen when a minister performs the external ritual but does not intend what the Church does (DH 2328). According to the RCC, sacraments can be invalid because of divergent internal intention. For example, Mormon baptism is not valid. Luis Ladaria explained, in L'Osservatore Romano, the reasons for deciding that "it is not Christian Baptism" are that a "divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized." Cardinal Urbano Navarrete Cortés clarified, in L'Osservatore Romano, "that in all of the effects of the pastoral, administrative and juridical practices of the Church the Mormons are not to be considered as belonging to an 'ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church', but simply as non-baptized." Baptism conferred by The Christian Community, founded by Rudolf Steiner and The New Church, founded by Emmanuel Swedenborg are also invalid according to the RCC.

I think its easy to fall into the rabbit hole whether documented LCC doctrine, prior to Krishnamurti's resignation from the Theosophical Society and its affiliate network of groups, cast prudent doubt about the validity of clergy who formally believe several things which are irreconcilable with fundamental Christian doctrines. Ladaria explained, in the Mormon case, that great "doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister [...] from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does" and noted that use of similar language "does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity [... because the] words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have [...] a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching [...] has a completely different matrix." I was not able to find any scholarly books about how LCC beliefs compare to other gnostic and theosophic beliefs but a few of Krishnamurti's apostles (i.e. Annie Besant, Charles W. Leadbeater, and James Ingall Wedgwood) did write about their beliefs. William J. Whalen believed it "is questionable" if the LCC "has preserved valid orders in the light of proper intention."

It is a fact that the LCC states that it 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" but that statement seems to be a demonstrably improbable claim.

References

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent research.Gazzster (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

This conversation is continued in another thread on this talk page.--BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Liberal Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026013750/http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/LCC.gb/Summary.html to http://kingsgarden.org/english/organizations/lcc.gb/Summary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716111334/http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/LCC.gb/LCIS/Scriptures/Liberal/Cooper/Ceremonies/BlueBook/INDEX_S.htm to http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/LCC.gb/LCIS/Scriptures/Liberal/Cooper/Ceremonies/BlueBook/INDEX_S.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberal Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502221734/http://www.liberalcatholic.org.uk/ to http://www.liberalcatholic.org.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160531151949/http://www.psicl.org/ to http://psicl.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)