Talk:Catholicity

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Heanor (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Catholic (term) into Catholicity. I think the content in Catholic (term) can easily be explained in the context of Catholicity, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Catholicity. Both article about the universality of the confession in different denominations. Almost all denominations consider themselves Catholic, however the term "Catholic" is commonly associated with the Catholic Church. --Somerby (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Should have pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the two are sufficiently distinct to merit their own articles. A merger would lead to a nasty debate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, since those terms are referring to different subjects, that are properly treated in separate articles. Merger would lead to endless debates over the title, not to mention several other issues. Sorabino (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as the term catholic is near-invariably appended to something believed to have catholicity. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, those terms are referring to the same subject, universality of the confession in different denominations which claimed to have catholicity. --Northumber (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as that was the consensus before, and not all of the previous participants were notified of this new proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of the PNCC

I edited the article earlier to include the Polish National Catholic Church in the article, but that edit was reverted. Rationale given was that it was already covered in the "Independent Catholicism" section. I dispute the claim that the PNC Church is Independent Catholic, for the following reasons:

• The article on Independent Catholicism states explicitly, that these are micro-churches claiming valid apostolic succession / sacraments "in spite of not being affiliated to the historic Catholic churches such as the Roman Catholic and Utrechter Old Catholic churches." The PNCC is the founding member of the Union of Scranton, which differs from the Union of Utrecht on the sole basis that Utrecht ordains women and blesses same-sex unions, while Scranton does not. The PNCC was part of Utrecht for 95 years (joining within 20 years of the latter's formation), and only separated from it because of fears that the Utrechter ordination of women would invalidate the sacraments. Independent Catholicism does not give even one mention of the PNCC, as it is not part of this category, but is much more accurately described as Old Catholicism.
• While the PNCC is listed in the Independent Catholicism section, its inclusion in that section contradicts the text at the very end of the section, which states "They are however, by definition, not recognised by the Catholic Church." I'll demonstrate below why this does not apply to the PNC Church.

To compare these two directly,

The Polish National Catholic Church

• Has established limited intercommunion with the Catholic Church of Rome, something no other Old Catholic or Independent Catholic church has done.
• Has 6 or 7 sacraments that are recognized as valid by Rome: the Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick, and Penance are sacraments that Rome both recognizes and allows Catholic parishioners to receive under very limited circumstances. Baptism and Holy Matrimony are obviously considered valid as well. By definition, Holy Orders are valid, as Rome has to recognize the PNCC's claims to apostolic succession in order to allow any intercommunion as well as establish dialogue. Finally, the PNCC's Sacrament of Confirmation is also considered valid (although the PNC Church numbers baptism and confirmation as one sacrament).
• Peter Vere wrote regarding Exception Two of Canon 844, "we see that the intention of the legislator, within the context of the canon, is to permit Catholics under certain circumstance to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers of Churches in which the sacraments are valid. This is not a permission to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches the sacraments are valid. The difference being that the sacraments must be valid owing to the denominational Church to which the non-Catholic minister belongs, and not merely from the validity of the minister's ordination. For example, one could not receive the sacraments from a priest validly ordained within the Catholic Church who later defected from the Catholic Faith and now ministers within the Episcopalian ecclesial communion. Nor could one approach a validly-ordained non-Catholic minister who ministers the sacraments independently of the jurisdiction of a Church in which these sacraments are valid." (emphases mine). Later on in the same subsection: "Furthermore," because the SSPX does not claim ecclesiastical jurisdiction, wrote Vere, "the Catholic Church is not certain at the present whether the SSPX constitutes a Church like the Eastern Orthodox or the Polish National Catholic Church, or whether the SSPX is simply a loose federation of acephalous (independent) priests and episcopal vagantes (wandering bishops) like the Old Catholic Movement in North America.
• As per above, the PNCC is recognized as a valid Church. The very definition of independent Catholicism is that its ministers fall within either one of the two categories for which Vere states that Catholics cannot receive the sacraments from them.
• While the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and ACOE are Churches that Rome recognizes as valid Eastern Churches not in full communion, the PNCC is the only valid Western Church that is recognized, although the circumstances of licit intercommunion are much more restrictive than for the East. Thus I argue it should be listed separately.
• See here for a primer on the differences between how Rome views the Union of Utrecht vs. the PNCC.

Independent Catholics

• Are led by episcopus vagans, who are not recognized by either Rome, Utrecht, Scranton, or any other apostolic body.
• Are not recognized by Rome.
• Catholics in communion with Rome are not permitted under any circumstances, even grave circumstances, to receive the sacraments from an independent Catholic minister. The opposite holds true for the PNCC.

Based on the above, I ask that the specific mention in the lede be reinstated, and that a separate section is eventually created for the Old Catholic Churches.

Cordially,

142.122.150.221 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT. An easy to use redirect user script is User:Eejit43/scripts/redirect-helper.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)