Talk:Catholic Church and ecumenism

Sub article

This section, moved from the Roman Catholic Church article, really needs room to breathe. Sections to be added:

• Ut Unim Sint material
• Unitatis Redintegratio material
• Interfaith material inclucing relations with the Jewish people
• World Day of Prayer events at Assisi, Italy

Picture

I have replaced the picture of the Pope and Patriarch with the most recent one from the papal visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In the previous picture, it was not Bertholomew, as far as i can see. Hectorian 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic

The Catholic Church does not use the term Catholic to describe other churches. It recognizes apostolic succession or doesnt. Whether a church is 'catholic' or not is an Anglican preoccupation based on the Anglo-Catholic/evangelical controversies. As the sentence describes a judgment of the Catholic Church, it is inaccurate and needs to be removed.129.74.228.121 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This reflects a very limited world view. The Eastern Orthodox Church refers to itself, exclusively, as the Catholic Church as defned in the Nicene Creed and the Holy Fathers. Rome is free to use the term "Catholic" to refer to itself when speaking within the context of its own theology--just as the Orthodox and Anglicans are free to do the same--but expropriating the term "Catholic" to refer only to those who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome in a non-sectarian, encyclopedic context is not NPOV. The tite of this article should be changed to "Roman Catholic Church and ecumenism". I would have no objection to the title remaining as it is if Wikipedia were a Roman Catholic publication, but it is inappropriate here. MishaPan (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this has been talked to death. The Catholic Church is the official name of the Church, not "Roman Catholic Church", punto, basta. That does not make it NPOV, it still recognizes catholicity in other Churches, but the bottom line is it is never correct, and always an NPOV violation, to insist that the Catholic Church be called "Roman" Catholic. 15:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Chapter IV.-Beware of These Heretics.
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact, ] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so m the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him,29 He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.

I've just read this text of Inatious, and could not conciliate it with the catholic ecumenism. Could any catholic friend give some insight? Thanks. []'s —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mauro do Carmo (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

HHMMM It seems to me that there is only one reason to mentions this. Now we all know what that is. In case you don't then I will explain. Only an enemy of Christ and his Church would mention this because he thinks that it will hurt the Chruch's image and reputaion with others not in the Church and cause some who are in the Church to leave and thus suffer consequenses that those of us in the Church believe that they will suffer. Therefore it is clear that by mention of the quote above, the person quoting would not in any context truely want an explanation or any dialog but would instead enter into any such discussion with ill will and mal intent. Thus I for one find myself feeling that taking the advice of the quote may actually be the simplist course of action so that I am not needlessly bothered by such a person and instead leave then to the help of Christ.--Billiot 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Beloved Sister Church

As the text mentions, I suspect that the present regime at the Vatican is uncomfortable about Pope Paul VI's description of the Anglican Church. In addition I'm aware that of late high ranking elements in the RC Church have declared that the Anglican church, along with other Protestant denominations, is not a church at all but a mere "ecclesial community". But I am not sure how official this line is, not where it came from. I have a feeling that it might be a statement of the (hard line) former Cardinal Ratzinger. Can anyone help on this? Millbanks 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Today, it is confirmed, Protestants belong to ecclesial bodies, not churches. The Anglican ecclesial bodies are not churches in the eyes of the Catholic Church as they do not have valid orders. Perhaps there may have been a re-visit of the question of Anglican order if they had not rushed to ordain woman, approve abortion and bless same-sex marriages.129.74.165.187 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent meetings

There has been a lot of news recently about the meeting between the orthodox and the Catholic in Italy. I read one article that said the pope called it a great step forward. There seems to be some issue about the use of the word Protos for the Pope. There is another issue about the Russian delegation walking out, not because of an arguement with the Vatican but because of an internal arguement among the orthodox. The article said something about the Church of Estonia. The Pope wants to call an extra ordinary council of all cardinals to look over the agreements reached that will be held on Nov. 23. At any rate, this all seem like a big deal, it is all over the news and it seems to me that someone should get some facts and put something about it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Catholicos Visits Rome

I got some news that the Patriarch Catholicos of Armenia visited Rome and there were reports of "great progress" on issues that concern the reunion of the Churches. I do not know how this affects the Armenian Catholic Church but seeing as how the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholic Church were never the same Church, they are not in schism with each other and everything should be ok, except for the Armenian See of Cilicia, which formed from break away bishops who renounced the decision by their Church leadership to rejoin Rome and establish the Armenian Catholic Church. This See of Cilicia is in communion with the Armenian Apostolic Church but there are tentions. I can not predict how this all is effected of course.

At any rate, big meeting between the Pope and the Catholicos. Reports of "great progress" and something about a preposition in a Christological statement that I don't understand very well. I got the info from the Vatican Information Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.45.197 (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Class C

Does anyone feel this article is complete enough or even close to properly cited to merit the new B class? -- Secisek (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

List of former Roman Catholics

Some have suggested that the very tolerant policy adopted towards ecumenism partly explains the large number of people in the list of former Roman Catholics. One study estimates that 10.1% of people in the United States describe themselves as former Catholics in some sense. Although a small majority converted to another religion a substantial minority of them are counted as currently unaffiliated. ADM (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Return of larges sections previously removed without prior discussion

User:ADM has removed larges sections of material on Anglicanism from this page without prior discussion. I have returned them. Please discuss this here and not start a revert war.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't re-add information that is already present in Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue into the Catholic Church and ecumenism. Copying material back often undermines the legitimacy of separate entries devoted to specific subjects matters. Having it written once is already enough, per Occam's razor. ADM (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The removal was not done properly. Discuss it here, first. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asking you to discuss, not the opposite. Why didn't you agree with the content move ? ADM (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with the content move for several reasons, first, it is logical here in this article and was written here first. Second, it should not be moved without prior discussion. Third, the move take the material several jumps from the Catholic Church mainpage. Fourth, much of the material was originally written on the Anglican Communion page and it was agreed to move it here. Fifth, to continue to parce articles and rob them of their sections in order to make new articles is unnecessary forking. There are probably other reasons, but it is getting late. Have a good night.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Separated brethren merger discussion

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Separated brethren → Talk:Unitatis Redintegratio#Merger proposal → Talk:Unitatis Redintegratio#Separated bretheren revisited

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose that the new Separated brethren article be merged into the appropriate section of this article. It is undoubtedly an important concept, but I am not sure that article will ever be much more than a detailed dictionary article. I think the concept can be fully addressed in this article (where much of the background and context is anyway) and a redirect created from Separated brethren. Novaseminary (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

though I may understand your proposal, the subject of "Separated brethren" arguably needs its own article, for easier search, and more specificity, as some just want to look up that one term.... (By the way, this article CAN be elaborated on and expanded.) I'm not sure what your issue is. People who want to look up "Separated brethren" will NOT generally be looking necessarily to the article "Ecumenism and the Catholic Church", but even so, the phrase deserves its own article.Sweetpoet (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a valid point. As I noted above, I think a redirect is entirely appropriate, so the search issue is a non-issue. Anyone searching for that term would be redirected to this article automatically(even to a particular section, if that is best). As for the more specificity, I think the topic can be covered in sufficient detail in this article and within WP:UNDUE. Any more detail, in this article or in a standalone article, would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Novaseminary (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in a way, that's just your opinion, and somewhat interpretive and subjective. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are related, that are still separate articles. The term "Separated brethren" is notable and big enough, on its OWN, alone, and sourced by itself, to warrant its own article. And a few important editors agreed. So like I said, though I understand your proposal to some degree, it (to be frank) seems a bit subjective, uptight, and given the points I'm making, not really warranted. Before this article was created, there were people who specifically wanted to look up that term on Wikipedia, couldn't find it, and did NOT want to mill through stuff in another article. But just this specific topic and term alone. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it is my opinion and is potentially controversial. That is why I proposed it for discussion first rather than just redirecting it first. Please do not remove the proposal banner until the discussion here has run its course. It is there so that people are directed to discuss the issue here. You are obviously relatively new to WP (which is great since you are really adding good material) and your comments lead me to believe that you are not entirely familiar with how redirects can work. I'd encourage you to read WP:R. And check out WP:MERGE for more about what I mean by "merge." Novaseminary (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But you're incorrect on something. I know completely how "re-direct" works. I've dealt with it for months now. That's not the issue. I'll say it again: Though I do understand your position to some extent, the term "Separated brethren" is notable on its own, to warrant its own article, and NOT to be merged and mixed with some other article, with the potential of getting diluted, because of being inside another article. "Redirect" or not. (I know how things go sometimes.) I know that when something gets fused and confused into another article, months later the point of that other subject may not be as specific and clear anymore.

But even regardless of all that, it doesn't matter. There are many separated though related articles on Wikipedia. Like "Mobile phone" and "History of mobile phone". Arguably could be merged, but have been made separate. Size or not, there are many big gigantic articles out there. But people saw fit to separate those two as distinct articles, though they are VERY related, and almost the same thing! And "Separated brethren" should be found separately as its own subject and article, distinct enough, though related, from other articles. I'm NOT the only one who feels this way. This thing has already been reviewed. peace. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If this has already been "reviewed," where? Maybe those editors would like to contribute here. And just because other stuff exists, doesn't mean that it should or that it meets WP policies and guidelines. What WP policy or guideline are you relying to support your position? Keep in mind that we want to avoid setting up articles that will lead to unacceptable content forks. Novaseminary (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

all these things listed under "Notability" arguably apply to this article and subject:

General notability guideline

Significant coverage (no question of that in this case, and there's NO "original research" either)

Reliable sources

Secondary sources and multiple sources

I'm independent of the subject

Coverage in reliable sources presumes this as appropriate as a stand-alone article

also that this subject can be READILY sourced.

and also, the kicker is:

"ONLY IF appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context." But there is a number of sources that deal with the specific term "Separated brethren" alone. So to answer your question, yes, I do have WP policy and guideline to support my position. (Though I'm sure you'll dismiss it and interpret it differently. But no matter, this subject alone is easily sourced, and easily recognized, and independent, on its own, and can be proven to be so...and that's a lot of the criteria and policy.) Sweetpoet (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for highlighting the policy you think supports a separate article. I still think this topic is most appropriately handled in this article. To get enough background in the Separated brethren article to make it closer to a featured article (rather than a dictionary definition) would probably lead to a content fork of this article. Maybe not. I'd be interested to hear what other editors think. I merely made a proposal. And along those lines, I don't know whether you (Sweetpoet) were editing from 151.202.35.128 and removed the discussion banner from Catholic Church and ecumenism or not (if it was you it would violate Wp:SOCK and WP:3RR)). Either way--assuming it was not you--would you (or somebody) replace the banner to Catholic Church and ecumenism? I cannot doit until tomorrow lest I violate WP:3RR. By your own admission in your first comment here, ""Separated brethren" arguably needs its own article". If it is arguable, this is the place to do it, and the banner should not come down until consensus is reached or it is clear consensus will not be reached. Thank you! Novaseminary (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The point, again, is that I think (especially after this discussion we had) that you SHOULD NOT put that banner back.

this particular subject ALONE is referenced, and is proven to be so.

Read the bold-typed statement again, in my previous edit (as well as the list above it).

Put simply, if a specific subject or term can be sourced BY ITSELF, then that is one big reason it warrants a stand-alone article. As well as the fact that it's a known term in general. peace out....after this week I'm not dealing with this. Sweetpoet (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you do not think the aricles should be meged. That much is clear. But you do not own the article or any article and you do not unilaterally decide when a discussion is over and remove the banner, especially in contravention of WP:3RR and by using a sock puppet. Whether you want to deal with this after this week is your business. Novaseminary (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that I do not own any article, and trust me, you really need to remove the idea from your head that I'm some "clueless newbie" type. FOR REAL. I seem to know certain things that you didn't, and that you didn't seem to have a decent or correct or honest handle on, like "subject alone referenced", etc. Don't think I don't know about "ownership" or "redirect" issues, or "three revert rules" or whatever else you're bringing up. I knew this stuff ages ago already. And I know that I own nothing on Wikipedia, as all articles belong to the Wikipedia Community. But that applies to you too. You don't own any article either.

And you should not think to summarily delete an article (cuz that is really what it's tantamount to, though you can skirt around that with "merging" or whatever, the net result is an article will be deleted, that has VERY GOOD REASONS to be a separate article), simply cuz of your own uptight or personal tastes and whims. Admins saw and reviewed and approved this article. As a separate and legitimate and notable and valid article and subject. You're in a very real sense (even at this point) disrespecting and not caring about that, cuz of your own personal feelings on the matter. So just as no one person "owns" any one article, neither do you. thank you....Sweetpoet (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than fulfill my request, I see that you just removed the other banner from Separated brethren. There has been no consensus and the discussion has been open less than a few hours. Please replace the banners. As we all know, edit warring is not allowed. Novaseminary (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, and rather than address the points of my last post, you totally ignored them, and only focused on the other thing.

The point, again, is that this particular subject ALONE is referenced, and is proven to be so.

Read the bold-typed statement again, in my previous edit (as well as the list above it).

Put simply, if a specific subject or term can sourced BY ITSELF, then that is one big reason it warrants a stand-alone article. As well as the fact that it's a known term in general. peace out....Sweetpoet (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As to the substance, I understand that this subject ALONE is referenced. That is a key, improtant aspect, but not the end of the analysis. I would like to hear what others think; perhaps you could ask the administrators who reviewed this to comment here. I am very willing to be convinced. Novaseminary (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

you're proposing deletion. Even if it's with the view of admitting that it's an "important" subject. But by "proposing merger", you're in effect proposing deletion. Suggesting and putting the idea out for removal of an article. I took the time to state my case, in detail, even quoting VERBATIM Wikipedia policy and points of notability that really support my position. Instead of just putting wiki links, and citations, I put actual quotations. That should have been enough for you to let this go. And realize that this subject warranted its own article. And, also, by reporting me, so as to get me blocked, over petty nonsense that you have no actual proof that I did, and that I'm not even gonna care about after this week, you show that you just want this and me removed, and that you don't care all that much about Wikipedia policy if it may not be in your favor, on a given position, like about "subject alone sourced" and "secondary sources" etc etc, and "documentation," and other points of notability and stand-alone issues and importance.Sweetpoet (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Merging should NOT be considered if

1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

as for number 3, there's NO QUESTION that that applies to the "Separated brethren" article. It's a subject that ALONE is sourced and referenced and of interest and importance. There is a number of sources that deal with the specific term "Separated brethren" alone.

So, as I said, to answer your question, yes, I do have WP policy and guideline to support my position. This subject alone is easily sourced, and easily recognized, and independent, on its own, and can be proven to be so...and that's a lot of the criteria and policy.(As you yourself admitted.) peace. Sweetpoet (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. I no longer think the articles should be merged, though I remained concerned that Separated brethren will or is an inappropriate content fork. And I could be convinced to re-change my mind if a decent argument is made. Novaseminary (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all articles have the same import or need to be of the same length. Separated bretheren is an important term with a significant history and embodies a change in the thinking of the Catholic Church. But it is not identical to the broader topic of ecumenism. A brief description of the term in its own article is sufficient, I should think. EastmeetsWest (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the articles were merged, text paste directly from "Separated brethren" into "Unitatis Redintegratio", by Novaseminary as of 2010-07-27. The standalone article would have been better, in my opinion, because they are different concepts. "Unitatis Redintegratio" is a document while "separated brethren" is a category used in a conceptual framework of thinking. The decree "Unitatis Redintegratio" was an act passed by a vote of the Second Vatican Council. The category "separated brethren" was a development in thinking which was included in the document. "Separated brethren" is not isolated to just that document but is used in other Roman Catholic documents and norms and is part of a schema expressing the Roman Catholic understanding of ecumenism. The conceptual framework of thinking exists even if other groups do not accept or recognize it. Deferring a modern category used by the world's largest Christian church into a section about a document is not logical. It isolates the category by creating an impression that the category best relates to a document and not to the Second Vatican Council or the Roman Catholic understanding of ecumenism – it is a stand alone concept used in a schema. Reading the discussion on the last 2010 version of Talk:Separated brethren page showed other arguments were also made and reading the last 2010 version of Separated brethren, page prior to being changed into a redirect, and its history show an article about the Roman Catholic category "separated brethren" should be split back out and include any criticisms of the concept and how the concept relates to, but is different from, other terms such as "brothers in Christ" and "separated Churches in the West". --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2014 (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.

Diocese of Utrecht in 1703

To say "The Diocese of Utrecht left the Catholic Church after 1703", added in this edit, is imprecise and potentially misleading. There was no Diocese of Utrecht in 1703. The historic Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht (695–1580) was canonically suppressed during the Protestant Reformation because of persecution. After it was suppressed, its territory became part of a missionary administrative structure in the Low Countries, the Vicariate Apostolic of Batavia, erected by Pope Clement VIII in 1592. The missionary administrative structure was canonically suppressed as part of the reestablishment of the episcopal hierarchy in the Netherlands by the Roman Catholic Church in 1853 by Pope Pius IX and the current Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht was erected.

The pope exercised jurisdiction through the vicar apostolic. The group which called itself the "Roman Catholic Church of the Old Episcopal Clergy", an independent sect which was a schism separated from Roman Catholic Church, was instituted during the vicariate and became, in 1723, what was later called the Old Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht, within the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. It may be better to say that, c. 1703, the schism further developed when a faction of insubordinate secular priests rejected the authority of Theodorus de Kock, the appointed administrator of the vicariate apostolic – Kock replaced Petrus Codde, the vicar apostolic who was suspended in 1702 and deposed in 1704.

References

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The situation seems a bit murky. The diocese, you could say, did not exist, but the cathedral chapter, it seems, continued to exist, the body that traditionally had the right to elect (subject to confirmation) the bishop. They decided to do that and to declare the diocese restored (illegitimately, but from their point of view actually). The question should perhaps be developed at Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. I have made a few corrections there, but do not want to go deeper into it. (I thought I had answered this quite some time ago. It seem I failed to save it.) Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Esoglou: Yes, we did go through this before and then I did not have a source but with this I do. The question is not murky in this case. The historic archdiocese was suppressed, a missionary territory replaced it, and was, in turn, replaced with the current archdiocese. The cover letter from the Nuncio makes it clear:

These letters detail very precisely the basis of the ecclesiastical organization decided upon by the Holy Father for the five dioceses which constitute the ecclesiastical province in the Kingdom. Thus the district formerly known as the Dutch Mission, has been divided into dioceses

1. The Archidiocese of Utrecht, with the ecclesiastical district of Utrecht, Gueldre, Twenthe, Salland, Drenthe, Groningen, and Friesland.

When a diocese is suppressed, it ceases to exist. When a missionary territory is erected it begins to exist. When a missionary territory is suppressed, it ceases to exist. Pope Pius IX stated, in Ex qua die arcano, that,

[...] we decree and will, that for the present, five sees shall be so erected: namely, those of Utrecht, [...] Revolving, however, in our mind the glorious records of the church of Utrecht, and perceiving the favourable conjuncture of circumstances, we cannot, for these and other reasons, but raise or restore that illustrious see, formerly, as it were, overthrown and prostrate, to the degree of the metropolitan or archiepiscopal rank, with which dignity, [...] it was honoured by our predecessor, [...]; and we assign to it the four mentioned suffragan sees, [...] by [...] our apostolic authority we do assign give and confer. To the said archiepiscopal or metropolitan See of Utrecht, [...] the province[s] [...] which formerly constituted the greater portion of the said Dutch Mission.

He also stated that,

whatsoever other things may have obtained, whether by the ancient system of the Church of Holland, or in the subsequent condition of the Missions, from the peculiar constitutions, privileges, or especial usages thereof, shall henceforward, in consequence of the present change in circumstances, neither confer any right nor impose any obligation. And, moreover, for the purpose of removing all ambiguity and doubt, we by the power of Apostolical authority, take away from the said peculiar constitutions and privileges of every kind, and from usages, at whatever remote time introduced, and even although flourishing from time immemorial, all power whatsoever of imposing obligations or of conferring rights.

It is clear to me that there was no continuation from the past of anything.

References

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right and those who thought they were restoring the archdiocese may well be wrong. In the judgement of the Roman Catholic Church, they certainly were wrong. But they and their successors do not agree with that judgement. Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

With "the Diocese of Utrecht left the Catholic Church after 1703", I merely used the phrasing of the source. If it can be fully cited, I would have no issue with including additional information regarding the origins of the schism, including background regarding the suppression and attempt at resurrection. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A source that seems to be referred to quite often by 20th century Old Catholics is:

• One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain: Neale, John M (1858). History of the so-called Jansenist church of Holland; with a sketch of its earlier annals, and some account of the Brothers of the common life. Oxford; London: John Henry and James Parker. OCLC 600855086.

Neale wrote that, "Sasbold had been made Vicar-apostolic through the United Provinces in 1592, but he never ceased to urge the re-establishment of the Archiepiscopate of Utrecht" (p. 119). "Sasbold was consecrated [... in] 1602. It had been recommended by the Archduke, and was insisted on by Clement, that the title should not be that of Utrecht, in order to avoid unnecessary offence; and that of Philippi was accordingly substituted in its place. But, as soon as the Archduke should be willing, Sasbold was to be at liberty to assume his genuine title. This point is one of the most vital importance in the history of the Church of Holland. If Vosmeer were really Archbishop of Utrecht under the title of Philippi, her cause stands good against the efforts of her enemies; and therefore the Jesuits, and the whole host of Ultramontane writers, have always endeavoured to prove that he was merely a Vicar-apostolic, with a title in partibus" (p. 121). In 1609 he called himself "Sasbold, Archbishop, Vicar-Apostolic" in a pastoral letter. According to Neale, Cardinal Giovanni Garzia Mellini "replied to Sasbold, informing him that he must revoke his Pastoral, and must consider himself suspended from his vicariate apostolic." Later, he was relieved of the suspension (p. 130). The point is that he was "suspended from his vicariate apostolic" in 1609. About a century later, Petrus Codde was also a vicar apostolic (p. 208), as was Gerhard Potcamp (p. 212). "The Internuncio, however, found that there was no hope of procuring the consent of the States to the return of De Cock; and that the demand of the clergy for a Vicar-Apostolic was too palpably reasonable to be rejected (pp. 222–223).

Neale wrote that, "The case was now laid before the doctors of Louvain, and the three questions were put: 'Is the Church of Utrecht to be considered as collapsed, and reduced to the condition of a mere mission? Has the metropolitical Chapter survived? Does the Vicariate represent that Chapter?' By a Resolution of May 25, 1717, Van Espen, supported by four other doctors, replied to the first question in the negative; to the two latter in the affirmative" (p. 237). In 1719, the chapter appealed to a future ecumenical council, a maneuver also employed by some opponents of Pope Clement XI's 1713 apostolic constitution Unigenitus in France (p. 239). So, after about a century of being within a missionary territory administered by vicars apostolic, a faction decided that it was no so.

Neale included a list of sources (appendix i), but they are in foreign languages. @Zfish118: skim History of the so-called Jansenist church of Holland and search in the book for various key words. You will find more. By the way, you can also find History of the so-called Jansenist church of Holland at Google Books. I am reading for a different article and will not not be contributing to Old Catholic articles for some time so I don't want to get involved beyond the talk pages, etc. for now. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have limited familiarity with the subject, but have replace the line in question with the factually neutral phrasing "The Old Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht was formed in 1703,[10][disputed – discuss] in the area occupied by the historical Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht, which had been canonically suppressed in response to the Protestant Reformation in 1580.[11] and superseded by the Dutch Mission erected in 1592.[12]." I am an too unclear on the details to include anything regarding the continuing influence of the Cathedral Chapter members beyond the diocesan suppression. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Documents: relevance?

I cleaned up a little the documents list. There were some included that did not relate to ecumenism so much as religious freedom or interreligious dialogue, such as Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus of Errors. Several were missing. Aside from those that have been elevated to official Catholic Church documents, like the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, i thought it made more sense to include official dialogue reports and declarations under the relevant topic. e.g., the Balamand Statement moved to the section on relations with the Orthodox. Protoclete (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Church and ecumenism. 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/20130306113628/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104205725/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031223144638/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Catholic Church and ecumenism. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625232932/http://www.catholiccincinnati.org/tct/jun2306/062306challenges.html to http://www.catholiccincinnati.org/tct/jun2306/062306challenges.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Move Request: Lutheran-Catholic dialogue to Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue#Requested move 22 October 2017 that editors of this article might be interested in. All are invited to participate. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pope francis patriarch aphrem.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)