Talk:Arnold Mathew

This sentence is false: "It is generally suggested that Roman Catholics may fulfill their Holy Day of Obligation by attending Mass celebrated by an Old Roman Catholic priest if unable to attend a Roman Catholic Mass." This sentence is supported with commentary about Canon 844 which is incorrectly applied to the unrelated case about Canons 1247 and 1248.

Two parallel codes of law are used in the Catholic Church. The 1983 Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC) pertains only to the Latin Church while the parallel laws which pertain to the other sui iuris Churches which collectively make up the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Catholic Church are contained within the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO). Some Canons are the same, for example, 1983 CIC Canon 844 and CCEO Canon 671 are parallel laws.

1983 CIC and canon law commentaries are clear about two distinct activities:

• Canon 1247 and 1248 §1 are about Mass participation.
• Canon 844 § 2 and 844 § 5 are about the licit reception of certain sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

1983 CIC Canon 1247 states: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass."^{[1]: can.1247 [2]: n.115} "Those who have just reason for missing Mass on Sundays or holy days on a regular basis should seek a dispensation, or preferably a commutation, in accord with canon 1245," Beal et al. comments, but "those who find it impossible, or impossible without serious inconvenience, in individual instances are morally excused from the observation of the obligation and need not seek a dispensation."^[3]: 1445

1983 CIC Canon 1248 §1 states: "[...] a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite [...] satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass." , Beal et al. explains, "but not in a church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite."^[3]: 1445 Old Catholic churches are categorized as non-Catholic churches by the Catholic Church, because they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church; likewise, Old Catholic ministers are categorized as non-Catholic ministers by the Catholic Church, because they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.^[4]

1983 CIC Canon 1248 §2 states: "If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families."^{[1]: can.1248§2} Beal et al. explains that this "is a recommendation, not a binding obligation."^[3]: 1445

The 1993 Directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism states: "It is not advisable therefore to organize ecumenical services on Sundays, and it must be remembered that even when Catholics participate in ecumenical services or in services of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains."^[2]: n.115

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dogface's 2003 Talk:Arnold Mathew edit that more information about Mathew can be found on oldcatholic.com. One interesting item, found in the Wayback Machine archive of the defunct oldcatholic.com, is a purported 1911 letter accepting Mathew into communion from Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch Archbishop Gerassimos Messara, Metropolitan of Beirut, with anonymous translation into English. The letter is incorrectly identified, on the defunct oldcatholic.com, as "the official response from the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, communicated by the Metropolitan of Beirut". Messara was a Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch (an Eastern Orthodox Church) bishop not a Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (an Oriental Orthodox Church) bishop.

A reading of the this translation is problematic:

• It only states that an unspecified "oath of fidelity" was pledged by an unnamed convert.
• It does not specify who was received. The convert is nameless.
• It does not specify what the unnamed convert was received into or the type of relationship that the unnamed convert now has.
• It does not specify what the unnamed convert pledged in the unspecified "oath of fidelity" or how to cross reference that unspecified "oath of fidelity", i.e. there is no way to internally connect this document to another document.
• The translation does not mention that either a church or a congregation were received.
• No citation is given for the origin of the translation.

Messara's two actions in this translation, "I receive you among us" and "I accept your oath of fidelity to His Beatitude the Orthodox Patriarch and his Holy Synod of Antioch", certainly doesn't read like anything other than a written receipt from Messara to Mathew after accepting a written statement (libellus) from Mathew submitted to Massara as part of Mathew's reception into orthodoxy. David Heith-Stade wrote, in Studia Canonica, that a convert's written statement is a norm for receiving a convert into an Orthodox Church.^[1] This practice can be seen, for example, in the First Council of Constantinople canon 7 which requires a written recantation from heretics received into the Church.^[2]

During the 1913 trial, F. E. Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead asked Mathew, "In communicating with the Russian Church did you tell them that you had neither a church nor a congregation?" Mathew responded, "The Russian priests in London knew my position." He testified that there were two unsuccessful petitions to the Russian Orthodox Church. In court testimony, Mathew "said he also approached" Messara "with regard to union" and that Uxkull bought a house and a church for Mathew's movement but prior to the trial she wanted the properties back. Smith asked, "On the grounds that you obtained them by inaccurate statements?" Mathew's attorney objected and the judge ordered Smith to "not press the matter further".^[3]

The Patriarch "authorized the London Guardian to deny" that Mathew was received into communion and "as the Patriarch seems to have repudiated his [Messara's] action it is valueless except as a record of human folly" and Mathew remained "apparently unattached" in 1912.^[4]

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Archdiocese of Quebec statement does not imply that Claude Lacroix's ordination is valid through Mathew. It only states that:

• The Old Catholic Church of British Columbia (OCCBC) "is a Christian Church which is not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church" and "Father Lacroix is actually a validly ordained priest who always identifies himself as being a priest of the" OCCBC.
• "Roman Catholics who decide to turn to Father Lacroix for services" must follow 1983 CIC Canon 844.
• "With respect to the baptisms administered by Father Lacroix, they are valid."
• Depending into which parish's register the parents decide to have the Act of Baptism inscribed, the child will be considered, by the Roman Catholic Church, either incorporated into the Roman Catholic Church or the other religious denomination. If the parents decide that the child is Roman Catholic, then "an Act of Baptism must be entered in the register of the Roman Catholic parish in order to make official the child's membership in the Roman Catholic Church and to insure that future marginal notations will be inscribed."
• The "certificates of baptism given out by the Old Catholic Church of B.C. may be accepted for the inscription of children to First Communion and Confirmation program."
• For the "canonical form of marriage", "their marriage must be celebrated before a Roman Catholic minister and in the presence of two witnesses. If two Roman Catholics marry before an ordained minister belonging to another religious denomination, as in the case of the Old Catholic Church of B.C., their marriage is invalid from a religious point of view." --BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The disputed content does not imply that Frederick Linale's ordination is valid through Mathew. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Content added in this 2012 edit and this 2012 edit by User:Periti, which stated that Linale "obtained a declaration from Rome confirming the validity of his Orders in 1962"^[1] is contradicted by Independent Bishops which states that Linale "[...] entered the Roman Catholic Church at age 17. He was ordained priest on August 23, 1966, and consecrated on June 29, 1969, by Gerard George Shelley of the Old Roman Catholic Church in England."^[2]

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In Gagnon's letter about Letellier, Gagnon states that "it is not my intention to rule on the reports of the organization" and that "nothing allows me to doubt the validity of episcopal ordination", i.e. he states he is not a competent authority to judge Letellier's case. What was the report and what was its content?

Gagnon's letter lists this Letellier consecration back to Brearley in the 1950s but not to Mathew. It is unknown from this response letter, about which of Brearley's potential lines of apostolic succession Gagnon was writing about because Brearley was also consecrated sub conditione by others.--BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That "Old Roman Catholic jurisdictions have consistently employed the Tridentine Ordinal and Roman Pontifical for the conferral of ordinations and the consecration of bishops. This was the case with the See of Utrecht right up to and some years beyond the consecration of Mathew himself, without any alterations to the ceremonies. Mathew's Old Catholic Missal & Ritual contains his English translation of the Roman Pontifical; and, either this or the original Latin is used in all Old Roman Catholic ceremonies still to this day, even by those jurisdictions who permit modern liturgies for the Mass." is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because using a rite found in any particular liturgical book does not cause the rite to be administered correctly. It is also a straw man because lack of a correctly administered rite was not a reason for the IBC annulment declaration.

The Month related that Mathew "publicly stated in the The Occult Review that 'an essential part of the service was inadvertently admitted'" during one of his consecrations. "The elements omitted do not seem to have been of a very vital character."^[1]

• Was this publicly acknowledged deficiency the only ordination or consecration that Mathew incorrectly conferred?
• Would "prudent doubt" exist in a 21st century "diligent inquiry", under the Latin Church's 1983 CIC canon 845 §2, whether the ordinations Mathew conferred "were actually or validly conferred"?
• Would a lack of "prudent doubt" constitute indifferentism, under 1983 CIC canon 844, if a Latin Church recipient were to approach a minister whose orders originated through Mathew for a sacrament?

Questioning the sacramental minister's intention "to do what the Church does" is a straw man because Gul's lack of intention to administer the rite was not a reason for the IBC annulment declaration.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mathew's consecration was declared invalid by the IBC this renders any arguments about licitness irrelevant. So the following three points about those churches are red herrings:

1. "The canonical dispute between the Holy See and the See of Utrecht about whether the Ultrajectine See could elect its own bishops was never canonically, i.e. legally, concluded."
2. "Pius IX ignored 'due process' and erected an uncanonical hierarchy in Holland in 1853."
3. "Thus, it is arguably only just according to canonical principles to assume that the inalienable right granted by Papal Bull of Pope Eugene III is still extant and in effect."

These three points, which are not specific to Mathew or his movement, could be developed in the Old Catholic Church article.

• That "Gul consecrated and commissioned Mathew as a bishop in accordance with the norms of universal ecclesiastical law, nominating and electing him to a title." is incorrect because, in the scheme, regardless of who orchestrated it, Mathew was purportedly nominated and elected by a synod representing eight communities with 17 priests (none of which existed in reality) which were purportedly organized into a new Old Catholic Church in England; it is also incorrect because Mathew was consecrated for that new church, which became a member church of the UU – he was a signatory of the UU's Convention of Utrecht which consists of the Declaration of Utrecht, the Regulations (Reglement) and the Agreement (Vereinbarung), he was consecrated in accordance with the norms of the Convention of Utrecht.

• Mathew's consecration in 1908 and Mathew's secession from the UU in 1910 are two separate events; only what Mathew did prior to or during his consecration affected its validity and licitness of his consecration.

Mathew was not a bishop of any of the other member churches of the UU, it is unclear if he or his organization even accepted any early church canons. For example, the article does not mention if any disciplines legislated by ecumenical councils, such as the canons legislated by the Synod of Antioch in 341, one of the ancient church councils, and included in the code accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 as authoritative and approved by Pope Zachary and Pope Nicholas I were followed.^[1] The 341 Synod of Antioch canon 19 and canon 23 seem to be relevant because Mathew separated from his synod of bishops, i.e. the UU's IBC. The canons are found in the CIC and Zeger Bernhard van Espen's commentaries.^{[1][2]: 141–142} Denver Cummings' English language translation of the 341 Synod of Antioch canon 19, in The Rudder, is:

No Bishop shall be ordained without a Synod and the presence of the Metropolitan of the province. He must he present in any case, and it were better than all the fellow ministers in the province should attend the Synod too; accordingly, the bishop in the metropolis should be summoned to it by letter. And it were better that all of them should respond, but if this be found difficult, at least a majority of them ought in any case to be present or to join in the voting by means of letters, and thus let the prebend be granted by a majority of votes of those present or joining by letter. If any ordination has been obtained otherwise than has been defined and prescribed, let it be of no effect. But if a prebend has been granted in accordance with the Canon provided, and some persons should object to it on account of their having a quarrel of their own, let the majority vote prevail."^[3]

Other English language translations of these canons were made.^[1][4] Howard translated that "if it be done otherwise, against anything that hath been determined, the Laying on of Hands shall not be confirmed."^[4] Percival translated that "if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force."^[1] The Latin in van Espen is: "''Quod si secus contra definita faetum fuerit, nullas ordinatio vires habeat."^{[2]: 141–142}

John Zonaras commented on 341 Synod of Antioch canon 19 that "it must be noted that by ordination in this place is meant election and the laying on of the bishop's hand."^[1] Theodore Balsamon commented on 341 Synod of Antioch canon 19 that the method of choosing a bishop was legislated in the 325 First Council of Nicaea canon 4, but the 341 Synod of Antioch canon 19 "adds the provision that an election which takes place in violation of the provisions of this decree is null and invalid: [...] But when you hear this canon saying that there should be no election without the presence of the Metropolitan, you must not say that he ought to be present at an election (for this was prohibited, as is found written in other canons) but rather say that his presence here is a permission or persuasion, without which no election could take place."^[1] While in Cummings, "There is but little difference between this Canon and" First Council of Nicaea canon 4. [...] "If an ordination be conducted in any other manner, let it be of no effect, or, in other words, let it be null and void, But if it has been conducted in such a manner and has received the vote of a majority, but there, be some who object to the ordination, not on any reasonable ground, but out of quarrelsomeness and spite, the opinion of those some shall be of no effect, and the majority vote shall have effect and prevail, just as is asserted also in" First Council of Nicaea canon 4.^[3]

Cummings' translation of the 341 Synod of Antioch canon 23 is:

No Bishop shall be permitted to appoint another as his successor in office, even though he be approaching the end of his life. But if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void and of no effect. The ecclesiastical law shall be kept which declares that only with a synod and the decision of bishops, and not otherwise, may a worthy one be promoted to take over the authority held by the one who has been laid to rest in sleep.^[3]

Howard translated that "if any such thing be done, the Laying on of Hands shall be null."^[4] Percival translated that "if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void."^[1]

• That "The term episcopi vagantes ought not be applied to the Old Roman Catholic Church, in all its duly constituted and canonically governed ecclesial communities around the world, nor particularly its bishops," is a red herring, about a different subject, because the declared invalidity of Mathew's consecration does not affect how the term episcopi vagantes is applied to other individuals.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The title of this section, "Utrecht denial", is misleading in my opinion; it should be "Annulment of consecration" or "Declaration of nullity". There is no denial that a ritual was performed – the fact is that the churches who consecrated Mathew judged and declared that his consecration was invalid because of deception, i.e. the consecration was declared null and void because of deliberate deceit to obtain the consent of the bishops. The distinction is that a ritual was performed by a bishop with intention to perform the ritual but the sacrament was never in fact conferred because of a failure to meet the requirements and thus a consecration never existed.

• The statement that "The suggestion was that the petition [...] was false in its premise [...] and thus the consecration was invalid," is a fallacy of the single cause because only the petition is considered as a cause while other causes are ignored. The petition is just evidence of the deception. Herzog listed the following parts of the deception:^[1]

1. Name of the "Central Authority"
2. Mathew's handwritten list of the names of the eight "Parishes Organised"
3. Names of the clergy of each parish
4. Names of the trustees of each parish
5. Names of 16 lay people and 17 clergy who served as members of the 18 February 1908 synod in Chelsfield which elected Mathew
6. 13 March 1908 letter requesting the consecration of bishop-elect Mathew signed by three laymen and three clergy including O'Halloran

After his consecration, Mathew admitted that the seventeen priests and the eight congregations did not exist in reality and, as Mathew admitted, that the documents submitted to Herzog were in fact fraudulent.

Similar propaganda, written by Arthur Galton,^[2] the domestic chaplain of the Church of England's Bishop of Ripon, William Boyd Carpenter, about a fictitious group of rebellious Catholic priests was refuted in 1902;^[3][4] there was no evidence of their existence either; O'Halloran was involved and described himself at the time as the "subsidiary bishop-elect" of Ealing.^[2][5][6][7] In 1897, Cardinal Herbert Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster, was instructed by the Holy See to issue a public and official notice that O'Halloran had been canonically suspended from the use of all ecclesiastical faculties and "that his place of worship is not recognized as a Catholic Church or Chapel, and that no Catholic can frequent it, or receive Sacraments from him, without sin."^[8]

• The fact that "Mathew had disclosed the matter fully to the Dutch bishops days after the consecration" is a red herring because only what Mathew did prior to and during consecration affected its validity and licitness.

He only publicly responded to a letter, written by O'Halloran,^[1]: 346 under the pseudonym "Incredulous", published 13 May in The Guardian.^[9]

On 20 May, Mathew indicated that he was himself deceived by O'Halloran.^{[10][1]: 346} Yet weeks earlier, Mathew and O'Halloran traveled to Utrecht where Mathew personally presented him to Gul.^[1]: 346 Herzog believed that both, Mathew and O'Halloran, agreed and understood, that the intention was to deceive the IBC bishops. He asked in 1915 the following questions:

1. How could Mathew provide a list of "organised parishes", in his own handwriting, that wanted to have him bishop and not know that none of these "parishes" existed?^[1]: 346
2. How could Mathew, who lived at that time in Chelsfield, on the outskirts of London, where the episcopal election took place, not know that a synod never even met there like O'Halloran reported?^[1]: 346 Or, in my opinion, request to meet with the synod? Or, in my opinion, why the synod was held in Chelsfield and not in Ealing?
3. How can a bishop-elect who is ministering to eight communities with 17 priests, in ten weeks between his election and his consecration, lack the interest to know more about those communities who wanted him bishop?^[1]: 346 Or, in my opinion, visit some of those communities near greater London?

This intention to deceive, according to Herzog, was further supported by the fact that both, Mathew and O'Halloran, opposed van Thiel traveling to England to visit those Old Catholic communities, found in Mathew's handwritten list, before the consecration.

• That "elements [...] exerted pressure on the Dutch Church to disavow the English Old Catholics, [...] without result," is a furtive fallacy because it implies that subjective opinions rather than the objective facts (that the seventeen priests and the eight congregations did not exist in reality and, as Mathew admitted, that the documents submitted to Herzog were in fact fraudulent) affected the IBC annulment declaration.

That "[...] they intended to besmirch [...] Mathew's character by elaborating [...] that Mathew's credentials [...] contained false statements," is an appeal to motive. Regardless, the seventeen priests and the eight congregations did not exist in reality and, as Mathew admitted, that the documents submitted to Herzog were in fact fraudulent.

"but the bishops of Holland, after a thorough investigation themselves, vindicated Mathew", is incorrect because Mathew was not vindicated in the IBC annulment declaration.

That "The Roman priest himself recalled the original statement, saying that since he made it he had satisfied himself by a personal investigation that it was groundless", is a red herring because that individual's conclusion does not affect the IBC annulment declaration.

• That "IBC bishops inquired into the circumstances and Mathew was publicly exonerated from all suggestion of misrepresentation in a letter to The Guardian of 3 June 1908", (the letter can be read online here and here) is debatable and Mathew used it,^[11] but it is irrelevant because the letter was just the IBC bishops first public communication about the Mathew affair and not a judgment by the IBC about the validity of Mathew's consecration.

• That in 1908 "the bishops also refused Mathew's request to retire" is a straw man because Mathew was a bishop of his fictitious Church (the seventeen priests and the eight congregations did not exist in reality), which was accepted as a member Church into the UU, not a bishop of the UU or one of the other member Churches. Moss explained that "there is no means of compelling him [a bishop] to resign."^[12]: 297

• That in 1909 Mathew assisted "at Kowalski's consecration, so [...] there was no suggestion of mala fides or 'invalidity' then" is an argument from ignorance because you can't prove a negative and besides, as Smit explained, "ties of the IBC with Mathew were formally severed" in 1913 not in 1909; Mathew separated himself from UU communion in 1910 not in 1909. It is also straw man because the validity of Mathew's consecration was presumed until it was stated otherwise in the IBC annulment declaration. These are three different events, two about relationships and one about invalidity.

1. Mathew's separation from UU/IBC communion in 1910.
2. IBC's formal severing of ties with Mathew in 1913.
3. IBC's annulment declaration in 1920.

• Most of the paragraph about why UU "may have been influenced by a desire to have closer relations with the Anglican Communion" is an appeal to motive. This point, which is partly specific to Mathew but more general about the development of ecumenical relations, could be developed in the Old Catholic Church article with a summary in this article.

• That Apostolicae Curae "was the impetus for some Anglican clergy to seek Mathew for clandestine reordination" is an appeal to motive about the clandestine reordinations but not about the validity of Mathew's consecration.

This point could be developed in the Order of Corporate Reunion article with a summary of Mathew's involvement this article.

• That Apostolicae Curae "may almost have been the basis upon which some had supported the petition for his consecration by Utrecht" is an appeal to motive. It also denies, what Mathew had admitted, that the documents submitted to Herzog were in fact fraudulent. Speculation about the motives of imaginary petitioners is nonsensical.

• That "The new Utrecht position however, cannot and does not alter the sacramental validity of Mathew's consecration [...]" is faulty reasoning because correlation does not prove causation

and that "[...] the sacramental validity of Mathew's consecration which relies solely on the ceremony and intentions of the consecrating bishops rather than on any external circumstances," is a straw man because it excludes the recipient's intention.

• That "no one questioned the intentions of the bishops involved, according to sacramental theology and canonical principles, Mathew's consecration can only be considered valid. '…an act, especially one as solemn as an ordination, must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated'," is begging the question because it assumes without proof that the invalidity of Mathew's consecration was never challenged nor demonstrated. It also implies that challenging Mathew's consecration must happen only before or during his consecration. It is also a straw man because it excludes the recipient's intention.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This entire section is currently about the Latin Church understanding not about the Old Catholic churches. Nothing here actually discusses the Old Catholic churches' understanding of schism or excommunication. Although most of it is about valid but illicit sacraments, some of it does not cover the specifics about Mathew's case accurately. I think the references to the abrogated 1917 CIC should be changed to the current 1983 CIC and commentaries.

• The argument about whether a single bishop can consecrate without a papal mandate is a false dilemma because it does not apply to bishops of other Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, i.e. Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, etc.

Within the Latin Church, according to 1983 CIC canons 1013 1014, "No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate," and "[u]nless the Apostolic See has granted a dispensation, the principal bishop consecrator in an episcopal consecration is to be joined by at least two consecrating bishops; it is especially appropriate, however, that all the bishops present consecrate the elect together with the bishops mentioned." "A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See," according to canon 1382. John Beal's et al. New commentary on the Code of Canon Law comments that this "a major violation of hierarchical communion" and that the "seriousness of this violation is evident in its being one of only five latae sententiae excommunications reserved to the Holy See."^[1]: 1588

Cekeda argued that such an act, without a pontifical mandate, was valid.^[2] Beal et al. commented that more than one bishop consecrator "is not necessary theologically or canonically for the validity of the consecration".^[1]: 1589

• That "Sometimes, it is asserted that, because Mathew was excommunicated by Pius X, anyone ordained or consecrated by him thereafter incurs the same penalty", is straw man because each ordination or consecration is separate and judged individually. The translation of the act in The Tablet shows that future recipients were not mentioned. Pope Pius X excommunicated and anathematised Beale, Howarth, Mathew, "and all others who [...] have given aid, counsel, or consent" to the consecration of Beale and Howarth, and declared "that they are to be held as cut off from the communion of the Church, and as utterly schismatic, to be by all Catholics, and especially by you, avoided."^[3]

• Cekada made clear that "penalties aren't contagious".^[4] See CIC1917 canon 2372 about reception of orders from censured ecclesiastics and canon 2219 §3 about interpretation of penalties.^[5]

Pius X pronounced that the consecrations of Beale and Howarth were "unlawful and sacrilegious and wholly contrary to the commands of this Holy See and the sanction of the Sacred Canons."^[3]

• The argument about reception of sacraments by Catholics from excommunicated minister as provided for in 1917 CIC canon 2261 and superseded by 1983 CIC canons 1331 and 1335; is a straw man because it is an exception to censures in consequence of the cleric being both incorporated in and excommunicated from the Latin Church. It only applies to excommunicated Latin Church clergy and not to non-Catholic clergy. For example, it would apply to Beale, Howarth, and Mathew but not to Berghes, Williams, and other the Protestants ordained or consecrated by Mathew.

The reception of sacraments by Catholics from non-Catholic ministers, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, is defined in 1983 CIC canon 844 in the Latin Church and the parallel CCEO canon 671 in the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Catholic Church both of which require the recipient to avoid "danger of error or of indifferentism" and is regulated by the local Catholic bishop. See discussion on this talk page here

• The argument, based on 1917 CIC canon 2258 §2, that "No Old Roman Catholic bishops have been declared excommunicate since Mathew. Thus as his excommunication is not contagious, this scenario does not apply", is a red herring because each excommunication is individual and affects one person. A decree may contain more than one excommunication but each excommunicated person has the freedom to reconcile with the Catholic Church individually.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Episcopi vagantes#RCC recognition of ordinations by episcopi vagantes

• That "The Old Catholic Church of British Columbia (OCCBC) was once a probationary member of the UU; the OCCBC's orders are derived from Mathew, the union accepted the validity of their orders", 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".^{[1]: rpt.pp.10–11}

• The statement that "There are various incidences where Old Roman Catholic orders have been affirmed by theologians, canonists and even representatives of the Holy See" and that the RCC "has repeatedly affirmed its recognition of the validity of the orders and sacraments of the Old Roman Catholic Church throughout the world" are conflated explanations because the words "Old Roman Catholic" are used to identify more than one concept, i.e. the legacy identification of the OKKN,^[2] the Joseph René Vilatte "Old Roman Catholic Church of America" incorporated in Illinois 1904,^[3][4][5] the Mathew group which used a variety of labels that included "Old Roman Catholic Western Orthodox Church" in England from 1908,^{[6]: 187, 192, 194, 198–200, 203} the Rudolph de Landas Berghes "Old Roman Catholic Church of America" in Illinois from 1915, Berghes and Carmel Henry Carfora "North American Old Roman Catholic Diocese" incorporated in Illinois 1917,^[7] and various minuscule episcopi vagantes entities. In other words, the signifier and signified are not the same matched pair throughout the explanation.

This conflated explanation is also a genetic fallacy because opinions presented as affirmations, originating from individual Catholics, are not the same as official statements, originating from the Catholic Church.

There is a difference between an explanation why something is believed and a justification why something is true. A more current meaning or context can be found, for example, in a 1994 article in The Tablet :

The Catholic Church has not issued a judgement on the validity of the orders of Old Catholics, but it is known that in a small number of cases in recent decades, Old Catholic priests who have been received into full communion have been admitted to priesthood in the Catholic Church without reordination. So, there is a practical supposition that bishops of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht are true bishops and are therefore suitable ministers of ordination. But "suitability" (being able to ordain validly) is not the only issue.
Apart from a person's capacity, in canon law, to be ordained, there is the question of his intention to receive Catholic priesthood.^[8]

And in another 1994 article in The Tablet :

The important thing in this context is that we are not talking about bogus episcopi vagantes belonging to the sects with titles which often include the words "Old Catholic". We are talking about Churches recognised by Rome in much the same terms as the Orthodox: Churches separated from Rome but whose orders, ministry and sacraments have never been in question.^[9]

And in another 1994 article in The Tablet :

Few theologians would now wish to defend a narrow "pipe-line theory", which would base the bishop's authority on the historical succession of episcopal ordinations alone without reference to the succession maintained by the Churches themselves; few would attempt any theological justification for episcopi vagantes (clandestinely consecrated bishops without recognised sees).^[10]

The group standard is not if a sect self identifies as a Church or includes the word "church" in its name; the group standard is whether the sect meets the criteria and is recognized as a Church.

The individual standard for whether the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders "were actually or validly conferred" is, according to the Latin Church's 1983 CIC canon 845 §2, a "diligent inquiry" and if "a prudent doubt still exists" "after completing a diligent inquiry" then the sacraments "are to be conferred conditionally." "Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit," according to canon 841, "it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity."

• That "This indicates that there were no apparent perceived problems in relation to valid holy orders in the early 20th century" and that "The orders of de Landes, consecrated after Mathew left the UU, were apparently viewed by his contemporaries as valid despite any adverse comments from Utrecht", is speculation. The following articles (which I have not read) were cited by Herzog, about the validity of Mathew's and Berghes' orders and may shed some insight about the facts:

• The living church. Chicago, IL. 1914-12-12. ISSN 0161-8466. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• The churchman. New York. 1915-03-06. ISSN 0009-6628. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• The living church. Chicago, IL. 1915-03-20. ISSN 0161-8466. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• The living church. Chicago, IL. 1915-04-17. ISSN 0161-8466. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• The living church. Chicago, IL. 1915-04-30. ISSN 0161-8466. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• Details about Linale are discussed on this talk page here.

• Details about Letellier are discussed on this talk page here.

• The statement that "there is [...] evidence that the apostolic succession [...] originating from the OKKN, has been consistently considered 'valid' by Vatican officials and Roman Catholic canon lawyers and theologians" is a straw man because what individuals' believe is not the same as what the Catholic Church publicly states. In 1913, Fleming testified in Mathew v. "The Times" Publishing Co., Ltd. about the OKKN that, "The Holy See or the Pontiff has never condemned these orders as invalid; but he has never explicitly recognized them."

• That in "such cases it has been assumed that orthodox praxis and intention has been concurrent with each ordination/consecration and the cases of particular affirmation have only been of individuals known to be conservative in Catholic doctrine. In all above cases too, only the Roman Pontifical was used for the Rite of Consecration, other liturgies are not therefore affirmed. It certainly cannot be assumed that the arguments and affirmations detailed here are in any way applicable across the board to other groups outside the Old Roman Catholic tradition, most especially those whose teachings are not consistent with orthodox and conservative Catholic doctrine. Similarly, though the canonical principles above may be applied to other scenarios, the conclusions rely inherently on orthodox Catholic praxis and would not apply to those demonstrably apostate or heretical by comparison to traditional Catholic doctrine." Is this original research? Or is it a repetition of the other subsections in the Valid section.

• The suggestion "that Roman Catholics may fulfill their Holy Day of Obligation by attending Mass celebrated by an Old Roman Catholic priest if unable to attend a Roman Catholic Mass" is disputed on this talk page here.

• The quote from Dominus Iesus (DI) (n. 17), about "a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church" and other "Churches which [...] remain united to her [...] by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches," is about relationships with "Churches" and not about relationships with "churches". The capitalization conveys meaning in this case. "Particular Churches, in which and from which the one and only catholic Church exists, are principally dioceses," according to 1983 CIC canon 368. Is there any evidence that any of the Mathew groups are recognized as Churches by the Catholic Church?

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost none of the content in the Validity section is about how or why Mathew's consecration can be considered valid taking into account the IBC annulment declaration. Most of the section's content is about the validity of consecrations in general but from a Traditionalist Catholic perspective which rejects the Second Vatican Council – not from an Old Catholic perspective which also rejects the disciplinary canons of the Council of Trent and all of the First Vatican Council.^[1] Most of the content relies on two articles,^[2][3] by Anthony Cekada but does not include Cekada's article about Old Catholics.^[4] Smit wrote that "the Church of Utrecht used the entirety of the Corpus Juris Canonici," (CIC) mainly Zeger Bernhard van Espen's Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum and "a considerable body of particular canon law".^{[5]: 74 [6][7][8][9]} This section should begin with the canons and discipline followed by the Church which consecrated Mathew; it only makes sense to use their understanding. The CIC was abrogated in the Latin Church by the 1917 Code of Canon Law in 1918, which in turn, was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law in 1983. Do all Old Catholic churches follow the CIC as a common set of canons? According to Smit, Old Catholic churches did codify canon law.^[5]: 74

Herzog's 1915 discourse, in which he wrote that a surreptitious consecration, under false pretenses and on presentation of false documents, can not be recognized as valid, even if the rite of ordination had been accurately performed by real bishops.^[10]: 271

The section does not mention if in the Old Catholic churches, as in the Latin Church's 1983 CIC canon 1708 (1917 CIC canon 1994), the validity of an ordination can be challenged by the ordinary in whose diocese the cleric was ordained.^{[11]: 554 [12]: 388} The standard, in the Latin Church's 1983 CIC canon 845 §2 (1917 CIC canon 732), 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." Orders are the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate according to canon 1009 §1. A former Church of England Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, was conditionally ordained in 1994, because of prudent doubt about whether his orders were validly conferred in accordance with canon 845 §2 since an Old Catholic bishop participated in the consecration of a CoE bishop in whose succession Leonard received orders, instead of being absolutely ordained.

In the Traditionalist Catholic understanding, in 1980 (i.e. prior to the promulgation of 1983 CIC canon 845 §2) Cekada explained how 1917 CIC canon 732 §2 applies to some Old Catholic bishop:

In most cases, it is impossible to prove that an ordination or consecration performed by an Old Catholic bishop in this country is unquestionably valid. In Europe, the question is less complicated, since the Jansenist sects enjoy a certain amount of stability. In this country, however, there exists a multitude of different Old Catholic sects. Consequently, no one has a centralized and comprehensive body of certified documentation which keeps track of the lines of the ordinations and consecrations performed in all these splinter groups. This casts some doubt upon the validity of the orders they claim to possess. Since the Catholic Church teaches that one cannot act if there is a positive doubt regarding the validity of a sacrament, one is obliged to treat their clergymen as though they were invalidly ordained.^[4]

The entire aspect of intention is missing in this section and subsections. The 2001 declaration that Mormon baptism is invalid demonstrates that some sacraments are invalid solely on the basis of intention even if the ritual is performed correctly. In the context of Mathew, for example, whether the Liberal Catholic Church "has preserved valid orders in the light of proper intention is questionable," according to William J. Whalen, in his 1958 Separated Brethren.^[13] Whalen's opinion is not an official statement but does show an opinion from the mid 20th century. This aspect should be developed. Does this affect Mathew or just some of the bishops he consecrated?

What are the standard's by which Old Catholic churches judge validity?

Individual critiques of content in subsections

Details about the Utrecht denial section are discussed on this talk page here.

Details about the Rite section are discussed on this talk page here.

Details about the "Schismatic" or "excommunicate" ordinations section are discussed on this talk page here.

Details about the Licit or illicit section are discussed on this talk page here.

Details about the Affirmations of validity section are discussed on this talk page here.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is full of templates giving strange formats. If an abbreviation is unusual enough to need an explanation, write the full name... and what about that pink stuff? It makes the article difficult to read. --90.236.123.78 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I used abbreviations because it provides more accuracy. For example, when I first read this and similar articles which included the term "Old Catholic" I had difficulty determining what were the actual names of several groups. For example, in the "Old Roman Catholic Church" section (this version) of this article, I see at least seven different variations of "Old Roman Catholic" labels:

• Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe (ORCCE)
• Old Roman Catholic Church Latin Rite (ORCC/LR)
• Old Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain (ORCC/GB)
• Old Roman Catholic Church of North America
• Old Roman Catholic Church: See of Caer-Glow (ORCC/SoG)
• Old Roman Catholic Church in North America (ORCCNA)
• several entities self-identifying as "North American Old Roman Catholic Church (NAORCC)

In addition, another contributor wrote that "There are other churches using the name 'Old Roman Catholic' that have no direct connection to the above". The abbreviations convey what the names of the identified groups are. Furthermore, "Old Roman Catholic Church of North America" is not the same entity as "Old Roman Catholic Church in North America" and a reader may further misunderstand this critical detail by projecting a more common but erroneous understanding that both are the same as the "North American Old Roman Catholic Church" which is an entirely different entity altogether. The abbreviations remove a layer of semantic confusion about the actual name and count of entities. They disambiguate on the page. My opinion is that these entities chose their names for what seemed like a good reason to them and were unaware of the benefits of having an easily recognized name that is not confused with different entities – but that is neither-here-nor-there. An uninformed contributor or for that matter a reader does not have to misunderstand such basic yet confusing details like the names of these groups. It is too easy to erroneously correct these names when they are not acronyms.

I wrapped content in the article with "that pink stuff" to help future contributors see what I saw as poorly attributed claims. I also question the factual accuracy of the "Validity" section and subsections of this article. I disputed "whether any episcopal acts originating from Mathew can be considered valid or if Mathew's consecration can be considered valid taking into account the IBC's annulment declaration". I did not just remove a large part of the article but I added an extensive discussion on the talk page and the wrapped content in the article that is relevant to the dispute on this talk page. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arnold Mathew. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130630213728/http://www.thedegree.org/cardgagnon.html to http://www.thedegree.org/cardgagnon.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}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 21:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

POV nonsense everywhere, blatant editorializing by at least four distinct identifiable factions. Clean up the mess.2601:406:280:540:71C8:2432:91C6:F106 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)LS

This infobox alone is throwing these errors that need fixing:

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "date of consecration 2" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 6" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 14" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "date of priestly ordinati..." Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 11" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "co-consecrators 1" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 2" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 2" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 10" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 12" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "co-consecrators 2" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 11" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "sources" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 16" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 16" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 13" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 9" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 13" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 15" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 7" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 10" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 3" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 9" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 14" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 3" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 8" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 7" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 12" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 4" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 6" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 5" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 5" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 4" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 8" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 1" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecrated by 1" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "bishop 1" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecrated by 2" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "date of consecration 1" Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox Christian leader with unknown parameter "consecration date 15"

Dhpage (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)