www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall To be Catholic...

I hope everyone�s doing well this week, I know that I am.

The reason I am writing this post today is to garner the sensus fidelium , if you will, of some of the members of this Forum on the topic of �catholicity.� Basically, I�d like to find out the opinions you all have on what constitutes being a �Catholic� and what does not.

The purpose is not to spark a contentious debate but much more simply to find out how the average �catholic� (note the lower case) views others who do not necessarily share their exact discipline or expression of catholicity.

Now, to begin this topic I would like to enumerate several key groupings of �Catholics�-in the broadest sense of the term.

I. Roman Catholics
II. Eastern Catholics
III. Old Catholics
IV. Anglican Catholics
V. �Traditionalist� Catholics (i.e. SSPX, etc)
VI. �National� Catholics� (i.e. Polish National)
VII. �Independent� Catholics

For all practical purposes, the seven groupings that I have listed all purport to possess proper �catholicity.� Of course, many of the groups listed above also claim exclusive rights to the term � catholic� and believe that true catholicity is contained solely within their own grouping.

What I find most curious about these groups is that they all claim to possess the Faith that was handed down by the Apostles as appointed by Jesus Christ (As opposed to Protestantism or any other such sect). But they differ in many respects.

One important point to make here though is that the major differences that do exist among these seven groups are not overtly theological but are primarily disciplinary.

Each of the churches above has its own form of discipline written in some form of a canon law. This law in turn is derived from different sources (which invariably include Holy Scripture and Tradition).

All of these groups have differences in some matters dealing with theology. Some are major issues, but most are minor. I am sure we all know more than a few examples.

But, all of these seven churches honestly seem to share more in common than any thing else. For instance, all believe that Apostolic Succession is necessary. We all share the same sacraments and consider them valid so long as they have received apostolic succession from recognized sources (valid but illicit as Rome would say) and understand most importantly that the Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith and is not merely a symbolic representation but a real manifestation of Gods grace. The Virgin Mary and the saints are honored by our churches. Our liturgies are very different but the Eucharist is always central to our lives.

If asked, �What are you?� all of these groups will answer �Catholic�

Now, I would like to specifically ask my Eastern Catholic brethren, who do you, think (in the list above or any others) should be considered �catholic�? I am almost positive that most Eastern Catholics view the Orthodox, who do not share visible unity with the Roman Pontiff, as �catholic.� Many argue that to be Catholic is to be united with the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, would it be so wrong to consider III-VII catholic? As long as their sacramental life is valid, isn�t that what matters in terms of catholicity?

Anyway, I hope to gain some real interesting ideas and insight on this subject from all you who are interested.

ProCatholico

Dear poster,

I think one of the key elements of those other groups who call themselves "Catholic", is that they have in one way or another fallen into sacramental and doctrinal heresy.

How many Old Catholic groups still limit priestly ordination to men?
How many Old Catholic and Anglo-Catholic groups have celibate bishops?
How many Old Catholic groups refrain from blessing same sex unions?
How many 'vagante' groups have actual congregations?
How many Anglo-Catholic groups reject the 39 Articles?

Dear Michael_Thoma,

Thank you for your opinion.

As for certain groups falling into doctrinal/sacramental heresy, I have no doubt that many such groups exist and it is lamentable that they do.

But we must ask ourselves; who decides what is and what is not doctrinally and sacramtentally unsound? For Romans, the answer is easy-the Magisterium. For the Orthodox it is their Councils. And so on and forth, depending on the group.

But dont misunderstand me now. Hypothetically, say a group is claiming they are Catholic-but they deny the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession. This group would naturally have to be considered heretical-but why?

Well, because all of the seven groups that I've listed above have certain minumum similarities that they claim are requirements to be Catholic. This means that they ALL agree that certain things are basic for the faith (i.e. Apostolic Sucession, the Real Presence, etc).

Now, if you deny these bare minimums then you've got yourself a problem. However, most of what people often confuse with doctrinal differences are merely divergent disciplines.

You've posed a list of questions, I dont know if you meant them to be rhetorical, but I have no problems answering them.

1. Old Catholicsm is a varied group as most of us know. Some groups do ordain women and some do not. As far as I know there are no figures to state explicitly how many groups exist for each.

2. Again, I do not believe there are figures for this. But this is a discipline. Even Rome has had married bishops before.

3. Many do in fact refrain from this. For instance there are the churches of the ICAN (Catholic Apostolic National Churches-of Duarte Costa)

4. Many do not. But a good many do. And vagante is pejorative. "Independent" is more respectful.

5. I know of a few Anglo-Papalists groups that do not make mention of them, and in any case, most others just pay lip-service to the Articles.


Lastly, I do appreciate your comments. Often, as Vatican Catholics or Canonical Eastern Orthodox we often are so dismissive and critical towards our independent Catholic brethren. We gladly overlook the commanalities that we have and focus on the disciplinary differences. I argue that understanding which leads to respectful coexistence and toleration should be fostered among our churches at the very least.


ProCatholico

PC-

I'll answer this a bit differently. Most I'd imagine will answer this in as essentially a matter of "what doctrines do you hold"; believing certain doctrines = Catholic. Some might go even further and make it an almost sectarian difference between "Catholicism" and everything else.

I view it as a matter of a life-style; but even more than that a new reality. Catholcism is truly a new life. You have "put on" God in your baptism. You have forever received the gift of the Holy Spirit. By the Eucharist you are invited (daily!) to God's Mystical Supper where you touch, even eat God Himself and are united to Him.

Catholicism means that you are a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, and part of the Body fo Christ, which has opened the gates of Paradise to you. Why would you not love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself?

Finally, Catholicism is united to the Body of Christ, in the Church He founded on earth which is guided by the Holy Spirit and who the gates of hell will not overcome. We are united to other members both in this world and in the next, and through the public worshop (liturgy) of the hours and of the sacraments, and by our lives of prayer. We live in union with the rest of the Church as the body of Christ because of the promise that it will prevail, in the faith He taught the apostles which the Church carries to this day.

Now, of course there are divisions. First is the split between what we call "legitimate churches", i.e. particular churches with apostolic succession and legitimate sacraments but who are not in union with each other. Despite the non-union, the way I read Dominus Iesus is that these churches are also part of the Catholic Church because of their maintenance of everything that was given them by the Apostles and their sacraments (though others have disagreed with me on this board).

As far as other "Catholics" that you mentioned, if they are not union with the rest of the Church, if they have not retained the faith given by Christ to the Apostles (NOT what they think it is, but what it really is), if they do not accept certain sacraments or are in union with those who do not, if they allow things that are clearly in contrast with the rest of the Church (i.e. the Rome and the Orthdox), then I'd question whether or not they are really "Catholic". I however am no ecclesiologist nor hierarch; it's not my place to make judgments, so I should not say anything about particular grouping.

Note of course that this doesn't stop anyone from claiming that they are "Catholic".


Anyway, that's my answer to "what constitutes being a �Catholic� ". I know it doesn't really answer your question, but nevertheless it's my answer.

Best,

Markos

Dear PC,

The only form of "independence" recognized by Catholicism is autocephaly or autonomy (sui juris), that is through the approval of its mother Holy Synod. Who gave these "independent" groups their independence?

2. Again, I do not believe there are figures for this. But this is a discipline. Even Rome has had married bishops before.

Yes, but this discipline was then codified by Ecumenical Council. Who removed this and with what authority?

3. Many do in fact refrain from this. For instance there are the churches of the ICAN (Catholic Apostolic National Churches-of Duarte Costa)

Where does the Succession of this group come from? Is that person "legitimate"? Which Church ordained him and his consecrator, is he true to the Faith?

4. Many do not. But a good many do. And vagante is pejorative. "Independent" is more respectful.
How is it pejorative - 'vagante' means a Bishop without a see or diocese, who know how many of these are really even bishops?

Often, as Vatican Catholics or Canonical Eastern Orthodox we often are so dismissive and critical towards our independent Catholic brethren.

How can someone be Catholic and independent? Either the Church is in Communion with the rest of the Church, or it is not. Either they claim to be the only REAL Church we must join them, or they must repent and join the real Church.

Dear Markos,

I'd first like to thank you for your input. Your response was both comprehensive and balanced.

I entirely agree with the following statement which you so eloquently stated.

This idea can perhaps be seen as the foundation of catholicity. As long as we begin here, I think we're in pretty good shape as 'catholics'.

You also mentioned Dominus Iesus and the way you've understood it. Similarly, I have read it to include all those churches (whether in communion with Rome or not) who share the essentials of our faith but not necessarily our particular discipline.

St. Augustine perhaps put it best;

"In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity"

ProCatholico

This evening I attended a mass at an "Independent" Catholic Church.

Their priests are validly ordained as they have proper apostolic succession. But, Rome obviously see's them as illicit.

The mass was a typical NO, which any Roman Catholic would be accustomed to. There were minor variations (but nothing that an average Catholic would notice and nothing that I've not already seen at some Roman parishes)

Interestingly, the priest said at the time of the intention, the mass was offered along with "the Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI" and followed by the names of the particular bishops of that Church.

Anyhow, was a welcoming parish and a lovely experience.

ProCatholico

PC,

I'm not really certain the point of the initial query but, given your most recent post, I cannot help but wonder if you are seeking validation of a choice that you have decided to consider making - if I am incorrect in that regard, my sincere apologies.

Regardless of your motivation, however, as a long-time student of the �independent Catholic/Orthodox� genre (meaning those ecclesia terming themselves Catholic or Orthodox but not in communion with the Churches of the Roman, Constantinoplian, or Oriental Communions, let me offer a few thoughts. Some of these will be in line with the points that Michael stated above, a few will not. (I may end up revisiting the topic tomorrow night, as I�m uncertain that I have sufficient time right now to address all the points.)

Firstly, your groupings:

I. Roman Catholics
II. Eastern Catholics

I don't think that, in the context which you have presented, one can legitimately separate
Latin (those you termed Roman) and Eastern Catholics, since - the existence of the 23 sui iuris Churches aside, there is an entity that encompasses the lot of them - call it �The� Catholic Church - �The �Roman Catholic Church� or what you will.

III. Old Catholics

Old Catholics are, in the strictest sense, only those who are adherents to ecclesia which belong to the Utrecht Confession. I'm uncertain how encompassing you intended to be by your use of the term. The sole body outside of Europe that the Old Catholics recognized and with which they formerly had communion was the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC).

There are two principal reasons for this. Most of those from North America who sought episcopal ordination from Utrecht ultimately were so seized with the notion of having �their own Church� that, once back on their home territory, they either failed to maintain or quickly broke relations with Utrecht; others were, just as quickly, distanced by Utrecht from itself, since it found them an embarrassment. The outgrowth of this can be seen in the decreasing frequency with which Utrecht conferred episcopal orders on Americans over time. Even the early ecclesial establishments in America of expatriate bishops, themselves originating in Utrecht, such as Rudolph Edward de Landes Berghes, eventually separated from it - initially isolated by WWI and, subsequently, by choices made and ignored.

So, when one speaks of Old Catholics - if the intent is to include both Utrecht and the myriad bodies which style themselves as �Old Catholic� or �Old Roman Catholic� (an American permutation), I find it useful to distinguish between them as:

• �Old Catholic�,
• �Old Catholic-type�, and,
• �independent Catholic�.

In this admittedly subjective exercise, I reserve:

• the first descriptor to Utrecht itself;
• the second to those North American bodies which essentially adhere to the theological, dogmatic, and doctrinal precepts that marked Utrecht (before it undertook the more recent innovations that have caused it to take on a more Protestant aura) and some, but not all, of which denominate themselves as �Old Catholic�; and,
• move the remainder, self-identification aside, to a separate categorization (your group VII, I guess).

I�m getting ahead of myself, I suppose, but the �Catholicity� of ecclesia in this particular grouping is much diminished as regards those of the Utrecht Communion given the doctrinal diversion that has permitted ordination of women to their presbyterate and, more recently, their episcopate. It means, for Utrecht, that - in time, their orders and succession will suffer invalidity as female hierarchs participate in ordinations, presbyteral or episcopal.

There remain, within the grouping which I have designated as �Old Catholic-type�, several Churches that much more closely emulate and preserve the tenets, precepts, and theology of historic Old Catholicism. An excellent example is the Catholic Apostolic National Church (nee The Old Catholic Church of the United States) under the leadership of Archbishop Robert Gubala, Bishop Andre Queen, and its other respected hierarchs. (The CANC has most recently affiliated itself with the Brazilian ICAN, bringing itself closer to Roman Catholicism - an expressed interest on the part of its hierarchy.)

IV. Anglican Catholics

Another problematic umbrella, encompassing as it does, at least on its face, diverse bodies not all of which would acknowledge one another as occupying space within the same continuum. To the casual observer, the typology would include Archbishop Hepworth�s Traditional Anglican Communion, myriad High Church and/or Anglo-Catholic congregations within the historic Anglican Communion, the Anglican Catholic Church (Province of Christ the King under Archbishop Robert Sherwood Morse), the Charismatic Episcopal Church (which, name aside, does not have origins in the Anglican or Episcopal Churches), and others.

I have struggled with how to categorize the very ecclesia which I think you intend by this grouping and my most recent internal debate concluded in rejecting outright Anglo-Catholic or Anglican Catholic, in favor of �Catholic-type High Churches�. It is, admittedly, an awkward and linguistically ugly conformation, but one that allows me to incorporate into it such ecclesiastical curiosities (and I do not mean that term pejoratively) as the Evangelical Catholic Church - headed by the deservedly-respected Bishop Karl Berwick, the Augustana Evangelical Catholic Communion, and some other Lutheran Churches that totter on the fringe of mainstream Catholic belief, as well as liturgical praxis, without creating yet another taxonomic classification.

V. �Traditionalist� Catholics

Here, I find myself again at odds with your schema, which equates Traditionalist (upper case T) Catholics with the SSPX. The term itself is too amorphous, being applied as a self-identifier by those whose liturgical preference is for the so-called Traditional Latin Mass - whether under Indult or served by the SSPX, CMRI, or other separatist ecclesia.

While Rome has declared the SSPX hierarchs to be in schism, the Society itself and those who adhere to it are presently held by Rome to be in �irregular status� with respect to the Catholic Church. With no intent to judge the SSPX or the rightness/wrongness of its actions, my personal opinion is that Rome has taken a very liberal viewpoint toward the Society and its adherents, in hopes that doing so will allow healing and reconciliation to be effected in this lifetime versus the generational separations that resulted from the hard-nosed stances that it historically took with other dissident and separatist movements. From a perspective that compares the present situation to that of historical antecedents, I would have to agree that the SSPX is schismatic but, as Rome has elected to declare otherwise, one cannot separate this ecclesial body from that of the historical Catholic Church in an exercise such as you have presented.

VI. �National� Catholics

You�ve suggested this category as solely inclusive of the Polish National Catholic Church - which, again, brings us into disagreement. In its origination and for a significant term of its history , the PNCC was the sole North American ecclesia to maintain communion with the Utrecht Confession and, thus, is truly �Old Catholic� in the original sense of the phrase. (In speaking of the PNCC, I intend to include the Czech, Lithuanian, and Slovak NCCs, all of which were eventually corporately subsumed into the PNCC.)

Other �National� Catholic Churches of more recent origin than the PNCC - including most prominently those of Mexico, the Philippines, and Brazil - are a diverse collection that truly have in common probably nothing other than that each has contributed significantly to the episcopal lineages of countless �Catholic� Churches, including Old Catholic, �Old Catholic-type�, �Catholic-type High Churches�, �independent Catholic�, and true ecclesia vagante. Many of them (probably the majority) would themselves be classed as �independent Catholic� - although such categorization would be rejected by some as insulting.

VII. �Independent� Catholics

The so-called �Independent Catholic/Orthodox Movements� (and one can�t really separate the two, generally rejected by both the mainstream Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but often incorporating both identities in their nomenclature and frequently blurring the lines of West and East in vesture, liturgics, and lineage claims) are a curious mixture. The label has achieved acceptability among those small stand-alone �Catholic� congregations that are genuinely concerned for the spiritual well-being of their faithful but become the butt of jokes by such affectations as labeling themselves a �Church� and adopting grandiose titling for their sometimes sole presbyter. Surprisingly, a few of the �Old Catholic-type� hierarchs, such as the venerable Bishop Karl Pruter, also appear to have become comfortable with the usage.

It has been even more gratefully embraced by those vagante whose pretensions to an episcopal title are carried out in their garage or family room, with an audience (or congregation, if you will) consisting of Cousin Ralph and Myrtle, the lady from next-door - both of whom welcome the opportunity to robe in vesture that most resembles a sofa-throw as seen in photos of my grand-aunt�s parlor during the Great Depression. They certainly see it as an affirmation of legitimacy. Frankly, while I differ with Michael�s suggestion that all �Independent� Catholic Churches are vagante, one cannot seriously suggest, as you have, that none are. Realistically, vagante is either a subset of �Independent� or a category unto itself. And, let us not forget the sedevacantists, at least some of which are also truly vagante, presiding alone in their self-proclaimed �Vatican� in the woods.

Missing from your groups is what I guess one could best term �Catholic Churches in Imperfect Communion with Rome�. Such would include the Brazilian National Catholic Church (now most commonly the Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasileira, but also heading a communion styled as the Igreja Catolica Apostolica Nacionais or Catholic Apostolic National Church). This Church is the origin of the so-called Duarte-Costa episcopal line and otherwise presents particular difficulties of taxonomy vis-�-vis your groupings, since its episcopal orders were implicitly recognized by Rome in its acceptance into communion of Dom Salomao Barbosa Ferraz in 1961. The PNCC, with episcopal orders more explicitly acknowledged by Rome, would also be part of such a grouping.

In sum, I�d regroup as:

I. Roman Catholic

• Latin Church
• Eastern Churches
• Oriental Churches
• Catholics of Irregular Status

II. Catholic Churches in Imperfect Communion with Rome

• Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasileira
• Polish National Catholic Church (US jurisdictions only)

III. Old Catholic

• Utrecht Confession Churches
• Old Catholic-type Churches

IV. Catholic-type High Churches

• Anglican Churches
• Lutheran Churches

V. Independent Catholic Movement Churches

VI. Ecclesia vagante

VII. Sedevacantists

Now, which are �Catholic�? Those in I and II, as well as the Churches of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church, and the Ancient Church of the East.

Beyond that, it gets dicey. The myriad of renegade Catholic and Orthodox hierarchs with valid episcopal lines and able to confer apostolic succession (under the Augustinian Theory of same to which the Catholic Church has long subscribed) has allowed valid orders and sacraments to proliferate in some truly strange venues. There are individual hierarchs and probably several Churches in every other category above who can claim to be truly �Catholic� in every respect other than being in communion with Rome (and that is not the absolute criterion if one stops to consider that we acknowledge those in II and the various Eastern ecclesia as such).

The proliferation of episcopal lines attributable to Carlos Duarte-Costa, Aftimios Ofiesh, Fan Noli, Leon Chechemian, Antonio Alvarez, Dominique Maria Varlat, Rudolf Edward de Landes Burghes, Gerald Gul, and others assured at least the prospect of validity - especially given the multiplicity of lines garnered by some to assure that, somewhere in the mix, validity would accrue. This doesn�t even consider the question of what validity to accord to the lines spawned or continued by Antoine Aneed, Rene Joseph Vilatte, Arnold Mathew, Carmel Henry Carfora, William Brothers, Walter Propheta, Wallace de Ortega Maxey, and others in the continuing saga. While it is easy to dismiss such anomalies as the Liberal Catholic Church, with its Kabalistic Wadle Mass, or the ecclesia descended from the so-called Spruit Line as having abandoned form and intent, as well as sometimes matter, it is considerably more difficult to dismiss some other lines which have taken strange doctrinal twists but, on the face of it, may have preserved the elements requisite to validity of orders and sacraments.

Not sure that I�ve answered your question and less certain that I�ve done so to your satisfaction. For what it's worth, if you want to post some info about the �independent� Catholic church which you attended, I�ll be happy to offer you my 100% unofficial opinion as to their status.

Many years,

Neil

To be serious for a moment, "Independent Catholic" is a contradiction in terms, and its use implies that someone can re-invent the Catholic Church, structuring his Church to suit himself. Neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics would give that idea house-room.

There are genuine Local Churches whose lack of full communion with the entire Catholica is not entirely their own fault: this would include, come to think of it, those in communion with Rome, those in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy, those whom we are now supposed to call "non-Chalcedonians", the Apostolic Catholic Church of the East and the Russian Old-Ritualist Orthodox Church. They remind us that ultimately a specific relationship to a specific organization is not an adequate touch-stone.

I suppose the same would have applied to the Archdiocese of Utrecht before it entered into communion with the Anglicans and then, more recently, began attempting to ordain priestesses.

Some - by no means all - Anglicans assert a claim to be "Catholic" in some sense. But until they can agree among themselves as to what they are claiming, it's difficult for anyone else to discuss the matter. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to some Lutheran groups.

Then there are various splinter groups and sawdust groups claiming to be "Independent Catholic" or words to that effect. But this is nonsense.

The 39 Articles are not a reliable statement of the Orthodox Faith, and by no stretch of the imagination are they a statement of the Catholic Church.

Spelling: the plural of ecclesia is ecclesiae.

Fun: perhaps the most amusing assertion in all of organized and disorganized religion is that of the so-called "Liberal Catholic Church", which proclaims that "the Liberal Catholic Church exists to bring the comfort of the Catholic sacraments to those who do not believe the Catholic Faith." That surely deserves a prize of some sort - perhaps the fur-lined bathtub award?

Fr. Serge

Neil,

As usual, your posts are so thorough and informative that they really allow me to broaden my understanding on the topics at hand.

In any case I want you and all to know that I seek no validation from anyone here, for what I do or do not do. But I can definately see where you arrived at that conclusion.

As you may or may not know, I am a third year theology student. I've invested much of my time on a "independent study semester" on the subject of catholicity and its manifestations.

Now, let me attempt the arduous task of responding to some of the many points you brought up.

You stated,

The reason for my separation of these groups into two is because they do differ (albeit minor) in some theological points and discipline. Their ethos, which is a whole seperate issue is also very distinct. Finally, their common point of reference is visible union to the Roman Pontiff. For these reasons I decided to separate them, as they both are Catholic but not identical.

You said,

That was my exact intent, to include those groups as Old Catholics. I understand your distingusing the two into separate groups, but I don't dint it necessary really-minus of course the "independent Catholic group" which you noticed as group VII.

I agree with this. But validity at this point still exists with the majority of classical Old Catholics, (as I term Continental Old Catholics) in the male presbyterate.

You stated,

To add some clarity the groups that I specifically had in mind were;

1. the TAC (Anglican Church in America-US branch)
2. APCK (Anglican Province of Christ the King)
3. ACC-OP (Anglican Catholic Church-Original Province)
4. HCC-AR (Holy Catholic Church-Anglican Rite)
5. DOHC (Diocese of the Holy Cross)

and to a lesser extent, the Charismatic Episcopal church.

You said,

I should have put SSPX, etc and deliniated what groups I meant.

I had in mind, SSPX and the host of independent traditional chapels that are not sedevacantists.

I included them as a group precisely because they are in irregular status but more importantly they are "Catholic" but with disciplinary differences.

You stated,

Again, a good on my part. I mean to include here, PNCC, the ICAN (which youve previously mentioned) and the Aglipayan Church. They are not strictly speaking, Old Catholics, hence my seperation of them into a distinct category.

You said,

I did not suggest this! I only told the poster that 'vagante' is pejorative as no groups that I have listed would appreciate the term. It is not correct to use the term towards all groups not in union with Rome. The hundreds of bizare sects that meet in garages and have dubious apostolic succession, ordain women, etc are not part of my conception in this entire schema mind you. But they would be considered vagante.


Finally, Deo Gratias! my head is starting to hurt you stated,

You did answer my question. I'm personally glad to know I knew everything you were talking about-so i guess I'm pretty informed on the matter at least for my research

As for the group I attended, I can send you a link to their website privately. But I personally know their origins and would be happy to explain them to you.

In Christ,

ProCatholico

We might also want to mention the "invisible Church". That's the one made up of people who, through no fault of their own, have never heard (or been properly taught) the Gospel, yet still do their best to follow the light God has given them.

That may well be the largest and most influential group of Catholics ever!

Perhaps Karl Rahner would have called them "anonymous Catholics".

Fr. Serge

Here is a question that needs answering: Does the term "Catholic" mean primarily the "universal" church in the sense of the Church that is universal in scope or does "Catholic" refer primarily to that Church which keeps the entire faith, not omitting any part of it?

His grace, Bishop Zizioulas and other Orthodox theologians I think would prefer the latter interpretation. Based on my reading of his work, I would say that another answer to your question is to say that the Catholic church is present wherever and whenever the Eucharist is celebrated. Each local Church that holds to the entire faith and with its legitimate Bishop, celebrates the Eucharist is the Catholic Church in its fullness.

The question then would be: Do these groups hold to the entirety of the ancient Catholic faith and have they a legitimate Bishop and Eucharist? I won't attempt an answer to that question here. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Are you including as an "Old Catholic-type Church" the �glise Catholique Chr�tienne of Switzerland, which rejacted Vatican I and seceded at that time? They were separate from the Dutch movement.
As to whether they restrict ordination to males or recognise homosexual unions I do not know.

Highlander,

I actually was restricting that particular terminology to the American-based bodies of the genre. To delve into the varied European ones that were/are in diverse states of union with Utrecht would necessitate a mental exercise to which I haven't given a lot of thought lately - although I do have some notes devoted to it - somewhere

Many years,

Neil