Talk:Independent Catholicism

Breakaway Catholic Churches
I think the new article "Breakaway Catholic Churches" should be merged with this or deleted. --Lima (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (my former comment erased). I've have a look on both articles and, definetively they don't deal with the same subject. There is some overlap (most breakaway RC churches qualify as Independent but not the reverse). So I would vote NO for a merger/deletion. See below a more detailed rationale --Wllacer (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The last thing that Wllacer wrote (that breakaway churches are independent, but independent are not necessarily breakaway) is really salient; and, is, ultimately, the reason why the two articles should remain separate. Breakaway churches are formed, for the most part, by dissatisfied members of the chruch body that's being broken away from. And, of course, such breakaway churches are, by definition, independent (of the broken-away-from body). But many independent churches are formed for entirely other reasons, with no specific dissatisfaction, necessarily, with any larger church body, involved; and with the founders of the new church not even necessarily being members of the broken-away-from church. So it is just plain categorically incorrect to treat "breakaway" as synonymous with "independent." Breakaway churches are, in fact, a subset of independent churches. For that reason, seriously, even the mention of this part of the argument involving "breakaway" vs "independent" really needs to be removed from the top of this talk page because it fundamentally distracts the reader from whatever OTHER issues there might legitimately be regarding this article. And I haven't looked at the "Talk" page for the Breakaway article yet, but I now will and if there's a discussion like this going on there, I'm going to post this point there, too. Just tryin' to help. --Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talk • contribs)

Merged. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple ordinations
I read in the "Independent Catholic churches" article that:

and

I also read in the "Hugh George de Willmott Newman" article that:

I don't understand the concepts of "several consecrations in an attempt to secure a more diverse claim to apostolic succession", "shared cross-consecration", or "multiple mutual reconsecrations 'as a gesture of unity'&thinsp;".

The Newman article cites The Encyclopedia of American Religions. The 2009 edition of a newer version titled Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions states that:

Are these understood as conditional ordinations and consecrations? There should be a paragraph in the article about this.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have today (19 Aug 2014) done some work on the "Holy orders" section of the "Independent Catholic churches" page and also some further re-work on the page on HGWW, with an objective of addressing the concerns and comments voiced above (dated 23 June 2014). I have tried to express the matters without resorting to un-defined jargon or technical terms. I hope User BoBoMisiu may now consider that the situation is improved. What I have now written is probably about the best I am going to be able to achieve without going into an over-lengthy explanation and teach-in. If it is judged to be less than satisfactory, perhaps someone else would like to attempt to improve the situation please. Diakonias (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
The current editorial perspective negatively judges the subjects of the article at various points and so does not meet the neutrality guidelines. Such assertions are not backed by references. Additionally, the "ecclesiology" section only considers the responses of church bodies who are not the subject of the article. While relevant, it is too long in what it does cover and incomplete in not covering the actual ecclesiology of the subject churches. --Metagignosko (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be more specific so that other editors can consider your suggested improvements. --Tb (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are examples:
 * No citations. Negative characterization. Epistemologically dubious statement concerning the internal mental state of subjects (wishes, rationalizations) with no citation of scientific research that may be performed to ascertain such mental states.
 * No citations. Negative characterization. If there is such a "charge," it should be cited from reliable sources.
 * No citations. If there are such "others" they should be cited from reliable sources.
 * The conclusions of the Ecclesiology section, as much of the rest of the article, seems to largely consist of original research. The second paragraph is notable in this regard, many conclusions with no citations. And, as I stated above, it is odd to have such a long section nominally presented to be the ecclesiology of the subjects of the article which has nothing to say about that topic. Instead it should be retitled something like "Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox reactions to Apostolic claims," and substantially shortened. If there are no reliable sources to cite for the conclusions stated, it will need to be removed. --Metagignosko (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No citations. If there are such "others" they should be cited from reliable sources.
 * The conclusions of the Ecclesiology section, as much of the rest of the article, seems to largely consist of original research. The second paragraph is notable in this regard, many conclusions with no citations. And, as I stated above, it is odd to have such a long section nominally presented to be the ecclesiology of the subjects of the article which has nothing to say about that topic. Instead it should be retitled something like "Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox reactions to Apostolic claims," and substantially shortened. If there are no reliable sources to cite for the conclusions stated, it will need to be removed. --Metagignosko (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The conclusions of the Ecclesiology section, as much of the rest of the article, seems to largely consist of original research. The second paragraph is notable in this regard, many conclusions with no citations. And, as I stated above, it is odd to have such a long section nominally presented to be the ecclesiology of the subjects of the article which has nothing to say about that topic. Instead it should be retitled something like "Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox reactions to Apostolic claims," and substantially shortened. If there are no reliable sources to cite for the conclusions stated, it will need to be removed. --Metagignosko (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoever tried to "fix" these problems, though, made the same sort of errors, only from a different POV. There are some seriously opinionated claims here now, plus unattributed quotes or opinions and the invoking of nonexistent statistics. Those which stood out for me I marked with tags, but some editor who's competent with the topic will have to rewrite those passages in a more appropriate tone (and possibly with a more appropriate content). --Rafu (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic
An editor has decided to introduce the Roman Catholic terminology war here. I object. "Roman Catholic" is a term often used by, among other things, the actual people to whom it refers (including examples carved into stonework of churches, web sites, official documents from the See of Rome, and elsewhere). No aspect of the manual of style takes a position on such things, and the argument that the term should be avoided is itself the expression of a POV, which is in part designed to further an agenda in which the term "Catholic" refers only to those churches in communion with the Diocese of Rome. In articles which are (as this one) explicitly about other Catholic churches, it is particularly offensive to have this going on. --Tb (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate actual discussion on the point. The new edits are, in my opinion, quite mistaken, and if they seek after compromise, I'd like to see the various parties express themselves before the change is made. --Tb (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to mention that it appears (from reading everything including the past history) there is no direct link to the actual term "Catholic" in the entire article. There is a whole definition of the word which is separate and apart from any church entity. I believe (personal opinion here) there does need to be some sort of distinction between the various "Catholic" denominations. The term "Roman Catholic Church" (see Roman Catholic), though only recently used, is generally accepted to mean the "Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome...". The term "Independent Catholic" has come to mean any "Catholic" Church not in union with the Bishop of Rome (also known as the pope) and further distinctions exist such as "Old Catholic", Orthodox, Free, African, and a whole host of others. It is, in my opinion, extremely difficult to read through an article that mentions only the catholic church and no other distinction. There needs to be definition in place to understand the actual divergences or differences which may or may not lie in the practice of worship and/or allegiance to a hierarchy.


 * It may seem as if this is a matter of mincing words, but semantics can be an important factor in any definition as there must be agreed upon definitions and accepted norms in order to be able to get across what one is saying. To simply say "the catholic church is..." is very misleading as there are many different types of catholic church. Are you talking about a particular denomination, a particular style of, or are you even talking about a church's universality in belief of God.


 * So, though I have not made any substantial edits to this page, I feel semantics are important here and a general accepted norm does need to be established to ensure distinction and to avoid greater future confusion. Said norm needs to be published and agreed upon by any person editing the page before said edits are made. --Kjnelan (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is an Independent Catholic Church?
After reading the article I went into some doubt about what qualifies as such. My first reading seemed to be just a hodgepodge of self styled "catholic" minority denominations. Not until I perused some of the web references could i get a clear understanding of what the article is about (it is described in the introduction but I didn't get it at first, to much noise to info ratio).

According to this an ICC is a "community faith which has an episcopal order for which it claims is in apostolic succession and to have valid sacraments (esp. Eucharist)" but are not in communion with any of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, or the Oriental Churches".

Readers will note that i have taken out two denominations from the not in communion clause. The Old Catholics and the Anglican Communion. The first because they fit perfectly into the definition of independent; without treating them, a good deal of the phenomenon is almost unintelligible -the article starts with them- and in more than one sense is the paradigmatic case. The Anglicans, at least the Anglo Catholics, claim to be catholic in the above definition, but are nowadays not acknowledged as such by none of the "Old Three". In this sense -and but for its volume- she is just another Independent "Church"

You will also note that the definition matches almost "verbatim" the requisites of Dominus Iesus for calling a christian denomination a Church, according to Rome. The Catholic Church happens to be the only one which has developed a certain juridical system on testing the "apostolic succession" (more on a case law style, but anyhow), which seems to have been more or less silently accepted as a "standard" (on a side note, i do am a RC, so i'm bound to it, anyway; and yes i know a number of Orthodox theologians would even deny validity to RC orders, ...)

There is a wild diversity of ICC, but with the exception of the Anglican "chaos", most seem not to claim inheritance from the Reformation. I'd say it could also a common characteristic, but I'll leave it for someone more expert in "denominational taxonomy"

The phenomenon of the episcopi vagantes, while important for some of the Independents (mostly american ones) is absolutely irrelevant for others. --Wllacer (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your second sentence starts... According to this.... According to what specifically? Where is that definition? Is it something you've come up with as a result of your many searches? I'm not trying to be combative, I'd genuinely like to know as yours is the first attempt in a long time to actually try to fix this article.


 * I too searched and after going through many of the sites listed in the External Links section of the article, it appears the commonly accepted definition of Independent Catholic is any catholic entity which is not in communion with the Holy See (i.e. The Bishop of Rome, or what is commonly referred to as the "Pope" in the Roman Catholic Church.) But that is also my own take on what they are trying to convey though I did word that somewhat from Dominus Iesus since that document uses the term communion to describe churches who have broken away from, but still celebrate with the Roman Catholic Church.


 * Perhaps the intro should be worded simply and not with POV! I'll take a stab at it. See what you think. Let's fix this article!!! Kjnelan (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (St. Louis, Missouri) an Independent Catholic Church?--WlaKom (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic succession
Something of this kind should be in the article. Below is a proposed outline of a test of apostolic succession. Although I believe catholics and easterns would agree, this reflects mainly a RC approach. I'll try to get detailed references for each case, but for now i'm a little short of time. Assuming the ordination is valid (i.e. is both formally correct, the intention was present, and free of simony; more below) more or less the probability would be in this order (higher first):
 * The movement was started by one or more legitimate bishops of one of the "Big Three"
 * The creator of the line of succession was ordained by one legitimate bishop of one of the "Big Three"
 * The creator of the line of succession was ordained by one "legitimate" bishop of an independent Church of the first two kinds
 * The creator of the line of succession was ordained by one bishop of the former kinds, but of a very different rite
 * The creator of the line of succession was ordained by one bishop whose ordination is already suspect
 * No one knows who initiated the line of succession

Each case should include examples, such as:
 * The Chinese Patriotic Church and the SSPX orders are recognized, but neither the anglicans, nor Milingo's recent group
 * The original Church of Utrecht orders are/were recognized, probably some sedevacantist could be, but none performed by bishop Thuc (f.i. the Palmarian Church)
 * The Polish National Catholic Church is recognized through Union of Utrecht, but the same succession in the Anglican Communion is considered suspect.
 * (... sample pending ...) As a general norm, both lack of intention and simony are suspected
 * Most churches created by episcopi vagantes aren't even recognized outside themselves

And mention exceptions. For example, Milingo's ordinations are rejected for lack of intent (it's very doubtful that he still believes in the episcopal order, and there is some suspicion about his mental health; in the case of bishop Pierre_Martin_Ngô_Đình_Thục's the last cause is the most commonly referred (but not solely). For the Anglican Communion please see Apostolic_Succession. Neither the SSPX, nor Rome formally consider (as of 2009) their relation as "schismatic" but merely as "canonicaly irregular" (See Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X). If the evolution would result in a total breakup, then orders had to be mutually recognizable. --Wllacer (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally feel that only applies to those who actually voice a concern regarding "legitimate succession". Since there are many groups in the independent movement that do not really care one way or the other, or have aligned themselves with the "orthodox" or "Old Catholics" or other denominations and therefore fall under their umbrellas, I don't think it would be useful to this article.
 * I do like the line above that states, Most church[es] created by episcopi vagantes aren't recognized outside themselves. I think that line should even enter the article somewhere, though I'd like to see the source for that as I have several sources against that statement; Apostolicae Curae, "The Old Catholic Church has received valid Episcopal consecration", which states: "Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (set. Certa). Cf. D 855, 860; CIC 2372." and several others.
 * All of these are common documents, but my understanding is there are new documents which even reverse what His Holiness the Pope stated before he was elected to be the Bishop of Rome. Dominus Iesus, was issued during the reign of Pope John Paul II, June 16, 2000, and signed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000. Refer to Section IV: Article 17 which states in part: "Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in the communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches..."
 * I would actually feel more comfortable if this remained an informational article about the Independent Catholic Church as a movement rather than a debate... How will the test improve the article? Kjnelan (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kjnelan, I would suggest leaving the proposed test out, and just present the claims of this group of Churches. For that matter, implying that these Churches are not recognized outside themselves shows bias on the part of the writer. Each other individual Church concerned by the existence of this group of Churches and its claims are the ones to challenge the validity of their claims themselves for their own people as well as for the general public in their own official statements. An informational article in an Encyclopedia should simply present the claims, doctrines and so forth of this group of Churches as they describe themselves; or simply note that their claims and doctrines are and have been controversial and leave it at that. Those who have questions about the Independent Catholic Churches may contact their own Church (or any other Church) for its opinions about them. --Gladfelteri (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A statment on ecumenism.net about this subject is: "As a website, we struggle with two ecumenical principles: Each community should be allowed to describe themselves to others according to its own self-understanding, and it is not our function to express judgement upon the legitimacy of any of the communities listed on our site, not upon the self-description offered by these communities" (Independent episcopal churches). The website continues with this statement which is at the heart of this and arguably any discussion of this family of Churches: "Our struggle occurs because many churches describe themselves in a manner that challenges the self-understanding of other churches."
 * That last sentence, in my humble opinion, makes these Churches by their very nature - by their very existence, controversial and to many committed members of other Churches, inherently upsetting to at least some degree whether they are aware of it or not, no matter how objective and impartial they may otherwise be. So perhaps it is best to simply avoid any evaluation of the validity of these Churches and their apostolic successions in the text of the article, and let various other Churches do that themselves on their own internet sites and in their other publications. --Gladfelteri (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My proposal was not intended to open up a debate about the merits of the apostolic succession of any of the churches, but rather as a "walking guide" for outsiders through the maze. When I came around the phenomenon of the ICC. I needed a framework for classification in order to understand it. I tried the "Mother Church" method, but it didn't work beyond the first generation, and not always. I tried the "theological family", but was even worse. Only as I tried an (blatantly confessional) approach based on the above schema (aided with the two other approaches) I could get some overview. Just (if you allow me) take Gladfelteri's Community. It's styled as Lutheran, as came out of the Missouri Synod. but it's theology looks squarely RC. Apostolic succession is claimed via primarily the Duarte-Costa line (if i have understood it correctly), so -pending further research- this Community comes into my second or third group, so I can pin it down in a mental map. By the way, I hope not to need this knowledge anymore in the shortest time possible ;-)
 * I accept that perhaps a so obviously laden approach as mine, might not be workable for Wikipedia, but I think there is a need for outsiders to get some schema based on claimed primary Succession, but not simply a division by such-and-such line (too many to be practical)
 * Kjnelan, I got the impression of just the opposite, that for these churches the apostolic succession claim is paramount, unless it becomes only a container for not mainstream churches with episcopal constitution. This is the reason why i tried to group them in degrees of probability. This is one of the problems of the article; not being an organized movement there must be some limits of what comes in.
 * And being absolutely personal and a bit blunt. When somebody claims an unknown line, i.e. not Utrecht, not Duarte, not Thuc, not Mathew, not Vilatte, etc.; or an "esoteric" line, i.e. going further down my list; it raises more than simple eyebrows on me. WP has to strive for objectivity, which in my honest opinion isn't exactly the same as gullibility. --Wllacer (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Patrickinmpls, please put your comments separated from those of the other users, and sign them. I don't mind being formatted for the sake of discussion but not "edited". You made it in a way it looks as I had written it, which is NOT the case. As I presume you're a newcomer I simple move your comments and my counter arguments down here. --Wllacer (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please enumerate, Lefebvre, and who else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickinmpls (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I left it open because history gives you some surprises. Think of formal schisms of local churches –or at least an organized body– where the legitimate bishop is the head. From the top of my head, and for the sake of this article, undoubtedly the original Utrecht Church and the Costa-Duarte line (Brazilian National Church). Lefebre's, Antônio de Castro Mayer's and the Chinese Patriotic are distinct in the sense their groups wouldn't consider themselves an Independent Church; moreover Castro's successor is already in full communion with Rome, and many chinese "official" bishops maintain some kind of (not too underground) links with Rome.
 * If Milingo were to openly head a schismatic group then he would qualify here for this group (as sometimes appear). But none can be sure about him.
 * Thuc ordained irregular bishops, but never headed a schismatic body (in the second group then). Nor Mathews or Vilatte line would qualify here, because they were NOT regular members of the church which consecrated them bishops. --Wllacer (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also many would reject the consecration because it happened in 1969 after the new rite of episcopal consecration was introduced by Pope Paul VI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickinmpls (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Milingo was the first –or at least in the first batch– bishop ordained with the new Pontifical, but this has absolutely no bearing on Rome's view of his ordinations. If you were a staunch "sedevacantist" maybe, but only to the extent that you wouldn't consider ANY consecration with the new Pontifical as valid. --Wllacer (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If I could just interject here a second – about Mathew, he was most definitely a "regular" member of the UU until he issued A Declaration of Autonomy And Independence in 1910, and there exist opposing positions even within the UU as to the validity of his succession, most of the derogatory positions being polemical – certainly some bishops/clergy of his succession have been reconciled with Utrecht since and positive dialogue has existed between some "independent" Old Catholic churches and Utrecht. "Canonically" speaking, one must accuse Mathew of being a formal "schismatic" from the UU, for he was most definitely a recognised member of that Church's hierarchy before his secession from it. The Mathew succession has even been accepted or pronounced upon as "valid" even by Roman Catholic investigators. If it weren't for the distinct negative bias of this article I would offer citations, but frankly, noting that despite some excellent observations and suggestions here, no changes have been effected, I hardly see the point. --Periti (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd love to have some more info about Mathew. My knowledge is at best sketchy, but if I remember correctly, Mathew was at the time of his ordination married, while then valid canons in Utrecht demanded celibacy at least for bishops. There were also complains about intention after 1910 (but who knows!) So your statement comes as a bit of a surprise to me (i'm not aware of bishops/priests of the Mathew lines being received with at most conditional ordination in the Church. Ops, sorry, in the RC Church ;-)
 * On the other hand, even acknowledging Mathew's and Villate's ordinations as valid, before them they were NOT members of the Church which ordained them. In Mathew's case, if i remember correctly, it was done explicitly for creating a new independent body but in communion with the UU. Maybe we both are right and is part of a "grey area".
 * For the time being i'm still following a policy of not editing articles, but I still hope someone can pick up the suggestions in this talk page and rewrite this article. --Wllacer (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Invalid
I removed the sentence which stated: "In the mind of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic and Utrecht churches such beliefs as theosophy and reincarnation would render invalid any ordinations regardless of the rite employed in the ceremony."

I've searched through many RCC documents regarding this statement and while it is incongruent with RCC teaching, there is nothing which states the belief in such would render the ordination of anyone invalid. It is considered as improper teaching as evidenced by: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html, but again, nothing has been found to support the sentence.

That sentence was also POV which adds to the other discussions above. We need to remember this is an article ABOUT the Independent Catholic Movement, not a chance to condemn, ridicule, or denigrate. Kjnelan (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there are several aspects in this question, from a Catholic point of view. Heretics DO confer valid orders (this is a consensual view since Augustinus in the West) as long it is done according to the "rules" and with the proper intention (cf. Apostolicae Curae, nr 33 passim). An open question is, though, if doctrinal drift (esp. regarding order) does openly negates "proper intention". A case in point -more mainstream- would be the discussion around "Old Catholic" orders after its recent development.
 * In the East, the Augustinian view never has been fully acknowledged, so it is not uncommon to see opinions negating the validity of even "simply schismatic" orders. --Wllacer (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Liberal Catholic Church for BoBoMisiu's comment,, about divergent belief and internal intention. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ealing schism
Mathew was not the first. He joined the Ealing schism. Also, other independent ecclesial communities in Great Britain were organized earlier. For example, the adventist Catholic Apostolic Church was organised in 1835. Another example is Jules Ferrette's attempts. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Independent Catholic churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090623220009/http://sourcebook.oldcatholichistory.org:80/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=1&allpages=1&theme=Printer to http://sourcebook.oldcatholichistory.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=1&allpages=1&theme=Printer

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Philippine Independent Church
I removed the Philippine Independent Church from this list because it is much closer to Anglican churches, or even the Polish National church than independent Catholic churches. It broke away from the Spanish dominated Catholic church during the Philippine Revolution/Philippine-American War period. It shares a seminary with the Episcopal Church of the Philippines and has some unitarian beliefs. It is in communion withe the Anglican Communion. It doesn't claim to be Catholic. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as there are no objections. Brad v  02:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Independent Catholic denominations → Independent Catholicism – Since list of denominations moved to List_of_Christian_denominations, that would be a more proper name, since it covers the beliefes, positions etc. and not a list of denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incomplete
What specifically is missing, ? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, not sure what you mean? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * you had placed in December. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. The "confusing tag" suffices. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I take it that it's not a very well written article in general. But now is your opportunity to give you two cents as to what in particular is confusing or lacking about it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Significant Criticism
The penultimate graph (as of this writing) of the intro section starts with "Various Independent Catholic groups have attracted a significant amount of criticism." I'm thinking that the graph doesn't belong up there and deserves its own heading further down the article. --Schnaz (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Edits & Bias
I've tagged the article as needing a rewrite. As the article currently reads, it depends primarily on a single source (Plummer) and as such violates encyclopedic standards. The main rewriter of the article makes notes in his edits that clearly show a bias against the Roman Catholic Church; in some he erroneously refers it to the "Roman church" which is totally incorrect. His statement that Independent Catholic Churches are also totally incorrect in that Roman Catholicism does not accept any Western rite as valid except for the Roman rite itself. Someone, please fix this. I'm not enough of an expert, or I would do so myself. 2601:C8:4101:A1E:71BF:E646:157D:3180 (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independent Catholicism. 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/20130928173447/http://www.concentric.net/~cosmas/indcath.htm to http://www.concentric.net/~Cosmas/indcath.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Plummer
I've combined all the references by using r.

There are many other Plummer refs that have their own name, e.g. These can probably be treated the same way, by globally replacing every string matching the regexp with for all values of , but that's just not feasible for me at the moment on this phone.--Thnidu (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization
I realize capitalization of "Independent" is inconsistent in this article. It's inconsistent throughout this topic area! I don't know if the situation can be improved. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim has been made that "'Independent' Catholic is a proper noun". I don't think so. "The Independent Catholic Church International" is a proper noun, but not "independent Catholic", which is not the name of an organization. I also don't see why on 11 July capitalization should have been added eight times where it wasn't before in this article. Nor do I see why, on the other hand, capitalization was removed from the title of the book A Brief History of Independent Catholicism in North America. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A survey of WP:RS reveals a similar inconsistency regarding capitalization. Such is the nature of the game. What did Emerson say about consistency? Elizium23 (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why then add capitalization where it wasn't before? Why remove it from a book title where it existed? And what reliable source says "independent Catholic" is a proper noun?  Bealtainemí (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove the 'reliant on one source' tag?
The 'one source' issue seems to have been addressed.Apollinari (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Reformed Catholic Church (Old Catholic)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Reformed Catholic Church (Old Catholic) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Breakaway Catholics" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Breakaway Catholics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Breakaway Catholic Church" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Breakaway Catholic Church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Independent Catholic Church USA" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Independent Catholic Church USA and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Independent catholic church usa" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Independent catholic church usa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Link
In the context of that sentence, "rite" is referring to liturgical traditions for which Christian liturgy is the main article, with a list of such rites (including the Roman Rite also given as an example in this article immediately after the linked text in question). I don't understand your objection. -- Scyrme (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, my argument was wrong. However, "liturgy" is hyperlinked before in the same sentence, so this would be overlinking; I have changed the hyperlinks of the sentence accordingly. Veverve (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Scyrme (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Breakaway Catholic Churches" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Breakaway Catholic Churches and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Edit
Regarding the section on beliefs of Independent Catholics. New information in the last couple months has been released from the Vatican that the Society of St. Pius X is a part of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. My proposed edit would be to simply delete their name from this section. Editor9174 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I oppose. Unless the SSPX becomes administratively part of the Catholic Church, i.e. they actually submit to the Holy See wich is Pope Francis and there is an official act declaring it, the SSPX is not part of the Catholic Church. The diplomatic about-faces and other lies and inconsistent private statements by people linked to the Holy See or by the Pope himself are irrelevant. Veverve (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)