Inside Old Catholic

Home
Nigeria
Enugu
Inside Old Catholic

INSIDE OLD CATHOLIC
Exploring faith, teachings, and truth through an Old Catholic lens.
• Old Catholic History • Exposition Welcome to Inside Old Catholic.

INSIDE OLD CATHOLIC exists to explore the rich intellectual, spiritual, and cultural tradition of the Old Catholic Church. In a modern world often dominated by soundbites and superficial takes, we are committed to going deeper. Our mission is to provide thoughtful, well-researched, and accessible content that informs the mind and inspires the soul. What We Offer:

On this page, you will find insig

htful articles and discussions on:

Old Catholic News & Current Events: Providing faithful perspectives on news relevant to the Church and the world, helping you understand current events through an Old Catholic lens. Old Catholic Theology: Delving into the doctrines and teachings that have shaped centuries of faith. Church History: Exploring the pivotal events and figures in the history of the Old Catholic Church. Philosophy: Engaging with the intellectual tradition that asks life's biggest questions. Sacred Art & Culture: Appreciating the beauty and meaning behind the art, music, and liturgy that flow from the Old Catholic faith. We strive to be a resource for both lifelong Old Catholics and those simply curious about the Church, creating a space for learning and reflection. Our content is created by individuals dedicated to the faith, who are passionate about sharing its depth and beauty with others. Our Commitment to You:

We are committed to upholding the values of authenticity and quality. All content on this page is original and crafted to be valuable and relevant to our readers. We adhere to the teachings of the Old Catholic Church and strive to present them with clarity and charity. Thank you for visiting. We hope you find something here that enlightens, encourages, and deepens your understanding. Join us as we continue to delve into what it means to be Old Catholic, inside and out. Your support enables us to continue creating sacred content, nurturing spiritual growth, and fostering a global community rooted in truth, love, and tradition. Thank you for being part of our mission. Support Our Ministry. Your generosity helps us continue sharing Catholic teachings and nurturing faith worldwide: https://selar.com/showlove/insidecatholic

23/05/2026

Differences Between the Old Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church

The Old Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church share a long Christian history and many similar traditions, especially in worship, sacraments, and church structure. Both trace their roots to the early Church and keep practices such as the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and liturgical worship. However, clear differences developed over time, mainly after the First Vatican Council in 1870.

One of the biggest differences is the question of papal authority. The Roman Catholic Church upholds that the Pope has universal authority over the Church and can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals. The Old Catholic Church does not accept papal infallibility or universal papal jurisdiction. Instead, it gives greater authority to councils of bishops and local church leadership.

Another important difference is church governance. The Roman Catholic Church has a more centralized structure, with final authority resting in the Vatican. The Old Catholic Church follows a more synodal system, where bishops, priests, and lay members all take part in decision-making. This creates a more shared style of leadership.

The Old Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church also differ in some teachings and pastoral practices. In the Roman Catholic Church, priestly celibacy is required. The Old Catholic Church allows married priests.

Despite these differences, they continue to value the sacraments, and historic Christian worship. They also maintain episcopal leadership through bishops and preserve many ancient liturgical traditions.

The relationship between the Old Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church has at times been distant, but there have also been periods of dialogue and cooperation. While they are not in communion with one another, conversations between theologians and church leaders have continued over the years in an effort to improve understanding.

The difference between the Old Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church is mainly about authority, governance, and how certain teachings are understood and applied in modern church life. Yet both remain connected by a shared Christian heritage that reaches back many centuries.

“One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism.”

It is important to note that the Old Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are not enemies. So why do members—and even clergy—of the Roman Catholic Church take offense whenever they hear about the Old Catholic Church, quickly hurling insults?

Inside Old Catholic

22/05/2026

In What Species Do You Receive Holy Communion?

When receiving Holy Communion in your parish, do you receive in both species or only in one species?

In some parishes, the faithful receive only the consecrated bread during the Eucharist, while in others they receive both the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine. The manner of distribution differs across Christian traditions and even among different jurisdictions within the same tradition.

In much of the Old Catholic tradition, Holy Communion is commonly distributed in both species — the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Churches also traditionally distribute Holy Communion in both species, usually together from the chalice.

In some jurisdictions where Holy Communion is commonly given under one species, it is taught that Christ is fully present in either species. This means that receiving only the consecrated bread is still understood as receiving the fullness of Christ in the Eucharist.

Historically, both practices have existed in different periods of Christian history. In some places, Holy Communion under one species became more common for practical, pastoral, or liturgical reasons. Other jurisdictions continued the practice of distributing both species as a sign connected to the Last Supper.

The discussion is not only about liturgical practice but also about theology, tradition, reverence, and Church discipline. While Christians may differ in practice, the Eucharist remains central to Christian worship and devotion across much of historic Christianity.

Inside Old Catholic

21/05/2026

The Question of Receiving Holy Communion: On the Palm or on the Tongue

How do you receive Holy Communion?

This is one of the few topics in Church life that create as much quiet debate: the manner of receiving Holy Communion. Some Christians receive the Eucharist directly on the tongue, while others receive on the palm. Both practices exist in different parts of Christianity, and both are often defended with strong convictions.

For many, the issue is deeply connected to reverence, tradition, theology, and personal devotion.

Receiving on the tongue is often associated with older liturgical practice, especially in the Western Church. This method is usually seen as a visible sign of humility and reverence before the sacrament. Some also believe it helps emphasize that Holy Communion is received as a gift from Christ through the Church, rather than something taken for oneself.

Historically, this became the more common practice in the medieval Western Church and remained standard for centuries in Roman Catholic worship. Even today, many Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and traditional Christians continue this practice with deep devotion.

On the other hand, receiving in the hand also has ancient roots. Several early Church writings and Fathers describe Christians receiving the Eucharist in their hands with care and reverence. Many who prefer this practice often point to the early Christian customs and see it as a reminder of the dignity and participation of the baptized faithful.

In some jurisdiction, receiving on the palm is permitted and widely practiced. Those who prefer it often feel it allows a more direct and personal act of reception while still maintaining reverence toward the sacrament.

The discussion sometimes becomes emotional because both sides often connect their practice to deeper beliefs about the Eucharist itself. For some, receiving on the tongue better expresses belief in the Real Presence of Christ. Others argue that reverence depends more on faith and attitude than on the physical manner of reception.

It is also true that different Christian traditions approach the question differently. Eastern Orthodox churches generally distribute Communion directly into the mouth using a spoon. Roman Catholics may receive either on the tongue or in the hand where permitted. Anglicans, Old Catholics, Lutherans, and other liturgical churches often allow both practices as well. It can depend on the approval of the local ordinary of the jurisdiction.

Historically, Church practices have changed over time in different regions and periods. Because of this, many theologians caution against assuming that only one method alone proves reverence or orthodoxy.

This discussion is something more important than the debate itself: the meaning of the Eucharist. Across much of historic Christianity, Holy Communion is understood as sacred, holy, and deeply connected to the life of Christ and the worship of the Church.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the manner of reception in many jurisdictions changed. This could be another reason why some adopted receiving Holy Communion on the palm, including those who formerly approved reception on the tongue in their jurisdiction.

No matter the manner of reception, faith remains the priority.

For many, the manner of reception matters because the sacrament itself matters. Whether one receives on the tongue or in the hand, the central concern for most Christians remains faith, reverence, and devotion toward the Eucharist.

Bishop Gabriel O Obiano

20/05/2026

Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation

What do you understand about these terms: Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?

Among the many theological discussions surrounding the Eucharist, two terms often appear repeatedly: Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. Both attempt to explain the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, yet they approach the mystery differently.

For centuries, Christians have believed that the Eucharist is not merely ordinary bread and wine. The disagreement has usually not been about whether Christ is present, but rather about how that presence should be understood.

Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation is the doctrine traditionally taught in the Roman Catholic Church and and historically within parts of the Old Catholic tradition as well, though today most Old Catholics teach a "real presence" without insisting on a single philosophical explanation. The term became more formally defined in medieval theology, especially through the influence of Aristotelian philosophical language.

According to this teaching, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine during the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine changes completely into the Body and Blood of Christ. Although the outward appearances like:
▪️ taste
▪️color
▪️texture, and
▪️form — remain the same, the inner reality is believed to have changed.

This understanding was strongly affirmed at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and later reaffirmed by the Council of Trent during the period of Reformation.

For those who hold this doctrine, the Eucharist is not symbolic alone. Christ is believed to be truly and substantially present in the sacrament. This is why great reverence is shown toward the consecrated elements within Catholic worship.

Consubstantiation

The word Consubstantiation is often used to describe a belief that Christ is truly present “with” or “alongside” the bread and wine, rather than the bread and wine changing completely in substance. In this view, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, but Christ becomes truly present together with them.

Some Lutherans themselves reject both the term and the explanation. Lutheran teaching speaks of a sacramental union, where Christ's body and blood are truly present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. The difference is subtle but important to Lutherans, who prefer not to separate the presence of Christ from the elements in the way the word Consubstantiation seems to suggest.

Martin Luther rejected purely symbolic interpretations of the Eucharist but also rejected the detailed scholastic explanation behind Transubstantiation. Instead, he insisted on the real presence of Christ without heavily defining the mechanism behind it.

The Core Difference

The central difference between the two teachings lies in how they understand the bread and wine after conseration.

Transubstantiation teaches that the substance of the bread and wine completely changes into Christ’s Body and Blood while Consubstantiation teaches that Christ is truly present together with the bread and wine, while the bread and wine themselves remain.

Nevertheless, the positions arose from a shared Christian conviction that the Eucharist is sacred and deeply connected to Christ himself.

It is also important to remember that many Christians, especially in the early Church, often approached the Eucharist more as a divine mystery than as a philosophical formula. Different traditions later developed different explanations in an attempt to defend or clarify the faith.

For some believers, theological definitions are important for preserving doctrinal clarity. For others, the Eucharist ultimately remains a sacred mystery that cannot be fully reduced to philosophical categories.

What remains common across much of historic Christianity is the belief that the Eucharist is far more than an ordinary meal. It stands at the center of Christian worship, devotion, and communion with Christ.

Bishop Gabriel O Obiano

19/05/2026

The Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo

Within the Catholic history, few liturgical subjects generate as much discussion as the difference between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass. Both have been used throughout the Catholic history, yet they developed in different historical periods and reflect different liturgical emphases.

The Tridentine Mass is the traditional Latin liturgy codified after the Council of Trent in the 16th century. It is vital to note that many parts of the liturgy are much older, the Missal associated with Pope Pius V in 1570 became the standard form used throughout the Latin Church for centuries. It is also called the Traditional Latin Mass because it is celebrated primarily in Latin and follows a highly structured ceremonial form.

The Tridentine liturgy places strong emphasis on:
• reverence
• silence
• sacred symbolism, and
• continuity with older Western liturgical tradition. During this Mass, the priest usually celebrates facing the altar (ad orientem), and much of the liturgy is spoken quietly. Gregorian chant, incense, traditional vestments, and ceremonial gestures became closely associated with this form of worship.

On the other hand the Novus Ordo, officially called the Mass of Paul VI, was introduced after the Second Vatican Council and promulgated in 1969. It became the ordinary form of the Roman Rite in the modern Catholic Church. The reforms aimed to make the liturgy more accessible and encourage participation by the congregation.

Unlike the Tridentine Mass, the Novus Ordo is commonly celebrated in the local language rather than Latin, although Latin is still permitted. The priest often faces the people during the liturgy, and there is generally more audible participation from the congregation through responses, readings, and hymns.

Supporters of the liturgical reforms argue that the Novus Ordo restored elements of early Christian worship and made the liturgy easier for ordinary believers to understand. They also point to the broader use of Scripture readings and increased congregational involvement.

Critics, however, argue that many traditional elements were reduced or removed too quickly after the council. Some believe the reforms weakened the sense of mystery, transcendence, and liturgical continuity that characterized the older rite. This concern contributed to the rise of traditionalist groups attached to the Tridentine Mass, including the Society of St. Pius X.

It is important historically to understand that the debate is not simply about Latin versus vernacular language. At its core, the discussion often concerns theology, liturgical development, authority, continuity, and how the Church understands tradition in changing times.

Today, both forms continue to exist within different contexts of Catholic life. The Novus Ordo remains the standard liturgy of the Catholic Church, while the Tridentine Mass continues to be celebrated in certain communities with varying levels of canonical recognition depending on the group involved.

For many Catholics, the discussion reflects a broader question that has existed throughout Church history: how to preserve continuity with inherited tradition while responding to the realities of a new age.

Inside Old Catholic

18/05/2026

The Old Catholic Movement did not disappear with Utrecht in 1724, nor did it end after the First Vatican Council in 1870. Those moments were not conclusions, but turning points in a continuing history of bishops, clergy, and faithful who believed that the ancient Catholic faith could be preserved without surrendering the collegial and synodal character of the Church.

For many within the movement, Old Catholicism has never been about creating a “new church.” It has been about maintaining continuity with the historic and undivided Church through apostolic succession, sacramental life, and fidelity to the received faith handed down through generations. The laying on of hands from bishop to bishop represents more than ceremony; it is a visible sign that the Church continues across time through succession, ministry, and communion.

The movement endured because the convictions behind it endured. Questions surrounding authority, papal supremacy, conciliar balance, and the rights of local churches did not vanish in the nineteenth century. They continued to shape the conscience of many clergy and communities who believed that catholicity was not dependent upon centralized absolutism, but upon faithfulness to the apostolic tradition of the Church.

Across different nations and generations, Old Catholic communities continued to worship, ordain, preach, and preserve the sacramental life of the Church. Though often small and sometimes misunderstood, they carried forward a heritage they believed had been entrusted to them, not invented by them.

The story of the Old Catholic Movement is therefore not merely historical. It is a living continuity. Each generation receives what was handed down before it and, in turn, passes it onward. In this sense, the movement is not defined only by the events of Utrecht or Vatican I, but by the enduring conviction that the ancient faith, apostolic succession, and the life of the Church continue beyond any single age or controversy.

Bishop Gabriel O Obiano

17/05/2026

The Vatican has issued a strong warning regarding the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) amid reports that the society may proceed with episcopal consecrations without papal approval. Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that such an action could be regarded as a schismatic act under Roman Catholic canon law and may lead to automatic excommunication.

The Vatican has expressed hope that the society will reconsider in order to avoid a deeper rupture within the Church. Dialogue has reportedly been proposed as an alternative path, with Rome encouraging the SSPX leadership to suspend the planned consecrations.

This situation naturally brings back memories of 1988, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without a papal mandate. That action led to excommunications and prompted Pope John Paul II to issue the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei, which addressed the resulting division and called for efforts toward unity.

The present controversy once again highlights long-standing questions within Catholic life concerning authority, obedience, collegiality, and the relationship between local traditions and central governance. For some, unauthorized episcopal consecrations are viewed primarily as acts of disobedience that threaten ecclesial unity. Others see these tensions as reflecting deeper debates about how authority should function within the wider Church.

Whatever position one takes, the situation demonstrates that questions surrounding authority, unity, and collegiality remain active subjects of discussion even within Roman Catholicism itself.

NEWS DESK
Inside Old Catholic

Image: Wikimedia Commons

16/05/2026

The Great Schism of 1054 did not happen because of one single argument. It was the result of centuries of growing separation between the East and West.

By this time, the Western Church centered in Rome and the Eastern Church centered in Constantinople had developed different languages, cultures, political situations, and ways of understanding authority in the Church.

From the Western perspective, the Bishop of Rome held a unique authority as the successor of St. Peter. Rome believed this primacy was necessary for preserving unity and orthodoxy across the universal Church. Western Christians also defended the use of the Filioque in the Creed as a legitimate clarification of doctrine.

From the Eastern perspective, the Church was meant to function through councils and cooperation among bishops and patriarchs. The East respected Rome as the first see of Christendom, but did not accept the idea that one bishop could exercise direct universal authority over the entire Church. Eastern Christians also objected to the Filioque being added to the Creed without an Ecumenical Council.

There were also political tensions. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the East and West slowly drifted apart. Disputes over territory, liturgical practices, and imperial influence increased mistrust on both sides.

The final break came in 1054 when representatives of Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius exchanged excommunications in Constantinople. Even then, many people did not immediately believe a permanent split had happened. The separation deepened gradually over the centuries, especially after later events like the Fourth Crusade in 1204.

In the end, the Great Schism was not caused by one issue alone. It was a combination of theology, authority, politics, culture, and centuries of growing division between East and West.

Bishop Gabriel O Obiano

15/05/2026

The Councils That Shaped Christianity

14/05/2026

The Filioque Controversy and the Change to the Creed

One of the major historical disputes between East and West concerned a change made to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly called the Nicene Creed. The issue was not only about theology, but also about authority and whether any church could alter a creed approved by an Ecumenical Council without another Ecumenical Council.

The original creed was formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and later expanded at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. This creed became the common confession of faith for the universal Church.

The Council of Ephesus in 431 later addressed the issue of altering the faith. The council issued a decree declaring that no one was permitted to produce, compose, or introduce another creed different from the one already established by the Fathers. The purpose of this was to preserve unity and prevent unauthorized doctrinal alterations.

The original section of the creed concerning the Holy Spirit stated:

“And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.”

Over time, in parts of the Western Church, an additional phrase was inserted into the creed. The phrase was Filioque, a Latin term meaning “and the Son.” After the addition, the creed in the West read:

“Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

This change did not come from an Ecumenical Council shared by the whole Church. It gradually appeared in parts of the Latin West, especially in Spain, before later being accepted in Rome itself centuries afterward.

The Eastern Churches objected to both the theology and the method of the change. Their argument was not simply that words had been added, but that an Ecumenical Creed approved by the universal Church had been modified without a universal council. From the Eastern perspective, no single patriarchate — including Rome — possessed the authority to alter the creed on its own.

Even some earlier Popes showed caution about changing the creed officially. Pope Leo III, while personally accepting the theology behind the Filioque, reportedly opposed inserting it into the Creed itself. Historical accounts state that he even had the original creed engraved in Greek and Latin without the addition.

The dispute over the Filioque eventually became one of several major tensions between East and West leading up to the Great Schism of 1054. For the Eastern Churches, the issue became symbolic of a larger concern about growing centralization in the Western Church and changes made without conciliar agreement.

From an Old Catholic perspective, this is important because it touches on the question of how authority functioned in the early Church. The ancient Church governed itself through councils and shared episcopal responsibility. Changes affecting the whole Church were expected to come through conciliar agreement, not unilateral action by one part of the Church.

The original creed approved by the councils remained:

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.”

That wording reflected the creed received by the undivided Church before later additions in the West.

Bishop Gabriel O Obiano

13/05/2026

Before 1054, the structure of the Church was not built around one bishop exercising direct universal control over all Christians. Authority was shared among the great apostolic centers of Christianity — Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Rome held a place of honor as primus inter pares (“first among equals”), but this primacy functioned within the wider life of the Church rather than above it.

The Bishop of Rome was respected because of the Church of Rome’s apostolic foundation and historical importance, especially its association with Saints Peter and Paul. Yet the early Church did not operate under the later model of centralized papal governance that developed in the medieval West. Other patriarchs governed their own territories, appointed bishops within their jurisdictions, and managed local ecclesial affairs independently.

Major doctrinal disputes were not settled by one bishop acting alone. Instead, they were addressed through councils — especially ecumenical councils — where bishops gathered together to deliberate on matters affecting the whole Church. The authority of these councils was rooted in the shared witness of the episcopate, not in unilateral declarations from a single see.

This conciliar structure can be seen throughout the early centuries of Christianity. The Council of Nicaea in 325, the Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 all functioned through collective episcopal decision-making. Even Rome participated within this conciliar framework rather than standing outside of it.

The early Church therefore operated through a balance of primacy and synodality. Rome possessed honor and influence, but the wider governance of the Church remained shared among bishops and patriarchates. This older ecclesial model is important in Old Catholic understanding because it reflects a vision of Catholicity rooted in collegiality, continuity, and the common life of the undivided Church.

The Roman See often served as a respected point of appeal in disputes and held considerable moral influence in Christendom. But the idea that the Pope could universally govern every church directly, appoint bishops everywhere, or define doctrine independently of the wider episcopate belongs more to later historical developments than to the structure of the pre-1054 Church.

Bishop Gabriel O Obiano

Address

Enugu

Telephone

+2349072479011

Website

http://insidecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Inside Old Catholic posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Place Of Worship

Send a message to Inside Old Catholic:

Shortcuts

Address
Telephone
Alerts
Contact The Place Of Worship
Claim ownership or report listing

Want your place of worship to be the top-listed Place Of Worship in Enugu?