One group of trad clergy with solidly valid orders are the Old Romans. They exist in several distinct groups, the most prominent being these four: the Old Roman Apostolate, the See of Caer Glow, the See of Terra Nova, and the Old Roman Catholic Church - Latin Rite.

Unfortunately, the Old Romans too often are confused with the schismatic and heretical Old Catholics because of similarity in name and both Old Romans and Old Catholics derive their Holy Orders through the ancient See of Utrecht.

One group of trad clergy with solidly valid orders are the Old Romans. They exist in several distinct groups, the most prominent being these four: the Old Roman Apostolate, the See of Caer Glow, the See of Terra Nova, and the Old Roman Catholic Church - Latin Rite.

Unfortunately, the Old Romans too often are confused with the schismatic and heretical Old Catholics because of similarity in name and both Old Romans and Old Catholics derive their Holy Orders through the ancient See of Utrecht.

Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew started calling himself Old "Roman" Catholic when he separated from Utrecht.  He was simply continuing Old Catholicism which was condemned by the Church.  In fact, Mathew was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X in 1911.

Here is his declaration of "autonomy" from Utrecht:  https://www.ssmercy.org/declaration-of-autonomy.html

These "Old Romans" all come from this man.

While they may have valid orders, Bp.  Meikle is a married man, and many of their priests and bishops are also married.  They also celebrate the Traditional Mass in both the vernacular and English.  Also, they claim jurisdiction by setting themselves up as ordinaries of dioceses.  None of this is in any way traditional.

Until they stop ordaining and consecrating married men, stop celebrating Mass in the vernacular, and stop setting up pseudo-dioceses, they should not be considered traditional Catholics and should be avoided for the schismatics they are. 

Yes, you can stop committing slander by distorting the truth.  They most certainly did not "continue Old Catholicism".  They both had common roots in a canonical dispute between Rome and the See of Utrecht, there was nothing doctrinal about it, just a dispute over whether Rome had granted certain privileges in perpetuity to that See.  In fact, when the Old Catholics rejected the teaching on papal infallibility, Mathew repudiated them over that, and they have professed submission to the papacy and to the Magisterium ever since.

So that's a lie that thye were "continuing Old Catholicism".


It is true that Mathew was excommunicated for his refusal of submission to the Holy See (again, canonical, not doctrinal dispute) ... but that would be probably the closest thing you can get to something that might be called "pure schism", where's it's schism only without any doctrinal errror.

Then of course, you proceed to slander the current Old Roman Catholics of being schismatics, as if schism were some communicable disease.  In point of fact, TODAY'S Old Roman Catholics are in the exact same state of canoical irregularity that every Traditional group finds itself in, and if you actually were to speak to Bishop Meikle, you'd find out that he's thoroughly Catholics and would in fact immediately submit to a legitimate Traditional pope, without hesitation.

In fact, several lines of the Old Roman Catholics were about to call it quits and close up shop, having determined that there was no longer any need or justification for their ministery, but just before they could do so, Vatican II happened.  So then they changed up being drawn toward a ministry or apostolate in view of maintaining Tradition in the wake of the Conciliar revolution.

As for offering Mass in the vernacular, the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, I did opine to Bishop Meikle that there wasn't really any need for that anymore, and he didn't really object.  Various groups have at one pont or another adopted vernarcular, especially in the Eastern Churches.  I know, for instance, that the Greek (Eastern Rite) Hungarians used vernacular for a long time.  St. Pius X gave them a few years to transition to using Greek for their Sacred LIturgy, but then he passed away shortly thereafter and the following popes lifted that requirement.

With regard to marriage, so?  That has nothing to do with schism ... though it is a result of having been separated for some time from submission to Rome.  Eastern Churches do have married clergy (though typically not bishops).

So, you may want to brush up some on Canon Law here regarding what constitutes schism, an almost-principled but at least chronic formal refusal of submission to the Holy See or to other Catholics in submission to the Holy See.  Now, in normal times a de facto non-submission would be considered a strong indicator of schism, although there has beent that gray area of the vagantes, those who are not in any kind of canonical relationship with the Holy See, but aren't really formally refusing submission either.  Problem is the crisis right now ... where, that pretty much describes everybody.  So if Bishop Meikle wanted to somehow return to canonical submission to the Holy See, what's the process ... go to Prevost and ask for re-admission?  They can't do that because they're of the same opinion about Vatican II, Modernism, etc. as -- IMO -- the Resistance are, to the right of neo-SSPX these days, and posslbly leaning toward sedevacantism.  What should they do, go to +Fellay or +Sanborn?  Neither of those have any authority to "receive" anyone into the Church from alleged schism.  It's not unlike the case of, say, annulments, or if a priest wanted to be laicized, or whatnot.  Do you go to your local NO bishop for an annulment?  SSPX?  There's no satisfactory practical solution.  So we have to go on what they profess, and Bishop Meikle, and many others in the Old Roman Catholic lineage clearly profess the Catholic faith, and if you didn't know about the historical background, and, say, thought he had come from the +Thuc line ... you'd absolutely never know the difference in terms of what they think, believe or profess ... you'd think you were speaking to a Traditional Catholic (absent things like his being married).  We've had various Traditional Catholics bishops from the +Thuc line, notably Bishop Slupski, who had ordained some married men.  Were they not Traditional Catholics ... because they had judged due to the crisis that it might be required for the salvation of souls to do that?  You could say they were wrong, perhaps ... but there's nothing intrinsically "schismatic" that (again, cf. the Eastern Catholic Churches).

 As for erecting jurisdictional sees, that too is much a relic of the Old Roman past. Very few (none?) amongst the Old Roman bishops would claim ordinary jurisdiction. They do use titles of titular sees, but no bishops ought ever to be consecrated without at least a titular title, e.g., See of Caer Glow or Titular Archbishop of Selsey. There are profound reasons in sacramental theology for having at least a titular see when being consecrated a bishop even in times of emergency and crisis. Additionally, Old Romans have been moving in most recent time away from using the name "Old Roman Catholic Church" precisely to avoid any impression that they are separate from or in anyway in schism from the Roman Catholic Church. What was was historical true for Old Romans in 1915, 1925, 1945 does not necessarily obtain to the reality today.

I actually had a brief conversation with Bishop Meikle on X suggesting perhaps to change the name, since the popular conception when you mention a "See" is that you're claiming jurisdiction over something, i.e. that it savors of schism.  He actually agreed and stated that they had been considering some name changes.

No, "archbishop" should disappear completely.  That is a title conferred by the Pope. 

But, what do I know?