What's in a Name?

There is some discussion about using the name "Old Catholic" and if that is acceptable given that there are "legitimate" Union of Utrecht Churches. Names in the Independent Sacramental Movement (ISM) are a very tricky thing. For instance: many Roman Catholics think of "Liberal Catholic" as advocating women's ordination, gay rights, etc., and not necessarily the esoteric sympathies that the Liberal Catholic Church has nurtured. Similarly, the Charismatic Episcopal Church is very clear that the "Episcopal" in their name is not indicative of participation in the Continuing Anglican movement but for leadership by bishops. There are also those that have a hard time making decisions, hence the Anglican Orthodox Byzantine Old Catholic Non-Jacobite Armenian Coptic Church. TM (Obviously this is tongue in cheek).

So, it can be difficult to convey the beliefs of a jurisdiction in a name. For this reason, the name Old Catholic is often used to symbolize a non-Ultramontanist Catholicism. Many ISM folks are very attached to the Old Catholic tradition, both for its collegiality as well as its emphasis on the local church. From my perspective, there are Anglicans who are not under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet, they are every bit Anglican in their understanding of the tradition. So, too, Old Catholics who are not members of the Union of Utrecht are validly claiming that tradition and the understanding of Ultrajectine Catholicism. Old Catholicism is very diverse. This includes in name (the Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland, the Catholic Diocese of Old Catholics in Germany, the Old Catholic Church of Austria, etc., etc.) as well as in practice (the Poles do not ordain women or gay individuals while the Dutch have been doing so for some time). Yet, they all co-exist because of their understanding of the Ecclesia through the local church. This is a rich, beautiful diversity that is the "big umbrella" of our faith.

So, why is it duplicitous, then, to call yourself a Roman Catholic when not in union with the Pope but not Old Catholic when not in union with the Archbishop of Utrecht? Well, for one, the Old Catholic Church does not have a presence in America. It did with the Polish National Catholic Church, but that has since dissolved. The Old Catholic Union of Utrecht presence in the US is the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, as they are linked closely in inter communion and share much in common. Because of this, it is much easier for a non-Utrecht affiliated Old Catholic church to call itself Old Catholic without misrepresentation. When an cleric calls himself a Roman Catholic, though, there is an expectation that he is in union with the Pope. Sure, there are traditionalist groups that call themselves Roman Catholic that are not in union with the Pope. There are liberal groups that call themselves Roman Catholic and are, effectively, excommunicated by Roman Catholic standards. The difference is that there is a deep longing to change the Roman Church through one's identification with it.

This was driven home to me when I had a conversation with a member of a group advocating for a married RC priesthood. I stated that I was glad to meet another independent Catholic and was very firmly told that "we are not independent Catholics. We are Roman Catholics trying to change our church." Good luck. With Old Catholicism, there is little attempt to change the Union of Utrecht. There is also not the belief that one is an Old Catholic "but for jurisdiction," as it used by some who utilize the term Roman Catholic. In fact, the vast majority of Old Catholics have no desire to enter the Union. They are generally happy with their autonomy and realize that recognition is not likely. If one wants communion with the Old Catholic Churches, they steer towards the Episcopal Church. There is no established institution by which to define yourself--you just stand in the tradition.

The Sin of Misrepresentation...

There is one thing that is completely unacceptable in the ISM--misrepresentation. People generally realize that many clergy are no different from other people. We all have our foibles, our short comings, and wrestle with different issues. However, misrepresenting ourselves cannot be tolerated.

In mainstream denominations, clergy misrepresentation is (sadly) more common than one would think. Besides the scandals, there are the cases of the made up diplomas, the credentials that don't really exist, the ego inflation... But things are a bit different in the ISM. In the ISM, the principal sin of misrepresenting ones self is the misrepresentation that one is a Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, etc. priest.

It should be noted that this rant is not pointed towards traditionalists who have split (in the eyes of the establishment) or continued (in their eyes) from their original tradition. They are often very clear that they are not connected with the "official" church. This may also be evident because of their calendar, commemorations, position on the Pope, liturgy, etc.

It is directed towards those members of the ISM that are so delusional or seeking validation that they present themselves as a priest from one of the above groups. Often, it is most prevalent with Roman Catholicism. I would posit that is because much of the general public is unaware of Orthodoxy and so it is more difficult appear to misrepresent as a "canonical" Orthodox priest. This is especially true in light of the many various factions and the traditionalist issues above. The same, too, with Episcopalians as many simply call themselves Anglicans and people (generally) know the difference. Most Roman Catholics, frankly, lump Episcopalians into the Protestant category and most clergy from the Anglican tradition have no problem telling of the differences between ECUSA and them.

I have heard horror stories of ISM clergy misrepresenting themselves as Roman Catholics. This includes independently ordained priests hearing confessions in Roman Catholic churches until ejected, showing up at liturgies and presenting themselves as Roman Catholic clergy, saying mass and running off with the collection plate, etc. Sometimes, these folks are pure con artists. Sometimes they are mentally ill. In every circumstance, though, they should not have been ordained (if they were). The same goes for those who misrepresent themselves to faithful as Roman Catholic parishes when they are, in fact, independent parishes.

I have also heard every defense for posing as clergy of a larger jurisdiction. "No one will come to our Mass if we let it be known we are independents" or "They don't know the difference" or "I'm valid, so it's ok." To be clear: it is never acceptable. Those priests are misrepresenting themselves and lying to the People of God. They do themselves a disservice and they create suspicion within the community about our movement.

Sure, there are occasionally those folks who don't know about our tradition and may be confused. This is a teaching moment and when I have met such folks they often come back to the liturgy. This is because our understanding of our faith and the liturgy resonates with them. It is often difficult to describe ourselves in a short period of time. People get confused easily about our tradition. What is not ok is to misrepresent.

The larger issue, as well, is why one would want to represent themselves as a Roman Catholic or any other tradition mentioned. We have an extraordinary calling--to minister to those who feel lost, abandoned, and need the Sacraments and liturgy that feeds their soul. We can function outside of dogma and man-made rules to help others become connected with God. That is a greater gift than a momentary bit of recognition or a photo opportunity.

"But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth." James 3:14

The Purpose of This Blog...

I have been asked the purpose of this blog in the past. I don't necessarily know its length of existance and how often I will post. It is partly theologically driven, so that some of the traditions of the ISM can be examined in light of the Church Catholic and justified or discussed. It is also partly humorous so that I can joke about the lighter side of the movement. If we can't learn to laugh at ourselves, we will be forever ashamed and locked in a struggle of justifying that which needs no justification.

The bottom line is that this blog will deal with the stories of people. These people are sometimes broken, hurt, ambitious, sincere, and just plain mad. They are like you and me and their stories deserve to be heard. The ISM is truly a beautiful movement. It has given an opportunity to those who would never have received ministerial standing in other places--women, gays and lesbians, divorced people, etc. Regardless of your feeling on these particular issues, the ISM is a big tent where each person can live their faith in the manner and place that they feel called by God. The ISM a microcosm of society and the Church as a whole.

So, too, the idea of "episcopi vagantes" is not necessarily a bad one. After all, do we not believe in a Savior who had no where to lay his head? He was a migrant, a wandering teacher who preached to those who would listen. Perhaps having great Sees and cathedrals has hindered us from preaching the Gospel or from being with those who are truly in need of Good News. We have so enshrined ministry to a scientific, rigid calling that the Spirit has called people in different, dynamic ways.

More than anything, I hope that my writings allow the readers to rexamine some of their long-held beliefs. Perhaps recreating a larger church in a smaller model is not what you are called to do. Perhaps you need structure and value the boundaries that can be recreated in this movement. Whatever your place or your calling, have an open mind and reflect that you may not know the battles that others are fighting.

Finally, if I have learned anything from being Southern, it is that we cherish our crazy people. In the words of the great Julia Sugarbaker, "This is the South. We're proud of our crazy people. We don't hide them in the attic, we bring them to the living room and show them off. No one in the South asks if you have crazy people, they ask which side they are on." See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KQgulBzh0. Go easy on folks.

Peace.

The More Colorful the Title, the More Colorful the Man...

I have a favorite French proverb: "Wooden Bishop, Golden Crozier. Golden Bishop, Wooden Crozier." That is sometimes hard to apply among the ISM, who frequently use bedposts and all other manner of objects as croziers. Instead, we create fanciful titles for ourselves. This is a list of a few of my favorites:

• Patriarch of Sodom, Gomorrah, and All Canaan (my favorite)
• His Sacred Beatitude and Most Holy Eminence
• His Sacred Beatitude
• Apostolic Pontiff
• Most Illustrious Lord
• Universal Patriarch
• Supreme Hierarch
• His Whiteness (Celtic title, not supremacist!)

These are just a few. Unfortunately, it has been a while since I've read Anson. There are also your run of the mill Cardinals, but they have become an also-ran.

I also have mixed feelings about the title of monsignor. Traditionally, one would not use this title unless given some privilege by the Bishop of Rome or if one was a member of the Bourbon dynasty. Given its proximity to Papal privilege now, I personally prefer the title of Canon.

Feel free to add your own below!

A Pedigree Does Not A Bishop Make...

Often times you will here in the ISM that "I have xyz orders, which makes me an xyz bishop/priest/deacon." Let me assure you, dear reader, that having orders through a particular source does not make one entitled to that tradition. Apostolic Succession (or tradition depending on your outlook) is not something that one owns like the pedigree of a horse. It is a tie to the universal priesthood of Christ Jesus. That succession is as equal in a Roman Catholic ordination as it is in an Orthodox ordination as it is in an Old Catholic ordination... you get the drift.

Some interesting precedents have pointed to going outside one's tradition for receiving the Apostolic Succession. There is a well-known Sedevacantist group that initially received orders from an Old Catholic Bishop. Receiving these orders did not make the recipients Old Catholics (and they made all sorts of abjurations and oaths to prove it) but it connected them with the timeless succession from the apostles. So, too, with the Charismatic Episcopal Church, which received orders from the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. They did not necessarily care about the venerable history of (St.) Carlos Duarte Costa--they only wanted to share in the historic succession.

This does not mean that it is anathema to want to receive a certain lineage because of a link to a tradition or an idealization towards the founder. Like it or not humans are a concrete people who value ties to those who are important to their faith--we keep relics, prayer cards, etc., so it goes to reason that lineage should be no different. However, receiving that lineage is not the be all and end all of claiming the tradition. That takes years of careful theological and historical study, but also a sincere adherence to the faiths and beliefs of that group or background.

So, receiving apostolic succession through an unlikely source does not genetically curse your succession and that of your successor's successors. In that same manner, though, receiving succession through someone like Archbishop Thuc doesn't make you a Traditionalist Catholic. If you doubt this, ask Sinead O'Connor.