Archbishop Mathew and Modernism

Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew (7 August 1852 – 19 December 1919) is regarded as the father of Old Roman Catholicism and the source of many who claim Old Catholic orders. He is a unique figure, because even prior to his Old Catholic affiliations he was constantly pulled between ecclesiastical entities. Even as a child he was baptized in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches. He studied for ministry in the Scottish Episcopal Church, but was subsequently ordained in the Roman Catholic Church.1 He later left the Roman Catholic Church, had a crisis of faith, and later functioned in an Anglican Church.2

In 1892, Mathew returned to the Roman Catholic Church as a layman but still functioned in the Anglican Church without a license.3 In 1897 he had a chance meeting with Father Richard O'Halloran, a subsequently suspended Roman Catholic priest. It was O'Halloran who introduced Mathew to the Old Catholic Churches. It was here that he found a home formally in 1908 and was consecrated as a bishop that same year.

Mathew separated from the Old Catholics in 1910, just 7 days before consecrating 4 new bishops and 6 months after consecrating 2 bishops in violation of the Agreement of Utrecht. He alleged that the Old Catholic Churches were abandoning the faith and issued a Declaration of Autonomy and Independence. In this work, Mathew concluded that the Old Catholic Churches had given up daily Mass, mentioning the Pope in the liturgy, invocation of the saints, auricular confession, and other innovations. Mathew renamed his church the "Old Roman Catholic Church" and sought unity with the Orthodox six months after leaving the Old Catholics (August 1911).

Mathew's Declaration and his seeking unity with the Eastern Orthodox has been used as evidence that he was a traditional Catholic and, therefore, opposed to modernism. Modernism is defined here by Abbate Cavallanti: "Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion"4 This definition is as loose as the definition of Jansenism, as it encompasses so many different things. Pius X stated that Modernism "encompasses all heresies."

For traditional Roman Catholics, Modernism has continued to be the greatest evil to plague the church. The effects of Modernism (may) include a vernacular liturgy, Vatican II, redefining of Catholic dogma, religious syncretism, and all sorts of errors contrary to the traditional beliefs of the church. As mentioned, Mathew's assertion of his beliefs and seeking Orthodoxy have been evidence that he eschewed Modernism and promoted traditional Catholicism.

Yet, there are problems with this narrative historically. First, Mathew was known to be an acquaintance of Hyacinthe Loyson around 1889.2 Loyson was a Roman Catholic priest, Provincial of the Discalced Carmelites, and subsequently excommunicated in 1869. He had spoken positively of Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism as the religions of civilized people.5 Loyson joined the Old Catholics in 1873 and established the Gallican Church. Thus, by the time he met and befriended Mathew he was well known internationally as a proponent of Modernism.

Loyson was not the only Modernist known by Mathew. Mathew was well acquainted with George Tyrrell, an Irish Jesuit excommunicated for Modernism in 1907 for writing critical essays of Pius X's Pascendi dominici gregis on Modernism. Mathew and Tyrrell were in frequent correspondence and both collaborated on Dr. H. C. Lea's History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, published in 1907.2 It was on Tyrrell's suggestion that Mathew again approached the Church of England about preferment just prior to his correspondence with the Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland (that country's Old Catholic body) in 1907. Tyrrell congratulated Mathew on his consecration in 1908 and they continued correspondence until roughly Tyrrell's death in 1909. 

At Tyrell's death Mathew celebrated a low Requiem Mass for him as he had been forbidden an ecclesiastical funeral. Mathew remarked: "I have no hesitation in declaring to you from what I knew of him that he was an ardent and true Christian, and a sincere and faithful Catholic... He had a greater range of spiritual vision, and the supernatural loomed larger in his eyes than in those of the majority of his brethren. Who among them was his intellectual equal, or possessed an intelligence approaching his in subtlety and grace?"6 

What this legacy shows is that Mathew was a complex figure who vacillated between ecclesiastical entities seeking to find a true home. This seeking continued during his time as an Old Roman Catholic, when he used various names to describe the Church (i.e. Western Orthodox, Old Roman Catholic, Angient Catholic, Western Catholic, etc.). He also sought again, during this time, unity with the Church of England and Rome (as a layman). While detractors will point to this as a sign of wavering, I see it as an indication that Mathew continued to find where he truly "fit." It was uniquely Western liturgically while being in faith pre-Vatican I with Orthodox sympathies. Many of us find our home in this amorphous place which can be difficult to describe, especially to outsiders. His seeking unity with Caterbury and Rome was likely a desperate outreach after having been deserted by all his friends and numerous schisms.

Mathew's legacy also shows that he was unquestionably a gifted researcher and writer, and that he wrestled with the complexities of his faith. This is also evident by his numerous translated and composed works. 2  But, as shown with the company he kept and those who influenced him, it would be wrong to identify him as a strict traditionalist. Even at his death he was buried in an Anglican cemetery, an action made out of the kindness of the rector and indicative of the struggles Mathew endured. He was unquestionably influenced by Modernism and, in fact, found his home in a place which embraced many of the things supported by Modernists (Old Catholicism had married priests, a vernacular liturgy, greater lay participation, was not Ultramontanist, etc.). 

A question remains as to his rationale for separating from the Old Catholics. Some point to his consecration of new bishops as the ultimate catalyst, while others note his concerns with their doctrinal changes. It is true that the Church of Utrecht now looks very different than it did in 1908. Perhaps it was both--a desire for greater independence as well as concerns at the path of the Old Catholic Churches. Moss notes that Mathew was disturbed at some of the ideas out of the Old Catholic Congress of Vienna in 1909, although he did co-consecrate with Gul for the Mariavites later that year.7 However, given Mathew's friendship with Tyrrell and (to a lesser extent) Loyson, as well as his adoption of some of the Old Catholic ideas, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that he was completely opposed to all modernist ideas. Just those, judging by his Declaration, which affected the sacraments.

Mathew was a complex character who continues to be studied even 100 years after his death. Those in the Old Catholic Movement are grateful for his passing on his lineage as well as his vision of a non-papal Catholicism. He continues to be pilloried by traditionalists and his complexities are not aways appreciated by his supporters. His impact continues to be felt world-wide.

This is part of a larger study of Mathew and Modernism which will be published by the author.

1.Hill, Christopher (January 2004). "Episcopal Lineage: a theological reflection on Blake v Associated Newspapers Ltd". Ecclesiastical Law Journal. Cambridge University Press. 7 (34): 334–338. doi:10.1017/S0956618X00005421. ISSN 0956-618X.

2. Anson, Peter. (1964). Bishops at Large. New York: October House.

3. "King's bench division". The Times (40186). London. 15 April 1913. pp. 3–4. ISSN 0140-0460.

4. Vermeersch, A. (1911). Modernism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved October 26, 2019 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

5. Augé, Claude, ed. (1898). "Loyson, Charles". Nouveau Larousse illustré (in French). 5. Paris: Éditions Larousse. p. 777.

6. "The late Father Tyrrell." The Manchester Guardian. Manchester. 12 August 1909. pp. 8. 

7. Moss, Claude B (2005) [1977]. The Old Catholic Movement: its origins and history. Independent Catholic heritage series (reissue, with additions and corrections, of 2nd ed.). Berkeley: Apocryphile Press. ISBN 0976402599.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue on the Liturgy

Below is a letter from Fr. Adrian Fortescue dated November 24, 1919 to Stanley Morison (the formatting was retained). It details that although we become experts on certain topics or subjects, those same subjects may not be our passion! The humor is not lost that we now look to Fr. Fortescue as one of the great rubrical masters of his time.

“I cannot possibly give up another day, or part of one, to looking over Gurney’s wretched pictures of people in Italian vestments, to judge whether the thurifer is standing at the right place and whether the deacon ought to have his hands joined. There is something more about this. I wish you would tell everybody who wants to bother me on the subject. I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT MODERN CEREMONIES. I hate, loathe and utterly despise the trivial details of ceremonies. I do not think it matters one little straw where the acolytes stand during Pontifical vespers at the throne, and I simply do not know the correct answer to the endless stream of questions of this kind that people are always sending me. I suppose I knew something about these things while I was writing that book of Ceremonies, but now I thank my Maker that, if I did, I have forgotten it all. My writing that book was a colossal mistake really. I had written a book about the history of the Mass. Then B. & O., understanding nothing about such things, invited me to revise Dale-Baldeschi. If they had understood anything, they would have known a man who wrote a history of a rite is absolutely the very last man to write the rules of modern ceremonies. The two things are utterly different, and appeal to utterly different types of mind. I know people, like Wallis and Hall, who have that queer taste for the silly details of ceremonies. They never known nor care about the history of such things. To them it is not the history nor the development of rites that matter a bit, it is the latest decision of the Congregation of Rites. These decisions are always made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want to simply ignore. It is a queer type of mind that actually is interested in knowing whether the deacon should stand at the right or the left of someone else at some moment. I do not think there is any possible subject of inquiry that seems to me more entirely trivial, futile, silly and uninteresting. I have some slight interest in the history of the Roman Rite (though even in this I have now gone a long way in other directions. At present, I am much more interested in what Plato thought about ideas, and the relation of Proclus to Christianity, how far Neoplatonism is Platonism at all). I never cared a tinker’s cuss what the Congregation may have decided about the order in which the acolyte should put out the candles after Vespers. B & O understand nothing; so of course they did not understand the differences between the man interested in the history of rites and the man who makes a stupid hobby book of knowing what is the footling rule for each case now. They ought to have offered the work to Wallis or Hall, or that little man at St. Edmund’s who found several hundred mistakes in my book, after Bergh and Hall had passed it as perfect. I took on the job solely for filthy lucre’s sake. It was in the middle of the war, nearly all chance of a market for literary works ended, Britten had just written to say that C.T.S. could not think of printing my book on the Uniate Churches till times had changed. I wanted money, and I thought it would not take long to revise Dale. I had not the ghost of an idea when I took on the job what an appalling business it was going to be. Having begun, I thought I ought to go on. Dale soon proved to be impossible. For one ghastly year (I think the most dismal, hateful, useless year of my life), I swotted away at stuff for which I could hardly conceal my contempt and disgust while I was doing it. Day after day I took up the hateful burden of verifying in Merati, Martinucci, Le Vasseur, Van Der Stappen, what each person does in the course of these interminable ceremonies. It was as far removed from any intellectual interest as anything could be. Absolutely any fool could write such a book of ceremonies. It is only a matter of looking up what about 10 stupid Italians say. Generally they all say the same thing. When they disagree, you say so, and give the view of each. It was about as interesting as drawing up a railway guide by combining the hours of trains from the time-tables of ten different companies.

During that hateful year I acquired two overwhelming impressions. First, that whatever beauty interest or historic value, or dignity, the Roman rite ever had has been utterly destroyed by the uneducated little cads who run that filthy congregation at Rome; secondly that it would be beyond the power of man to invent a form of literature more entirely uninteresting, or more finally disgusting than the works of Messrs. Martinucci, Le Vasseur, Baldeschi, and the rest. The one only pleasure I got in doing the book was writing the preface where I say, as plainly as I dare, what contemptible nonsense the whole thing is. I ended thanking God that it was done. But it was not. The little man at St. Edmund’s sent men an interminable list of errors. Once more I had to take up the loathsome burden and revise the book. But then I had done. I have sold all the books on the subject I acquired while writing it, thank God I have forgotten every little bit of what I learned writing it. I have never looked at my own book ever again. I want never to hear another word about ceremonies for as long as I live. I would rather discuss the symptoms of cancer. There is no subject in the world for which I have so intense a disgust.

But see and learn from my sad case. That putrid book is the curse of my life. Day after day I am inundated with letters from people of whom I have never heard, with strings of questions about ceremonies; Catholic priests, still more High Anglicans, from all over the country think they have the right to dollop on me several hours’ work doing research for them about some silly detail of a subject of which I know nothing. This is what amazes me, the incredible imprudence of these people. Because I have written a book it does not follow that I have turned myself into a society for giving free advice, and doing free research work for every unknown fool who may choose to write me and ask for it. I could of course spend my few hours at the Museum by having out again Martinucci and his peers, verifying points, comparing authorities. I could ask for the whole collection of the Decrees of the Stinking Congregation of Rites, and pass through hours or so hunting for the date of a decree. But why cannot these imprudent scoundrels do their own dirty work? Their cheek takes away my breath. I do not fire off a letter to some doctor in Harley Street whom I do not know, asking him, with a lot of compliments, kindly to write out for me a treatise on the cause, prevention, treatment and cure of arthritis. It would never occur to me to find the address of some lawyer and jump on him eight questions about real and personal property. People do this to me. Every week I get six or seven letters, often with ten questions in each. Any of these questions would take me a couple of hours of research to answer, some letters would need six or seven folio pages to answer properly, and two or three days of arduous and hateful work. Why am I to be pestered without ceasing, by any fool in Cornwall, Scotland, Isle of Man? What makes me most furious is when they enclose a stamp for the answer. It is not the value of their beastly penny half-penny, it is the hours, sometimes days, of work that they have the infernal imprudence to expect me to put at their service.

Final conclusion: Every letter of this kind goes straight into the waste paper basket. If the man sends me a stamp I lick it off and keep it; if he smears his request with complements I simply confound his infernal impertinence. I am not going ever to answer any letters with questions about ceremonies. If people want to know these things, let them get a book and find out for themselves. My only request is that it would take too much trouble to do as I would like, namely to write back the most offensive insults I can think of. It is really extraordinary that almost every letter I get (except yours) and some bills, contains a string of questions on various subjects, representing about £3 or £4 worth of research work. If I answered all these as the people who write them expect, I should have a full life’s work with this alone. The brazen cheek of people, who would not write you to ask you to send a cheque for £10 as a present by return of post, but have no sort of scruple in asking calmly for pounds’ worth of free work to be done for them astounds me.

Do please tell anyone who threatens to fire off strings of questions at me that I am exceedingly busy, that I am not a society kept out of the rates of answering anyone’s queries, that I have no time to write letters, that I wish for goodness’ sake that they would leave me alone, so that I may have a little time to do my own work.

Example: Today a parcel came from herder. I do know nothing of Herder except that I have sometimes a bought a book there. His manager sends a big German book on the use of the tabernacle. Will I kindly read it, then advise him whether, in my option, there would be sufficient demand to justify him publishing an English translation of this book? Enclosed please find four stamps, to pay for return of the book. I know nothing about the book. I do not want to read it. I do not know anything about the demand for such works in English. I know nothing about the subject. I am not Herder’s literary advisor. I want to be let alone to finish twenty pressing jobs, and above all, to get back to Boethius. Now I have this infernal nuisance of writing to his man, doing up his beastly book, taking it to the post, hanging about there while they weigh it and all the rest of the filthy bother. He thinks it is adequate return of all this loathsome nuisance that he encloses the stamps. You will think that since I am so pressed I need not fire off all of this wrath on you. No I suppose I need not. I did not mean to when I began. It arose out of Gurney. Then my feelings have carried me away, and you will now have the benefit of months of pent-up fury at the endless nuisance of all these swinish fools who peter me all the week."

Book Review: "Extraordinary Celebrations, Extraordinary Growth!: Ideas for Independent & Old Catholic Communities during the Year of Matthew 2020”

The subject of this book review is “Extraordinary Celebrations, Extraordinary Growth!: Ideas for Independent & Old Catholic Communities during the Year of Matthew 2020.” The author is the Hon. Rev. Dr. Jayme Mathias. It is a time-honored practice for Independent Catholics to list any and all titles in print. Mathias has had great success with his parish, Holy Family, in Austin and this work is a continuation of his efforts. He is to be commended for his online videos promoting education within the Movement, and seeks to share his experiences in this book. He is well educated and his viewpoints add a great deal to the Movement.

The number of exclamation points in the work indicate the author’s passion about the subject. It is evident that he loves his community and attempts innovative ways to grow and sustain it. I struggled with parts of the work where it appeared paternalistic and gimmicky—I am not personally convinced that the “razzle dazzle” of megachurches is the best example for authentic liturgical communities. Fr. Steve Rice recently commented "what you with them with is what you win them to." I also believe “less is more” regarding visuals, or they can become trite. The author also draws heavily on his Roman Catholic background, so using examples of what the Second Vatican Council promoted is not always applicable to all sectors of our Movement. I am also personally wary of benchmarking based on clergy stipends—this model has not fared well for mainline Christianity.

The book also contains some very useful practical examples on pastoral care. Using a parish necrology or anniversary is an excellent tool for personal outreach and a parish lunch or coffee hour is essential to building true community. Mathias’ focus on social media and involving children are also helpful, as they are ways to keep all members of the family involved. I also enjoyed the daily meditations on different saints and holy people. Traditionally-inclined Catholics may be surprised to see Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, John Alan Lee, and the Dalai Lama among the group, but the author includes something for everyone. It was especially pleasant to see legends like Thuc, Karl Pruter, and others included, as well as ecumenical figures like Patriarch Addai II and Patriarch Neophyte.

Overall, the author and I don’t share the same ethos on how to grow a parish. However, his passion shines through and the book is helpful to any group which needs ideas to get them “unstuck” from mundane Sundays (or needs a fresh ordo with something for everyone). The author is to be commended for investing the time and energy into adding to the publication list of the Independent Catholic (or Autocephalous Catholic or ISM movement). 

Book Review: "Carlos Duarte Costa: Testament of a Socialist Bishop"

I was, frankly, surprised to see another publication by Edward Jarvis in such a short period of time on topics about which I am deeply interested. Jarvis' ability to produce and research is admirable, particularly on topics which have previously been ignored. I'm also glad to see him include a biographical sketch. In this work, a follow-up to his work on ICAB, Jarvis focuses on the personality and background of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa (now St. Carlos in ICAB).

Jarvis does an admirable job, as always, in providing background to the life and times of Duarte Costa. His rich description of Brazil in that time is helpful. Particularly useful, too, is Jarvis' re-translation of Duarte Costa's "Declaration to the Nation" with commentary. I have seen this work floating around on the internet, but Jarvis preserves it for posterity in a crisp translation. It is another instance of his fine research abilities and attention to detail, which is also replicated throughout the book. 

Also helpful is Jarvis' discussion of the contemporary adherence to the "Declaration" and the division among the ICAB hierarchy. Some of them have noted their online support of President Jair Messias Bolsonaro whose public ideals are at odds with the "Declaration." It is an important emphasis that no church or group is homogeneous.

The book also excels in tying the ICAB movement with contemporary (and historical) issues within Roman Catholicism. The emphasis and questions related to authority in the church are timely and, although the references used may not age well, have been pertinent since circa 33 AD. I do feel that Jarvis is more attentive than in "God, Land & Freedom" at focusing solely on comparisons between ICAB and the Roman Church and instead discusses their parallels. 

It is important to note that Jarvis cites the 1 million Independent Catholic adherents figure in the US documented by Dr. Julie Byrne, which I respectfully contest as too high. Also, his statement about the "questionable Holy Orders from 'Old Catholic' sources" of certain individuals could be better explained so as to clearly avoid any accusation of denigrating the Old Catholic Movement. I am also unsure as to the objectiveness of the source regarding Duarte Costa's academic history. Finally, I do wish there was slightly more attention to careful wording. He says "...which are to be distinguished from true autonomous Orthodox Churches are they are not in communion with or linked to any ancient episcopal see." Every group, be it the so-called canonical Orthodox to the Old Calendarists to the Roman Catholic Church to the sedevacantists deem themselves "true."

Overall, however, this is an excellent book on a topic which needs to be addressed. Given his advocacy for an early form of Liberation Theology I think it is a timely work. People from a variety of backgrounds will find it useful in understanding Independent Catholicism, Roman Catholicism in Brazil, and the political landscape of the area which helped shape, among others, the current Pope.

Book available on Amazon.

Authenticity

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges of this movement is that some people are drawn to a lack of authenticity. This ties in, somewhat, to my post related to hypocrisy. But I think the issue of authenticity relates to a macro scale.

I joined the Autocephalous Catholic movement at the tender age of 16. Since then, I have done my very best to document its history as well as become an expert on the theologies and figures of the movement as a whole. From studying the movement for many years now I have noticed some consistent things about the movement. These are not academic observations just just commonalities I have discovered:

1. Lay people are often attracted to "Roman replicators" because the liturgy is familiar and it is akin to going to St. Mary's down the street. This can be problematic for clergy who like a particular liturgy or have attached themselves to a certain ethos to differentiate themselves from Rome.
2. There is not a lot of jurisdictional "buy in" from lay people in terms of keeping a jurisdiction going. They may identify as "xyz Catholic" but typically they will just call themselves Catholic.
3. The most difficult thing in this movement is keeping a parish going. Most communities do not survive the charismatic founder stage.
4. There are a lot of clergy and jurisdictions that say one thing but reality is very different. In my experience it is the honest clergy and jurisdictions who are the most successful.

The purpose of this post is regarding observation 4. My experience has included a number of jurisdictions who say one thing but practice another. Unfortunately this typically describes entities which are very conscious about other people's thoughts. This can range from proclaiming to be traditional but actually being open to esotericism, proclaiming traditional morality while priests live with "roomates," and even being open about the crazier side of their history. While this information is tightly stored away we find that it was rampant throughout the history of our movement. Some of our most prestigious forefathers pastored Unitarian churches but were apostolic bishops, or dabbled in Esotericism, or were divorced/remarried, or were thought to have been celibate but had a wife and children,  or had any number of personal foibles they may not have wanted others to know.

In many ways this is why I admire some of the more unique entities within our movement. There are groups which have elected their own pope, reshaped their theology, or otherwise differentiated themselves from Roman Catholicism to make them completely unique. What is curious about these groups is that they seem to have staying power. They attract a distinctive following and they generally stay after the leader's demise. I'm not proposing we all go out and elect a pope, but historically it is notable how some of our most successful brethren (or sometimes we may want to say barely cousins) are those which are themselves and who own their individuality. Look at, for example, the Liberal Catholic Church which has 100 years under its belt. The same is true of the Philippine Independent Church and the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, which have each adapted themselves to their local situations and individual needs. There are many other smaller groups which have demonstrated their own staying power because they crafted something truly novel.

Now--a word of warning. Just because groups are authentically themselves does not give them license to do whatever they want. There must be some provisions to prevent falling into cult-like behavior, harming others, or generally completely embarrassing the rest of us. I am a big believer in the professional image of the clergy. We may have inclusive, broad, or even quirky views, but we can't allow that to cause scandal to others. If you're sacrificing animals on your front porch--it's a problem. It is enough to state one's case and be honest about your convictions while maintaining social and legal mores. 

It also does not mean that there is not a place for "Roman Replicators." There are many, many people who are served well by them and who provide sacraments and support to those who can't find it at their home parish. In fact, these groups are often our most numerically successful (as noted in point 1). While the moniker is "Roman Replicators" it is not limited those closely tied to Roman Catholicism. It can be "Constantinople Replicators" or "Canterbury Replicators." There is truly a place for them.

But it is apparent, as I look through my own ecclesiastical history and the churches where I have been committed, that it is those with an authenticity that is uniquely their own charism which continuously outlive the founders. Not always but can. This is true when clergy are themselves and are honest about why they joined the movement in the first place. Because they were authentic in where they felt the spirit calling them. Sometimes our ministries are for an hour, or a day, or a year, or even a dozen years before they end. And that's ok. But sometimes they do last generations. And that's ok too. This is not a road map for success, it's merely built upon my observations of the entities with the longest histories and the people who built them. May we all have the ability to be our authentic selves. 

"Be who you were created to be, and you will set the world on fire!" St. Catherine of Siena.

The Sacred and the Secular

As we end the month of June, I have noticed social media covered in pictures of churches festooned with LGBT pride flags. For me, this is problematic because any secular symbol in the sanctuary is problematic. This is not about LGBT equality and I do not believe this can be singled out to just a pride flag. This extends to a variety of items—sports team chasubles, pride stoles/flags, political statements, and even national flags. Our gathering for the liturgy is a sacred action where we come to receive the very Body and Blood of Christ. We come from a variety of backgrounds--saint and sinner, firm and questioning, committed and struggling--to receive that which gives us strength to continue. It would be different if we were a non-sacramental church where there is no emphasis on eucharistic devotion. But we gather to join ourselves to Our Lord’s ultimate sacrifice. As such we are called to join ourselves wholeheartedly to Our Lord. 

Because of this perspective, anything highlighting a secular cause or campaign is not suitable for the Holy of Holies. I am certainly sympathetic to people wanting to ensure everyone feels welcome and extending hospitality towards those who have been rejected in the past. But when we involve the secular—again be it nationalism, regionalism, a sports team, or highlighting a group—it runs the risk of politicizing or secularizing the sacred. And we’ve seen time and time again how that does not work out. So, put up funny church signs, bless the team before the big game, advertise an extravagant welcome to anyone and everyone on your website, even put things in the narthex, but please keep the sanctuary sacred. 

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” Gal. 2:20

Photo: Altar at Blessed Sacrament Church in Hollywood, Calif.

Veiling Sacred Images

Traditionally after the Vespers of Passion Sunday all statues, images, etc. are veiled in the church (except the stations). This pious custom has also made its way into people's homes where they, too, veil their sacred images. This is one of my favorite parts leading to Holy Week because our once vibrant sanctuaries now look dim and somber. There are no longer sacred images to remind us of the lives of Our Lord, His Mother, and the saints.

While this is one of my favorite customs, it is not always one of my favorite chores. As I prepared to veil the sacred images this year I had the same recurring thoughts. These included "will this be the year I die falling from a ladder?" and "how long will it take to iron out the wrinkles in these veils?" and "where did I put the veils?" It was then that I discovered that the veils I use were in bad shape and I needed to sew more. As I sat down to this seemingly tedious task the previous negative thoughts continued in my head. 

Yet as I sewed my thoughts started to turn to spiritual things. I thought about how lucky I am to belong to a tradition with such beautiful customs. My thoughts also went to how this task can't compare to the agony Our Lord and His Holy Mother endured during these weeks. Finally, I thought how fortunate I was to be able to complete this task and bring more solemnity to my little sanctuary. What started as a tedious task became a spiritual discipline, and I was joyful when I finished.

I mention this to encourage any readers to veil their sacred images during these times. This custom may have fallen away in modern churches, but it really is a meaningful one (even if it can seem tedious). Just as we "dress up" our liturgical observances during important feasts and parish celebrations, it is also important for us to celebrate in a somber way during those times of grief. This action shows those who see the sanctuary that we are preparing for a time where Our Lord will experience death on the cross. It also helps us re-live the experience of the Apostles who went from Our Lord's physical presence to seeking him in prayer and through the Holy Eucharist.

There are so many beautiful customs which have developed during this sacred time--from processions to emphasis on the stations to veiling images to burying the alleluia--each one has risen from sincere devotion. We are so very lucky to have such a rich liturgical calendar and meaningful customs to support us on our journey. So as we begin Passiontide, I hope that it is a meaningful time for you.

"The presentiment of that awful hour leads the afflicted mother to veil the image of her Jesus: the gross is hidden from the eyes of the faithful. The statues of the saints, too, are covered; for it is but just that, if the glory of the Master be eclipsed, the servant should not appear. The interpreters of the liturgy tell us that this ceremony of veiling the crucifix during Passiontide, expresses the humiliation to which our Savior subjected Himself, of hiding Himself when the Jews threatened to stone Him, as is related in the Gospel of Passion Sunday. The Church begins this solemn rite with the Vespers of the Saturday before Passion Sunday. Thus it is that, in those years when the feast of our Lady's Annunciation falls in Passion-week, the statue of Mary, the Mother of God, remains veiled, even on that very day when the Archangel greets her as being full of grace, and blessed among women." - From "The Mystery of Passiontide and Holy Week" in Dom Gueranger's "The Liturgical Year."

Images: My own chapel.

The Mass as Sacrifice

"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387])." - St John Chrysostom 

I opened this post with a quote from St. John Chrysostom because it is, for me, a perfect summary of what we believe about the Holy Mass. Unfortunately, in some quarters, it has become more common to emphasize the Mass as meal and the altar as table. While these terms are accurate--the Mass is a "Heavenly Meal" on the "Table of the Lord" overuse of them can lead to a de-emphasis of the Mass as sacrifice.

Ultimately, if the Mass is not a sacrifice then we are not emulating the commandment at the Last Supper to "do this in memory of me." True, there was in the Early Church (and still today in the beautiful custom of the Eastern Church with the antidoron) the offerings of agape feasts both closely related to the Eucharist and, later, separated from it. Yet these remained distinct from the sacrificial action which was limited to the Body of Christ (excluding, for example, catechumens) and which required baptism, penance, and other expectations.

How, then, did we get here? The reformers had some effect by their denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Still, too, did the liturgical reformers who utilized non-sacrificial terminology in liturgical revisions. This created a de-emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. While I prefer an ad orientem celebration of the Mass I don't think our problems hinge on that single issue. There are numerous ones which have gotten us to our current level of informality. 

So, then, what is the solution? 

1. Proper catechesis. Emphasize in homilies, writings, and other venues the importance of the Holy Mass as sacrifice. Train those entering the Church that the Mass is a sacrificial act. I was recently told be a Catholic convert "I became Catholic but I still don't believe it's really the Body of Christ." That is the wrong attitude, obviously.

2. Appropriate liturgical atmosphere. Even if you're renting space or meeting in a non-liturgical location you can still take steps to ensure the Mass is reverently celebrated. 1. Create an atmosphere of holiness that is separate from peoples' ordinary lives, unique, and reflective. 2. Use the best resources possible when celebrating the liturgy. This means dignified vestments, reverent materials, and proper respect for holy vessels and objects. ABSOLUTELY NO SCARF STOLES (I'm looking at you RCWP). 3. Choose music and other supportive material that emphasizes the holiness of the Mass. If I have to hear "Gather Us In" one more time... 

3. Use clergy appropriately and generously. The beauty of the autocephalous Catholic movement is that we can ordain people more easily. Find appropriate people in your community to act as deacons and priests and encourage their vocation. We don't have to utilize "eucharistic ministers" because we can foster people's vocations without the rigid strictures of the mainstream. This is not only beneficial for the liturgical setting, but the faithful have access to spiritual benefits not available from the laity (like blessing children or catechumens who can't receive the Eucharist--which can't be done by "eucharistic ministers.")

4. Emphasize the holiness of the Eucharist. It has become fashionable to receive Holy Communion in the hand. However, this, too, can do much to de-emphasize the sacrifice of the Mass by promoting familiarity. And familiarity, as we know, can breed contempt. If the Eucharist is received it can be received on the tongue with great reverence. There is less discussion about the method of receiving the Eucharist. While I prefer kneeling, standing has long been the tradition in the Eastern Church. Encouraging a bow, genuflection, or reverence before receiving Holy Communion is laudable.

5. Create a setting of prayer. In all community gatherings or other events, ensure that prayer is offered and that prayer is at the heart of the event (as it is ideally within our lives). Whether it is a parish picnic, retreat, or any other setting use it as a chance to provide reverent prayer. Also use time-honored liturgies, not those created on the fly. As I've previously mentioned--there is a reason why we use liturgies which were created and prayed by saints and within the tradition of the Church.

There are always steps that can be taken to ensure that the sacrificial nature of Mass is honored. These can be done regardless of the Mass rite itself (whether Novus Ordo, Tridentine, etc.). To some, these items may not be important. "People are starving" is a refrain heard whenever one talks about liturgy. They are starving... spiritually starving. And they are starving because of our mediocre liturgies and lack of prayerful atmospheres.

"O Priest of God, say this Mass as though it were your first Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass."

Caption: Rev. George. H. Clements giving Holy Communion, Chicago, 1973. Original caption: Holy Angel Catholic Church on Chicago's South side, 1973.

Caption: Outdoor Mass, reverently celebrated. Source unknown.

Orthodox Theology and the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute

As I have previously mentioned, I have a continual interest in Orthodox Theology. My interest stems from the lack of scholasticism found in the tradition. My theological training was primarily oriented theologically and cerebrally, and I have found in Orthodox writings a training which is of the heart. Despite this training, I will admit that I find the liturgical tradition to be esoteric and complex. This could be because it is, indeed, or complex, or it could be because I am a Westerner too set in my ways for change. Despite these feelings, I do deeply love the mystical tradition of the East.

For me, there is no place where this theology has been more developed than in Paris. In particular, the St. Sergius Institute has created some of the very best writers. These are individuals who wrote from an Eastern perspective while being sensitive to a Western audience. Since 1925 the Institute has fostered an intellectual tradition that is both thoughtful and mystical.

Despite being composed of Russian émigrés, the work produced was/is broad-minded and a bridge to the West. Much of it is focused more spiritually and mystically than within a rigid theological framework, although (as with Clement) theology still informed much of the writing. I believe we have much to learn from the luminaries of the school about how to deepen our spirituality.

I wanted to list some of my favorite writers in the hope that it will be helpful for someone. This is not an exhaustive list nor is it very detailed. There are already books, articles, and numerous internet sites about the authors below. I simply wanted to provide a very brief detail and the book(s) which influenced me personally.

Nicolas Afanassieff - Fr. Afanassieff was a priest who gained some attention because of his eucharistic theology. His emphasis on the local church provided excellent insight into the practices of the Early Church, and he acted as an observer at Vatican II. his book "The Church of the Holy Spirit" is an insightful look into local churches.

Sergei Bulgakov - Fr. Bulgakov is most noted for his Sophiology. I am least familiar with Bulgakov's writings.

Olivier Clément - Professor Clément's focus was heavily influenced by Mystical Theology. A theologian, he believed in the synergy of theology and prayer and that prayer was rooted in theology. His book "Roots of Christian Mysticism: Texts from Patristic Era with Commentary" provides an in-depth look at authentic Christian mysticism.

Paul Evdokimov - Professor Evdokimov's magnum opus, for me, is the work "Orthodoxy." In it, he provides insight into the Orthodox faith that is neither dogmatic in a Western mold but conveys the depths and richness of Orthodoxy.

Georges Florovsky- Fr Florovsky focuses, in my estimation, much on the Russian church itself. His "The Ways of Russian Theology" provides a deeper look at how the Russian Church formed both historically and in it's relationship with the state.

Vladimir Lossky - Professor Lossky was my personal favorite theologian. Lossky's focus on mystical theology culminated in the work "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church." This is my suggested book on those looking to deepen their spiritual understanding when looking East. Lossky's genius is in writing for Western audiences while not diminishing the importance of the subject. His "Orthodox Theology: An Introduction" is also an excellent starting point for those looking East. Lossky was more closely affiliated with the St. Dionysius Theological Institute which taught in French.

John Meyendorff - Fr. Meyendorff was one of the more prolific writers and, as he settled in America, luckily has much of his work in English. Fr. Meyendorff's insights into the history and positions of the Orthodox Church is still pertinent today. His book "Byzantine Theology" as well as his historical works are foundational works.

Alexander Schmemann - Fr. Schmemann's genius, for me, was in his sacramental theology. His works "For the Life of the World" and "Eucharist" are helpful insights into Orthodox sacramental theology. They offer a look into an alternative way of looking at the sacraments from the Western thought. 

"To be freed from every touch of sin and grow continually in grace, it is necessary to be rooted more and more in the unity of nature which has Christ Himself for its hypostasis. The sacrament of the body and the blood is a realization of the unity of our nature both with Christ and, at the same time, with all the members of t the Church." - Fr. Vladmir Lossky

Photo: Wikipedia, HaguardDuNord, 25 September 2010.

Progress Without Throwing Out the Baby

There is an old expression "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" meaning that just because you allow or encourage change don't also remove what is good and pleasing. I have been reflecting on this a lot among Autocephalous Catholics. I was talking with one of my dearest friends about the state of the wider Independent Sacramental Movement. This is a truncated transcript:

Me: "Does it seem to you that there are less people entering the priesthood in the ISM?"

Friend: "Yes. I believe it is partially attributable to an opening in mainstream denominations. Before we were a haven for LGBT people, women called to ministry, etc. Now they can find that in mainstream groups with the promise (although not always reality) of payment as well." 

I have long wrestled with what makes us unique. Often it is because people who could not minister in the "mainstream church" are able to find a home here. Perhaps they are divorced, married, LGBT, women, etc. My dear friend's observation is that we need to nurture that difference from the mainstream church as part of our essential charism. To be honest, in spite of how many people we have who are "Roman Replicators," that is a big part of why we exist--because there are people who can minister here who cannot minister elsewhere.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. We do need to offer a venue to people who have legitimate callings to provide the sacraments. But it does provoke the question of how this changes us in relation to our larger counterparts. If we have groups that ordain women does this even affect our relationship with Rome and Orthodoxy? Do they even care? Would they see us as "valid" even if we didn't? Perhaps we do need to be less focused on the larger, more mainstream churches.

But we don't have just an obligation to Catholicism as a universal group. We also have an obligation to the faithful we serve. If we change our sacraments in terms of who can be ordained or marry does it affect our ministry with those we serve? Do they care? If Rome is right and women, for example, cannot legitimately receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, do we then sever our apostolic succession because of our inclusivity? Or is this too selective of an interpretation because Rome, the Orthodox, etc. have continued talks with the PNCC which regards the Word of God as a sacrament?

It is not my intention to be insensitive in asking these questions, but to provide a train of thought of the many things we need to discuss more as a movement. For those who have not made sacramental changes what do they have that entice the faithful or make them different than the mainstream churches. Do they only exist because their priest cannot minister in a mainstream church? What need are they fulfilling?

A natural question, for me, is also how do organizations make changes in their discipline or polity without becoming a place where "anything goes?" This is a charge often leveled, sometimes rightly so, at the Episcopal Church. They have priests who openly deny the Resurrection as well as question the core tenets of Christianity. Although these seem to be anomalies, they do exist and (I think) cannot be replicated within our movement if we are to be taken seriously. It is worth noting that another friend rightly surmised that "Rome has liturgical and doctrinal abuses without the changes of the Episcopal Church (i.e. ordaining women, LGBT persons, etc.). So we can't reason that this change is the cause of it all."

What does the future of Autocephalous Catholicism look like in the 21st century? Is there a path that will be most successful in reaching the faithful while maintaining true to our catholicism (little c)? I am wary of so-called "big tents" because of the historic example of Anglicanism. I can't quite understand how a section of a church intended to ordain and consecrate "massing priests" while another believed that to be essentially heresy and ordained ministers to provide a symbol. A "smaller tent" is necessary for my understanding of apostolic tradition, but what that looks like is questionable. Does it include sacramental and disciple changes which will further separate us from the "mainstream" to maintain our charism or are we called to be part of the larger tradition in spite of our separation?

So, what do you think?

“If according to times and needs you should be obliged to make fresh rules and change current things, do it with prudence and good advice.” – St. Angela Merici

Mitered Mayhem

Episcopal consecrations in our movement are typically mundane. However, every so often there is the announcement of one that results in half a dozen messages to me of "can you believe this" or "OMG." This happens from time to time, and I may not be writing about something recent. Traditionally they follow the same pattern. An individual who has been with numerous jurisdictions, often has started and ended several parishes and/or religious groups, and will wax philosophical about how terrible the movement is and how awful it is everyone is consecrated a bishop--until it's them. 

From experience I have learned to take these announcements in stride. It is pointless to contact the consecrator about the wisdom of the action. It's always going to happen anyway. In the past these have resulted in hurt friendships or the ignoring of the message. I know of once instance where a bishop pleaded with another not to consecrate someone in his area only to be verbally berated. And we don't always have the full reasoning as to who, what, when, or why. So, life goes on. It either ends up in the person leaving the jurisdiction where they are (because now they have the "all-powerful episcopacy"), continuing their behavior, or, ideally, rising to the challenge. 

The reality is that we in the "Independent" or "Autocephalous" world are no different than any other group. There will always be people who are chosen for the clerical state (any part of it) in all different groups where some might think "really?" I have no doubt that our Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and various other brethren see consecration announcements and think "can you believe this" or "OMG." The issue becomes when the person creates scandal-- when their behavior or actions become scandalous to the faithful. And we Christians have been very successful at creating scandal in all our various ecclesiastical entities! The only real difference is that it's easier to end up a bishop in our corner of the Church.

So, then, what is the remedy? Is it to stay silent? Is it to confront? Well, at some point it is our job to discuss in a diplomatic way if possible. If this is not received, then we have to do something more than shake the dust off our feet. We must pray. This method doesn't just apply to bishops--it's to anyone ordained where we have a concern or an issue. We must pray that their ministry is fruitful. We must pray that they, and we, are transformed by God's limitless grace. We must ask God to bless them and to speak through them. Because, after all, are any of us truly "worthy" to be ordained?

This is true of all of our clergy. I entreat anyone who is reading this to pray for us. Pray for the stumbling clergy, the successful clergy, the addicted clergy, to clergy in need, the beloved clergy, the despised clergy, the shameful clergy, the saintly clergy, and everyone in between. Just pray. And leave the rest to God.

"My dear child, you must believe in God despite what the clergy tells you." 

- Benjamin Jowett

Tridentine Misery

When I entered the Catholic Church, it was through a traditionalist parish. It was majestic. I vividly remember the knocking of Tenebre, the beeswax candles, the beautiful vestments, and all of the other externals. But I also remember the rich prayer life. There were frequent Masses, the stations, novenas, and other prayers. Everything seemed perfect, but there was something that was apparent in the faces of the people. They were miserable. Years of fear and torment morphed into a deep unhappiness. What I noticed attending other traditional parishes was the same unhappiness. There was so little joy. Instead, there was a focus on the minutiae of everything rather than enjoying others company. A psychiatrist could make a fortune at most traddie parishes.

So, I found that there was no place for me. I love traditional liturgy. It's not just because of the externals--I love traditional liturgy because it has been formed through the centuries by people a lot holier and smarter than me. It wasn't just made up and it wasn't the fruit of someone's imagination. It has been tried and tested by saints and sinners alike. I don't mind when it is in the vernacular because Latin was the vernacular for much of the early church (and prior to that Greek). 

The dilemma, then, is how to foster traditional devotion and spirituality without losing our humanity. A review of several Facebook traditionalist groups shows that misery loves company, especially when discussing the liturgy. But deep down I believe that communities can form of real people who have personal issues, tragedies, joys, and other natural emotions which can be shared together in a supportive environment. And these communities can use traditional liturgy and they can strive to make it always rubrically correct. But if someone makes a mistake they can acknowledge that God has an amazing sense of humor.

I also believe, in my heart of hearts, that people can gather together without talking about hot-button issues all the time. For traditionalists this can be what is wrong with the church. There is not enough digital space to hold all of the gripes traditionalists have against modernism, the modern church, modern liturgy, etc. The same is true of neo-conservatives on homosexuality, abortion, etc. While these issues can be discussed they don't have to be the ONLY thing discussed.

I hope that these beloved communities do exist. I have seen glimmers of hope among the incorrectly named "non-canonical" Orthodox. The same is true in the Autocephalous Catholic movement. There are people who are sincere in their prayer and in their commitment to tradition. But they can do it in an open, joyful way devoid of institutional misery. They can disagree but not in a way which dehumanizes the other person.

Opponents of this dream will say that it's just a watered-down Catholicism. Or even "Anglo-Catholicism" as traddies might say about anything that is liturgically high but morally ambiguous to them. Yet this is the vision I have of the Church and of heaven--that together with the Mother of God and the saints we will gather around the Holy Trinity in adoration. And we will truly have been forgiven 70 times 7 as we laugh in the incomprehensible joy of joining the God of the universe.

"From silly devotions, and from sour-faced saints, good Lord, deliver us." - St. Theresa

Book Review: "Sede Vacante: The Life and Legacy of Archbishop Thục"

This book, again published by Apocryphile Press, is authored by Edward Jarvis who also wrote the book on the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (ICAB). While covering generally the same topic of "dissenting Catholics," the books take a decidedly different tone. Both groups are the legacies of bishops from countries with political upheaval who followed their own brand of Catholicism. Yet the Thuc book provides more insight on Thuc himself and, since Thuc had no successor to his office, lacks the focus required by the ICAB on detailing the history of an organization.

Jarvis does an excellent job of providing in-detail background of the Vietnam which raised and nurtured Thuc. His insights into Thuc's family life are useful at helping to understand Thuc's mindset. Jarvis is to be commended on this work because it is apparent that he worked hard to maintain objectivity. He provides a sympathetic picture of Thuc while also detailing his contradictory actions. I am also grateful that he did not delve deeply into the sacramental validity of Thuc's actions and let the reader decide for themselves (while providing theological and historical context to support validity if that is the reader's conclusion).

It is also helpful that Jarvis does not end the story with Thuc, who died in 1984. He continues the story by detailing information about current traditionalists who carry the Thuc lineage. Jarvis' grasp of church history and sacramental theology gives him the ability to weave the story together with clarity. I appreciated Jarvis' sharing part of his own history (such as where he studied) because it gave some insight into his interest in this distinct part of Catholicism. Because of his background, Jarvis is able to ask difficult questions of the Thuc-lineage inheritors, especially related to the consecration of bishops and the suitability of the consecrated.

This work will be helpful to anyone interested in the traditionalist movement. I owe Jarvis my appreciation for such through research and the consultation of many different sources. My only suggestion is that there are even more sources that could be incorporated. Thuc's life has been detailed by many contemporaries and several books and articles did not make the bibliography. Despite this, the book does not suffer from lack of clarity or detail.