Diversity Within the Independent Movement

One of the issues which I’ve written about frequently is diversity in jurisdictions. But I think that even more can be discussed about it. Autocephalous Catholicism is unique among church traditions because it offers a type of menu for people who have specific religious requirements. Depending on your conscience, there will likely be a jurisdiction for you. If you want women and LGBT persons ordained, there is a jurisdiction for you or there is a jurisdiction that does not. If you are attached to the Latin Mass there is a jurisdiction and there are also jurisdictions that allow you to make up a liturgy. This diversity is both beneficial as well as challenging.

I will give examples in the Carfora-descendent churches. Archbishop Richard Arthur Marchenna of the Old Roman Catholic Church wrote an article on the Sacred Heart. In his article, he stated “’Sacred Heart’ devotions and novelties are not the practice of Old Roman Catholics, nor should such be maintained or taught within this church. It is both sacrilegious and blasphemous and a manifest heresy… Old Roman Catholics repudiate such novelties which reduces our Lord’s person to ‘bits and pieces’ for the adoration of the faithful.”  While he held these views, Archbishop Schweikert (of the same church in Chicago) was pastor of a church named Sacred Heart! Similarly, under Marchenna, Archbishop Robert Mary Clement was elected as a bishop in 1958. He left the Old Roman Catholic Church but returned and was finally consecrated on October 6, 1974. He made national news because of his consecration as being openly gay and offering holy unions to lesbian and gay individuals. He later founded the Eucharistic Catholic Church. 

Several Old Roman Catholic jurisdictions have had married bishops while others have not—Archbishops Mathew, Carfora, Rogers, and others were married. Some of the historic Old Roman Catholic bishops were remarried after divorces or separated. Other Carfora-line churches view themselves as Roman Catholic except for jurisdiction and hold to the dogmas of Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption—while others do not. On doctrine, Carfora allowed at least one of his bishops to utilize the Augsburg Confession—a Lutheran document of faith (where it did not conflict with Catholic belief). A final difference is on liturgy where some Carfora-descendant churches offer the Tridentine Mass while others offer the Novus Ordo.

These differences are not unique to Carfora churches. The Liberal Catholics, perhaps, have the most diverse beliefs with some holding to Theosophy while others hold a more orthodox position. Still other Liberal Catholics ordain women while others do not. The same is true of the Vilatte-descent churches where one can find varying views on LGBT issues, women in ministry, etc. Some Vilatte churches, it seems, also have a strong esoteric connection which is unique among Autocephalous Catholics. On the other end of the spectrum is the Thuc succession, which ranges to the Palmarians who elected their own pope to sedevacantists to also-ran traditionalists who are not easily distinguishable from other traditionalist groups. Each distinct tradition has people who fall everywhere within issues of discipline and morality.

While we often think of this as part of the chaos of the Independent Sacramental Movement, it is similar in mainstream churches. There are Orthodox churches which have women deaconesses while others do not. There have been instances within Orthodoxy in America where a priest’s wife has died or abandoned him and he was been allowed to remarry, despite being verboten among the Orthodox generally (except within the Ecumenical Patriarchate). Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox churches take a much laxer view of divorce than the Oriental Orthodox.  Yet they are still united by a common history and, importantly for many Orthodox, a common liturgy.

Diversity is also present within Papal Catholicism. The Ordinariate, the Eastern Catholic Churches, and some Latin dioceses ordain married men to the priesthood while the Roman Catholic Church does not. I use Roman Catholic in the form of a proper church distinguishing it from the Ukrainian Catholic, Russian Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. churches. Similarly, the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canon Law separate from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Formally there are different liturgies and liturgical traditions. Finally, there are also informal differences which exist in every church. This is how from parish to parish there can be differences in how divorce, homosexuality, the involvement of women, etc. are handled.

While this may seem overwhelming, there is no homogeneous church. Because were humans, there will always be differences what we believe and how we express our faith. This can be dogmatic, moral (as with divorce and remarriage), liturgical, etc. Differences in practice result because the church is universal and cannot possibly be the same in every nook and cranny of the world. So we should allow ourselves a bit more grace as members of this Movement.

The key is determining what is essential and what is not for you and for your jurisdiction. For me, it is belief in the Creeds, at least seven grace-giving sacraments utilizing proper matter, form, and intent, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Without these, I believe there could be the legitimate issue of the passing of apostolic tradition. Another "line in the sand" for me is dangerous individuals in ministry, such as sexual predators and other unsuitable candidates. Generally, however, I tend to hold the view of Archbishop Marco Antonio de Dominis who said, “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity” (although often incorrectly attributed to Saint Augustine). For each person this may be different regarding what is essential according to their conscience.

What I would caution, however, is becoming too strict in your understanding of what is essential. There have been several attempts to bring together groups which held different traditions but came together in goodwill and prayer. This included the Council of Old Roman Catholic Bishops, the Sursum Corda Gathering of the American Catholic Union in the 2000s, FOCUS (the Federation of Orthodox Catholic Churches International), and others. While this may not be the answer for everyone (or may not be the answer at all), it may be a path forward to working together. Each group had to do the hard work of determining what was and was not essential and how they would interact with other groups who held the same, similar, or few common beliefs.

I do hope that despite our differences we can find some common ground. The final realization is that despite our claims of lofty histories and auspicious lineages, to Rome, Canterbury, and Moscow we are just schismatics. Unfortunately, we have seen in Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism how rigid both the right and the left can be when it comes to certain issues. Both sides have absolutes which must be adhered to for any commonality. The better path for us, given or relatively small numbers, poverty, and independence  may be to work together (at least informally) to build each other up. This may mean striking a moderate path where we may disagree with others but allow some flexibility as much as possible (and where our consciences permit). 

God desires from you the least degree of purity of conscience more than all the works you can perform. - St. John of the Cross

Photo: Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc.

Conditional Consecrations

One of the challenges of Autocephalous Catholicism is deciding what to do about conditional consecrations. They are ubiquitous in our movement and just about everyone has been consecrated multiple times. This was exacerbated by the 1970s-1990s when it seemed like there would be parties of bishops who would get together and conditionally consecrate each other.

But what does this mean for us? Well, according to traditional theology ordination places an indelible mark on the soul of the ordinand and can only be performed once. To replicate the sacrament is sacrilegious. To avoid this, bishops will be conditionally consecrated licitly only to to fulfill any lacking of validity of the previous consecration. This was also done when when one was consecrated outside a church or tradition. In Orthodoxy this could be common when a bishop joins a new synod (and is received by cherothesia). 

However, there is still the issue of conditional consecrations unique to our movement--to accumulate lines of succession from different people. Scripturally, there is argument against this practice. 1 Corinthians 1:13 points to our not being baptized in the name of Paul. It follows, then, that sacraments are not passing on the lineage of any one holder but are passing on the transmission of lineage commissioned by Christ and in His name. Ignoring any ideas about apostolic tradition here, it should be sufficient that we were ordained (and consecrated) in the lineage of Christ.

Still, however, there have always been "bishop lists" (as well documented in the book by that name from Georgias Press) and unfolding the bishops who preceded someone is important to show continuity.1 The main question for us is "does anything happen with the successive consecrations if the previous one was valid?" This is important for successors to the lineage of Carfora, of which I count myself. Carfora was consecrated (allegedly) by Renee Vilatte in 1907. He was absolutely consecrated by Gulotti in 1912. So do his heirs hold succession through Vilatte/Gulotti or Mathew? The same is true of Archbishop Hubert Rogers (who was previously consecrated by the African Orthodox Church). Is his succession that of Bishop Robertson of the African Orthodox Church or Carfora? There are numerous cases like this in our history.

The short answer for me is that I don't know. If there is a scintilla of doubt it is reasonable to conditionally consecrate. The same is true for bishops consecrated outside of their current synod, as mentioned before among the Orthodox. But does this negate the previous consecration? Especially if the doubt is primarily unfounded? Should the second consecration be a footnote to the first or counted as equal? These are all difficult questions.

Bishop Rob Jones in his book "Independent Sacramental Bishops" takes on this question of conditional consecrations.2 In his work, he discusses the efficacy of spiritual lineages and how they impact the movement as a whole. This may be outside the traditional understanding of apostolic succession, but it is a thought which provides some innovative reasoning for our movement. While his concepts incorporate esoteric thought, with which I am unfamiliar, they do point to the need to fully examine conditional consecrations and their impact on our movement outside of traditional theological discourse. Jones is quoted on the issue below:

"And yet I am convinced there is more going on. I am convinced that when a bishop is ordained and consecrated, s/he receives not only the fullness of apostolic lines from each of the ordaining bishops; but also receives any episcopal lineages these ordaining bishops also hold, including any non-apostolic esoteric lineages."

Abba Seraphim also recently published "Succesio Apostolica" which partially addresses conditional consecrations.3 In it, Mar Georgius (his predecessor) is quoted about conditional consecrations:

"The effect of a conditional consecration by way of additional commission, or if you prefer the term....‘fortified consecration’, is undoubtedly precisely the same as the effect of the participation of a co-consecrator at a consecration ‘ab initio’. Therefore, the question of validity or invalidity does not arise. Just as a co-consecrator passes on his own line, in addition to the line conveyed by the Consecrator, does in like matter the additional line pass to the Consecrand. If the question of difference of time is raised, it should be realised that with God there is no time, but only the eternal present.Furthermore, even where many co-consecrators our acting at a ceremony, there are slight differences of timing in the uttering of the words which constitute the ‘form’ of the Sacrament of Order. Therefore, as it is clearly understood that the minute the Consecrator himself has imposed hands and uttered the words prescribed, the Consecrand must be accounted a Bishop,and nothing can be added to that fact, nevertheless the co-operation of the co-consecrators, where the Orders of the consecrator are valid, is not deemed to be an empty form, but is definitely held to pass on the lines of succession in which the co-consecrators stand, even though the words emerge (as they invariably do) a few seconds after those of the Consecrator. In principle, therefore, the same argument must be applied to our conditional consecrations.”

There are authors who disagree that co-consecrators pass on their succession but merely as witnesses or provide approbation for the consecration. Whether one agrees or not with the assessment of Mar Georgius it is important because it contributes to the larger question of how to handle conditional consecrations. Abba Seraphim is to be commended to contributing to the discussion.

Regardless of where you fall on this issue, and as I mentioned I still have a lot of questions myself, it is something we will continue to encounter as a movement. We should be prepared to address it intelligently and with theological reasoning.

1: https://www.amazon.com/Bishop-Lists-Succession-Ecclesiastical-Dissertations/dp/1593331940 
2: https://www.amazon.com/Independent-Sacramental-Bishops-Angus-Jones/dp/1933993839
3: https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/abba-seraphim/successio-apostolica/hardcover/product-66y76y.html

Liturgy Among Autocephalous Catholics

Perhaps the most difficult thing for Autocephalous Catholics (or Independent Catholics or within the ISM) is choosing a liturgy. Often times this is because what they would like to use can be at odds with what people will actually attend. Here are some different perspectives:

1. The traditionalist--this is a member of the movement who is committed to celebrating the traditional rites of the Church in whatever tradition they use. Usually they have a particular interest or focus on parts of the liturgy and liturgical adherence. This can be the use of the second Confiteor, the Pre-1955 Holy Week, etc. The positives of this perspective are that these individuals are often faithful to the rubrics and to the precise celebration of the liturgy. The downside can be that they care about things literally no one else does. The average person in the pew typically does not care about liturgical minutiae and there can be a danger of becoming the butt of the old joke (What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.)

2. The antiquarian--this is a person who is likely obsessed with the "Liturgy of St. Medard of Picardy" or some other obscure saint who used a rite from 564 that we don't quite know what it said but they want to recreate it. This is certainly attractive to people like myself who love historical liturgy and, in particular, liturgies from Early Christianity. They are often deeply interested in research and want to recreate the rites used by the saints and developed in holiness. The challenge can be attracting people to the Rite of Saint Cunigunde of Luxembourg and convincing them they should care about it or adjust their prayer to it.

3. The pragmatist--this is a person who uses whatever liturgy is requested by the congregation. This could be Novus Ordo, 1979 Prayerbook, etc. The benefit of this perspective is that the individual will be attractive to people who were not previously part of the Independent Movement (literally everybody it seems) and the liturgy used will be familiar to people. The challenge is that the liturgy is indistinguishable from the parish down the street. Furthermore, using liturgies which are familiar can be challenging to groups which claim a heritage that does not match the implementation of the liturgy (i.e. Old Catholics who started in the 1700's but are using a Roman liturgy implemented in 1969).

All of these approaches present very difficult questions. For example, do you want your jurisdiction to reach out to former mainstream members? What is your unique charism if that is the case--is it inclusivity, traditionalism, or something else? If you are called to a primarily historic or otherwise relatively unknown tradition (i.e. Western Orthodoxy) do you have the ability to properly catechize people as well as make these traditions attractive to them? 

It may appear that I am oversimplifying the lay response to new things, but I believe these are real issues to be addressed. We have seen the same challenges presented with mainstream clergy do things like turn the altar to ad orientem. It takes a concerted effort to explain why this is desirable and how it is to be done. For us, we have to explain it at the beginning of people coming which is even more difficult than having a standing group that we have to convince.

These words don't offer much guidance or comfort, I'm afraid, but more a realization of what we're up against in our ministries. How is it that we can foster genuine ministerial support without it becoming a "hobby?" Is it by being more flexible to people by adjusting our liturgical standards? Or is it by staying true to ourselves and sticking to something? That seems to be at least part of the answer--when in a public liturgical setting PLEASE DO NOT KEEP CHANGING THE LITURGY YOU USE. I'm not talking about slight differences between rites or using diverse rituals in sacraments outside the parochial Mass--I'm talking about when one week you're Byzantine and the next week you're using the Novus Ordo. It looks crazy.

Ultimately you have to use the tradition you feel called to use while understanding that it may be difficult to attract people to a "new" thing. Or you use a liturgy with which those assisting at Mass are familiar but it may not be your favorite. Or you use a liturgy that you love and that people love but you have to emphasize why you're different from the church down the street. Whatever you do, do it with sincerity and reverence.

“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question "What on earth is he up to now?" will intrude. It lays one's devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, "I wish they'd remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” ― C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer