The Necessity of a Bishop

It has been posited that among Old/Independent Catholics, a bishop is not needed for a community.
Indeed, many communities exist as individual communities on their own without a larger connection. However, this is not an easy path. The community has to exist on its own and find a wandering bishop to ordain for it and provide episcopal services. However, it is also true that it is not easy to belong to a group in our movement. Bishops in our tradition can be untrained, despotic, and overbearing. However, this is not different from any other Church where the bishop can be difficult. I recently saw the movie "Man of God," where St. Nectarios of Aegina was treated terribly by the Patriarch of Alexandria and suffered great persecution from the Synod. In fact, Nectarios was later canonized and the Patriarchate apologized for their cruel treatment.

Despite not being easy, it is necessary for communities to have a bishop. St. Ignatius of Antioch stated in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop." 

In the early Church, there were likely presbyter-bishops and deacons who shepherded congregations. As Christianity grew, bishops became monarchical and the three-fold ministry became predominant with priests as an extension of bishops. The deacon is also connected in a special way to the bishop. Bishops were responsible for consecrating other bishops (with 1-2 others), ordaining priests and deacons, as well as shepherding the regional church. There is the exception of the Church of Alexandria who ordained their bishop through the laying on of hands of priests, but this appears to be an exception and died out relatively quickly.

In the Old Catholic tradition, Varlet provided the episcopacy to the Church of Utrecht out of necessity and the church continued through its people, clergy, and bishop. This was affirmed by the Statute of the International Bishops' Conference in 2000 which said (emphasis mine):

"[the local church is a] communion of people, which by the reconciliation in Jesus Christ and by the outpouring and the continuous work of the Holy Spirit is constituted as a unity in a given place around a bishop with the eucharist as its center."

Dr. Esser affirms "The bishop is the sign of unity in his church. The spiritual centre of this unity is the Eucharist, in which the bishop represents the crucified, risen and real present Christ in the congregation. He is the real leader of the Eucharist. The priests in the parishes actually celebrate 'only' being commissioned by the bishop and acting in his place." He goes on to state that Urs van Arx defines the specific Old Catholic charism of the episcopate being "personal, collegial, and communal." 1

Of course, this is complicated in Independent Catholicism. There are hundreds of "wandering bishops" which present challenges to organizational structures (although I do see parallels to bishops of dicasteries and diplomatic missions). But, becoming a bishop is so accessible in Independent Catholicism there are not a lot of reasons to not have some affiliation to a bishop. It is also not outside the  realm of possibility that the pastor of a large congregation becomes a bishop in the early church model, surrounded by priests (presbyters) and deacons. Or, even a loose association can be worked out where a congregation has a tie to a bishop who has oversight (even while the congregation maintains autonomy). However, for Catholics the episcopacy is necessary even when it is difficult.

1: Episcopacy - conciliarity - collegiality - primacy: the theology and the task episcopacy from an Old Catholic perspective.

Liturgical Language Matters

Recently, you may have heard, that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix declared thousands of

baptisms invalid because a priest used "we" instead of "I" in the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is the traditional formula in the West, while the East utilizes "The servant of God (Name) is baptized in the Name of the Father. Amen. And of the Son, Amen. And of the Holy Spirit, Amen."

The purpose of this blog post is not about that situation in particular, but it is the cause of it--namely addressing the larger issue of adherence to liturgical rites. There has been varying responses and opinion about the Autocephalous Catholic world. These have ranged from not wishing to deviate at all from what is in the book to questioning why is this so important to the claim that jurisdictions or individuals use their own language for most sacraments. This has been a very divisive issue with accusations of adherents being too rigid to questioning "[the dependence on] the shamanistic parroting of particular words."

I freely admit that I fall into the camp that we need to adhere to what has been traditionally used and I will die on this hill. I received all my sacraments in Non-Papal Catholicism and sacramental integrity has always been part of my understanding of Autocephalous Catholicism. I would caution anyone entering our movement, especially former Roman Catholics, that we have traditionally always regarded sacramental forms as important. I was not going to address this issue at all because it has been so acrimonious, but (for me) it is of primary significance. I believe it is dangerous and problematic to deviate from language that is used by the rest of Christendom. My perspective is that 1) it impacts ecumenical relationships by calling into question Autocephalous Catholic sacraments and 2) the forms that have been used have historic, theological meanings that need to remain intact. 

Regarding the first perspective, I believe that it behooves us to use the same formularies as the rest of Christendom or to use formularies that have broad acceptance. This makes things easier for laity who come to us for sacraments to transfer their membership to other Christian bodies with the sure and certain knowledge that their baptism and confirmation will be regarded as acceptable or valid by those bodies. It is a fallacy to believe that all people who join our parishes or jurisdictions will be there from baptism to death. Following common formularies makes our relationships with other Christian bodies easier because we maintain the same liturgical language which has theological meaning.

The second perspective, perhaps the most important, is that theological language has meaning. As Christians, we study Scripture because we believe that the experiences and words there have impact on how we live our faith. We also pass down hymns, like the Phos Hilaron from the 3-4th centuries, whose words "O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and see the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee" still resonate today.

The same is true about our sacramental words. While I am an adherent of tradition, I am not so naive to believe that Our Blessed Lord celebrated a High Mass for the first Eucharist. I also will freely affirm that I HOPE that sacraments performed incorrectly still convey grace out of mercy. However, I do believe that formulas developed throughout time and took on meaning that is still impactful for us today. Opponents might say "but all tradition started somewhere," which is true, but it is self serving to believe that we can do it better than those who have come before us. 

IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE that members of the Independent Sacramental Movement and Autocephalous Catholic, Independent Catholic, Independent Anglican, (so called non-canonical) Orthodox individuals use the essential sacramental form for all of their sacraments. These are VERY VERY MINIMAL. A sentence. If you want to compose your own Mass, it's not my thing but be my guest. But keep the Dominical words. If you want to baptize a child do it with water with a common formula. Add in whatever you want, but please do not mess with the essentials. The same is true for ordination. I have watched some ordination rites with horror, not knowing who was consecrated, what was consecrated, or if someone was consecrated. The actual requirements are extremely simple. Otherwise, we call into question our sacraments and we do a disservice to those who need our sacramental ministry.

There are certainly options for those who want to compose their own rites which better fit their theology. Some Protestant groups, for example, like the Oneness Pentecostals. Or, there are non-orthodox (little o) groups which do not intend to carry on the apostolic tradition which has been passed down to them. But please, exercise caution when using the Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox moniker in your name if you disbelieve in the importance of sacramental words. 

“Our modern theology, which in many ways has ceased to be personal, i.e. centered on the Christian experience of "person," nevertheless - and maybe as a result of this - has become utterly individualistic. It views everything in the Church - sacraments, rites, and even the Church herself - as primarily, if not exclusively, individual "means of grace," aimed at the individual, at his individual sanctification. It has lost the very categories by which to express the Church and her life as that new reality which precisely overcomes and transcends all "individualism," transforms individuals into persons, and in which me are persons only because and inasmuch as they are united to God, and, in Him, to one another and to the whole of life.” ― Alexander Schmemann

Visiting Cleric Manners

One of the challenges of Autocephalous Catholicism is that some of us believe that our indelible mark of ordination means that we should be extended liturgical favors wherever we go. This can be problematic where there are representatives from multiple jurisdictions in one area. If the parish of, say, Saint Drogo exists in Anytown and an ISM cleric shows up, many times the cleric will expect to concelebrate or participate in the liturgy. No cleric should just expect this to happen, regardless of if they belong to a mainstream tradition or the ISM. Because of sometimes loose ordination standards in the Autocephalous Catholic world, one must be especially careful to prevent anyone from participating liturgically without a degree of vetting and care.

This is particularly thorny when someone is a bishop. They may show up with all the tat and the glamor and expect to preside at the Eucharist. Again, this is a break of protocol. It is the role of the pastor (or the Board depending on how the parish is run) to invite a cleric to preside or participate. A community sets itself up for problems if they allow just anyone to celebrate, and the bishop should not automatically expect it. Assume, if you are a bishop, that you are celebrating as a priest and leave the episcopal grandeur at home unless specifically asked. It is highly advisable for bishops to call themselves father so as not to cause confusion in the parish if they are not that parish's bishop or even with that jurisdiction.

My proposal for parishes is below. Feel free to take this advice or leave it, but hopefully it can provide some degree of protection for your community.

1. For visiting clerics, do not expect to participate in the liturgy. Assume you will be sitting in the pews with the congregation. 

2. Clergy may invite visiting clerics to liturgically participate after a period of getting to know the cleric, understanding their training and background, and defining expectations up front about frequency, etc.

3. A criminal and child abuse check should be done on visiting clerics or a letter should be provided by the cleric from their jurisdiction stating the result of their last background/abuse check and when the check occurred.

4. If the visiting cleric continues to participate to a meaningful degree in the life of the parish, it is advisable that they meet with the clergy (and/or any administering Board) to set expectations about how often they will participate, when background checks will be refreshed, clarity on identification as visiting clergy, etc. 

The above, of course, assumes that there is no issue with the community's jurisdiction regarding inviting visiting clerics outside the group or with the visiting cleric's jurisdiction about celebrating in non-jurisdictional communities. 

Not only does this protect everyone involved, but it also protects friendships and relationships between everyone involved. If someone just expects to participate, it can lead to hurt feelings and frustrations. The key, as with every human relationship, is open and honest communication.

“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