The Golden Calf: Mainstream Recognition

“To go to Rome is little profit, endless pain;
the master that you seek in Rome you find at home or seek in vain.”

This epigram by Sedulius has been one of my favorites for years. Sedulius speaks about a pilgrimage to Rome and how it is unnecessary, but it has taken on a larger context for those in the Independent Movement. So many of us want so desperately to be validated. Like Pinocchio, we are desperate to be a “real boy.” We seek a validation from Rome, Utrecht, or any other historic see which will never come. Thus, it is essential that we find it from the people to whom we minister.

Bishop Kallistos Ware says “Neither an Ecumenical Council, nor the Patriarchate of Constantinople or of Moscow, nor any other Mother-Church can create a new local Church. The most that they can do is to recognise such a Church. But the act of creation must be carried out in situ, locally, by the living Eucharistic cells which are called to gradually make up the body of a new local Church.” Our validation is through our building up the Body of Christ, not from any external source.

We have become accustomed to being outside the mainstream. Rome basically continued to exist alongside Utrecht until the re-establishment of the hierarchy in 1853. The Archbishops of Utrecht, while giving their allegiance were treated as outsiders. They were joined by Old Catholics who were alienated by the pronouncement of Papal Infallibility and found themselves outside the mainstream. Mathew's group then separated from Utrecht and a separation of the Union of Utrecht with the Mariavites later occurred.

Utrecht declared early on that it would not recognize Mathew’s orders or anyone from Independent Catholicism. This was repeated by Christoph Schuler in 1997 in “The Mathew affair: the failure to establish an Old Catholic Church in England in the context of Anglican Old Catholic relations between 1902 and 1925.” The rationale was that Mathew did not have the support he was promised for his consecration, but Mathew informed Utrecht of this in 1908 and was exonerated. Anglicanism declared at the Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1920 that anyone from Mathew would be re-ordained sub-conditione. This was seemly under the guise that they had "the desire expressed at previous Conferences to maintain and strengthen the friendly relations which exist between the Churches of the Anglican Communion and the ancient Church of Holland and the Old Catholic Churches, especially in Germany, Switzerland and Austria."

Similarly in Brazil, Rome declared that "the Church has not recognized, does not recognize, and will not recognize [those ordained and consecrated by Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa]."1 However, this was not consistently followed with the reception of Bishop Salomao Barbosa Ferraz. ICAB was forced to change their rites of ordination and consecration because of the law prohibiting them from resembling Roman Catholicism.2 Yet, there is nothing to indicate that they are invalid wholesale or that they do not "do what the church intends."

Of course, part of the reality of these pronouncements is that no one truly recognizes each other. Since 1896, Rome has not recognized Anglican Orders. This recognition is less likely with the consecration of women bishops. Some Orthodox Churches recognized Anglican Orders, but this has also changed with the ordination of women. If and when the Union of Utrecht consecrates women, their orders will also be null in the eyes of Rome. Regarding Rome, the Orthodox do not have a unified view with some accepting their Orders and others even re-baptizing Roman Catholics. The Anglican Church considers some of the Lutheran Churches to have apostolic succession, but Rome (as of 2007) does not. Of course, Rome also states that consecrations which happened from their bishops outside of Rome will not be recognized (Milingo, Thuc, etc.) and for their part some of the bishops consecrated don’t recognize Rome (Thucites, etc.)! 

I should note that I do not think it is ill advised to to use the proper matter, form, and intent and ensure that your sacraments are acceptable in a wider ecumenical context for the benefit of the people of God. But, I understand this to be a separate issue than seeking validation. It is simply following the rescripts of larger Christianity.

I am not so naïve to think that life would not be a lot easier if we became part of a mainstream group. Ideally, there would be access to clergy, congregations, financial support, etc. that is not available in our present situation. It also would make us less likely to have schisms (although not entirely, as we have seen with Rome and the traditionalists, Canterbury and the Continuing Anglicans, Utrecht and the PNCC and Slovakia, etc.)

But I also see the reality presented. Groups joining Rome have not had the easiest time. The same is true for Western Orthodox groups joining Orthodoxy.  Both have or do experience suspicion from the inside and outside. Similarly, Utrecht would be ill advised to harm exclusivity with the much larger Anglican/Episcopal Church by recognizing Old Catholic groups in America. A desire does not translate to an easy journey or recognition.

Our movement is not easy. Every time I talk to a new candidate, I ask them “are you sure you really want to do this? It is a challenging life.” But I suppose you pick your poison. You can join with a larger denomination and lose independence but gain stability. Or you can remain and lose stability but gain independence. But, whatever we choose we have to legitimize ourselves and not look for the golden calf outside our own identities. 

1. Dr. Edward Jarvis, "God, Land, and Freedom."

2. Ibid.

A Cult of Personality

Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit a priest friend of mine. During our visit, he remarked that he is doing everything possible to prevent himself from becoming the central feature of the parish. At the time, I reflected on how mature this is and how this should be encouraged in every formation program. This is a great risk in the Autocephalous Catholic movement and once that will completely decimate a parish.

In our movement, the priest often has to start the parish. This means that there is a risk from the very beginning of making the parish about the identity of the priest. Maybe the priest is considered the venerable founder or maybe he came from another denomination and took people with him who view their activity in the movement as centered around the priest's establishment in the parish. From there, the risk can amplify. Maybe the parish priest is not willing to share duties (either because they are a workaholic, or they like doing it, or maybe they don't want to give up control) which sometimes can lead to the perception that "we would be lost without Father X." Or, maybe the priest is unwilling to get committees involved to help with certain processes. This is not in a "death by committee" situation, but where involving people would be really beneficial to the parish. Or, perhaps the priest makes all decisions come through him which makes everyone dependent on his instructions. 

The logical conclusion in these situations is that when the priest leaves or dies, the parish does as well. They have either entrenched themselves with the priest since the beginning and find it is time to move on when he does, they cannot imagine being there without him, or they have never been accustomed to doing the hard work ("father's always done that") and aren't interested in starting.

While this is directed at an Autocephalous Catholic audience, it is not exclusive to our movement. I have seen it time and time again. A Protestant church had a pastor who was there for decades and, after he left, the church endured a half-dozen interim clergy for about a decade. Other churches where the people just did not like the preaching of the new minister and left, almost closing the church. This is not a new phenomenon.

The reality is that people will always prefer a certain cleric. Maybe they prefer the pastoral style, preaching, or liturgical acumen of one individual cleric. This is unavoidable. I also realize that this does not mean that everything needs to be done without a central leader. The new model of governance seems to be the "leadership circle" where both everyone and no one is accountable. This can be truly the stuff of nightmares. A central leader is often necessary and advisable, establishing that "the buck stops here" while not being dictatorial. 

There are positive steps both clergy and laity can take in churches to prevent this from happening. Empower members of the church to take on ministries and share ownership. Let them make decisions. Establish checks and balances, such as financial oversight and regulatory oversight, to prevent scandal. Share the liturgical rota even if people prefer one cleric or you, in your estimation, "do it better." Remind people that everyone is necessary for the success of the church. Don't try to control the Spirit but trust in other people. Often times the results are "pressed down, shaken together and running over." This can be difficult. We all want to be in charge, especially in this movement. But what you build today may be gone tomorrow without incorporating at least some of these steps.

"Too many of us are lonely ministers practicing a lonely ministry." - Henry Nouwen

Morality vs Moralism

"Moralism is the last refuge of the pervert" stated Archbishop Lazar. At first, these words struck me and I was taken aback by them. But then, I thought about the roots of morality and moralism. Morality, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Moralism, according to the same, is "the practice of moralizing, especially showing a tendency to make judgments about others' morality."

What people seem to like is having black and white rules. Thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not steal. But, what if killing protects the lives of others? What if stealing keeps your children alive? Life is full of very few black and white answers, despite what fundamentalists would tell you. And, sadly, when many of them realize this it is too late. I was recently speaking with a lady whose father was pastor of a church. Unfortunately, his wife did not want to stay married and divorced him. Ultimately, he lost his job as pastor and was shunned by the church because of something outside of his control. Sometimes, things are more complicated than they seem.

How does this affect us as clergy? Well, history has taught us that we can fall into moralism easier than anyone else. We have all made judgments about others that were unkind or unfair. Our job is to share what the church teaches and each individual has to use their own conscience to dictate what is best for them and their relationship with God. To judge another is to neglect our own place as "chief of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15). 

There are times when we have to admonish each other. But, when it is done from a place of goodness the intention is different as in Rom. 15:14: "and concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another." Admonishing each other in sincerity and privacy is ideal, rather than criticizing someone for everyone to see. This does nothing but divides us and brings joy to the evil one.

“To judge sins is the business of one who is sinless, but who is sinless except God? Who ever thinks about the multitude of his own sins in his heart never wants to make the sins of others a topic of conversation. To judge a man who has gone astray is a sign of pride, and God resists the proud. On the other hand, one who every hour prepares himself to give answer for his own sins will not quickly lift up his head to examine the mistakes of others.” — St. Gennadius of Constantinople, The Golden Chain, 53-55