RIP: Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware)

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants” stated Sir Isaac Newton. One of those giants is Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and I know that very few people (myself included) will ever see beyond him. Metropolitan Kallistos, born Timothy Ware, began life as an Anglican. In 1958, at the age of 24, he embraced Orthodoxy and traveled to various monasteries around North America and Europe over the period of several years. In 1966 he was ordained a priest and tonsured a monk. In 1982, he was consecrated as Bishop of Diokleia.

I first came to Metropolitan Kallistos, as did many people, through his book entitled "The Orthodox Church." Orthodoxy, to me as an outsider, seemed unreasonably complex and unintelligible. The liturgy, with its many books, baffled me as did the Orthodox understanding of the Canons. Through him, however, I learned to appreciate the context in which Orthodox theology and practice was formed. I also grew to love Orthodoxy and the tradition it represents.

My greatest admiration of Metropolitan Kallistos came, however, through his understanding of the importance of the local community. For him, Orthodoxy was no mere museum piece. It was the dynamic Body of Christ, formed by many people throughout time immemorial who were earnest and sincere. An indication of this is though his presentation from the St. Sergius Institute in 2005: "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" (with thanks to the Orthodox Church of the Gauls). 

Metropolitan Kallistos was also not afraid to step into controversy. An oft-written criticism of him was his willingness to be open to the gay and lesbian community. In The Wheel, Issue 13/14, Spring/Summer 2018, Metropolitan Kallistos said, in part: "This argument, however, places us in difficulty. Persons of heterosexual orientation have the option of getting married, and so in a positive way they can fulfil their erotic desire with the Church’s blessing through the God-given sacrament of holy matrimony. But homosexuals have no such option. In the words of Vasileios Thermos, 'A homosexual subject is called to lead a celibate life without feeling a vocation for it.' Are we right to impose this heavy burden on the homosexual?" See: https://www.wheeljournal.com/13-14-ware.

An image is given of Metropolitan Kallistos as a pastoral man. Through his writings, we know that he was willing to ask difficult questions while still affirming the uniqueness and call of the individual community to set its destiny. Besides Archbishop Lazar, few Orthodox figures are willing to tempt controversy by even asking questions on how modern issues affect answers to questions given centuries ago.

For me personally, my spiritual life has been enriched because of him. It was through his translation of the Philokalia, with other writers, that I learned the Early Fathers more intently and how to deepen my spiritual life. I am sad that I never had the opportunity to meet him, but pray I will after this life. May his memory be eternal!

“We see that it is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.”- Metropolitan Kallistos

Image: Wikipedia, User Narsil, 2008.

Loss among Independent Catholics

Forgive an uncharacteristically sentimental post, but please indulge me for a moment. When I entered this movement in 2000, I entered full of hope and opportunity. I was young and saw the movement as a way that I could help other people who felt marginalized by the Church. Here was a place where I could minister in the margins and meet like-minded clergy with the same mission and ideals. I thought I would stay on the same path forever, but things in my life changed. I struggled with my bishop and relied on past friendships to make changes which I felt better suited my life at the time. The break with my bishop was painful for both of us, but it was a necessary step. This break would later be healed, but it was difficult at the time.

I came away from this experience cognizant of the pain that it caused the bishop (and me). I am sympathetic to the pain that comes from having to leave an ecclesiastical relationship because it is not best for you at the moment. Fast forward a decade, and I have also seen it first hand from the opposite side. I think that is something that no one prepares you for in this movement--the realization of loss. Traditionally, in the mainstream, you enter a church and continue through seminary. You make friends in seminary that stay with you throughout your life, and you rely on each other. There will be loss--attrition, death, etc. but you still have a cohort of people with whom you are close. It is different in the Independent Movement because we are so small. Every relationship is amplified and means more in a jurisdiction and as a friendship.

I think this is what makes it so much more difficult, and there are different scenarios of loss. The first loss is often the most common--someone leaves us to become a bishop. We are trained that becoming a bishop will solve all of our problems, and bring us supreme happiness. It is exactly the opposite. Yet, time and time again I have seen someone leave their jurisdiction and sever friendships to become a bishop. I have been in that position and I am wiser now. I know it is unhelpful to look back and say "don't make this mistake," but I'm putting it out there. 

Another loss is when someone abandons the priesthood or leaves the movement entirely. I have seen this as well and it is painful. The relationship you had previously changes in many ways. Previously, you shared the same goals but they are different now. They become involved in their new community or abandon the priesthood, and there is a loss of fraternity that is deeply felt. Or, perhaps they leave to join another group. This may be good for everyone in the long run, but there still is a sense of loss even if it is best for all involved. Finally, there is also the loss of common geography. You have a kindred relationship with someone who has to move away for a job, family, etc. Suddenly the clericus that you have formed is now done by Zoom and phone calls. Visits lessen the pain, but there is little replacement for being together and "breaking bread."

I have, to some extent, experienced all of these things. Unfortunately, I have no wise words for making things better. People will come into your life for a season and will leave. They will want to be consecrated to the episcopacy, want to exit the movement, need to move, etc. Each loss is, again, more amplified because of our size. I have seen some people try to mitigate this to some extent. A dear friend of mine has released attachment from ordination. This person ordains people outside their jurisdiction with no expectation of joining, so they are a "free agent" except for mutual support. This can help mitigate loss and liability. Others do not seem to be affected by loss. They get upset or frustrated but there are no long-term effects. 

I'm not saying that everyone has to be in the same group to feel fraternity or togetherness. The ISM is full of friendships which have formed through mutual respect and understanding and not jurisdictional affiliation. What I am saying is that when that mutual commitment has been made, it can often be much more difficult than in mainstream churches when it is severed. But I do feel a duty to warn everyone who enters this movement that loss is something they will experience. It never gets easier, but at least if you know it is something to anticipate.

“Love and sacrifice are closely linked, like the sun and the light. We cannot love without suffering and we cannot suffer without love.” - Saint Gianna Beretta Molla

The Form of Consecration

I was asked my opinion on (and one question always popular in the Independent Catholic (Autocephalous Catholic) world) is on the form of sacramental rites. Ideally, I will do a series on this topic but I am starting with consecration (and to a lesser extent ordination) according to various theological writers. Traditionally, this is matter, form, and intent. For ordination, matter is the laying on of hands on the head. Intent is to do what the church does. 

 

In the Western Church, Pope Leo XII when discussing Anglican Ordinations stated: For to the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, not only were the words “for the office and work of a bishop”, etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, “Almighty God”, since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium. 1

The issue was that the Ordinal of Edward VI was invalid because the form did not discuss (for bishops) the fullness of the priesthood and, for priests, a sacrificial priesthood. The words “for the office and work of a priest" were not deemed enough to confect the sacrament.

Next, Pope Pius XII weighed in through Sacramentum Ordinis. In this encyclical, Pope Pius XII stated that the words of the preface are absolutely necessary for ordination and consecration primary to the Traditio Instrumentorum as documented by some theologians. The handing over of the instruments (chalice and paten, for example) was considered an essential part of the form by some theologians until this point. 2

Thus, according to Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII one must have the matter of laying on of hands, a form which includes the essential words of the preface and denotes ordaining to offer sacrifice, and the intent to do what the Church does.

 

The specific forms are:

In the Pre-1969 Pontifical:

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.” [“Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”] 3

In the Paul VI Pontifical:

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

The Orthodox do not have the same scholastic theology as the West and the defined matter, form, and intent discussions. However, generally the laying on of hands with the "prayer of the episcopacy" is considered the form among some Westerners: 4

O Master, Lord our God, who through thine all-laudable Apostle Paul hast established for us an ordinance of degrees and ranks, unto the service and divine celebration of thine august and all-spotless Mysteries upon thy holy Altar ; first, Apostles, secondly, Prophets, thirdly, teachers : Do thou, the same Lord of all, who also hast graciously enabled this chosen person to come under the yoke of the Gospel and the dignity of a Bishop through the laying-on of hands of us, his fellow Bishops here present, strengthen him by the inspiration and power and grace of thy Holy Spirit, as thou didst strengthen thy holy Apostles and Prophets ; as thou didst anoint Kings ; as thou hast consecrated Bishops : And make his Bishopric to be blameless ; and adorning him with all dignity, present thou him holy, that he may be worthy to ask those things which are for the salvation of the people, and that thou mayest give ear unto him. For blessed is thy Name, and glorified thy Kingdom, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. 

 

The notable scholar Dom Gregory Dix, an Anglican, states that "form should be taken as the order which was conferred... the matter is the laying on of hands with prayer to the Holy Spirit." 4 As evidence, he points to the ordination prayer of Saint Hippolytus as well as the rite of St. Sarapion. Dix states that "nowhere is there mention of sacrifice [in early sacramentaries] as the essential 'grace and power' of the sacrament." 4 Dix further states that among Easterners the laying on of hands with the prayer to the Holy Spirit is the matter and form, which are not described as such.

So, what does all of this mean? For me, it is:

1. The "matter" of hands touching the head must always be present.

2. Dix has documented exhaustively (as have other RC authors when speaking of the new rite of consecration) that the form has varied throughout the centuries and by church. However, it is in the Independent Catholics' best interest to use an accepted form to ensure proper transmission of the sacrament. If the Western Rite is used, I personally follow the Pius XII form.

3. The intent is always to do what the Church does.

 

------------

1. Apostolicae Curae, 1896

2. A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Otten, 1918

3. Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947

4. The Question of Anglican Orders, Dix, 1956.