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.