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.

Authenticity

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges of this movement is that some people are drawn to a lack of authenticity. This ties in, somewhat, to my post related to hypocrisy. But I think the issue of authenticity relates to a macro scale.

I joined the Autocephalous Catholic movement at the tender age of 16. Since then, I have done my very best to document its history as well as become an expert on the theologies and figures of the movement as a whole. From studying the movement for many years now I have noticed some consistent things about the movement. These are not academic observations just just commonalities I have discovered:

1. Lay people are often attracted to "Roman replicators" because the liturgy is familiar and it is akin to going to St. Mary's down the street. This can be problematic for clergy who like a particular liturgy or have attached themselves to a certain ethos to differentiate themselves from Rome.
2. There is not a lot of jurisdictional "buy in" from lay people in terms of keeping a jurisdiction going. They may identify as "xyz Catholic" but typically they will just call themselves Catholic.
3. The most difficult thing in this movement is keeping a parish going. Most communities do not survive the charismatic founder stage.
4. There are a lot of clergy and jurisdictions that say one thing but reality is very different. In my experience it is the honest clergy and jurisdictions who are the most successful.

The purpose of this post is regarding observation 4. My experience has included a number of jurisdictions who say one thing but practice another. Unfortunately this typically describes entities which are very conscious about other people's thoughts. This can range from proclaiming to be traditional but actually being open to esotericism, proclaiming traditional morality while priests live with "roomates," and even being open about the crazier side of their history. While this information is tightly stored away we find that it was rampant throughout the history of our movement. Some of our most prestigious forefathers pastored Unitarian churches but were apostolic bishops, or dabbled in Esotericism, or were divorced/remarried, or were thought to have been celibate but had a wife and children,  or had any number of personal foibles they may not have wanted others to know.

In many ways this is why I admire some of the more unique entities within our movement. There are groups which have elected their own pope, reshaped their theology, or otherwise differentiated themselves from Roman Catholicism to make them completely unique. What is curious about these groups is that they seem to have staying power. They attract a distinctive following and they generally stay after the leader's demise. I'm not proposing we all go out and elect a pope, but historically it is notable how some of our most successful brethren (or sometimes we may want to say barely cousins) are those which are themselves and who own their individuality. Look at, for example, the Liberal Catholic Church which has 100 years under its belt. The same is true of the Philippine Independent Church and the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, which have each adapted themselves to their local situations and individual needs. There are many other smaller groups which have demonstrated their own staying power because they crafted something truly novel.

Now--a word of warning. Just because groups are authentically themselves does not give them license to do whatever they want. There must be some provisions to prevent falling into cult-like behavior, harming others, or generally completely embarrassing the rest of us. I am a big believer in the professional image of the clergy. We may have inclusive, broad, or even quirky views, but we can't allow that to cause scandal to others. If you're sacrificing animals on your front porch--it's a problem. It is enough to state one's case and be honest about your convictions while maintaining social and legal mores. 

It also does not mean that there is not a place for "Roman Replicators." There are many, many people who are served well by them and who provide sacraments and support to those who can't find it at their home parish. In fact, these groups are often our most numerically successful (as noted in point 1). While the moniker is "Roman Replicators" it is not limited those closely tied to Roman Catholicism. It can be "Constantinople Replicators" or "Canterbury Replicators." There is truly a place for them.

But it is apparent, as I look through my own ecclesiastical history and the churches where I have been committed, that it is those with an authenticity that is uniquely their own charism which continuously outlive the founders. Not always but can. This is true when clergy are themselves and are honest about why they joined the movement in the first place. Because they were authentic in where they felt the spirit calling them. Sometimes our ministries are for an hour, or a day, or a year, or even a dozen years before they end. And that's ok. But sometimes they do last generations. And that's ok too. This is not a road map for success, it's merely built upon my observations of the entities with the longest histories and the people who built them. May we all have the ability to be our authentic selves. 

"Be who you were created to be, and you will set the world on fire!" St. Catherine of Siena.