You Should Become a Bishop

NOT.

When I entered this movement in 2000, I was optimistic and hopeful. I left a radical traditionalist Catholic context to enter into a church which as doctrinally and liturgically traditional with a pastoral outlook. I was eventually ordained in 2007. During my training and after my ordination, I served in a parish and had the benefit of growing it from 10 people to 40-50 people. It was an ideal situation that gave me a lot of joy. A social creature, I have always enjoyed being with people so this was the perfect fit.

I subsequently made a change which led to my joining another group in the same tradition in 2012. At that time, I was publicly asked to accept consecration as a bishop to grow the mission of the church. For me, it seemed at that time it made sense. Being as a bishop would allow me to help others on their journey as well as build up many communities instead of just one local one. It also would give me the autonomy to ensure that I could go where I needed to fit my calling. The independence it offered was appealing because I could guard my heart and control my destiny. So, I chose to begin ministry as a bishop.

I did not anticipate how this would change things in my life. Overnight, my relationships changed. Friends supported me and criticized me. People became both warmer and colder. There was more scrutiny over my actions. It is not just an ontological change--there are real, impactful changes that happen when you are consecrated. Mostly they are because of the projections that other people have about the episcopacy.

After consecration, I cannot say that my life improved a great deal. People are consecrated as bishop for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes it's merited. Sometimes it's for prestige. Sometimes it's the right place at the right time. Sometimes it's independence. Sometimes it's necessity. There is everything in between. For me, it did not bring a lot of comfort but was much more complicated!

I never really cared about the prestige. I have plenty of fulfillment in my life. I have people who love me and I have a solid career with multiple accredited graduate degrees. So, becoming a bishop did not "fill that cup." In fact, it made it more difficult. There are people who join this movement to become a bishop and like to be called by exalted titles or to receive the prestige of the episcopacy. However, the episcopacy in our movement is not an imperial episcopacy with the chancellery, personal secretary, episcopal palace, etc. So, for many people when when you introduce yourself as bishop and are in charge of less than others think you should be in charge of, you look crazy. I tried to downplay the episcopacy because I did not want to look absolutely insane to outsiders. 

I also got thrown more into the politics of everything. Suddenly, I had to look more closely at each situation. I was responsible for other people and more souls, and I had to respond accordingly. I had to tell more people yes for ordination or no. These were difficult, life-changing decisions for people. They have weighed heavily on me. While I do like being informed, I have not particularly enjoyed being thrown into the mix of politics within my own jurisdiction or others. It has caused a lot of hurt and damaged friendships.

But, lest you think that this post is too depressing, I will add that there have been moments of extreme joy. I have had the opportunity to meet some wonderful people and be part of their vocational journey. I have ordained people who I unequivocally knew that God called to ordained ministry. I get to minister alongside people I trust and that I deeply care about. I realized my duty and my obligations and helped people to achieve what they have been called to do. For that, I am forever grateful.

But, do not think that your life will immediately improve once you are consecrated. And do not look to it as the best thing that can happen to you. It is not. This does not mean that I am leaving or ready to resign the episcopacy, but know that it is not the panacea that you might imagine. I offer these words of reflection on 10 years of a bishop. They are just a reflection of the good, the bad, and the ugly. If I had to do it over again, sometimes I don't know that I would. What makes it worth it are the other clergy who I get the deep honor to support and the people they serve. But I also feel why people feel they need to be consecrated, because of the lack of good order or understanding of some bishops in the movement. Obviously, not all. But, noting that, I am so glad that despite the challenges that bishops face, I face it with supportive clergy for whom I care a great deal. The priests and people with whom I minister make all the difference. I hope that my advice gives you something to ponder or at least gives you some pause.

"One of the things you will do as a bishop is disappoint people." - Rowan Williams

Photo: LawrenceOP

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.

Mitered Mayhem

Episcopal consecrations in our movement are typically mundane. However, every so often there is the announcement of one that results in half a dozen messages to me of "can you believe this" or "OMG." This happens from time to time, and I may not be writing about something recent. Traditionally they follow the same pattern. An individual who has been with numerous jurisdictions, often has started and ended several parishes and/or religious groups, and will wax philosophical about how terrible the movement is and how awful it is everyone is consecrated a bishop--until it's them. 

From experience I have learned to take these announcements in stride. It is pointless to contact the consecrator about the wisdom of the action. It's always going to happen anyway. In the past these have resulted in hurt friendships or the ignoring of the message. I know of once instance where a bishop pleaded with another not to consecrate someone in his area only to be verbally berated. And we don't always have the full reasoning as to who, what, when, or why. So, life goes on. It either ends up in the person leaving the jurisdiction where they are (because now they have the "all-powerful episcopacy"), continuing their behavior, or, ideally, rising to the challenge. 

The reality is that we in the "Independent" or "Autocephalous" world are no different than any other group. There will always be people who are chosen for the clerical state (any part of it) in all different groups where some might think "really?" I have no doubt that our Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and various other brethren see consecration announcements and think "can you believe this" or "OMG." The issue becomes when the person creates scandal-- when their behavior or actions become scandalous to the faithful. And we Christians have been very successful at creating scandal in all our various ecclesiastical entities! The only real difference is that it's easier to end up a bishop in our corner of the Church.

So, then, what is the remedy? Is it to stay silent? Is it to confront? Well, at some point it is our job to discuss in a diplomatic way if possible. If this is not received, then we have to do something more than shake the dust off our feet. We must pray. This method doesn't just apply to bishops--it's to anyone ordained where we have a concern or an issue. We must pray that their ministry is fruitful. We must pray that they, and we, are transformed by God's limitless grace. We must ask God to bless them and to speak through them. Because, after all, are any of us truly "worthy" to be ordained?

This is true of all of our clergy. I entreat anyone who is reading this to pray for us. Pray for the stumbling clergy, the successful clergy, the addicted clergy, to clergy in need, the beloved clergy, the despised clergy, the shameful clergy, the saintly clergy, and everyone in between. Just pray. And leave the rest to God.

"My dear child, you must believe in God despite what the clergy tells you." 

- Benjamin Jowett

Imperial Episcopacy in the Catholic Periphery

I have been reflecting for several days on this article at First Things (The End of the Imperial Episcopate). In particular, it has been helpful to reflect on how this impacts us outside the Roman Catholic Church but still in the Catholic tradition. I will try to limit my commentary to our own needs.

In many ways, we are practically limited from an "imperial episcopate." We do not typically have large chancelleries and numerous staff. Some people might (in their own minds or on their websites) but it rarely reflects reality. Our outfits are usually much more humble. To me, this is one of the beautiful aspects of our movement. We are devoid of the bureaucracy that plagues other parts of the Church Catholic. 

Another part where we differ is that LITERALLY ANYONE can become a bishop. LITERALLY ANYONE. There, I said it. This is not unique to our movement--we see the exact same thing in traditionalist Catholic circles, among the Old Calendarists, etc. All one has to do is have a sympathetic bishop to consecrate them. Often, this can limit the clericalism of individuals because they realize that their episcopal nature is much closer to the Early Church model of presbyter-bishops and deacons (for good or for worse). When it becomes problematic is when people "don't get the memo" and try to set themselves up as imperial poobahs (His All Holiness the Patriarch of Mesopotamia and All the East--which to my knowledge is not a clerical title... yet) without realizing that their exalted episcopal status is... unremarkable.

These are things that are decried both inside and outside of the movement. "There are too many bishops. Anyone can become a bishop. There is no structure. We don't have a headquarters. We have no incentive to keep priests like health insurance or churches." These are just some of the comments we hear. Many of these things are true, but I try to look at the more positive aspects. We are without bureaucracy so we can meet people where they really are and where they are most in need. And that should be our calling--as both priests and bishops. 

I agree with the author of the above piece that externals can be problematic. However, I don't think that they should necessarily be eliminated. Choir cassocks and piping and all of those things give important events solemnity. I think they should and can be used, but--and this is a big but--sparingly. We look insane if we put on all our finery for the 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time or the 12th Sunday after Pentecost. An ordination, yes. Not every Sunday. In fact, as I've mentioned before, I much prefer to be called father and titles like Excellency and Your Grace make me rather uncomfortable. I think finery can be retained but in small doses and in the appropriate setting. Especially when the inevitable question comes--"how many ministries do you have?" If the remark is not suitably large enough for the petitioner, the one answering can look like a real kook.

In reality we are doing a lot of the things mentioned in the article. Dioceses are able to be smaller and people are able to know the bishop. There are very few auxiliary bishops and bishops get to know the priests they support. Bishops must be called to humility and gentleness. As mentioned, I don't think that episcopal finery is a problem in and of itself. I have, in fact, met progressive priests who were dictators in their own command for control. Who required everything to be a certain way--their way--to the exclusion of all others. And I have met the same quality in traditional priests. It is rarely the garment that makes the individual oppressive--it's the mindset.

So let us rejoice in those things we are doing well. Smaller, base communities of faithful who are receiving the sacraments. People who need access to the grace given by the holy sacraments receive them from our hands. Part of this may include a bit of finery (in appropriate doses) but it can't distract people from our mission. And it can't be so over used that we look truly crazy. Or crazier, in some cases.

"For a golden-hearted bishop, wooden crozier ; for a wooden-headed bishop, golden crozier." - French Proverb

The More Colorful the Title, the More Colorful the Man...

I have a favorite French proverb: "Wooden Bishop, Golden Crozier. Golden Bishop, Wooden Crozier." That is sometimes hard to apply among the ISM, who frequently use bedposts and all other manner of objects as croziers. Instead, we create fanciful titles for ourselves. This is a list of a few of my favorites:

• Patriarch of Sodom, Gomorrah, and All Canaan (my favorite)
• His Sacred Beatitude and Most Holy Eminence
• His Sacred Beatitude
• Apostolic Pontiff
• Most Illustrious Lord
• Universal Patriarch
• Supreme Hierarch
• His Whiteness (Celtic title, not supremacist!)

These are just a few. Unfortunately, it has been a while since I've read Anson. There are also your run of the mill Cardinals, but they have become an also-ran.

I also have mixed feelings about the title of monsignor. Traditionally, one would not use this title unless given some privilege by the Bishop of Rome or if one was a member of the Bourbon dynasty. Given its proximity to Papal privilege now, I personally prefer the title of Canon.

Feel free to add your own below!