Ordination without Sacrifice

Gandhi gave us his take on the Seven Deadly Sins, and one of them is "religion without sacrifice." I think of this a lot when it comes to ordination. The reality is that within Independent Catholicism (and its many iterations thereof), it is easy to be ordained. This reality spans from the liberal to the traditional--if you find a willing bishop, you, too, can be a priest. I do not think that this is inherently bad. There are many people who have been innately called to priesthood who should be ordained. For one reason or another, they are not able to pursue it in their church of origin. 

I do not always think that a theological degree is required for ordination. While helpful in explaining theological concepts to those to whom we minister, I also realize that they are out of the reach of many people. Because of the exorbitant cost of education in the US (especially), it does not make good financial sense to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for ministry that will never be able to reimburse you for your costs. However, thankfully, because of the internet, there are many opportunities for learning that are less formal but still provide insightful, challenging insights.

So, without formal training, what is the option for training clergy? Well, there are other ways to prepare. A lot of it depends on the candidate. The individual has to take every opportunity to prepare themselves for ordination. At a minimum, ordinands should work on their spiritual life, emotional health, professionalism, grammar, and demeanor. Without this, ordinands are doing themselves a disservice because 1) they are seeking the easy path without doing the work and 2) they limit their own success in ministry and their ability to minister to people.

Some of the fault is on the ordaining bishops, who do not challenge applicants to do this hard work. Sometimes, they are eager to ordain people to grow their church or, less cynically, there is a true ministry need. However, by ordaining too quickly you actually do the ordinand a disservice on your side, too. It is incumbent that each person called to public ministry be spiritually prepared, emotionally prepared, and intellectually challenged. To fail to do so can cause a host of additional problems. 

Technology has made our lives infinitely easier. If you wish to be ordained, take it upon yourself to learn and digest. Take courses to improve your grammar. Watch videos about professional conduct and take trainings about child protection. We have access to some of the most brilliant human minds at the click of a button. Document what you have done and show it to your bishop. Together, you can craft a meaningful, yet challenging plan forward that does not put you thousands of dollars into debt while still helping you grow as a person. What a time to be alive!

O Priest! You are not yourself because you are God. You are not of yourself because you are the servant and minister of Christ. You are not you own because you are the spouse of the Church. You are not yourself because you are the mediator between God and man. You are not from yourself because you are nothing. What then are you? Nothing and everything. O Priest! Take care lest what was said to Christ on the cross be said to you: "He saved others, himself he cannot save! - St. Norbert

Clerical Relationships: Being a Blank Canvas

From 2008-2013, there was a TV show called Tabatha Takes Over. Tabatha, a well-known hair stylist, would take over failing salons to make them profitable again. On one of the shows, Tabatha made a quip about why hairdressers should wear black aprons which stuck with me. She said "all black means that you are a blank canvas for the client." They can then share all their cares with the hair dresser.

The priest wears all black for a similar reason. The conventional wisdom is that clerical black symbolizes "dying to oneself to serve the Lord." Part of dying to oneself is diminishing your identity. I think this is an important part of ordination that sometimes gets pushed to the side. 

After ordination, a priest is no longer themself. They belong fully to God and to their people. While it is important for a priest to know themself and have a healthy understanding of self (because we have seen when that has become twisted and broken), it also becomes imperative to carefully chose where this sense of self is shared. This does not mean that a cleric should be inauthentic or fake, but it does mean that they should be genuine but cautious.

It can present problems if a cleric shares too much of their angst, woes, frustrations, and opinions with the people they serve. In today's world, this includes social media. Frankly, most people do not really want to frequently know when their pastor is experiencing emotional woes. I am not talking here about health issues--people should get updates about their clergy and their well-being. I mean, here, relationship issues, emotional ones, mental health challenges, etc. It is imperative for clergy to form relationships with other clergy to share these concerns. Or, to people outside their congregation. These are ideal groups with whom to share your concerns, angst, and issues. Or, perhaps a spiritual director or a therapist (which are mentioned here as options but are very distinct roles from each other). The priest is a professional and sharing too much, much like if done by your physician or lawyer, can be churlish. 

Proverbs reminds us "He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls." This is doubly true of clergy. Healthy boundaries are the bedrock of good relationships. This means protecting the people we serve from our own challenges, but it also protects us from becoming too enmeshed and in situations which present moral and ethical challenges.

"Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Proverbs 4:23)

Image by <a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/priest-praying-church_23992226.htm#query=priest&position=28&from_view=search&track=sph">Freepik</a>

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

Visiting Cleric Manners

One of the challenges of Autocephalous Catholicism is that some of us believe that our indelible mark of ordination means that we should be extended liturgical favors wherever we go. This can be problematic where there are representatives from multiple jurisdictions in one area. If the parish of, say, Saint Drogo exists in Anytown and an ISM cleric shows up, many times the cleric will expect to concelebrate or participate in the liturgy. No cleric should just expect this to happen, regardless of if they belong to a mainstream tradition or the ISM. Because of sometimes loose ordination standards in the Autocephalous Catholic world, one must be especially careful to prevent anyone from participating liturgically without a degree of vetting and care.

This is particularly thorny when someone is a bishop. They may show up with all the tat and the glamor and expect to preside at the Eucharist. Again, this is a break of protocol. It is the role of the pastor (or the Board depending on how the parish is run) to invite a cleric to preside or participate. A community sets itself up for problems if they allow just anyone to celebrate, and the bishop should not automatically expect it. Assume, if you are a bishop, that you are celebrating as a priest and leave the episcopal grandeur at home unless specifically asked. It is highly advisable for bishops to call themselves father so as not to cause confusion in the parish if they are not that parish's bishop or even with that jurisdiction.

My proposal for parishes is below. Feel free to take this advice or leave it, but hopefully it can provide some degree of protection for your community.

1. For visiting clerics, do not expect to participate in the liturgy. Assume you will be sitting in the pews with the congregation. 

2. Clergy may invite visiting clerics to liturgically participate after a period of getting to know the cleric, understanding their training and background, and defining expectations up front about frequency, etc.

3. A criminal and child abuse check should be done on visiting clerics or a letter should be provided by the cleric from their jurisdiction stating the result of their last background/abuse check and when the check occurred.

4. If the visiting cleric continues to participate to a meaningful degree in the life of the parish, it is advisable that they meet with the clergy (and/or any administering Board) to set expectations about how often they will participate, when background checks will be refreshed, clarity on identification as visiting clergy, etc. 

The above, of course, assumes that there is no issue with the community's jurisdiction regarding inviting visiting clerics outside the group or with the visiting cleric's jurisdiction about celebrating in non-jurisdictional communities. 

Not only does this protect everyone involved, but it also protects friendships and relationships between everyone involved. If someone just expects to participate, it can lead to hurt feelings and frustrations. The key, as with every human relationship, is open and honest communication.

“If according to times and needs you should be obliged to make fresh rules and change current things, do it with prudence and good advice.” - St. Angela Merici

Clerical Apostasy in Autocephalous Catholicism

In the early church, there were regulations about ordaining converts too quickly. There was concern that the new ordinands would be weak in their faith or would leave the faith all together. In time, other stipulations were put on candidates, such as age of ordination at the Council of Trullo. The Church wanted to ensure that it was ordaining candidates who were strong in their faith and wise in years. The ultimate goal was to prevent scandal as well as the loss of faith by the clergy.

During times of persecution, the Church was presented with another problem—how to treat those who handed over sacred objects when faced with death or torture. The Donatists, who were condemned as heretical, said that a cleric who gave over sacred objects to persecutors did not have valid sacraments. Ultimately, the Church disagreed and said that the sins of the celebrant do not affect the validity of what is done (ex opere operato).

While the sacramental guidelines on Donatism concerned priests who avoided martyrdom, it did not address clerics who left the faith all together. The Church was initially strict on anyone who left the faith, and forgiveness was denied even unto death. However, as persecutions increased and people reverted or acquiesced to cult worship to avoid martyrdom, the Church loosened up. Despite welcoming back those who apostatized, clerics were still to be deposed. An example of this is in the canons of the Council of Ephesus (431), which indicated that those who apostatized to the Nestorians should be deposed.

With the divergent paths of the East and West, there were different views on the grace of the sacraments of clergy who were outside the church. The Augustinian view, held by the West, is that once a priest always a priest and the sacramental character remains regardless. The view of Cyprian, held by the East, is that a cleric’s orders depend on their union with the Church at large. Outside the Church, the cleric has no sacraments (although they have used economy when admitting formerly schismatic groups). Sacraments celebrated outside the Church are not licit in the West and are invalid in the East.

As I am from a Western viewpoint, I will write about the Western position. The challenge among Autocephalous Catholics is that we cannot adhere to the first two conditions of the Early Church. Almost all ordinands in our jurisdiction are converts, and if we want to have any sort of sacramental growth, we have to ordain people earlier than occurred in the Early Church. Similarly, we do not generally adhere to age requirements (within reason, of course) because they can be rigid and are not necessarily an indication of growth. Both the East and the West have granted exceptions to age requirements, meaning that while they can be helpful guides they are not set in stone.

So, we ordain people who are new-ish to our jurisdiction and they leave. The problem is less when they leave for another jurisdiction or Christian group. The bigger issue is when they leave Christianity all together. There have been several examples of this in our Autocephalous Catholic history, where someone has been ordained and left Christianity to practice another religion. Each of those examples should teach us a lesson on if there are any steps to avoid in the future to ensure such a candidate is not ordained until they are mature in the faith. Of course, we will never prevent all candidate who may become apostates. That is impossible. But we can try our best to prevent it when possible.

What we can do is prevent candidates from returning after they have apostatized. While I am of the opinion that someone who has left Holy Orders still has an indelible mark, I think it is prudent to deny them the ability to return to active ministry if they have abandoned Christianity. Of course, this does not mean those who fluctuate in their faith. We are all on a journey and some of us will explore new paths but still maintain adherence to the Nicene Creed, the sacraments, etc. There are also those who also learn what is helpful in other religious traditions while maintaining their own Christian faith. I am speaking here only of those who have publicly abandoned Christianity or formally joined another religious tradition. I stand here with the Council of Ephesus that they should be deposed and not return.

While this may seem harsh, clergy are seen as “professional Christians.” Rightly or wrongly, our example carries much sway with Christians and with non-Christians. If we give up public profession of our faith, we have abandoned our call. One can always revert to Christianity, but not as a cleric. 

 

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?'” - John 11:25-26.

Cruel Clergy

It has been 14 years since my ordination to the priesthood, and I'd like to think I have learned some things. One of the largest changes I've seen in myself is that I am less rigid than I once was. This seems to be part of growing older, and a spiritual director once said to me "the Church had to canonize young people at one point because they were the most doctrinaire and idyllic." 

As part of this lessening of rigidity, I'd like to think that I have less time for nonsense. When I was a child, I thought as a child. I would get in theological and liturgical debates. But I have found that these matter less and less as time becomes more valuable. Another thing which becomes less important is knowing about other clergy. I don't mean for this to sound cruel. But, at one time I tried to know extensively about the orders and lineage of everyone in the Autocephalous Catholic field. I also tried to learn more about them so that I knew who I was dealing with if there was inevitable contact. 

I think one of the challenges of getting to know people (and about people) is that I found that the Autocephalous Catholic movement is full of wounded people. Many of our members are people who have had difficult histories. They have been rejected by their former faith traditions because of their sexuality, their marital status, etc. and we were a place of last resort. They sometimes try to recreate where they left except for their own peccadilloes. This can lead to "everything should be as Rome except my situation." Or, frankly, sometimes there are people who have criminal histories or sordid pasts and cannot minister anywhere else. We have a duty to protect the faithful from people who have a proclivity to act harmfully.

The problem with hurt people is that they hurt people. I frankly have grown exhausted with other clergy. I have found some clergy to be among the cruelest people I've ever encountered. They can take great pride in condemning others, denigrating others, and speaking ill of them. There is fighting, there are snipes at others, and there can be negativity. There is a perceived superiority to the interactions of "I'm real and you're not," which is troubling. And, in some quarters, there seems to be just endless anger.

This is particularly apparent when one cleric perceives another as successful. A friend recently posted on social media about jealousy in the movement. It does seem common that when one person gets a church building, or builds a parish there are numerous people ready to tear them down. Now, this does not mean that there is not a place for frank dialogue. I have had serious conversations with people which were not meant to harm them (although I think they were perceived that way), but were meant to be a wake up call. But frank conversation does not need to be malicious. 

This wounding behavior seems to be in our DNA as independent clergy. I, myself, am a sinner in this regard. I have said wounding things. I have tried to make amends where possible, and have left my gift at the altar to address my brethren. And I have had to shake the dust from my feet when someone will  not be converted to compassion. I hope I have learned and grown. Cruelty is never justified.

In the end, we can disagree with each other. We can have sincerely held beliefs about women's ordination, LGBT inclusion, etc. while still being charitable and without cruelty. After all, people do look to us (rightly or wrongly) to be charitable. We can be cautious about each other to protect ourselves, our families, and our ministries. After all, it seems anyone can be ordained in our movement. We can be aware of people's past while giving them a second chance (except in cases where they should be precluded from ordination). We can guard our hearts without reaching out to condemn others. We can support each other and applaud each other when someone is doing well. And we can carry ourselves as people with decorum.

“The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." St John Chrysostom.

Clerical Popularity

Recently, I spoke to someone who has become a fast friend. He is actively involved in starting a new church and I am excited to hear about the steps he followed. Starting a new parish in the Autocephalous or Independent Catholic movement is exceptionally difficult. First, people don't quite know how to classify us. They also can be skeptical of us and of our intentions. The logistics of parish founding are also extremely difficult in terms of financial, property, and people resources. During our conversation, I cautioned him against allowing the church to hang on his personality. Thankfully, he was aware of the risks involved with such an option.

I believe this is a real issue in our tradition. We do not have denominations which can appoint clergy and provide for them. We also do not have the benefit of frequent oversight of the clergy because of our distance. So, frequently a person is ordained to the diaconate and priesthood and it is largely up to them to start the parish. Hopefully they are successful, and others join them. A founder syndrome can develop where the person is elevated to an exalted status. Then, if they have to move away or become ill or become too elderly to continue the work, the parish dies off and no longer exists. Instead of being a light to the world it was a flash in the pan.

This doesn't signify that I am against ministries or options that are time limited. There is a season for everything. However, if the goal is to build something that is lasting it takes more than the personality of one person to make it continue. This is especially true of so-called large personalities. These can end up several ways:

 1. The parish was founded by Father X. Father X runs a tight ship and is well liked. When Father X gets too old or infirm, Father Y begins helping at the parish. But he does things differently. People don't like different, so they leave. Soon the parish dwindles and is forced to close. While people can't be chastised for caring for their priest and liking his style, he maybe could have done more to pull back gracefully from the situation to prevent a shock to the parish. (I've seen this happen)

2. Father A is a dynamic individual. He is generous, affable, and funny. He starts new ministries and people really enjoy him. When responding why people like coming to the church, it is because Fr A is there. Fr A ends up falling short sexually or steals money or commits any number of (sadly) too-frequent clerical sins and people are scandalized. They leave the church or the faith all together because they are so disappointed. (This has happened more times than I can count)

3. Father B is viewed as a holy man and, to be honest, he likes knowing that people feel that way about him. He starts ministries to the poor and even gives out expensive gifts to them. He likes the recognition and awards of his work. Instead of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, he becomes a divisive figure. Some think he is flashy and a conman while others venerate him as a living saint. This, too, divides the parish. (This is a mainline example of which I am familiar)

And, of course, these aren't all the scenarios! I don't list these to say that a priest can't be charismatic or beloved or well regarded. Frankly, it is expected that the priest will be an upstanding citizen and that people will regard him with favoritism. But I am saying that the whole operation can't be wrapped around the persona and/or ego of the priest. If the parish hinges on the personhood of the priest, then the priest has failed. He failed in the same way a business or non-profit leader fails when they neglect to implement a succession plan. 

We have to be vigilant against such temptations as recognition. Next, there are a few steps that can be taken to help protect ourselves and parishes. 

1. We have to diversify authority to ensure that others can be called upon in an emergency or in time of need so the pastor isn't the only person. 

2. We have to raise up others in a community to take a visible role so that the priest isn't the only cleric or church official who has the community's focus. 

3. Take away some of the power. The priest should not be the pastor, controlling finances, and making all decisions for the church. These roles have to be diversified so that it is not all vested in one person. This limits temptation for the priest and ensures good oversight.

These are also not an exhaustive list. They are just some ways that can prevent problems. Ultimately, our main focus should be on extending grace through the sacraments and forming people in their faith. We must do this pleasantly and with sincerity, but we also have to avoid against becoming exalted.

"If priests sin, all the people are led to sin. Hence every one must render an account of his own sins; but the priests are also responsible for the sins of others." - St John Chrysostom

The Good Priest

One meets all types of people in the Autocephalous Catholic tradition. I've posted various dossiers about different people--those you want to stay away from completely and say that you've never met, those that make rapid changes to their jurisdiction/church/religious order, the miserable converts who really hate the movement but are here because, well, no one else will take them, the hypocrites, etc. There are, in fact, too many personality disorders to list them all.

But that, dear friends, is not the focus of today. Enough time is wasted on the chaos caused by the various Fathers Cray Cray (Cray for short). Today we focus on the good priest. As many Father Crays as I've known, I've also known some extraordinary priests.

This, to me, is the true beauty of this movement. I have met priests who could not or would not minister in larger jurisdictions. They either lacked the means to go to seminary, did not want to engage in full-time, stipendiary ministry, or had personal circumstances (sexuality, marriage, etc.) that prevented their entry into larger groups. Some came late to religion and did not have the ability to minister in a larger group because of the limitations of ordination requirements.

In spite of this, these priests have tried diligently. Daily they empty their pockets to pay for the items necessary for divine worship. To some our vocation is a chance to have shiny things and dress up. There are priests, however, who use their humble means to acquire the best that they can for God. They save and sacrifice so that they have the necessary items for ministry. 

These individuals are deeply prayerful and believe in the power of the Holy Mass. They celebrate (often alone) in their homes believing in the deeply transformative nature of the Eucharist. This action is not limited to a public act, but it is also deeply personal. And they dispense the sacraments when they are truly needed. 

I think of Father X, who as a hospital chaplain has celebrated weddings for terminally ill patients so they can enter eternity married to their love. Or Father Y, who celebrates for his consistent band of people. He is not always appreciated and he does it without expectation of remuneration or glory. But he believes in his calling to serve the people to whom God has led him. Or Father Z, who is ministering to the homeless by feeding them and being with them. This is in addition to his spiritual work. Our movement has also opened numerous centers for the addicted by people who sincerely care about those they are serving.

True, there are a lot of Father Crays. But there are also a lot of sincere, good people who are ministering where they are called. Often they are quiet, without fanfare. Or, as one Indie Bishop friend said, "I judge the realness and sincerity of a group by the extent of their internet presence. The more of the former the less of the latter." And, again, by means of comparison--our crazy world has just as many crazy people as any group. Our Father Crays tend to have less reach than their mainstream counterparts.

So as we embark upon our Thanksgiving holiday I rejoice in those saints and people who have come before me. Who have ministered at their own expense in less than ideal places and situations. Yet good still comes from their work. And all the rest shall fade away.

I know my own soul, how feeble and puny it is:
I know the magnitude of this ministry,
and the great difficulty of the work;
for more stormy billows vex the soul of the priest
than the gales which disturb the sea.
- John Chrysostom

The Sin of Misrepresentation...

There is one thing that is completely unacceptable in the ISM--misrepresentation. People generally realize that many clergy are no different from other people. We all have our foibles, our short comings, and wrestle with different issues. However, misrepresenting ourselves cannot be tolerated.

In mainstream denominations, clergy misrepresentation is (sadly) more common than one would think. Besides the scandals, there are the cases of the made up diplomas, the credentials that don't really exist, the ego inflation... But things are a bit different in the ISM. In the ISM, the principal sin of misrepresenting ones self is the misrepresentation that one is a Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, etc. priest.

It should be noted that this rant is not pointed towards traditionalists who have split (in the eyes of the establishment) or continued (in their eyes) from their original tradition. They are often very clear that they are not connected with the "official" church. This may also be evident because of their calendar, commemorations, position on the Pope, liturgy, etc.

It is directed towards those members of the ISM that are so delusional or seeking validation that they present themselves as a priest from one of the above groups. Often, it is most prevalent with Roman Catholicism. I would posit that is because much of the general public is unaware of Orthodoxy and so it is more difficult appear to misrepresent as a "canonical" Orthodox priest. This is especially true in light of the many various factions and the traditionalist issues above. The same, too, with Episcopalians as many simply call themselves Anglicans and people (generally) know the difference. Most Roman Catholics, frankly, lump Episcopalians into the Protestant category and most clergy from the Anglican tradition have no problem telling of the differences between ECUSA and them.

I have heard horror stories of ISM clergy misrepresenting themselves as Roman Catholics. This includes independently ordained priests hearing confessions in Roman Catholic churches until ejected, showing up at liturgies and presenting themselves as Roman Catholic clergy, saying mass and running off with the collection plate, etc. Sometimes, these folks are pure con artists. Sometimes they are mentally ill. In every circumstance, though, they should not have been ordained (if they were). The same goes for those who misrepresent themselves to faithful as Roman Catholic parishes when they are, in fact, independent parishes.

I have also heard every defense for posing as clergy of a larger jurisdiction. "No one will come to our Mass if we let it be known we are independents" or "They don't know the difference" or "I'm valid, so it's ok." To be clear: it is never acceptable. Those priests are misrepresenting themselves and lying to the People of God. They do themselves a disservice and they create suspicion within the community about our movement.

Sure, there are occasionally those folks who don't know about our tradition and may be confused. This is a teaching moment and when I have met such folks they often come back to the liturgy. This is because our understanding of our faith and the liturgy resonates with them. It is often difficult to describe ourselves in a short period of time. People get confused easily about our tradition. What is not ok is to misrepresent.

The larger issue, as well, is why one would want to represent themselves as a Roman Catholic or any other tradition mentioned. We have an extraordinary calling--to minister to those who feel lost, abandoned, and need the Sacraments and liturgy that feeds their soul. We can function outside of dogma and man-made rules to help others become connected with God. That is a greater gift than a momentary bit of recognition or a photo opportunity.

"But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth." James 3:14