A Pope of Our Own

Much buzz has been created about the Conclave in Rome and the election of a new pope. As Autocephalous Catholics, we do not look to the Pope as our leader. This is true for anyone not in communion with the local Roman Catholic bishop, despite any perceptions to the contrary. In fact, the position of the papacy is one of the major issues which facilitated the break in our relationship. As Bishop of Rome, we honor the pope as the first among equals and the successor of Saint Peter. However, this is where the adulation ends. To consider him as infallible on matters of faith and morals and holding universal jurisdiction is, well, a step too far.

It would be folly, however, to not acknowledge that the papacy has an impact on us all. As the saying goes, adapted from a statement by Klemens von Metternich, "When Rome sneezes, the rest of Christendom catches cold." When Rome radically changed the Roman Rite in 1969, much of the rest of Christendom followed suit. Similarly, so many of our customs and traditions come from Rome that it has a big impact on the rest of us.

Despite the honor given to the Bishop of Rome and an acknowledgement of the papacy's impact on the rest of us, I will confess that we otherwise go largely unimpacted. We will pray for him and we will have our opinions about what changes we would like to see that might affect us. This is natural, like acknowledging that an election in a neighboring country will inevitably impact ours. However, because we are not Roman Catholics, we are largely not affected by what happens. Any investment on our part in hoping for a certain outcome or wanting the pope to change this or that is largely misspent. 

In the meantime, we will continue our work of providing pastoral care, sharing the sacraments, and building the Kingdom of God. I will certainly pray for the man chosen, that he lead his flock with wisdom and prudence. A job made all the more difficult by infallibility which, to the ill informed, seems to extend to everything. As for me, I will focus on my very little patch in the Kingdom of God.

"To go to Rome is little profit, endless pain; the master that you seek in Rome you find at home or seek in vain." - Sedulius of Liège

National Catholic Churches

The subject of national churches is a conflicting one for me. As we are aware, at the beginning of Christianity there were no national boundaries as we now understand them. The Roman Empire and tribal areas existed, and Christianity (eventually) flourished in the Empire (while also reaching other areas). As the Empire subsided and new kingdoms and entities formed, the Church in the West remained subject to Rome. Yet it would be wrong to ignore the impact of the nation upon the resident churches. Kings, for example, had the right to nominate and appoint bishops (something we now consider exclusively the purview of the Bishop of Rome). Churches and their clergy also were often subject to the state, as exists in some places still where taxes go to support the churches (or where clergy are considered civil servants). 

In the East, there was much less centralization. As Rome became the enter of the ecclesiastical world in the West, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople remained autocephalous in the East. Independent churches then emanated from Constantinople, but they quickly broke off. The Patriarchate of Bulgaria became independent as early as 927 with others following suit. Thus, national churches were an inherent part of the East which did not have the autonomy of Rome and was much more organic in development. 

As papal power grew in the West with the increase of ultramontanism, there were notable holdouts. The Church of Utrecht, for example, resisted the papal imposition of a bishop in favor of their charter which required an election by canons. Ultimately, the Church of Utrecht was joined by the Old Catholics in 1870 who implemented national Catholic Churches in what became Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, etc. Yet the spirit of the Low Countries permeates these churches as the motherland of the Old (Roman) Catholic tradition. 

In 1945, the Old Catholic Churches were joined by the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church and Dom Carlos Duarte Costa. Duarte Costa was in favor of the national model, with the goal of creating a church for Brazilians that was imbued with specifically Brazilian features such as Portuguese in the liturgy, etc. Yet, as early as 1948 Duarte Costa consecrated Castillo Mendez for the work of the church in Venezuela. He saw the benefit of the national church model and promoted its spread throughout South America.

In addition to the (former) Roman Catholic and Orthodox national churches, there remained the Anglican churches which were built on a national church model (with deference to Canterbury). As with Rome, independence was first rebuffed. But, the rebellious colonists sought out the help of Bishop Samuel Seabury who helped them establish the first church independent of the Church of England outside of the British Isles (with the assistance of the Scottish Episcopal Church).

There are many challenges with national churches. First, national churches can promote nationalism as we have seen in some of the Orthodox countries. The state church can become enmeshed with the government in ways that make them indistinguishable and ultimately harm the credibility of both. Second, national churches can take on the causes of the nation. Thus, the loss of ecclesiastical territory becomes a matter of national pride. The unfortunate situation then occurs where there are multiple churches of one tradition competing on the same soil, all while anathematizing the others. National churches can be difficult to hold together in a meaningful form of worldwide communion. The Anglican Churches are evidence of this, as the ordination of women and LGBT people becomes more problematic for sister churches. The same occurred in the Union of Utrecht, when the Polish National Catholic Church pulled out over the ordination of women. In short, egos, territory, definitions of heterodoxy, and other issues stymie national churches in ways that do not affect Rome.

However, there are not only negatives. National churches do join the social fabric of the nation. They knit together people so that they have a common destiny and have their own self-governed church. This church looks like them, speaks their language, and has their interests at heart. There are ways to mitigate heterodox beliefs by ensuring that there is some sort of common communion, as with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They don't always like each other (they frequently dislike each other), but there have been ways in which they have worked together in the past (notably when America was establishing its Orthodox presence). Like everything, national churches have to act intentionally and not independently. But, some would argue that this hinders prophetic calling and witness when one group is moved to act in one way but the other churches disagree.

It will be interesting to watch how Rome handles recent developments with local independence. As Pope Francis is committed to the synodal path and promotes national episcopal conferences, there are rumors of fractures already forming. The German Church, for instance, seeks to bless same-sex unions. Rome has said it is verboten, but what will be the outcome if there is a walkout? Will national churches become more favored as Roman Catholic dioceses become increasingly independent in charism?  The Orthodox have managed to keep themselves together, more or less, but it has been with common agreement and with an Orthodox phronema that you don't have to define everything. Rome has boxed itself into a corner by defining every article of belief, such that deviation is not permitted. How will Autocephalous Catholics be affected by Roman changes and how can we avoid the pitfalls while promoting the good?

Ultimately, as Autocephalous Catholics, I believe that national churches are a common form of structure of all of us. ICAB, Old Catholics, Continuing Anglicans, etc. all hold the concept of national churches even if they differ in liturgy and understanding of doctrine. I do not think that the concept should be abandoned, because I believe it is a good one and one to which I am committed. And, I believe that we have to work together as national churches. There are too many similarities between us. The structure of the Church should be accessible to the people and local enough that they have participation in its outcome. But, ideally this should be done in the spirit of  "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity."

"In the first century the Christianity, the national Churches lived and developed in complete autonomy, without being vassals to the Bishop of Rome. I call to your attention to the testimony of Tertullian who said: "Our many churches considered themselves as all belonging to one church, the first of all founded by the Apostles and mother of the rest. They are all holy and apostolic and, together, cannot be looked upon as anything by a singe entity, whose message of Peace, whose mutual brotherhood, whose bonds of charity unite all the faithful." - Manifesto of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa

Independence and Independent Catholics

Recently, there was discussion how Autocephalous Catholics or those in the ISM could unite. This is a common theme, because it is reasoned that being together will make us stronger. After all, if we could only unite we would have buildings, paid clergy, a national presence, etc. These are all laudable things.

However, I think that we are missing the mark on this conversation. While we do often desperately yearn to be a "real" church with buildings, retirement accounts, paid clergy, etc. we also realize that the mainstream is having to find ways to do without these things. It is becoming increasingly common to see mainstream clergy who are bi-vocational, who share churches with other denominations, and who have lost the trappings we traditionally associate with an "established church." They are investing time and money in their ministry and we will too. It costs a lot to be an ISM cleric.

I think that we have to realize that one of our common charisms is independence. The vast majority of people (but not everyone) entered our movement because they couldn't minister anywhere else. They may be married, divorced, LGBTQ, etc. But I anticipate we will see this number drop as well. Because now the ELCA, ECUSA, and other mainstream, liturgical churches have become more inclusive. Those who want a traditional ministry will be drawn to those places.

So where does that leave us? Well, we will continue to attract those people who like our model but value the freedoms in it. They like being able to establish communities or ministries with little oversight. This, of course, has its drawbacks. People can enter these ministries with impure motives and do a lot of harm. There are also limited resources available to these ministries, as they do not have a national backing with access to financial resources or other clergy if the minister exits. But, there is also a degree of freedom which has always been part of our movement.

This degree of freedom is something which is uniquely ours. We cherish it, even if we say we don't. When we lose it, it is difficult for us to adjust. This is akin to Anglican priests who became Roman Catholics--those who went from a distant bishop to one who has much more control over their daily lives. With the freedom in our movement, members can be consecrated a bishop even if they loudly proclaim on social media that they want no such thing. Or they can liturgically experiment. Or they can exercise ministries that could not. Or they can minister to a lot or very few.

I think the sooner we realize that rigid structures do not and will not work for us, the sooner we will find our affirmation of the movement. This is a place where if you want to celebrate a 10th century liturgy in Esperanto, you are free to do it. No one may show up, but you can go at it to your heart's desire. The key, as always, is not creating scandal for others. Sexual or financial scandal among the clergy is something that keeps people away and destroys the trust they place in the Church. It also means that we have to live with things we don't necessarily prefer. I have attended liturgies that I H-A-T-E-D. Like would have set myself on fire to be able to leave. But, they were celebrated with sincerity and with a sense of spiritual commitment. And for that I was grateful.

If people feel the need to create committees or dicasteries to give the illusion of cohesion to outsiders, they can go for it. But the reality is that given the distance and lack of binding commitments (salaries, retirement accounts, health insurance, etc.) there is only so much that can be done in terms of discipline.

The same principal of independence can be applied to education. It was very common historically for clergy to be illiterate. Many of them did not even have a missal with which to use because of their poverty before printing presses. Hence the tradition of so-called "white" and "black" clergy in the Orthodox church and simplex priests in the Roman Church. They were trained in basic theological care and liturgical mastery. Obviously now there is no excuse to not attempt to learn as much as possible, especially given the prevalence of materials on YouTube, podcasts, Google Books, etc. However, this need not always be formal education. Without a steady salary it does not make sense to go thousands of dollars into debt for ministry. Priests need a minimum threshold of education with a maximum ceiling for spiritual life. 

I care so much more about how a priest prays or how he interacts with others than his theological understanding. It is formation that will save us more than educational standards. Again, this does not exempt people from lifelong learning. But it is a recognition that our bond together should primarily be spiritual. This is not always possible in our fallen world, but it is something to ponder. When this happens, we will care less about the "stuff" of ministry and more about deepening our relationships with each other and our commitment to be in community. Then, I think, we will have arrived.

"It is easy to be independent when you've got money. But to be independent when you haven't got a thing, that's the Lord's test." - Mahalia Jackson