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

Organizing Liturgical Diversity

I generally refrain from commenting on current events in other churches, but the newsworthiness of the moto proprio Traditionis Custodes cannot be ignored. And, I believe, it has larger implications for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 

If you have not heard, or have been under a rock, Pope Francis recently restricted the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to the local bishop rather than the celebrant as had been the case with Summorum Pontificum. Included in the decision are limitations on parishes utilizing the Extraordinary Form, founding new religious communities, etc. This comes as a deep blow to many who love the Tridentine Mass. And I personally think it is heavy handed. Especially when there are other options available. 

The Roman Catholic Church has flourished with liturgical diversity. In the Latin Rite, Jesuit missionaries received permission to celebrate Mass in Chinese and in Dalmatia and parts of Istria the Mass was celebrated in Church Slavonic. Thus, the Tridentine Mass has been celebrated in many languages and places in diverse ways. Diversity is also present in the regional forms of Mass, such as the Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, etc. Diversity is present not just in the Latin Rite, as there are whole particular churches set up for the Eastern rites so faithful can utilize a rite that is both familiar to them and culturally sensitive. 

In the above examples, each option for diversity exists either locally or is extended to a larger structure. This seems, for me, to be a reasonable step for the Tridentine Mass, too. We have seen it work with the Anglican Ordinariate in terms of creating liturgical cohesion. So why not create a Tridentine Ordinariate? That way, people with an affinity for the Tridentine Mass can be grouped together in different ways throughout the world. There is also a precedence with the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney. 

Opponents may argue that that could create a "ghettoization" or a hotbed for disobedience. But, there is evidence that it can work. The Anglican Ordinariate is made up of former Anglicans who traditionally have not been given the spiritual gift of obedience. But by grouping them together there has been a cohesive way to regulate those who resist authority. And by not creating an Ordinarite for the Tridentine Mass, the Roman Catholic Church is just driving the faithful to outside sources. Maybe that is their point. It's hard to bring in people who tweet "Francis will die, but the Latin Mass will live forever" as was recently done by a popular traddie blog. But, to use an uncouth quote from President Lyndon Johnson, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

There is one key element of these groups which can't be understated. The Eastern Rites, the Anglican Ordinariate, etc. accept the validity and legality of the Ordinary Form. If a mutual flourishing does not exist, to borrow from the CofE, there cannot be cohesion. This is a necessity of any Ordinariate but also isolates those who reject this principle.

Outside the Roman Catholic Church, there have been examples of where it has worked to create a group for a specific need. The Old Ritualists have carved out a place in ROCOR. I think this has implications among Autocephalous Catholics, too. I have often spoken about priests who are ordained and wish to offer the Mass of Saint Abdecalas exclusively (this is a joke). This is often times not realistic to do publicly, because it is a liturgy which is unfamiliar to people who are already unfamiliar with us. Often times, we do have to utilize a liturgy promulgated by other parts of the wider Church so that it is familiar with those who seek us. Then the process of catechesis can begin if you want to offer a wild and wonderful liturgy. 

It does behoove us (size permitting) to create ways for different valid, historical liturgical expressions to flourish. For example, I have a great affinity for the Tridentine Mass in English because it is part of my tradition. But I also realize that introducing it may take easing into it, because most people are unfamiliar with it outside of Anglo-Catholic circles. And while I would have been ok if the changes to the Latin Rite to have stopped in 1965 (as did Msgr. Lefebvre), I realize that it did not. 

In our movement, we can very easily say "I want to belong to this jurisdiction because it only celebrates the Roman Rite." Or, "I only want this jurisdiction because it celebrates the Anglican Rite." But, frankly we are too small to start excluding other groups of people just because we disagree on non-essentials. So why not welcome everyone and create different groupings for those who have certain preferences, so they can build up each other and contribute to the group better as a whole? Perhaps that is a lesson for all churches.

“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question "What on earth is he up to now?" will intrude. It lays one's devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, "I wish they'd remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” ― C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer 

Photo: Matthew Doyle

What's in a Name: Roman Catholic Edition

The conversation with my friend which spurred the last blog post made me consider another, too. This one has to do with the name "Roman Catholic." There are certain progressive Independent or Autocephalous Catholic clergy who have begun to use the title "Roman Catholic." Some even claim to be charted by a Pope! They come from several backgrounds, including former Roman Catholic priests and clergy who were never ordained within the Roman Catholic Church. Their logic is that "we represent what we want the Roman Catholic Church to be, akin to traditionalist Roman Catholics." However, I find issues this logic.

First, I am a product of traditional Roman Catholicism. So this peppers my thoughts on this topic. I belonged to groups which truly believed they were the remnant of the Roman Catholic Church because Rome espouses heresy. But even these groups have common understandings which I think is important for Indie groups.

1. Traditionalists are more likely to be especially vigilant about union with Rome. In fact, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter was founded by priests uncomfortable with the perceived schismatic actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. The majority of Roman Catholics prefer to remain on the Barque of Peter, even if they feel the boat is going down the wrong stream. The nuances of jurisdiction may not be apparent to the average Catholic, where as the traditionalist is likely very aware of the consequences. This isn't a condemnation of non-traditionalists, but more is a realization that this is an important topic to a certain section of Catholicism. I also think that this exists less with Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. because their faith tradition does not hinge on a central person as the Vicar of Christ. Few people attending an ACNA parish, for example, are terribly concerned that it isn't under the Archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Traditionalists are apt to make it very clear that they are not under the local diocese. Sometimes painfully so by condemning the local bishop, the Pope, etc. They may have apologists who argue that they are not in formal schism, either because they hold the “true faith” or because they regard themselves as Roman Catholics, but most often they are very clear that they are independent of the local diocese. I find it problematic if an Independent Catholic group does not do the same--not just problematic but misrepresenting, the same as if a traditionalist group did not make this distinction. This is especially true, for me, where there is a language barrier. I have heard horror stories of Latino people attending a parish without the realization that it is not a parish under Rome.

There are theological differences, too, between progressive groups and traditionalist groups which cannot be ignored. Traditionalist groups follow the historic books of the Roman Catholic Church. While one can argue about their obedience and canonical status, they do follow the tenants of Roman Catholicism such as existed prior to Vatican II. The same cannot be said of progressives who call themselves Roman Catholics, especially if they are LGBT affirming, ordain women, etc. My mentioning these things is not to take a side on them, but just to say that there is deviation from what can be considered the faith of the Holy Roman Church.

But just because traditionalist groups follow the traditional faith (and liturgy) does not give them a pass as Roman Catholics. I realize some will disagree with me here, but I believe to be a Roman Catholic one must submit to the Roman Pontiff. Vatican Council I occurred whether one likes it or not, and the Roman Catholic Church is an Ultramontanist institution. While there are those of us who espouse the Old Catholic tradition (which is not solely dependent on Papal Infallibility but also is impacted by issues of local control, election of bishops, etc.) and may even consider ourselves to be closer to the historic version of Catholicism in the West, we realize that we are no longer Roman Catholics. To argue differently after 140 years since Vatican I is fantasy. Thus I would actually place many of these groups which are not subject to the Pope but call themselves Roman Catholics into our movement. Because they are not under the jurisdiction of the Pope, something which has been settled by the majority of Roman Catholics for 140 years, they are outside the Roman Catholic Church. 

With these realizations, it doesn't mean that I don't realize the challenges with naming. I was discussing this with a bishop friend: how do we exist in the periphery of Rome and often ministering to Roman Catholics without misrepresenting ourselves. Another bishop friend told me that, for this reason, he is not fond of the word "Catholic" as a church name. And I get his frustration. There are different options--we see this with Orthodox groups like the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Maronite Church which is in union with Rome, etc. But Apostolic in America is traditionally associated with groups in the Black Church tradition, Orthodox has a "whole 'nother" set of issues, etc.

In spite of these naming challenges, I still don't think that using the name Roman Catholic is the way forward. First, it damages our relationship(s) with local Roman clergy. Many of us have been fortunate to have good relationships with local clergy and this puts that in jeopardy. Second, it ignores our Autocephalous Catholic tradition. I remember fondly when a very conservative Roman Catholic said, in response to someone who said my group is just a start up group, "oh no, they have their own history and background." Finally, just because someone uses the name "Roman Catholic" doesn't make it true. The Roman Catholic Women Priests can't claim to the Roman Catholic priests in good standing any more than the groups of Roman Catholic priests who left to marry and are no longer priests in good standing. Or, priests who were removed or left voluntarily for other reasons. 

There are possibilities. A group can call itself "in the Catholic tradition" or use any number of phrases as long as they indicate that they are not under Rome or affiliated with the local diocese. People have to have the tools necessary to decide for themselves--if they will attend the parish despite the lack of Roman approbation. And, frankly, many will.  But clarity is necessary and ethical. I have heard too many stories of laity who attended a parish that did not distinguish itself and left angry and hurt.

“One might say that to the East the pope was chief bishop because he was orthodox, while to the West he was and always would be orthodox because he was chief bishop.” - Jaroslav Pelikan