Validity: When the Holy Spirit Stays Home...

I recently re-discovered a quote from one of my favorite liturgists and authors, Adrian Fortescue. The quote is from his book "The Greek Fathers": "People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament (the point applies equally to minister and subject). The "implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted" means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it -- unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when every one was talking about Anglican orders numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is (this was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I 254-257 protested). A man may have utterly wrong, heretical, and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly."

This is important, because validity is the sacred cow of the ISM. Without valid apostolic succession, the sacraments offered by a priest are invalid. I have been quite scrupulous about sacraments in the past, and continue to be so to a large degree. My theological education, which is patently Western, has always maintained that matter, form, and intent are essential to the valid confection of a sacrament. Matter is the touching of the head with the hands (or hand for diaconate), form is the wording within the preface (in the Western rite) indicating what is being done, and intent is to do what the church intends. That is it. This is relatively simple and reasonably difficult to "mess up."

Now, this post is not intended to get into the murky world of what is the correct form. Traditionalists have been arguing this since the Pontifical of Paul VI appeared and, specifically, if the form for the consecration of bishops truly confers ordination in comparison to the traditional form. For the sake of this post we will generically assume that any form indicating what is taking place will suffice, whatever your view happens to be on this subject.

The issue of this blog post is when other requirements are attached that are historically inaccurate and unnecessary. For instance, it has been repeated ad nauseam that Utrecht requires that a bishop be elected for a specific church. It is unnecessary, although desirable to some, that the clergy and laity be involved in the election of bishops. To require such would invalidate the episcopate of the Roman Catholic and some Orthodox churches. Furthermore, the Church has a long tradition of missionary bishops (St. Boniface!) who are consecrated for no particular population (but with the expectation of the conversion of a populace), bishops of monasteries, administrative bishops who have no direct charge, etc. Depending on your view, this may or may not be desirable. The point, however, is that oikonomia allows for the continuation of the apostolic succession. Holy Mother Utrecht herself derives her orders from a so-called "titular bishop."

Now, because individuals are validly consecrated without a charge does not mean that it is not desirable. No one bishop "owns" the apostolic succession, as the apostolic tradition of the church is complementary to the tactile succession. That is, to do what the church intends. Being consecrated for a specific church creates a larger sense of accountability as well. When St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote "Where the bishop is, there is the church," it was not carte blanche for every egomaniacal sociopath bishop to justify their authority.

Will things aways be done according to the most desirable practice? No. Will people still be healed, the Most Blessed Sacrament be celebrated, the Good News still be preached, and grace be conferred? Yes. Even a scrupulous person like the humble writer can believe that message!

This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Thank You for Being a Friend...

I recently attended the consecration of a friend. Over the course of the weekend, I made a comment to this friend about how thankful I am that we have an Independent Sacramental Movement. I especially am grateful that there were some brave souls that were willing to out on a limb and share apostolic succession with a band of renegades.

Think about it--apostolic succession outside of established churches is a relatively new thing. Sure, there was the consecration of Varlet. However, even his apostolic succession was confined to the Old Catholic Churches. It look men like Vilatte and Mathew to share the succession with others. This is such a relatively recent event in that these consecrations happened within the last 100+ years. Many people within and outside of the movement think that this is the worst thing that has ever happened. However, would many of those same folks inside the movement have orders today without those men?

Sure, Vilatte, Herford, Ferrette, and Mathew were quirky. So were many of the fathers of the movement who passed on succession. But, without their passing on their succession we would be like the priestless Old Believers of Russia. So, forgive this somewhat nostalgic post. But, I am entirely grateful to these early divines. Despite their intentions or shortcomings, they performed significant acts that have had generational ramifications. Some people were and are ordained that should not have been, but can the mainstream church say any different?

Charisma! We ain't got none...

Exscuse the Southern colloqualism. But the topic of my post today is about the charisma that often surrounds new religious movements, and how quickly it dissapates within the second generation. More than just charisma, though, is an electric energy that surrounds new religious movements. It could be anyone from Jonathan Edwards (the evangelist not the politician!) to our own greats like Bishop Hodur. Something else surrounds these great individuals, and that is doctrinal development.

How, you ask? Well, as I have often mentioned, Bishop Hodur was a proponent of universalism. In spite of the angst that this causes the Scrantonites as they wax philosophical about conservative values to entice the Romans and the various Anglican clefts, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Bishop Hodur continues the venerable tradition in the line of John Scotus Erigena who said: "Evil, being negative, as is punishment, neither can stand eternal." Indeed, we hope and pray that all of our sisters and brethren are saved, despite how many curses we lob upon them during life.

The same is true of the first Obispo Maximo of the Phillippine Independent Church. Theologically, at the end of his life, he was staunchly unitarian in his outlook. Now, am I saying that we need to rush out and adopt universalism and unitarianism? Of course not. However, I relish the position of devil's advocate. The larger, holistic argument is: are people who have different views from our own totally invalid? Are they no longer a source of inspiration because they waxed philosophical and came up with a different view?

The fundamentalists among us would say, definitively, "yes." If you do not agree with me you are crazy and none of your positions are valid. But look at the good that has come out of some otherwise curious traditions in our movment. The Mariavites, granted, were a little innovative when they elevated Maria Franciszka to hyperdulia. However, many things that they did were absolutely on point. They increased devotion to the Holy Eucharist, fasted and prayed, frequented Confession, built beautiful temples to praise God, etc. These are all laudable things! The same is true of the Liberal Catholic Church. More orthodox Christians would completely condemn them. Are some of their ideas not Orthodox? Yes. However, they preserve the Sacraments, and preserve a belief in Christ that can be non-existant among other esoteric traditions.

This extends to the mainstream church as well. St. Angela of Foligno, for instance, was said to eat the puss of penitents and proclaimed it "as sweet as the Eucharist." If true, this is certainly disgusting and totally nuts. However, she also brought thousands to Christ because of her mysticism and was renowned for charitable works. So, you take the good with the bad. We can disagree with each other and we can even think others are nuts. But, that does not mean that they are bad or that they do not have opinions and reasonings that are valid. There are plenty of new jurisdictional movements, especially in the ISM, that I think are nuts and potentially dangerous. Are they all bad? We cannot reason that something is completely bad, unless we're fundamentalists. So, take it with a grain of salt and leave the rest.

Good Riddance!

Good riddance to the Eucharistic Prayers for children! "Oh God, you are our friend... we love you. You make us happy..." These trite phrases are not helpful to children, and they do not make the liturgy more approachable for children. The intent of the prayers was likely to provide catechesis to children and make the Mass more relevant. I think, however, that it has the opposite effect. First, what is it that children hate the most? Could it be when they're talked down to by adults? Do you remember when you would have parents or an aunt who would say to you "you don't understand, or you'll get it when you're older." How frustrating. We live in a country that has done an amazing job of dumbing down our entire culture. We are encouraged to write at a 6th grade level and large numbers of college graduates complete their degrees without knowing how to spell or critically think. If anything, I think that we should be doing a better job of educating young people to speak correctly and better articulate their thoughts. What better place to do it than in the very house of God? Are we doomed to a vocabulary that is as extensive as that of the cast of Jersey Shore?

It is endemic of a society doomed to believe that things must be made approachable to everyone. It is ok if you wear your pajamas out in public, because you should be comfortable. Or, it is ok that your children run screaming throughout the store. You should be able to allow that if you choose. For me, the purpose of liturgy is to create a transcendence. It is an hour a week when we can focus on worship and reverence that belongs the God of the universe without needing to be entertained. Liturgy should not be so watered down that it makes us complacent and is as humdrum as going to the grocery. Individuals should do a better job about learning the prayers and the rubrics of the liturgy to become more involved, rather than having it explained ad nauseam to them. Priests should do a better job about honoring the reverence of the moment, and not rushing through to get to the next Mass or brunch. Priests would also do well to not make it a sideshow for the sake of being "entertaining." For goodness sakes, children attended Mass in Latin for hundreds of years!

Or, maybe I am a dying breed. Every time I say Mass, I cannot help but to remember the words that were posted in the sacristy of my first parish: Priests of God offer this Mass as if it were your first Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass. It's sometimes difficult with our fast-paced lives, but it's a good thought to keep.

Where Charity and Love Prevail, there the Church is never found...

I have been reflecting a great deal lately on  the idea of church as a "big tent." It is true that we do not often get along. Theological issues, social issues, our own issues, and a whole host of other things divide us. Yet, paradoxically, we believe in a faith that says "so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." How did we get to this state?

Well, Christianity does not have a stellar history of inclusion and welcoming. We frequently find even the most minute reasons to hate each other. This rant is directed more at social issues than theological ones. Let me be clear: there are some unique theological issues that should and will divide us. A dear friend of mine, a Presbyterian pastor, said something to the effect of "our dialogue with each other in my denomination is now about such basic and long-accepted issues that it has become an interfaith dialogue." Depending on the severity of the issues, at this point we should likely part ways as friends and Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

No, my rant here is more devoted towards social issues. The first schisms were mainly the conservatives of many denominations. At the ordination of women, the inclusion of gays and lesbians,  and even interracial issues some people parted ways. This is most unfortunate, as they still had a story to tell and things to contribute. They left often hegemonic groups that had little or no diversity--what challenges and growth can come when you surround yourself with those that are just like you?

However, the conservatives are not completely to blame. The more liberal camp then made things intolerable. Without a strong voice against some of their plans, they began to steamroll over the opinions and thoughts of others. You must accept women's ordination or you must accept gay marriage... This, too, is as uncompromising as the views of their opponents. They alienated those that were left and made them out to be neo-conservative fanatics. This is especially unfortunate.

This author, for one, celebrates alternative episcopal oversight, societies devoted to a certain liturgy, etc. It allows individuals who feel called to a particular direction to band together as a group and maintain their beliefs at which they arrived with a well-formed conscience. They should not be made to accept a woman priest or forced to celebrate a gay marriage. However, they should also respect if another group decides that this is their wish. Oh, but in a perfect world...

Communion in the Hand

As time goes by, I am becoming more and more adament against the use of Communion in the hand. I know this topic has been written about ad nauseum, but these are my huble thoughts. The argument is that this is a meal and that the priest as presbyter of the community shares the Sacred Meal with the community in an egalitarian fasion. While this may work for Roman Catholicism, it does not necessarily ring true in the ISM.

The ISM has a completely different ethos. One of the beautiful things about our community is the fluidity of our ordination processes. Obviously this is not a free-for-all, but it limits the need for dozens of "eucharistic ministers" because people can be more easily admitted to the Holy Order of deacon and other orders. For this reason, eucharistic ministers become largely obsolete because they have the ability to be raised into Holy Orders if they feel that vocation.

Having celebrated Mass in large parishes, giving Communion in the hand becomes like the "cafeteria" line. The constant, repetative distribution of the most sacred gift in history in the most inauspicious way. It becomes "snatched" rather than distributed. Even just kneeling shows the proper dignity and respect towards the Sacament. However, when one receives on the tongue it shows the true importance of this most august sacrament. There is also less room for accidents to happen or the accidental dropping of the Sacrament.

I would argue that this is not a traditionalist vs modernist issue, but simply an examination of the true importance and significance of the Bread of Life.

Things to be Avoided

Blessedly, as the Independent Sacramental Movement, there is a lot of freedom in how we worship and conduct church together. We are not limited by the rules and regulations of other churches, although in the spirit of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sometimes our brothers and sisters would do well to follow the rubrics of certain established liturgies.

This tongue in cheek list is one that lists suggestions that not be replicated in the ISM.

1. Electric Votive Candles: They should pay me to use electric votive candle holders, not the other way around! Blessedly, this has only occured once in my many, many church visits. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about pushing a button to lift up your prayer. In fact, it's downright cold. Candles and sticks that burn your fingers are the only way to go in worship. Obviously, this does not apply to vigil lamps as it is a laudable thing not to burn one's house down in misguided devotion.

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/elina/192066186/

2. Abstract Art: If you accidentally sit on that statue of Jesus because you think it's a bench--the artist might be sending the wrong message. Don't get me wrong--I love (some) abstract art. Well, maybe two pieces. Sacred art is meant to be uplifting and visually appealing. I don't want to think about it for 20 minutes. Below is a modern Pieta in the Hofkirche…

3. Inappropriate kitsch: The ISM loves kitsch. I have found myself in parishes that have more statues than the Metropolitan Museum of Art. However, choose your poison carefully…

4. Creative altar server wares: Look, it's a crusader! Seriously, though, it's easy to blur the line between theatrical and liturgical when everyone is dressed in assorted polyesters.

Feel free to add others as you feel so called!