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

Missa Privata

The Mass without people (a.k.a. Missa Privata or In Missis sine populo celebratis) is getting a lot of attention because of the Coronvirus or Covid-19. Unfortunately, many dioceses and ecclesiastical entities have had to restrict public Masses because of the risk to the faithful. For now, priests and bishops are offering Mass privately or behind closed doors. Typically this includes at least one person but it may not (depending on who is available and the risk of infection). These certainly are unprecedented times and there is much to be said for the theological concept of economy right now.

There have long been many opinions about Private Masses. In the Eastern Church it is discouraged, although there are individual examples like St. Theophan the Recluse.1 In the Roman Catholic Church it was also discouraged, as documented in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: "A priest should not celebrate Mass without a minister who assists him and response."2 This was somewhat relaxed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states "A priest may not celebrate without the participation of at least some member of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause."3

In the West, in particular, this concept has been discussed extensively. There are many different perspectives on this issue and they usually fall where people identify liturgically or theologically. Traditionalists argue in favor of the Missa Privata because of the intrinsic value of each Mass. Modern or contemporary scholars argue against it because of the limitation of lay participation.4 The contemporary argument is that it is against the concepts presented by Vatican II and that the Mass is not under the ownership of the Priest.

I take the traditionalist approach. I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that the Liturgy should happen for the benefit of as many people as possible. That is always the ideal, that both clergy and laity will participate for their spiritual benefit. However, when that is not possible there are still benefits to solo celebration. First, it benefits the priest. Priests are human beings who need spiritual succor like everyone else. The ultimate reason many of us became priests is to offer the Holy Sacrifice for ourselves and the People of God. There are intrinsic benefits to our having access to offering the Holy Mass frequently.

Similarly there are benefits to the Holy Mass being offered frequently even without a congregation. This topic is more nuanced because of the historical complexities related to it. First, there can be a hesitation to discuss the graces flowing from the Mass because of comparisons to magical or esoteric Christianity. Similarly, there is also hesitation among those who support concelebration because of the association that concelebration was limited in favor of Private Masses. Yet this was a later development and often done because of the need for numerous Requiem Masses or the need for priests to celebrate in monasteries. Finally, there is also the concern that this can be taken to its most extreme where Masses are offered again and again stripped down to little more than the Words of Institution. This is the case in Palmar de Troya (in the Palmarian Catholic Church).5

Yet we are faced with the understanding that there is benefit to the Sacrifice of the Mass itself. In the Roman Catholic West, the Mass is regarded thusly: "The intrinsic value of the Sacrifice of the Mass, that is, its peculiar dignity and efficacious power in itself (in actu primo), is infinite, on account of the infinite dignity of the Sacrificial Gift, and of the Primary Sacrificial Priest."6 Also, "As a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving the sacrifice of the Mass is infinite as to its external value also, that is, as to its actual operation (in actu secondo) since the operations of adoration and thanksgiving refer immediately to God, who as the Infinite Being can receive an infinite act."7

Therefore the Mass is the summit of all Christian worship because it is "the same in the Sacrifice of the Mass as in the Sacrifice of the Cross; primarily the glorification of God, secondarily atonement, thanksgiving, and appeal" and is "a sacrifice for the Church."8 The benefit of offering Mass (even for those who do not receive Communion at the Mass) is echoed by St. Thomas Aquinas who says: " But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation."9

This demonstrates that there is a clear theological reasoning to Private Masses. The Mass is participation in the Sacrifice of the Cross and there are benefits for those commemorated therein (both the living and the dead). There are also advantages for the priest spiritually to join himself to such a Holy Sacrifice.

This is an area where Autocephalous or Independent Catholics are condemned by other members of the Church Catholic. We are often derided that we offer Mass by ourselves in our garage with no congregation. Yet the Church is waking up to a very different world than existed even two weeks ago. I believe that the larger church has something they can learn from us. While condemnation has been heaped on us, there is a rationale to our offering the Holy Mass (even solo). While it is ideal to have a congregation, those who cannot are still participating in offering the Holy Sacrifice and participating in its benefits.

What is even more unique about the Autocephalous Catholic Movement is that ordination is more fluid. So there are many more opportunities for people to be ordained to offer the Holy Mass and participate in the Sacrifice of the Cross. Again, ideally this is in the context of a congregation but if it is not there is still benefit. Even if it is in the silence of their garage, the celebrant benefits from the Holy Mass. How fortunate we are to be able to celebrate it and what a blessing it is to allow more fluidity for others to celebrate as well. Solo celebrations have brought me great joys and allowed me to offer petitions for those who need it most.

Unfortunately we do not know how long this pandemic will last. But, for priests, we are infinitely blessed that we can offer the Holy Sacrifice ourselves any time we desire. We (and the Church) derive benefit from the offering regardless of who is present. May God bless our humble work and those for whom we pray.

“The Mass is a compendium of all God's love, of all His benefits to men, and each Mass bestows on the world a benefit not less than what was conferred on it by the Incarnation." - St Bonaventure

1. https://www.stbasil.com/new-events/2020/1/10/divine-liturgy-gregory-of-nyssa-amp-theophan-the-recluse
2. Canon 813.1. Peters, Edward. The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.
3. Canon 906. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P37.HTM
4. https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2020/03/18/private-masses-do-not-fit-with-a-contemporary-understanding-of-eucharist/
5. https://magnuslundberg.net/2017/08/29/the-palmarian-order-of-the-mass/
6. Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Tertia Pars. Q. 79.

The Impact of the Internet on our Movement

There is no denying that the Internet has had a tremendous impact on our Movement. I asked
numerous people about how they found the Autocephalous Catholic Movement before the Internet. Usually the response was "because of a pamphlet" or "through a brochure" or, frequently, "in the Handbook of Denominations." So people entered often based on their first contact. This can be challenging because you don't get to know the many options available or how well you will mesh with your new faith entity.

My first contact with this Movement was through the Internet. In the year 2000, I was searching for Traditional Catholicism on AltaVista. I came across numerous sites about groups independent of Rome. This was largely also because of Fr. Begonja's pioneering work at Ind-Movement.org. Through my searches I found a group which was liturgically traditional while pastoral in its outreach. It was in this tradition that I found my home and was ordained. Although I have been members of several jurisdictions my dedication to this branch of Autocephalous Catholicism has been unwavering.

I have also been fortunate to meet some of my dearest friends through the Internet. It started through email groups and then through social media. Now it is often through text messages and phone calls. But I have found people who share my beliefs, ethics, and values. Of course I have also found people with whom I do not agree, cannot understand, and do not want to know. But, overall, this connectedness has been a blessing. This unique world can be isolating. I have frequently been told we are "fake Catholics" or told "we don't know what to tell our family about our involvement in this church." So having someone else with whom to experience it is a joy. Some groups have used this interconnectedness to conduct weekly prayer calls, there are now apps whch keep people better connected, and we can share information and resources which were never available before.

There is also an unexpected consequence. There is a complete loss of anonymity. As I have perused the historical files of our Movement I have seen pages and pages of clergy or churches belonging to different groups. Yet, because of difficulty traveling and without Google Maps, leaders of jurisdictions had no guarantee that churches even existed. Or, hopefully not sinisterly, if clergy were living up to their ordination promises. Or even what their clergy believed or preached.

For example, at least several times in our history there have been bishops who functioned in our Movement as well as the mainstream. One bishop in particular, consecrated by Archbishop Carfora, was a Congregationalist minister. This begs the question--what did Archbishop Carfora know? I have also found clergy who are concurrently members of several jurisdictions, or hold beliefs different from their jurisdiction, or have personal lives which conflict with their jurisdiction's stated requirements. Yet before the Internet there was little way to find out about it. Usually information was conveyed, sadly, via vindictive clergy. Or perhaps a bulletin would arrive in a superior's hands. I think, though, that this lack of contact preserved a lot of our churches at least in outward unity.

Now it is much more difficult to hide our lives. Google and Facebook know everything about us. Our photos are everywhere. It is essential for our ministries to have a presence on the Internet. Today if Fr Jim is also serving another group as Tau Shammalamadingdong (in Ecclesia) it's visible. Or if they say something scandalous in a homily a parishioner can email their superior. There are numerable other instances of interconnectedness. What this has done is force jurisdictional leaders to address when there are issues they need to confront.

The result has been positive, negative, and unintended. Positively, people with predatory histories are easier to prevent from entering our groups. Negatively, it has perhaps made us more critical of each other. Because we know more about each other we can use it in our all too human attempts to compare ourselves and deride each other. An unintended consequence, I think, is that it has made us much more homogenous. This can be in an effort to emulate mainstream churches. However, we know that every church is a mixture of unofficial beliefs because every church is a mixture of people (except some of the Orthodox who get specific about everything). Or it is because we can find a jurisdiction which believes that you must use the Pre-Pius X Psalter, only wear shoes on Monday, and say Mass in Esperanto. Even if there are only 2 of you.

Yet despite the Internet (and its plusses and minuses) I have found that nothing compares to in-person conversation. Despite all our advances in technology it is still sharing over the dinner table, talking on worn-out chairs, and through being together that we learn to trust each other and give of ourselves. So, perhaps we're still not that different than our forbearers who didn't have the World Wide Web.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” - Marco Antonio de Dominis

Archbishop Mathew and Modernism

Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew (7 August 1852 – 19 December 1919) is regarded as the father of Old Roman Catholicism and the source of many who claim Old Catholic orders. He is a unique figure, because even prior to his Old Catholic affiliations he was constantly pulled between ecclesiastical entities. Even as a child he was baptized in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches. He studied for ministry in the Scottish Episcopal Church, but was subsequently ordained in the Roman Catholic Church.1 He later left the Roman Catholic Church, had a crisis of faith, and later functioned in an Anglican Church.2

In 1892, Mathew returned to the Roman Catholic Church as a layman but still functioned in the Anglican Church without a license.3 In 1897 he had a chance meeting with Father Richard O'Halloran, a subsequently suspended Roman Catholic priest. It was O'Halloran who introduced Mathew to the Old Catholic Churches. It was here that he found a home formally in 1908 and was consecrated as a bishop that same year.

Mathew separated from the Old Catholics in 1910, just 7 days before consecrating 4 new bishops and 6 months after consecrating 2 bishops in violation of the Agreement of Utrecht. He alleged that the Old Catholic Churches were abandoning the faith and issued a Declaration of Autonomy and Independence. In this work, Mathew concluded that the Old Catholic Churches had given up daily Mass, mentioning the Pope in the liturgy, invocation of the saints, auricular confession, and other innovations. Mathew renamed his church the "Old Roman Catholic Church" and sought unity with the Orthodox six months after leaving the Old Catholics (August 1911).

Mathew's Declaration and his seeking unity with the Eastern Orthodox has been used as evidence that he was a traditional Catholic and, therefore, opposed to modernism. Modernism is defined here by Abbate Cavallanti: "Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion"4 This definition is as loose as the definition of Jansenism, as it encompasses so many different things. Pius X stated that Modernism "encompasses all heresies."

For traditional Roman Catholics, Modernism has continued to be the greatest evil to plague the church. The effects of Modernism (may) include a vernacular liturgy, Vatican II, redefining of Catholic dogma, religious syncretism, and all sorts of errors contrary to the traditional beliefs of the church. As mentioned, Mathew's assertion of his beliefs and seeking Orthodoxy have been evidence that he eschewed Modernism and promoted traditional Catholicism.

Yet, there are problems with this narrative historically. First, Mathew was known to be an acquaintance of Hyacinthe Loyson around 1889.2 Loyson was a Roman Catholic priest, Provincial of the Discalced Carmelites, and subsequently excommunicated in 1869. He had spoken positively of Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism as the religions of civilized people.5 Loyson joined the Old Catholics in 1873 and established the Gallican Church. Thus, by the time he met and befriended Mathew he was well known internationally as a proponent of Modernism.

Loyson was not the only Modernist known by Mathew. Mathew was well acquainted with George Tyrrell, an Irish Jesuit excommunicated for Modernism in 1907 for writing critical essays of Pius X's Pascendi dominici gregis on Modernism. Mathew and Tyrrell were in frequent correspondence and both collaborated on Dr. H. C. Lea's History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, published in 1907.2 It was on Tyrrell's suggestion that Mathew again approached the Church of England about preferment just prior to his correspondence with the Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland (that country's Old Catholic body) in 1907. Tyrrell congratulated Mathew on his consecration in 1908 and they continued correspondence until roughly Tyrrell's death in 1909. 

At Tyrell's death Mathew celebrated a low Requiem Mass for him as he had been forbidden an ecclesiastical funeral. Mathew remarked: "I have no hesitation in declaring to you from what I knew of him that he was an ardent and true Christian, and a sincere and faithful Catholic... He had a greater range of spiritual vision, and the supernatural loomed larger in his eyes than in those of the majority of his brethren. Who among them was his intellectual equal, or possessed an intelligence approaching his in subtlety and grace?"6 

What this legacy shows is that Mathew was a complex figure who vacillated between ecclesiastical entities seeking to find a true home. This seeking continued during his time as an Old Roman Catholic, when he used various names to describe the Church (i.e. Western Orthodox, Old Roman Catholic, Angient Catholic, Western Catholic, etc.). He also sought again, during this time, unity with the Church of England and Rome (as a layman). While detractors will point to this as a sign of wavering, I see it as an indication that Mathew continued to find where he truly "fit." It was uniquely Western liturgically while being in faith pre-Vatican I with Orthodox sympathies. Many of us find our home in this amorphous place which can be difficult to describe, especially to outsiders. His seeking unity with Caterbury and Rome was likely a desperate outreach after having been deserted by all his friends and numerous schisms.

Mathew's legacy also shows that he was unquestionably a gifted researcher and writer, and that he wrestled with the complexities of his faith. This is also evident by his numerous translated and composed works. 2  But, as shown with the company he kept and those who influenced him, it would be wrong to identify him as a strict traditionalist. Even at his death he was buried in an Anglican cemetery, an action made out of the kindness of the rector and indicative of the struggles Mathew endured. He was unquestionably influenced by Modernism and, in fact, found his home in a place which embraced many of the things supported by Modernists (Old Catholicism had married priests, a vernacular liturgy, greater lay participation, was not Ultramontanist, etc.). 

A question remains as to his rationale for separating from the Old Catholics. Some point to his consecration of new bishops as the ultimate catalyst, while others note his concerns with their doctrinal changes. It is true that the Church of Utrecht now looks very different than it did in 1908. Perhaps it was both--a desire for greater independence as well as concerns at the path of the Old Catholic Churches. Moss notes that Mathew was disturbed at some of the ideas out of the Old Catholic Congress of Vienna in 1909, although he did co-consecrate with Gul for the Mariavites later that year.7 However, given Mathew's friendship with Tyrrell and (to a lesser extent) Loyson, as well as his adoption of some of the Old Catholic ideas, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that he was completely opposed to all modernist ideas. Just those, judging by his Declaration, which affected the sacraments.

Mathew was a complex character who continues to be studied even 100 years after his death. Those in the Old Catholic Movement are grateful for his passing on his lineage as well as his vision of a non-papal Catholicism. He continues to be pilloried by traditionalists and his complexities are not aways appreciated by his supporters. His impact continues to be felt world-wide.

This is part of a larger study of Mathew and Modernism which will be published by the author.

1.Hill, Christopher (January 2004). "Episcopal Lineage: a theological reflection on Blake v Associated Newspapers Ltd". Ecclesiastical Law Journal. Cambridge University Press. 7 (34): 334–338. doi:10.1017/S0956618X00005421. ISSN 0956-618X.

2. Anson, Peter. (1964). Bishops at Large. New York: October House.

3. "King's bench division". The Times (40186). London. 15 April 1913. pp. 3–4. ISSN 0140-0460.

4. Vermeersch, A. (1911). Modernism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved October 26, 2019 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

5. Augé, Claude, ed. (1898). "Loyson, Charles". Nouveau Larousse illustré (in French). 5. Paris: Éditions Larousse. p. 777.

6. "The late Father Tyrrell." The Manchester Guardian. Manchester. 12 August 1909. pp. 8. 

7. Moss, Claude B (2005) [1977]. The Old Catholic Movement: its origins and history. Independent Catholic heritage series (reissue, with additions and corrections, of 2nd ed.). Berkeley: Apocryphile Press. ISBN 0976402599.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue on the Liturgy

Below is a letter from Fr. Adrian Fortescue dated November 24, 1919 to Stanley Morison (the formatting was retained). It details that although we become experts on certain topics or subjects, those same subjects may not be our passion! The humor is not lost that we now look to Fr. Fortescue as one of the great rubrical masters of his time.

“I cannot possibly give up another day, or part of one, to looking over Gurney’s wretched pictures of people in Italian vestments, to judge whether the thurifer is standing at the right place and whether the deacon ought to have his hands joined. There is something more about this. I wish you would tell everybody who wants to bother me on the subject. I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT MODERN CEREMONIES. I hate, loathe and utterly despise the trivial details of ceremonies. I do not think it matters one little straw where the acolytes stand during Pontifical vespers at the throne, and I simply do not know the correct answer to the endless stream of questions of this kind that people are always sending me. I suppose I knew something about these things while I was writing that book of Ceremonies, but now I thank my Maker that, if I did, I have forgotten it all. My writing that book was a colossal mistake really. I had written a book about the history of the Mass. Then B. & O., understanding nothing about such things, invited me to revise Dale-Baldeschi. If they had understood anything, they would have known a man who wrote a history of a rite is absolutely the very last man to write the rules of modern ceremonies. The two things are utterly different, and appeal to utterly different types of mind. I know people, like Wallis and Hall, who have that queer taste for the silly details of ceremonies. They never known nor care about the history of such things. To them it is not the history nor the development of rites that matter a bit, it is the latest decision of the Congregation of Rites. These decisions are always made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want to simply ignore. It is a queer type of mind that actually is interested in knowing whether the deacon should stand at the right or the left of someone else at some moment. I do not think there is any possible subject of inquiry that seems to me more entirely trivial, futile, silly and uninteresting. I have some slight interest in the history of the Roman Rite (though even in this I have now gone a long way in other directions. At present, I am much more interested in what Plato thought about ideas, and the relation of Proclus to Christianity, how far Neoplatonism is Platonism at all). I never cared a tinker’s cuss what the Congregation may have decided about the order in which the acolyte should put out the candles after Vespers. B & O understand nothing; so of course they did not understand the differences between the man interested in the history of rites and the man who makes a stupid hobby book of knowing what is the footling rule for each case now. They ought to have offered the work to Wallis or Hall, or that little man at St. Edmund’s who found several hundred mistakes in my book, after Bergh and Hall had passed it as perfect. I took on the job solely for filthy lucre’s sake. It was in the middle of the war, nearly all chance of a market for literary works ended, Britten had just written to say that C.T.S. could not think of printing my book on the Uniate Churches till times had changed. I wanted money, and I thought it would not take long to revise Dale. I had not the ghost of an idea when I took on the job what an appalling business it was going to be. Having begun, I thought I ought to go on. Dale soon proved to be impossible. For one ghastly year (I think the most dismal, hateful, useless year of my life), I swotted away at stuff for which I could hardly conceal my contempt and disgust while I was doing it. Day after day I took up the hateful burden of verifying in Merati, Martinucci, Le Vasseur, Van Der Stappen, what each person does in the course of these interminable ceremonies. It was as far removed from any intellectual interest as anything could be. Absolutely any fool could write such a book of ceremonies. It is only a matter of looking up what about 10 stupid Italians say. Generally they all say the same thing. When they disagree, you say so, and give the view of each. It was about as interesting as drawing up a railway guide by combining the hours of trains from the time-tables of ten different companies.

During that hateful year I acquired two overwhelming impressions. First, that whatever beauty interest or historic value, or dignity, the Roman rite ever had has been utterly destroyed by the uneducated little cads who run that filthy congregation at Rome; secondly that it would be beyond the power of man to invent a form of literature more entirely uninteresting, or more finally disgusting than the works of Messrs. Martinucci, Le Vasseur, Baldeschi, and the rest. The one only pleasure I got in doing the book was writing the preface where I say, as plainly as I dare, what contemptible nonsense the whole thing is. I ended thanking God that it was done. But it was not. The little man at St. Edmund’s sent men an interminable list of errors. Once more I had to take up the loathsome burden and revise the book. But then I had done. I have sold all the books on the subject I acquired while writing it, thank God I have forgotten every little bit of what I learned writing it. I have never looked at my own book ever again. I want never to hear another word about ceremonies for as long as I live. I would rather discuss the symptoms of cancer. There is no subject in the world for which I have so intense a disgust.

But see and learn from my sad case. That putrid book is the curse of my life. Day after day I am inundated with letters from people of whom I have never heard, with strings of questions about ceremonies; Catholic priests, still more High Anglicans, from all over the country think they have the right to dollop on me several hours’ work doing research for them about some silly detail of a subject of which I know nothing. This is what amazes me, the incredible imprudence of these people. Because I have written a book it does not follow that I have turned myself into a society for giving free advice, and doing free research work for every unknown fool who may choose to write me and ask for it. I could of course spend my few hours at the Museum by having out again Martinucci and his peers, verifying points, comparing authorities. I could ask for the whole collection of the Decrees of the Stinking Congregation of Rites, and pass through hours or so hunting for the date of a decree. But why cannot these imprudent scoundrels do their own dirty work? Their cheek takes away my breath. I do not fire off a letter to some doctor in Harley Street whom I do not know, asking him, with a lot of compliments, kindly to write out for me a treatise on the cause, prevention, treatment and cure of arthritis. It would never occur to me to find the address of some lawyer and jump on him eight questions about real and personal property. People do this to me. Every week I get six or seven letters, often with ten questions in each. Any of these questions would take me a couple of hours of research to answer, some letters would need six or seven folio pages to answer properly, and two or three days of arduous and hateful work. Why am I to be pestered without ceasing, by any fool in Cornwall, Scotland, Isle of Man? What makes me most furious is when they enclose a stamp for the answer. It is not the value of their beastly penny half-penny, it is the hours, sometimes days, of work that they have the infernal imprudence to expect me to put at their service.

Final conclusion: Every letter of this kind goes straight into the waste paper basket. If the man sends me a stamp I lick it off and keep it; if he smears his request with complements I simply confound his infernal impertinence. I am not going ever to answer any letters with questions about ceremonies. If people want to know these things, let them get a book and find out for themselves. My only request is that it would take too much trouble to do as I would like, namely to write back the most offensive insults I can think of. It is really extraordinary that almost every letter I get (except yours) and some bills, contains a string of questions on various subjects, representing about £3 or £4 worth of research work. If I answered all these as the people who write them expect, I should have a full life’s work with this alone. The brazen cheek of people, who would not write you to ask you to send a cheque for £10 as a present by return of post, but have no sort of scruple in asking calmly for pounds’ worth of free work to be done for them astounds me.

Do please tell anyone who threatens to fire off strings of questions at me that I am exceedingly busy, that I am not a society kept out of the rates of answering anyone’s queries, that I have no time to write letters, that I wish for goodness’ sake that they would leave me alone, so that I may have a little time to do my own work.

Example: Today a parcel came from herder. I do know nothing of Herder except that I have sometimes a bought a book there. His manager sends a big German book on the use of the tabernacle. Will I kindly read it, then advise him whether, in my option, there would be sufficient demand to justify him publishing an English translation of this book? Enclosed please find four stamps, to pay for return of the book. I know nothing about the book. I do not want to read it. I do not know anything about the demand for such works in English. I know nothing about the subject. I am not Herder’s literary advisor. I want to be let alone to finish twenty pressing jobs, and above all, to get back to Boethius. Now I have this infernal nuisance of writing to his man, doing up his beastly book, taking it to the post, hanging about there while they weigh it and all the rest of the filthy bother. He thinks it is adequate return of all this loathsome nuisance that he encloses the stamps. You will think that since I am so pressed I need not fire off all of this wrath on you. No I suppose I need not. I did not mean to when I began. It arose out of Gurney. Then my feelings have carried me away, and you will now have the benefit of months of pent-up fury at the endless nuisance of all these swinish fools who peter me all the week."

Book Review: "Extraordinary Celebrations, Extraordinary Growth!: Ideas for Independent & Old Catholic Communities during the Year of Matthew 2020”

The subject of this book review is “Extraordinary Celebrations, Extraordinary Growth!: Ideas for Independent & Old Catholic Communities during the Year of Matthew 2020.” The author is the Hon. Rev. Dr. Jayme Mathias. It is a time-honored practice for Independent Catholics to list any and all titles in print. Mathias has had great success with his parish, Holy Family, in Austin and this work is a continuation of his efforts. He is to be commended for his online videos promoting education within the Movement, and seeks to share his experiences in this book. He is well educated and his viewpoints add a great deal to the Movement.

The number of exclamation points in the work indicate the author’s passion about the subject. It is evident that he loves his community and attempts innovative ways to grow and sustain it. I struggled with parts of the work where it appeared paternalistic and gimmicky—I am not personally convinced that the “razzle dazzle” of megachurches is the best example for authentic liturgical communities. Fr. Steve Rice recently commented "what you with them with is what you win them to." I also believe “less is more” regarding visuals, or they can become trite. The author also draws heavily on his Roman Catholic background, so using examples of what the Second Vatican Council promoted is not always applicable to all sectors of our Movement. I am also personally wary of benchmarking based on clergy stipends—this model has not fared well for mainline Christianity.

The book also contains some very useful practical examples on pastoral care. Using a parish necrology or anniversary is an excellent tool for personal outreach and a parish lunch or coffee hour is essential to building true community. Mathias’ focus on social media and involving children are also helpful, as they are ways to keep all members of the family involved. I also enjoyed the daily meditations on different saints and holy people. Traditionally-inclined Catholics may be surprised to see Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, John Alan Lee, and the Dalai Lama among the group, but the author includes something for everyone. It was especially pleasant to see legends like Thuc, Karl Pruter, and others included, as well as ecumenical figures like Patriarch Addai II and Patriarch Neophyte.

Overall, the author and I don’t share the same ethos on how to grow a parish. However, his passion shines through and the book is helpful to any group which needs ideas to get them “unstuck” from mundane Sundays (or needs a fresh ordo with something for everyone). The author is to be commended for investing the time and energy into adding to the publication list of the Independent Catholic (or Autocephalous Catholic or ISM movement). 

Book Review: "Carlos Duarte Costa: Testament of a Socialist Bishop"

I was, frankly, surprised to see another publication by Edward Jarvis in such a short period of time on topics about which I am deeply interested. Jarvis' ability to produce and research is admirable, particularly on topics which have previously been ignored. I'm also glad to see him include a biographical sketch. In this work, a follow-up to his work on ICAB, Jarvis focuses on the personality and background of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa (now St. Carlos in ICAB).

Jarvis does an admirable job, as always, in providing background to the life and times of Duarte Costa. His rich description of Brazil in that time is helpful. Particularly useful, too, is Jarvis' re-translation of Duarte Costa's "Declaration to the Nation" with commentary. I have seen this work floating around on the internet, but Jarvis preserves it for posterity in a crisp translation. It is another instance of his fine research abilities and attention to detail, which is also replicated throughout the book. 

Also helpful is Jarvis' discussion of the contemporary adherence to the "Declaration" and the division among the ICAB hierarchy. Some of them have noted their online support of President Jair Messias Bolsonaro whose public ideals are at odds with the "Declaration." It is an important emphasis that no church or group is homogeneous.

The book also excels in tying the ICAB movement with contemporary (and historical) issues within Roman Catholicism. The emphasis and questions related to authority in the church are timely and, although the references used may not age well, have been pertinent since circa 33 AD. I do feel that Jarvis is more attentive than in "God, Land & Freedom" at focusing solely on comparisons between ICAB and the Roman Church and instead discusses their parallels. 

It is important to note that Jarvis cites the 1 million Independent Catholic adherents figure in the US documented by Dr. Julie Byrne, which I respectfully contest as too high. Also, his statement about the "questionable Holy Orders from 'Old Catholic' sources" of certain individuals could be better explained so as to clearly avoid any accusation of denigrating the Old Catholic Movement. I am also unsure as to the objectiveness of the source regarding Duarte Costa's academic history. Finally, I do wish there was slightly more attention to careful wording. He says "...which are to be distinguished from true autonomous Orthodox Churches are they are not in communion with or linked to any ancient episcopal see." Every group, be it the so-called canonical Orthodox to the Old Calendarists to the Roman Catholic Church to the sedevacantists deem themselves "true."

Overall, however, this is an excellent book on a topic which needs to be addressed. Given his advocacy for an early form of Liberation Theology I think it is a timely work. People from a variety of backgrounds will find it useful in understanding Independent Catholicism, Roman Catholicism in Brazil, and the political landscape of the area which helped shape, among others, the current Pope.

Book available on Amazon.