Conditional Consecrations

One of the challenges of Autocephalous Catholicism is deciding what to do about conditional consecrations. They are ubiquitous in our movement and just about everyone has been consecrated multiple times. This was exacerbated by the 1970s-1990s when it seemed like there would be parties of bishops who would get together and conditionally consecrate each other.

But what does this mean for us? Well, according to traditional theology ordination places an indelible mark on the soul of the ordinand and can only be performed once. To replicate the sacrament is sacrilegious. To avoid this, bishops will be conditionally consecrated licitly only to to fulfill any lacking of validity of the previous consecration. This was also done when when one was consecrated outside a church or tradition. In Orthodoxy this could be common when a bishop joins a new synod (and is received by cherothesia). 

However, there is still the issue of conditional consecrations unique to our movement--to accumulate lines of succession from different people. Scripturally, there is argument against this practice. 1 Corinthians 1:13 points to our not being baptized in the name of Paul. It follows, then, that sacraments are not passing on the lineage of any one holder but are passing on the transmission of lineage commissioned by Christ and in His name. Ignoring any ideas about apostolic tradition here, it should be sufficient that we were ordained (and consecrated) in the lineage of Christ.

Still, however, there have always been "bishop lists" (as well documented in the book by that name from Georgias Press) and unfolding the bishops who preceded someone is important to show continuity.1 The main question for us is "does anything happen with the successive consecrations if the previous one was valid?" This is important for successors to the lineage of Carfora, of which I count myself. Carfora was consecrated (allegedly) by Renee Vilatte in 1907. He was absolutely consecrated by Gulotti in 1912. So do his heirs hold succession through Vilatte/Gulotti or Mathew? The same is true of Archbishop Hubert Rogers (who was previously consecrated by the African Orthodox Church). Is his succession that of Bishop Robertson of the African Orthodox Church or Carfora? There are numerous cases like this in our history.

The short answer for me is that I don't know. If there is a scintilla of doubt it is reasonable to conditionally consecrate. The same is true for bishops consecrated outside of their current synod, as mentioned before among the Orthodox. But does this negate the previous consecration? Especially if the doubt is primarily unfounded? Should the second consecration be a footnote to the first or counted as equal? These are all difficult questions.

Bishop Rob Jones in his book "Independent Sacramental Bishops" takes on this question of conditional consecrations.2 In his work, he discusses the efficacy of spiritual lineages and how they impact the movement as a whole. This may be outside the traditional understanding of apostolic succession, but it is a thought which provides some innovative reasoning for our movement. While his concepts incorporate esoteric thought, with which I am unfamiliar, they do point to the need to fully examine conditional consecrations and their impact on our movement outside of traditional theological discourse. Jones is quoted on the issue below:

"And yet I am convinced there is more going on. I am convinced that when a bishop is ordained and consecrated, s/he receives not only the fullness of apostolic lines from each of the ordaining bishops; but also receives any episcopal lineages these ordaining bishops also hold, including any non-apostolic esoteric lineages."

Abba Seraphim also recently published "Succesio Apostolica" which partially addresses conditional consecrations.3 In it, Mar Georgius (his predecessor) is quoted about conditional consecrations:

"The effect of a conditional consecration by way of additional commission, or if you prefer the term....‘fortified consecration’, is undoubtedly precisely the same as the effect of the participation of a co-consecrator at a consecration ‘ab initio’. Therefore, the question of validity or invalidity does not arise. Just as a co-consecrator passes on his own line, in addition to the line conveyed by the Consecrator, does in like matter the additional line pass to the Consecrand. If the question of difference of time is raised, it should be realised that with God there is no time, but only the eternal present.Furthermore, even where many co-consecrators our acting at a ceremony, there are slight differences of timing in the uttering of the words which constitute the ‘form’ of the Sacrament of Order. Therefore, as it is clearly understood that the minute the Consecrator himself has imposed hands and uttered the words prescribed, the Consecrand must be accounted a Bishop,and nothing can be added to that fact, nevertheless the co-operation of the co-consecrators, where the Orders of the consecrator are valid, is not deemed to be an empty form, but is definitely held to pass on the lines of succession in which the co-consecrators stand, even though the words emerge (as they invariably do) a few seconds after those of the Consecrator. In principle, therefore, the same argument must be applied to our conditional consecrations.”

There are authors who disagree that co-consecrators pass on their succession but merely as witnesses or provide approbation for the consecration. Whether one agrees or not with the assessment of Mar Georgius it is important because it contributes to the larger question of how to handle conditional consecrations. Abba Seraphim is to be commended to contributing to the discussion.

Regardless of where you fall on this issue, and as I mentioned I still have a lot of questions myself, it is something we will continue to encounter as a movement. We should be prepared to address it intelligently and with theological reasoning.

1: https://www.amazon.com/Bishop-Lists-Succession-Ecclesiastical-Dissertations/dp/1593331940 
2: https://www.amazon.com/Independent-Sacramental-Bishops-Angus-Jones/dp/1933993839
3: https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/abba-seraphim/successio-apostolica/hardcover/product-66y76y.html

Liturgy Among Autocephalous Catholics

Perhaps the most difficult thing for Autocephalous Catholics (or Independent Catholics or within the ISM) is choosing a liturgy. Often times this is because what they would like to use can be at odds with what people will actually attend. Here are some different perspectives:

1. The traditionalist--this is a member of the movement who is committed to celebrating the traditional rites of the Church in whatever tradition they use. Usually they have a particular interest or focus on parts of the liturgy and liturgical adherence. This can be the use of the second Confiteor, the Pre-1955 Holy Week, etc. The positives of this perspective are that these individuals are often faithful to the rubrics and to the precise celebration of the liturgy. The downside can be that they care about things literally no one else does. The average person in the pew typically does not care about liturgical minutiae and there can be a danger of becoming the butt of the old joke (What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.)

2. The antiquarian--this is a person who is likely obsessed with the "Liturgy of St. Medard of Picardy" or some other obscure saint who used a rite from 564 that we don't quite know what it said but they want to recreate it. This is certainly attractive to people like myself who love historical liturgy and, in particular, liturgies from Early Christianity. They are often deeply interested in research and want to recreate the rites used by the saints and developed in holiness. The challenge can be attracting people to the Rite of Saint Cunigunde of Luxembourg and convincing them they should care about it or adjust their prayer to it.

3. The pragmatist--this is a person who uses whatever liturgy is requested by the congregation. This could be Novus Ordo, 1979 Prayerbook, etc. The benefit of this perspective is that the individual will be attractive to people who were not previously part of the Independent Movement (literally everybody it seems) and the liturgy used will be familiar to people. The challenge is that the liturgy is indistinguishable from the parish down the street. Furthermore, using liturgies which are familiar can be challenging to groups which claim a heritage that does not match the implementation of the liturgy (i.e. Old Catholics who started in the 1700's but are using a Roman liturgy implemented in 1969).

All of these approaches present very difficult questions. For example, do you want your jurisdiction to reach out to former mainstream members? What is your unique charism if that is the case--is it inclusivity, traditionalism, or something else? If you are called to a primarily historic or otherwise relatively unknown tradition (i.e. Western Orthodoxy) do you have the ability to properly catechize people as well as make these traditions attractive to them? 

It may appear that I am oversimplifying the lay response to new things, but I believe these are real issues to be addressed. We have seen the same challenges presented with mainstream clergy do things like turn the altar to ad orientem. It takes a concerted effort to explain why this is desirable and how it is to be done. For us, we have to explain it at the beginning of people coming which is even more difficult than having a standing group that we have to convince.

These words don't offer much guidance or comfort, I'm afraid, but more a realization of what we're up against in our ministries. How is it that we can foster genuine ministerial support without it becoming a "hobby?" Is it by being more flexible to people by adjusting our liturgical standards? Or is it by staying true to ourselves and sticking to something? That seems to be at least part of the answer--when in a public liturgical setting PLEASE DO NOT KEEP CHANGING THE LITURGY YOU USE. I'm not talking about slight differences between rites or using diverse rituals in sacraments outside the parochial Mass--I'm talking about when one week you're Byzantine and the next week you're using the Novus Ordo. It looks crazy.

Ultimately you have to use the tradition you feel called to use while understanding that it may be difficult to attract people to a "new" thing. Or you use a liturgy with which those assisting at Mass are familiar but it may not be your favorite. Or you use a liturgy that you love and that people love but you have to emphasize why you're different from the church down the street. Whatever you do, do it with sincerity and reverence.

“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

Roman Catholic Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm Syndrome: feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.

There is a real issue with how Autocephalous Catholics (or the ISM) interact with former Roman Catholic seminarians and clergy. This manifests itself in two possible ways which are discussed below.

First, the advanced seminarian or priest (hereafter cleric for both) wishes to leave the Roman Catholic Church. He wishes to marry, be in a relationship, or in the worst case scenario he was kicked out for malfeasance. He searches the internet and finds out about Independent Catholics. He may think "here are liturgical Christians with apostolic succession. I can be their savior!" This is natural, as he has advanced theological training and believes this places him in a superior position. He may join our movement to wax philosophical about what is wrong with it and how we need to be better educated in more unified. Ultimately, he will either accept the movement as it is or he will leave for a mainstream church.

I don't wish to portray that this is every former Roman Catholic cleric. I have met many who are gracious and humble about receiving the chance to continue ministering. But there are others who believe that they are God's gift to our movement. The rationale is that because of their training and background in a "real" church we should kneel to them in deference. 

The second issue is with jurisdictions who actively solicit former Roman Catholic clerics as their savior. They also exhibit faulty logic. They think "here is someone who is already trained, so we do not need to do it. They will integrate well because of their background." Again, I have seen this happen where former Roman Catholic clerics integrate well into a jurisdiction and add to it. However, there are also those who do not. Perhaps they still question if being in the ISM is "real." Or perhaps they think that since they have already committed ecclesiastical disobedience it no longer matters. Whatever the case, it can be frequent that former Roman Catholic clerics simply aren't a good fit. Our way of life is often too fluid, too unfamiliar for them to adjust.

In these ways a kind of Stockholm Syndrome is created where jurisdictions don't want to be Roman Catholic but view their former clergy as "real" and "truly trained." They eagerly solicit them because they, too, believe somehow that they can be the savior of the jurisdiction. It creates unhealthy expectations for both the jurisdiction and the cleric. The cleric, with an elevated sense of self, never feels like he is involved in something truly worthwhile. 

I think there is a middle way. We should welcome former Roman Catholic clerics. And I encourage them to eagerly seek out our movement. But it must be on our terms. Just as you do not demand to wear your shoes into someone's home in China, a former Roman Catholic cleric has to adapt to our way of life. If they refuse to, ultimately everyone will be unhappy. It can only be achieved by proper catechesis on our history and the realization that independence is part of our charism. Similarly, there has to be the understanding that ours is a difficult life. Gone are the accolades for being a priest and the expectation of remuneration. Here we work hard to minister, often while being derided as fake or worse.

It is up to the jurisdiction accepting the cleric to give them proper formation. This does not need to be a formal program mimicking mainstream seminaries. But it must be rooted in the history of our movement-- answering why is it that we were formed and why we exist. There must be knowledge about Utrecht and Brazil and Duarte Costa and Mathew and Thuc and all the people who conveyed apostolic succession to us. From there it is important to emphasize how communities continued and if/how they developed their own charism (because, frankly, most who don't do not continue). What is it that makes us ourselves? It's not all dressing up, as the detractors allege. 

Only then will we come into ourselves and provide the kind of welcome and expectations that those leaving Rome deserve. I was lucky to be baptized and confirmed in this wacky, crazy movement. But it is one I've come to love deeply, and I want others to love it too.

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 Liege 

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.