Organizing Liturgical Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: Matthew Doyle

Laying All the Cards on the Table: A History of Independent/Old/Old Roman Catholic Pastoral Accomodation

One of the hallmarks of so-called Independent Catholicism is its emphasis on pastoral practice. It offers a place where people who could not be ordained or receive the sacraments in other traditions are able to do so in the context of Catholic tradition. This venerable history began, in my estimation, under Bishop Dominique Marie Varlet. Varlet confirmed candidates for the Church of Utrecht when it was under interdict from Rome because he understood that it was the right thing to do. 

This tradition continued with Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew. Mathew was baptized both an Anglican and a Roman Catholic, and flirted with both traditions throughout his life. He even at one point was involved with Unitarianism. When he was elected to the episcopacy, he was married and the Church of Utrecht had not approved married bishops. Ultimately, they proceeded with the consecration. Mathew also separated from his wife, which was a novel thing in the 1900s. He continued to ordain and consecrate married men, and this became part of the Old Roman Catholic tradition. Carmel Henry Carfora, the progenitor of Old Roman Catholicism in America, was married to a former nun (Stella) and he also continued calling married men to orders. Bishop Hodur for the Polish National Catholic Church also opened up his church to married men, as did Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa.

In addition to married men, Carfora was innovative in how he treated women. He appointed Sister Elizabeth Theresa, OSF as his chancellor--something unheard of at the time. Two of Carfora's bishops in the NAORCC, Archbishops Verostek and Pyman, recognized and utilized deaconesses in California. This was taken a step further in some traditions, with the Mariavites consecrating and ordaining women. Bishop Dorian Herbert of the Orthodox-Keltic Church of the British Commonwealth of Nations (say that 5 times fast) began the same in 1943 and other Independent Catholic churches followed suit. However, the practice of admitting women to orders is not universal and depends on the jurisdiction.  

 

Of note is that Independent Catholicism is one of the first traditions to promote and accept people of color. Vilatte consecrated Archbishop George Alexander McGuire (pictured below) after he was stymied in the Episcopal Church due to the color of his skin. Archbishop Carmel Henry Carfora no doubt also understood racism and prejudice due to his being an Italian during a time of anti-immigration. Carfora conditionally consecrated Rogers and consecrated Marchenna, both black men, as well as set up a hierarchy for the Mexican National Catholic Church. 

 

The Independent Catholic tradition was also innovative on the acceptance of LGBT individuals. This began with George Augustine Hyde (pictured at top), who began the first LGBT focused church in 1946 with Bishop John Augustine Kazantks, a former Greek Orthodox bishop who left Greece because he was gay. Hyde was consecrated in 1957 for the American Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church and continued his ministry to the LGBT community until his death in 2010. Archbishop Marchenna of the Old Roman Catholic Church ordained the first openly gay and partnered man, Archbishop Robert Mary Clement, who also championed the term holy unions and began the first gay-focused Catholic church. It was said that Marchenna acted unilaterally without the permission of his superior, but Clement was nominated by Archbishop George Gerard Shelley in 1958 as bishop. Doubtless he had to react when the press became too much. Again, the practice of admitting LGBT people to ministry is not universal among Independent Catholic traditions.

 

Mathew's progeny included members of the Liberal Catholic Church and all branches of independent apostolic succession (Vilatte in particular) include people who adhere to esotericism. Bishops descending from Carfora (using the name Old Roman Catholic) have included a drag queen, a former female impersonator, partnered clergy, married bishops, divorced and remarried bishops, divorced bishops, etc. Bishops descending from Archbishop Vilatte and Bishop Duarte Costa also have clergy with personal backgrounds which would limit them from ministry in a mainstream church, including being gay and partnered, remarried, divorced, etc. This highlights the differences of Independent Catholicism--that different branches have different views on sensitive topics.

 

Besides the personal lives of the clergy, Independent Catholic clergy have ministered in places or ways which were outside the norm. One of Mathew's original bishops served a congregational church while a bishop in the ORCC (and several later functioned in Anglican churches), as did several of Carfora's bishops. Archbishop H. A. Rogers functioned in a Methodist church when he died. Vilatte functioned in the Episcopal Church and Archbishop Thuc called on greater ecumenism--despite being the source of orders for traditionalists. Clergy have buried suicide victims when it was not acceptable, performed holy unions and blessings for same-sex couples, remarried couples after divorce, accepted children called illegitimate, and acted when the other members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church couldn’t or wouldn’t. Previously, these situations could be hidden and not discussed but with the advent of the internet there is more access to information and people are in better connection with each other.

My reason for this post is not to scandalize people, although I have no doubt that it will scandalize some. But these escapades are easily read in Anson, Brandreth, Jarvis, and a number of other sources. It is also no more scandalous than the coverup of child abuse and large-scale financial theft which happens in other traditions (and to my estimation it is far less scandalous than those things). In fact, all of the things mentioned here happen in all traditions. The purpose of writing this article is to emphasize that there is no perfect church which matches all your requirements, because churches are made of people. Extreme traditionalists also have cases of same-sex scandals, esoteric beliefs, and other issues mentioned here--so no one is immune even among the most guarded. The purpose of this article is also not to emphasize that you must accept women's ordination, gay marriage, etc. if it is against your conscience. 

My point is to emphasize that Independent Catholicism (even among the churches which profess to be the most traditional) has always been divergent and tolerant--a tradition which is built on primacy of conscience and second chances. It is a venerable tradition, and one which I love deeply. But we cannot ignore the fact that we have had people of all backgrounds in this tradition and we will continue to attract people who have no other home. Traditionalists have a plethora of options inside and outside of Rome, and progressives have significant options in Christianity as a whole now. Yet, those who attempt to hold some sort of via media are often limited to taking the path less trodden. No church is homogeneous and every one is full of people from all walks of life. And because people have foibles or peccadilloes, it does not mean that they are bad people. They are people, like us all, in need of God’s grace and second chances. And that’s what I believe is our future, too.

On Fleek: Clerical Dress

I realize that in the Autocephalous Catholic world we spend a lot of time on dress. It is a natural human tendency to want to look nice, especially when you're approaching the God of the Universe. But there are a few abuses I feel compelled to address which I have seen over the years. I don't mean to imply that those who have committed them do not know the liturgy and I realize that dress is relatively unimportant. I do think, however, that it is important for us if we claim a Catholic heritage with the corresponding dress that we wear things as they were intended. To not use them correctly risks us being viewed as unlearned or "dressing up."

This article is primarily for those who claim to be Independent/Old Catholic and I will use terms proper to the Roman Catholic Church. Anglican/Orthodox traditions are outside the realm of this article and churches which claim apostolic succession but do not operate as "Catholic" churches are also not included and can do what they want (even if the sight pains me greatly).

Alb 

ALWAYS wear an alb if celebrating Mass or concelebrating Mass (in the Novus Ordo). There is no such thing as not wearing an alb as the celebrant in the Western Church. Especially if you have on a habit or a cassock. I have heard it said "Pope XYZ gave a dispensation to the Franciscans." Nope, nope, nope. Even the Dominicans wear albs with white habits.1

 

Biretta 

If you are the celebrant, the biretta is worn only to process in and out of the sacristy, when seated, and at the homily. It is not worn like a zuchetto throughout the liturgy.

 

Choir Dress

If a bishop is in choir and not participating in the liturgy, they should not wear a mitre or carry a crozier. Choir dress is mozetta (or mantelletta), rochet, and cassock. No extra bits and not a cope over a mozetta. N.B. there are a few times when a bishop wears a mitre with a stole and rochet, like consecrating a chalice, but these are extraordinary and need not concern us.

 

Fascia

The Fascia is only worn with a cassock. It is not a cincture for an alb.4

Chasuble Under a Cope

Don't do it ever. Even for a second. Just don't. In this case, less is more. 2

Zuchetto 

Take off the zuchetto at the preface and return it after communion. Please, please do not wear it with a suit.

 

1. Image PadreRenzo

2 Image: Komanec1

3 Image: Gugganij  

4 Image: Valter Campanato/ABr - Agência Brasil 

What's in a Name: Roman Catholic Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clerical Popularity

Recently, I spoke to someone who has become a fast friend. He is actively involved in starting a new church and I am excited to hear about the steps he followed. Starting a new parish in the Autocephalous or Independent Catholic movement is exceptionally difficult. First, people don't quite know how to classify us. They also can be skeptical of us and of our intentions. The logistics of parish founding are also extremely difficult in terms of financial, property, and people resources. During our conversation, I cautioned him against allowing the church to hang on his personality. Thankfully, he was aware of the risks involved with such an option.

I believe this is a real issue in our tradition. We do not have denominations which can appoint clergy and provide for them. We also do not have the benefit of frequent oversight of the clergy because of our distance. So, frequently a person is ordained to the diaconate and priesthood and it is largely up to them to start the parish. Hopefully they are successful, and others join them. A founder syndrome can develop where the person is elevated to an exalted status. Then, if they have to move away or become ill or become too elderly to continue the work, the parish dies off and no longer exists. Instead of being a light to the world it was a flash in the pan.

This doesn't signify that I am against ministries or options that are time limited. There is a season for everything. However, if the goal is to build something that is lasting it takes more than the personality of one person to make it continue. This is especially true of so-called large personalities. These can end up several ways:

 1. The parish was founded by Father X. Father X runs a tight ship and is well liked. When Father X gets too old or infirm, Father Y begins helping at the parish. But he does things differently. People don't like different, so they leave. Soon the parish dwindles and is forced to close. While people can't be chastised for caring for their priest and liking his style, he maybe could have done more to pull back gracefully from the situation to prevent a shock to the parish. (I've seen this happen)

2. Father A is a dynamic individual. He is generous, affable, and funny. He starts new ministries and people really enjoy him. When responding why people like coming to the church, it is because Fr A is there. Fr A ends up falling short sexually or steals money or commits any number of (sadly) too-frequent clerical sins and people are scandalized. They leave the church or the faith all together because they are so disappointed. (This has happened more times than I can count)

3. Father B is viewed as a holy man and, to be honest, he likes knowing that people feel that way about him. He starts ministries to the poor and even gives out expensive gifts to them. He likes the recognition and awards of his work. Instead of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, he becomes a divisive figure. Some think he is flashy and a conman while others venerate him as a living saint. This, too, divides the parish. (This is a mainline example of which I am familiar)

And, of course, these aren't all the scenarios! I don't list these to say that a priest can't be charismatic or beloved or well regarded. Frankly, it is expected that the priest will be an upstanding citizen and that people will regard him with favoritism. But I am saying that the whole operation can't be wrapped around the persona and/or ego of the priest. If the parish hinges on the personhood of the priest, then the priest has failed. He failed in the same way a business or non-profit leader fails when they neglect to implement a succession plan. 

We have to be vigilant against such temptations as recognition. Next, there are a few steps that can be taken to help protect ourselves and parishes. 

1. We have to diversify authority to ensure that others can be called upon in an emergency or in time of need so the pastor isn't the only person. 

2. We have to raise up others in a community to take a visible role so that the priest isn't the only cleric or church official who has the community's focus. 

3. Take away some of the power. The priest should not be the pastor, controlling finances, and making all decisions for the church. These roles have to be diversified so that it is not all vested in one person. This limits temptation for the priest and ensures good oversight.

These are also not an exhaustive list. They are just some ways that can prevent problems. Ultimately, our main focus should be on extending grace through the sacraments and forming people in their faith. We must do this pleasantly and with sincerity, but we also have to avoid against becoming exalted.

"If priests sin, all the people are led to sin. Hence every one must render an account of his own sins; but the priests are also responsible for the sins of others." - St John Chrysostom

Our Christian Duty to Each Other

A long-time friend and person I respect told me a few days ago that he has not been to Mass since March. This is not for lack of desire. He has been a faithful Mass attendee and has passed this act on to his children. He has also been active in teaching children in the parish. His reason for not attending is that other people in his parish do not take COVID seriously. He attends a traditional parish where they eschew masks and treat the virus with indifference. Because of their flippant attitude, he has chosen to protect himself and his family by not attending Mass.

There are some who might question this decision. They may say that it is inconceivable to not attend Mass. But does a father and husband not have the right to protect his family where the actions of other people put them at risk? We, as Christians, do not live in a vacuum. We are "our brother's keeper" as exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Just as we care called to care for our brethren bodily, it is our duty to encourage our brethren in their faith. We must "encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing" (Thess. 5:11). 

We cannot encourage each other in faith if one of us is concerned about their risk of attending Mass. I realize that this virus has somehow become politicized, and that the talking heads love to argue about the mortality rate of COVID-19. But that is irrelevant. Just as I would not attend Mass if I had another contagious illness, of whatever potency, means that if I am asymptomatic in carrying this illness I will ultimately protect others by preventing its spread. 

Ultimately, I think COVID will be devastating for churches. I believe that many people will become used to not attending church on Sunday or attending virtually. Some people will not miss it and will replace their Sunday obligation with something else. This is all the more reason to get churches open again and safe. There have been numerous examples of safe gatherings occurring with masks--school children in class with masks, flights with zero transmission even when infected people are aboard, no transmission when masks were worn by infected hair dressers and their clients, etc. Let us not become a stumbling block to our brethren who want to attend the liturgy by a small act which can encourage and strengthen them

As long as any one has the means of doing good to his neighbours, and does not do so, he shall be reckoned a stranger to the love of the Lord. - St. Irenaeus of Lyons

Diversity Within the Independent Movement

One of the issues which I’ve written about frequently is diversity in jurisdictions. But I think that even more can be discussed about it. Autocephalous Catholicism is unique among church traditions because it offers a type of menu for people who have specific religious requirements. Depending on your conscience, there will likely be a jurisdiction for you. If you want women and LGBT persons ordained, there is a jurisdiction for you or there is a jurisdiction that does not. If you are attached to the Latin Mass there is a jurisdiction and there are also jurisdictions that allow you to make up a liturgy. This diversity is both beneficial as well as challenging.

I will give examples in the Carfora-descendent churches. Archbishop Richard Arthur Marchenna of the Old Roman Catholic Church wrote an article on the Sacred Heart. In his article, he stated “’Sacred Heart’ devotions and novelties are not the practice of Old Roman Catholics, nor should such be maintained or taught within this church. It is both sacrilegious and blasphemous and a manifest heresy… Old Roman Catholics repudiate such novelties which reduces our Lord’s person to ‘bits and pieces’ for the adoration of the faithful.”  While he held these views, Archbishop Schweikert (of the same church in Chicago) was pastor of a church named Sacred Heart! Similarly, under Marchenna, Archbishop Robert Mary Clement was elected as a bishop in 1958. He left the Old Roman Catholic Church but returned and was finally consecrated on October 6, 1974. He made national news because of his consecration as being openly gay and offering holy unions to lesbian and gay individuals. He later founded the Eucharistic Catholic Church. 

Several Old Roman Catholic jurisdictions have had married bishops while others have not—Archbishops Mathew, Carfora, Rogers, and others were married. Some of the historic Old Roman Catholic bishops were remarried after divorces or separated. Other Carfora-line churches view themselves as Roman Catholic except for jurisdiction and hold to the dogmas of Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption—while others do not. On doctrine, Carfora allowed at least one of his bishops to utilize the Augsburg Confession—a Lutheran document of faith (where it did not conflict with Catholic belief). A final difference is on liturgy where some Carfora-descendant churches offer the Tridentine Mass while others offer the Novus Ordo.

These differences are not unique to Carfora churches. The Liberal Catholics, perhaps, have the most diverse beliefs with some holding to Theosophy while others hold a more orthodox position. Still other Liberal Catholics ordain women while others do not. The same is true of the Vilatte-descent churches where one can find varying views on LGBT issues, women in ministry, etc. Some Vilatte churches, it seems, also have a strong esoteric connection which is unique among Autocephalous Catholics. On the other end of the spectrum is the Thuc succession, which ranges to the Palmarians who elected their own pope to sedevacantists to also-ran traditionalists who are not easily distinguishable from other traditionalist groups. Each distinct tradition has people who fall everywhere within issues of discipline and morality.

While we often think of this as part of the chaos of the Independent Sacramental Movement, it is similar in mainstream churches. There are Orthodox churches which have women deaconesses while others do not. There have been instances within Orthodoxy in America where a priest’s wife has died or abandoned him and he was been allowed to remarry, despite being verboten among the Orthodox generally (except within the Ecumenical Patriarchate). Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox churches take a much laxer view of divorce than the Oriental Orthodox.  Yet they are still united by a common history and, importantly for many Orthodox, a common liturgy.

Diversity is also present within Papal Catholicism. The Ordinariate, the Eastern Catholic Churches, and some Latin dioceses ordain married men to the priesthood while the Roman Catholic Church does not. I use Roman Catholic in the form of a proper church distinguishing it from the Ukrainian Catholic, Russian Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. churches. Similarly, the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canon Law separate from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Formally there are different liturgies and liturgical traditions. Finally, there are also informal differences which exist in every church. This is how from parish to parish there can be differences in how divorce, homosexuality, the involvement of women, etc. are handled.

While this may seem overwhelming, there is no homogeneous church. Because were humans, there will always be differences what we believe and how we express our faith. This can be dogmatic, moral (as with divorce and remarriage), liturgical, etc. Differences in practice result because the church is universal and cannot possibly be the same in every nook and cranny of the world. So we should allow ourselves a bit more grace as members of this Movement.

The key is determining what is essential and what is not for you and for your jurisdiction. For me, it is belief in the Creeds, at least seven grace-giving sacraments utilizing proper matter, form, and intent, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Without these, I believe there could be the legitimate issue of the passing of apostolic tradition. Another "line in the sand" for me is dangerous individuals in ministry, such as sexual predators and other unsuitable candidates. Generally, however, I tend to hold the view of Archbishop Marco Antonio de Dominis who said, “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity” (although often incorrectly attributed to Saint Augustine). For each person this may be different regarding what is essential according to their conscience.

What I would caution, however, is becoming too strict in your understanding of what is essential. There have been several attempts to bring together groups which held different traditions but came together in goodwill and prayer. This included the Council of Old Roman Catholic Bishops, the Sursum Corda Gathering of the American Catholic Union in the 2000s, FOCUS (the Federation of Orthodox Catholic Churches International), and others. While this may not be the answer for everyone (or may not be the answer at all), it may be a path forward to working together. Each group had to do the hard work of determining what was and was not essential and how they would interact with other groups who held the same, similar, or few common beliefs.

I do hope that despite our differences we can find some common ground. The final realization is that despite our claims of lofty histories and auspicious lineages, to Rome, Canterbury, and Moscow we are just schismatics. Unfortunately, we have seen in Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism how rigid both the right and the left can be when it comes to certain issues. Both sides have absolutes which must be adhered to for any commonality. The better path for us, given or relatively small numbers, poverty, and independence  may be to work together (at least informally) to build each other up. This may mean striking a moderate path where we may disagree with others but allow some flexibility as much as possible (and where our consciences permit). 

God desires from you the least degree of purity of conscience more than all the works you can perform. - St. John of the Cross

Photo: Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc.