We Have to Live in Hope

 My intention is not to start 2022 with a melancholic post! But, I think that I have to realize that is just where we are right now. Here are some observations:

1. Church, generally, is becoming less part of people's lives. I saw a cleric post that in 2019, church was full for Christmas. 2020 was about half full. 2021 was about a quarter full. Another priest friend told me that their collection is only a small fraction of what they need to survive, and this is a mainline Catholic parish. How can we stop this and convince people that our message is still relevant? I am not convinced that they way is to make ourselves more trendy, but to show the beauty and majesty of our tradition and what it has to offer. But, if you've read this blog you know that already.

2. Orthodoxy is in a right mess right now. There are a large number of clerical obituaries and the churches are divided more than ever. Churches are entering into the territories of others (which is nothing new), but now there is larger expansion into other areas. This will cause ripples that may not be easy to repair. A friend of mine said that he was unsure how Orthodoxy managed to stay together all these years, given the different political outlooks and machinations present. I don't know that their togetherness is even possible anymore.

3. Roman Catholicism. I am watching in real time as super parishes are being created. This is nothing new, but the lack of vocations seems to be very concerning to an outsider. So, they are facing the possibility of large parishes with only a handful of clergy to reach out to parishioners. They could current ordain deacons as priests for assistance (this is really the only option since women won't ever be ordained), but this will change the face of the church dramatically. Latin Rite Catholics are generally unprepared for married clergy, because they have touted celibacy for so long.

The mainstream continues to hemorrhage clergy while there are vocations among traditionalists. There are challenges with some of the clergy, because of their perception of the modern church and Vatican II. Some traditionalist clergy seem to have the same issues as other clergy (despite the unfounded belief that traditionalist clergy are somehow holier than others) regarding impropriety. Regarding the issue of authority in the church, the Vatican thought it would solve this by outlawing the Tridentine Mass. Unfortunately, there is a greater problem now. For 13 years, more people have become attached to the Tridentine Mass who are not taking the news well. The same is true for priests, who are defying this action. The SSPX and independent parishes will swell, and two Roman Catholicisms will continue to exist despite their intentions.

Where does this leave independents? Well, as I have said previously, we are fortunate. We have a free structure which allows us to pivot and serve people quickly and in innovative ways. We are generally not bogged down by buildings which are largely growing more empty. This is, of course, a blessing and a curse because people can be unwilling to go to the church basement of another church for your services. But, the greatest gift is that we do not have to worry about power. I was speaking to a dear friend who is in a "non-canonical" Orthodox church recently who said "we don't have to worry about an imperial church because our church was never viewed this way." I am paraphrasing him but the essence is that we don't have to worry about other churches encroaching on our territory. Or, we don't have to worry about legislation that prevents our preferred form of worship. We are free.

But, it also means that we need to do a lot more working together. I have said this in the past and I will keep saying it. The essence of what we are doing is to have other like minded people to rely on and cooperate with so that we can be mutually successful. Our ministry (no ministry, in fact) does not exist in a vacuum. Therefore, we have to get to know each other and work together so that we can help each other. It also provides a bit of a barrier to weed out the ill-intentioned.

In the end, I am greatly consoled by the fact that when church gets too much to bear it is the lay people who see us through. Clergy will always be the most judgmental among us. I was reminded of this when I visited an Orthodox Cathedral with an independent friend in a habit recently. The lay people were not bothered to ask "what denomination are you? What is your habit? Why are you coming to our church?" They could care less. Those are the questions that clergy ask. Similarly, Roman Catholics generally have no idea what I'm asking when I speak about issues in vogue among clergy or a certain group of active Twitter users. I don't take that as being flippant or uneducated, they are simply trying to live their lives and do the best they can without complications.

In the end, Church has always been a mess. It is, after all, a hospital for sinners. So, we keep our heads down and we do the work as we feel called. We try to work together. As independents, we will always cling to the side of the larger church and their issues affect us. This is why I have discussed them above. But we can try to not let them get in the way and not speak ill of individuals. I realize some independents have done well lambasting the mainstream churches, but this is not the way. The way is to build our part of the kingdom the best we can. And, even though our footprint is small, we will never know its true impact where it counts. This is illustrated in the proverb about the nail:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. 

If you want to find rest here below, and hereafter, in all circumstances say‘Who am I?’ and do not judge anyone. - Abba Joseph of Panephysis

National Catholic Churches

The subject of national churches is a conflicting one for me. As we are aware, at the beginning of Christianity there were no national boundaries as we now understand them. The Roman Empire and tribal areas existed, and Christianity (eventually) flourished in the Empire (while also reaching other areas). As the Empire subsided and new kingdoms and entities formed, the Church in the West remained subject to Rome. Yet it would be wrong to ignore the impact of the nation upon the resident churches. Kings, for example, had the right to nominate and appoint bishops (something we now consider exclusively the purview of the Bishop of Rome). Churches and their clergy also were often subject to the state, as exists in some places still where taxes go to support the churches (or where clergy are considered civil servants). 

In the East, there was much less centralization. As Rome became the enter of the ecclesiastical world in the West, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople remained autocephalous in the East. Independent churches then emanated from Constantinople, but they quickly broke off. The Patriarchate of Bulgaria became independent as early as 927 with others following suit. Thus, national churches were an inherent part of the East which did not have the autonomy of Rome and was much more organic in development. 

As papal power grew in the West with the increase of ultramontanism, there were notable holdouts. The Church of Utrecht, for example, resisted the papal imposition of a bishop in favor of their charter which required an election by canons. Ultimately, the Church of Utrecht was joined by the Old Catholics in 1870 who implemented national Catholic Churches in what became Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, etc. Yet the spirit of the Low Countries permeates these churches as the motherland of the Old (Roman) Catholic tradition. 

In 1945, the Old Catholic Churches were joined by the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church and Dom Carlos Duarte Costa. Duarte Costa was in favor of the national model, with the goal of creating a church for Brazilians that was imbued with specifically Brazilian features such as Portuguese in the liturgy, etc. Yet, as early as 1948 Duarte Costa consecrated Castillo Mendez for the work of the church in Venezuela. He saw the benefit of the national church model and promoted its spread throughout South America.

In addition to the (former) Roman Catholic and Orthodox national churches, there remained the Anglican churches which were built on a national church model (with deference to Canterbury). As with Rome, independence was first rebuffed. But, the rebellious colonists sought out the help of Bishop Samuel Seabury who helped them establish the first church independent of the Church of England outside of the British Isles (with the assistance of the Scottish Episcopal Church).

There are many challenges with national churches. First, national churches can promote nationalism as we have seen in some of the Orthodox countries. The state church can become enmeshed with the government in ways that make them indistinguishable and ultimately harm the credibility of both. Second, national churches can take on the causes of the nation. Thus, the loss of ecclesiastical territory becomes a matter of national pride. The unfortunate situation then occurs where there are multiple churches of one tradition competing on the same soil, all while anathematizing the others. National churches can be difficult to hold together in a meaningful form of worldwide communion. The Anglican Churches are evidence of this, as the ordination of women and LGBT people becomes more problematic for sister churches. The same occurred in the Union of Utrecht, when the Polish National Catholic Church pulled out over the ordination of women. In short, egos, territory, definitions of heterodoxy, and other issues stymie national churches in ways that do not affect Rome.

However, there are not only negatives. National churches do join the social fabric of the nation. They knit together people so that they have a common destiny and have their own self-governed church. This church looks like them, speaks their language, and has their interests at heart. There are ways to mitigate heterodox beliefs by ensuring that there is some sort of common communion, as with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They don't always like each other (they frequently dislike each other), but there have been ways in which they have worked together in the past (notably when America was establishing its Orthodox presence). Like everything, national churches have to act intentionally and not independently. But, some would argue that this hinders prophetic calling and witness when one group is moved to act in one way but the other churches disagree.

It will be interesting to watch how Rome handles recent developments with local independence. As Pope Francis is committed to the synodal path and promotes national episcopal conferences, there are rumors of fractures already forming. The German Church, for instance, seeks to bless same-sex unions. Rome has said it is verboten, but what will be the outcome if there is a walkout? Will national churches become more favored as Roman Catholic dioceses become increasingly independent in charism?  The Orthodox have managed to keep themselves together, more or less, but it has been with common agreement and with an Orthodox phronema that you don't have to define everything. Rome has boxed itself into a corner by defining every article of belief, such that deviation is not permitted. How will Autocephalous Catholics be affected by Roman changes and how can we avoid the pitfalls while promoting the good?

Ultimately, as Autocephalous Catholics, I believe that national churches are a common form of structure of all of us. ICAB, Old Catholics, Continuing Anglicans, etc. all hold the concept of national churches even if they differ in liturgy and understanding of doctrine. I do not think that the concept should be abandoned, because I believe it is a good one and one to which I am committed. And, I believe that we have to work together as national churches. There are too many similarities between us. The structure of the Church should be accessible to the people and local enough that they have participation in its outcome. But, ideally this should be done in the spirit of  "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity."

"In the first century the Christianity, the national Churches lived and developed in complete autonomy, without being vassals to the Bishop of Rome. I call to your attention to the testimony of Tertullian who said: "Our many churches considered themselves as all belonging to one church, the first of all founded by the Apostles and mother of the rest. They are all holy and apostolic and, together, cannot be looked upon as anything by a singe entity, whose message of Peace, whose mutual brotherhood, whose bonds of charity unite all the faithful." - Manifesto of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa

Christian Pessimism

I think the saddest thing I encounter with other Christians is pessimism. It seems to be in full supply as of late. Of course, we are conditioned in some ways to be pessimistic. As members of the animal kingdom, we have a disposition towards fear. We fear for our safety, for our livelihoods, for our families, and for our futures. Our lives are further complicated by the reality of original sin, that we have a fallen nature because of the consequences of Adam. Yet, we are also people who have been redeemed by Christ and who hope because we have "put our hope in the living God."

But hope doesn't sell. People don't give money to make hope go away. They don't glue themselves to the television to watch hopeful programming. We are conditioned for pessimism. We are enthralled at angry fights on Twitter and about having the last say. Just one more witty jab at our enemy. There are whole media outlets promoted towards selling fear, and we feed into it. In Orthodoxy, it is the fear of another Church encroaching on territory. In Roman Catholicism, it is the fear of what changes the Pope will make or the liturgy wars. In Independent Catholicism, it can be the fear that others will succeed. And this can make us terribly pessimistic. After all, God is always on our side...

There seem to be two places where the pessimism festers. One is in traditionalism. Hyper-ritualism has smoldered any joy out of some communities. The message is about how things are not as they used to be or not as we prefer. An angry God eagerly awaits to catch us and condemn us if every jot or tittle is not perfect. Instead of the God who forgives us 70x7, I have seen it argued that there is a limit to God's mercy and forgiveness. And we're all one step away from receiving the wooden spoon from God--the smack we deserve so we can burn for all eternity because of our disobedience.

The other one is in esotericism. I do not have any experience in these communities, so I am speaking as an outsider. But as people explore their beliefs, there are some who have a draw to Docecism and Gnosticism. For them, there is significant emphasis on the evil nature of matter. Because matter and the world are so evil, everything in it is inherently evil as well. The government is out to get them, COVID-19 mandates are out to get them, Democrats, doctors, the boogeyman, spiders, clowns, and whatever else are all just waiting to pounce. So trust no one, be self-sufficient, glorify independence, and shoot to kill. Gnosticism of this nature has crept into other aspects of Christianity, often times without people knowing it.

I know some people will read this and think I am naive. And I do not discount that there are bad actors out there, or people who seek to do us harm. God knows that I have experienced it. But I also realize that, for me, I can't live like that. I cannot live in a way where I don't give people the benefit of the doubt and trust their intentions. Perhaps it is because my favorite scripture passage is 1 John 4:7: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." God loves us and wants us to deal with each other mercifully. If not, how could we expect Him to do the same? And hate, or in this case pessimism, is too heavy a burden to bear (to paraphrase Dr. King). 

"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8

The Vincentian Canon

As the pandemic waxes and wanes, I have tried to spend more time reading. Specifically, I have focused on Orthodox theology. I will admit, as a Westerner I have not always understood Orthodox perspectives on theology. For me, the lack of concrete catechism and emphasis on mystery is challenging. This is probably exacerbated by my educational background in law, theology, etc. But, I desperately want to understand. To this end, I have been making my way through the book "Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind." It provides a detailed, helpful understanding of how Orthodoxy looks at belief. 

In the Old (Roman) Catholic context, we have always placed great emphasis on the Vincentian Canon. It has been repeated extensively throughout our publications and was hammered into my brain during my seminary training. Simply put, the Vincentian Canon goes as follows: "Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus]." The Catholic Dictionary further states: By this triple norm of diffusion, endurance, and universality, a Christian can distinguish religious truth from error."

However, while reading "Thinking Orthodox" a footnote caught my eye last week and I shared it with my friends. It says 

"... Unfortunately, that definition is not useful and Georges Florovsky had the courage to question this famous definition of Tradition. The sentiment is appealing and poetic; however Florovsky correctly observed that 'it is not clear whether this is an empirical criterion or not. If this be so, then the 'Vincentian Canon' proves to be inapplicable and quite false, because in fact Holy Tradition has not always been taught and believed everywhere and by all people.' Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Vol. 1,51."

Honestly, I was surprised by this view because the Vincentian Canon fit so well with how I understood Orthodoxy to view itself. This yielded more reading from Western views, and agreements on the above statements from Dom Gregory Dix and Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan (who later became Eastern Orthodox). 

From an Eastern perspective, Bulgakov agrees with Florovsky. He wrote the following:

"The maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins on tradition: “quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est” [what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all]—is often considered as a guiding rule on the subject. Nevertheless, this principle, systematically applied, cannot have the universal importance which is sometimes attributed to it. First, this maxim excludes all possibility of the historic origin of new dogmatic formula (this includes even the pronouncements of the seven ecumenical councils), for they do not agree with the “semper” of the maxim. So, to demand that tradition should be ecumenical quantitatively—ab omnibus et ubique—does not seem to correspond to the essentials of things, for then local traditions would become impossible (and nevertheless these traditions can, in the course of time, become universal). Besides, it can happen that the truth of the Church is professed not by a majority but by the minority of members (for example, at the time of Arianism). In general the above maxim makes impossible all movement in Church tradition, which is nevertheless movement itself; the life of the Church would be condemned to immobility, and its history would become superfluous and even impertinent. This is why the maxim of Vincent de Lerins, understood formally, does not correspond at all with the whole of the life of the Church. Thus it can be accepted only in a limited and relative sense, in the sense that true dogmas, already proclaimed by the Church as such, are obligatory for all." (The Orthodox Church, p. 29)

My mentioning the above is not to discontinue using the Canon itself. I still use it and consider it to be helpful. I believe that there are things which are immovable, i.e. dogmatic beliefs and the changing of the sacraments. I also do not believe this short piece to be exhaustive--more musings and putting "pen to paper." However, it would be disingenuous to acknowledge that Vincentian Canon should be used as an absolute sentiment of dogmatic finality. For me, it can be most effective when paired with the sentiment by Archbishop Marco Antonio de Dominis (and often misattributed to Saint Augustine) “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” But, of course, this is problematic, too, because one man's essential is another's non-essential.

I find no little irony in how many people use the Vincentian Canon as their statement of faith. The Old Catholics, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and others all contend that they are the ones who are upholding the faith believed everywhere by all. In fact, Dr. Jordan Cooper is a proponent online of the Canon and he is a Lutheran--a tradition which still others in this list will reject as being apostolic in belief.

While not discontinuing use of the Canon, I have personally enjoyed reading the writings of Orthodox theologians who believe it is not a definitive statement. For Florovsky, "no consensus can prove truth. This would be a case of acute psychologism, and in theology there is even less place for it than in philosophy." Despite this theological challenge, Florovsky does argue that truth can be identified as that deposit of faith which is held by the people of God and is taught by the episcopate as teachers and holders of apostolic succession (who are then responsible to the people). This sentiment was echoed by Metropolitan Philaret who wrote "All the faithful, united through the sacred tradition of faith, all together and all successively, are built up by God into one Church, which is the true treasury of sacred tradition, or, to quote the words of St. Paul, 'The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth!"

"A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian.”
- Evagrius

Cruel Clergy

It has been 14 years since my ordination to the priesthood, and I'd like to think I have learned some things. One of the largest changes I've seen in myself is that I am less rigid than I once was. This seems to be part of growing older, and a spiritual director once said to me "the Church had to canonize young people at one point because they were the most doctrinaire and idyllic." 

As part of this lessening of rigidity, I'd like to think that I have less time for nonsense. When I was a child, I thought as a child. I would get in theological and liturgical debates. But I have found that these matter less and less as time becomes more valuable. Another thing which becomes less important is knowing about other clergy. I don't mean for this to sound cruel. But, at one time I tried to know extensively about the orders and lineage of everyone in the Autocephalous Catholic field. I also tried to learn more about them so that I knew who I was dealing with if there was inevitable contact. 

I think one of the challenges of getting to know people (and about people) is that I found that the Autocephalous Catholic movement is full of wounded people. Many of our members are people who have had difficult histories. They have been rejected by their former faith traditions because of their sexuality, their marital status, etc. and we were a place of last resort. They sometimes try to recreate where they left except for their own peccadilloes. This can lead to "everything should be as Rome except my situation." Or, frankly, sometimes there are people who have criminal histories or sordid pasts and cannot minister anywhere else. We have a duty to protect the faithful from people who have a proclivity to act harmfully.

The problem with hurt people is that they hurt people. I frankly have grown exhausted with other clergy. I have found some clergy to be among the cruelest people I've ever encountered. They can take great pride in condemning others, denigrating others, and speaking ill of them. There is fighting, there are snipes at others, and there can be negativity. There is a perceived superiority to the interactions of "I'm real and you're not," which is troubling. And, in some quarters, there seems to be just endless anger.

This is particularly apparent when one cleric perceives another as successful. A friend recently posted on social media about jealousy in the movement. It does seem common that when one person gets a church building, or builds a parish there are numerous people ready to tear them down. Now, this does not mean that there is not a place for frank dialogue. I have had serious conversations with people which were not meant to harm them (although I think they were perceived that way), but were meant to be a wake up call. But frank conversation does not need to be malicious. 

This wounding behavior seems to be in our DNA as independent clergy. I, myself, am a sinner in this regard. I have said wounding things. I have tried to make amends where possible, and have left my gift at the altar to address my brethren. And I have had to shake the dust from my feet when someone will  not be converted to compassion. I hope I have learned and grown. Cruelty is never justified.

In the end, we can disagree with each other. We can have sincerely held beliefs about women's ordination, LGBT inclusion, etc. while still being charitable and without cruelty. After all, people do look to us (rightly or wrongly) to be charitable. We can be cautious about each other to protect ourselves, our families, and our ministries. After all, it seems anyone can be ordained in our movement. We can be aware of people's past while giving them a second chance (except in cases where they should be precluded from ordination). We can guard our hearts without reaching out to condemn others. We can support each other and applaud each other when someone is doing well. And we can carry ourselves as people with decorum.

“The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." St John Chrysostom.

The Last Things for Independents

One of the topics no one wishes to dwell on, unless they're particularly morbid, is their own demise. But, it is something we all eventually face. In an ideal ministry world, we receive the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction in the same tradition and there is a great deal of consistency. 

However, if you have ever been involved in the Independent Catholic or Autocephalous Catholic world, one thing you can not expect is consistency. One of the things I counsel new entrants into this wild and wonderful world is--know what you are getting into here. Do not expect that you can show up in a collar at your former place of worship and be welcomed or celebrated. This is an extremely hard journey. Often times, you are alone, reviled, ridiculed, and even at your last moments abandoned. 

This is a real concern for anyone entering the Independent world. At our last breaths, we may not have the consolation of receiving sacramental comfort from our jurisdiction of choice. I think it's telling how this uncertainty has affected us as a movement. If you look at our most prominent figures, many of them returned to their churches of origin or larger churches towards the end of their life. Archbishop Mathew remained an Old Roman Catholic but was buried by an Anglican priest. Archbishop de Landes-Berghes died a Roman Catholic, as did Archbishop Vilatte. Archbishop Carfora was rumored to have reconciled to Rome in 1953 when he became mortally ill in Texas, and there is little evidence of him acting sacramentally from 1953-1958. The Mexican National Catholic Church (which was supported by Carfora) entered the Orthodox Church in America. Even modern day Independent Catholics, such as Archbishop Thuc, died in the bosom of Rome. A notable exception was Archbishop Duarte Costa, who remained ICAB until the end.

The reality is that often times we find ourselves alone, stranded in the mission field. Sometimes our families and friends do not know what to do and call on their own religious traditions to assist us at our end. Hence, many Independent clergy are buried by whomever their family desire and sometimes without the presbyteral dignities. At other times, they can be ashamed and our ministry work goes up into the flames or becomes dust.

While this is a morose topic, that is not my intention. My intention is to bring to light the challenges that we face at the end of our time on this earth. There are, for me, several paths forward.

1. I think there needs to be a very honest discussion with anyone entering this movement about the loneliness we can face, especially at the moment of our demise. It is wreckless for a bishop to ordain someone without being truly honest about the challenges we can face.

2. It seems prudent that we make every effort to make our last wishes clearly known and plan for them appropriately. Otherwise, they likely won't be followed. 

3. It seems beneficial to reach out to other clergy in our area who could help us at our final step to seek their assistance. They could be Autocephalous Catholics or they could be from mainstream traditions. Regardless, it's important to approach these things honestly and ask the difficult questions so we know our final wishes will be respected.

At the beginning of COVID, one of my long-time friends who is a priest in another jurisdiction asked me to do his funeral if something should happen to him. It was incredibly touching to be thought of in such a way, and I was proud of him for taking his last wishes so seriously. May it be so for us all.

“Live so as not to fear death. For those who live well in the world, death is not frightening but sweet and precious.” – St. Rose of Viterbo 

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