Visiting Cleric Manners

One of the challenges of Autocephalous Catholicism is that some of us believe that our indelible mark of ordination means that we should be extended liturgical favors wherever we go. This can be problematic where there are representatives from multiple jurisdictions in one area. If the parish of, say, Saint Drogo exists in Anytown and an ISM cleric shows up, many times the cleric will expect to concelebrate or participate in the liturgy. No cleric should just expect this to happen, regardless of if they belong to a mainstream tradition or the ISM. Because of sometimes loose ordination standards in the Autocephalous Catholic world, one must be especially careful to prevent anyone from participating liturgically without a degree of vetting and care.

This is particularly thorny when someone is a bishop. They may show up with all the tat and the glamor and expect to preside at the Eucharist. Again, this is a break of protocol. It is the role of the pastor (or the Board depending on how the parish is run) to invite a cleric to preside or participate. A community sets itself up for problems if they allow just anyone to celebrate, and the bishop should not automatically expect it. Assume, if you are a bishop, that you are celebrating as a priest and leave the episcopal grandeur at home unless specifically asked. It is highly advisable for bishops to call themselves father so as not to cause confusion in the parish if they are not that parish's bishop or even with that jurisdiction.

My proposal for parishes is below. Feel free to take this advice or leave it, but hopefully it can provide some degree of protection for your community.

1. For visiting clerics, do not expect to participate in the liturgy. Assume you will be sitting in the pews with the congregation. 

2. Clergy may invite visiting clerics to liturgically participate after a period of getting to know the cleric, understanding their training and background, and defining expectations up front about frequency, etc.

3. A criminal and child abuse check should be done on visiting clerics or a letter should be provided by the cleric from their jurisdiction stating the result of their last background/abuse check and when the check occurred.

4. If the visiting cleric continues to participate to a meaningful degree in the life of the parish, it is advisable that they meet with the clergy (and/or any administering Board) to set expectations about how often they will participate, when background checks will be refreshed, clarity on identification as visiting clergy, etc. 

The above, of course, assumes that there is no issue with the community's jurisdiction regarding inviting visiting clerics outside the group or with the visiting cleric's jurisdiction about celebrating in non-jurisdictional communities. 

Not only does this protect everyone involved, but it also protects friendships and relationships between everyone involved. If someone just expects to participate, it can lead to hurt feelings and frustrations. The key, as with every human relationship, is open and honest communication.

“If according to times and needs you should be obliged to make fresh rules and change current things, do it with prudence and good advice.” - St. Angela Merici

Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Autocephalous Catholic Apostolic Lineage

Ohiychuk and Prazsky

In 988, the Baptism of Kyvian Rus occurred by Saint Vladimir of Kyiv (secularly Vladimir the Great). Ukraine continued under the Metropolitante of Kyiv under the Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1448. At this time, the Council of Moscow's Bishops appointed a Metropolitan of Kyiv without the Ecumenical Patriarch's blessing. Further changes to the territory came in 1596, when there was a split among Orthodox believers. Part remained Orthodox and the remaining believers joined the Roman Catholic Church. 

In 1685, the formal absorption of Kyiv as a religious entity into the Russian Orthodox Church when Patriarch Dionysius IV issued a letter granting control over Kyiv to Moscow (apparently through simony). This status of subjugation continued until Ukrainian independence in as the Ukrainian People's Republic in 1917. At this time, the Ukrainian Autocephalus Orthodox Church was proclaimed. In 1921, an All-Ukrainian Sobor was called in Ukraine declaring independence from the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky was chosen as the head of the church Upon election, he used Ukrainian in the liturgy instead of Church Slavonic. Because of this, was was deposed by Russian bishops who also disagreed with his promotion of Ukraine and liberal views. 

 On October 23, 1921 Lypkivsky was consecrated as Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. No bishop would participate in his consecration so, in the Alexandrian model, he was consecrated by the laying on of hands of priests present. By 1924 the church had grown to 30 bishops and 1,500 priests and deacons in 1,100 parishes. However, it was not recognized because of the unorthodox consecration received by Lypkivsky and other bishops. By 1927, Lypkivsky was under house arrest by the Soviets until his execution on November 27, 1937 because of his Ukrainian nationalism.

Meanwhile, on November 13, 1924 the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregorios VII granted autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church and stated that the subjugation of the Kyvian Metropolia to Moscow was contrary to canon law. However, he did not recognize the established Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church despite appeals to do so. The church's situation changed when the Nazis invaded and took control of parts of Ukrainian territory. In 1942, in light of the 1924 Tomos, Bishop Polycarp (Sikorsky) of Lutsk (formerly of the Church of Poland) consecrated the first Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox bishops in apostolic succession. Around a dozen bishops were consecrated by 1944. As the Soviets advanced, however, those who did not escape to the West perished. 

Metropolitan Polycarp died in France in 1953 and Metropolitan Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) who was ordained by Polycarp made his way to Germany then to Canada and finally to the United States, where he settled at Bound Brook, NJ. Another bishop, Archbishop Hryhoriy Ohiychuk, formerly Archbishop of Zhytomyr fled to the United States. 

This begins the introduction of Ukrainian Orthodoxy into Autocephalous Catholicism. Archbishop Hryhoriy consecrated William Andrew Prazsky in May 1969. It has been alleged that Prazsky was ordained to the diaconate and priesthood by Walter Propheta, although Gary Ward's book lists him as a member of the Liberal Catholic Church (which is unproven; see here: https://sites.google.com/site/gnostickos/bbishopsprazsky2).

Prazsky went on to consecrate Bishop Andre Penachio who consecrated Bishop Joseph Fradale who, in 1983, consecrated sub-conditione Bishop Peter Paul Brennan (from whom many people descend). Prazsky also consecrated Alexis Nizza who, in 1999, consecrated Metropolitans Stephen Petrovitch and Michael Champion. They went on to form the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Sobornopravna). They consecrated Bishop Oleh Kulyk (Patriarch Moses) who went on to declare himself Patriarch of Kyiv and consecrated or received numerous individuals (see here: http://www.soborna.org/). 

The lineage of the UAOC entered so-called Old Calendarist Churches as well. Metropolitan Mstyslav, later elected Patriarch in 1991 upon Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union and his successor, Patriarch Dymytry (Yarema), was consecrator of Bishop Raphael (Leonid Motovilov) of Krasnoyarsk in 1996. The Russian True Orthodox Church was part of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church but left their jurisdiction. Bishop Raphael joined this group but left in 1999 to form the True Orthodox Church in Russia, and became Metropolitan Raphael and leader of this jurisdiction (see: http://ipckatakomb.ru/pages/577/). 

The True Orthodox Church of Russia later joined up with the Church of Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece under Metropolitan Angelos of Avlona. Also in the union was the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles. The Metropolia was a member of the Holy Synod of Milan, itself under the Patriarchiate of Kyiv from 1995-1996. 

Unfortunately, because of this history the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been condemned by other groups because of its tumultuous history. However, this is to be expected of a country which has been invaded numerous times and subject to frequent destabilization. As mentioned, Metropolitan Mstyslav was elected Patriarch in 1991 and in 1992 there was a Unification Synod between the UAOC and part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Part of the UAOC did not accept the unficiation and continued under Patriarch Dymytry (mentioned above) while the unified group continued under Patriarch Volodymyr (Romaniuk) and later Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko). This group, in 2018, joined the Ecumenical Patriarchate and was re-named the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Most of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church joined the OCU as well, leading to stabilization in the country of Ukrainian groups independent of Russia. 

Please note: this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. It has been simplified and reduced for space and time.

Clerical Apostasy in Autocephalous Catholicism

In the early church, there were regulations about ordaining converts too quickly. There was concern that the new ordinands would be weak in their faith or would leave the faith all together. In time, other stipulations were put on candidates, such as age of ordination at the Council of Trullo. The Church wanted to ensure that it was ordaining candidates who were strong in their faith and wise in years. The ultimate goal was to prevent scandal as well as the loss of faith by the clergy.

During times of persecution, the Church was presented with another problem—how to treat those who handed over sacred objects when faced with death or torture. The Donatists, who were condemned as heretical, said that a cleric who gave over sacred objects to persecutors did not have valid sacraments. Ultimately, the Church disagreed and said that the sins of the celebrant do not affect the validity of what is done (ex opere operato).

While the sacramental guidelines on Donatism concerned priests who avoided martyrdom, it did not address clerics who left the faith all together. The Church was initially strict on anyone who left the faith, and forgiveness was denied even unto death. However, as persecutions increased and people reverted or acquiesced to cult worship to avoid martyrdom, the Church loosened up. Despite welcoming back those who apostatized, clerics were still to be deposed. An example of this is in the canons of the Council of Ephesus (431), which indicated that those who apostatized to the Nestorians should be deposed.

With the divergent paths of the East and West, there were different views on the grace of the sacraments of clergy who were outside the church. The Augustinian view, held by the West, is that once a priest always a priest and the sacramental character remains regardless. The view of Cyprian, held by the East, is that a cleric’s orders depend on their union with the Church at large. Outside the Church, the cleric has no sacraments (although they have used economy when admitting formerly schismatic groups). Sacraments celebrated outside the Church are not licit in the West and are invalid in the East.

As I am from a Western viewpoint, I will write about the Western position. The challenge among Autocephalous Catholics is that we cannot adhere to the first two conditions of the Early Church. Almost all ordinands in our jurisdiction are converts, and if we want to have any sort of sacramental growth, we have to ordain people earlier than occurred in the Early Church. Similarly, we do not generally adhere to age requirements (within reason, of course) because they can be rigid and are not necessarily an indication of growth. Both the East and the West have granted exceptions to age requirements, meaning that while they can be helpful guides they are not set in stone.

So, we ordain people who are new-ish to our jurisdiction and they leave. The problem is less when they leave for another jurisdiction or Christian group. The bigger issue is when they leave Christianity all together. There have been several examples of this in our Autocephalous Catholic history, where someone has been ordained and left Christianity to practice another religion. Each of those examples should teach us a lesson on if there are any steps to avoid in the future to ensure such a candidate is not ordained until they are mature in the faith. Of course, we will never prevent all candidate who may become apostates. That is impossible. But we can try our best to prevent it when possible.

What we can do is prevent candidates from returning after they have apostatized. While I am of the opinion that someone who has left Holy Orders still has an indelible mark, I think it is prudent to deny them the ability to return to active ministry if they have abandoned Christianity. Of course, this does not mean those who fluctuate in their faith. We are all on a journey and some of us will explore new paths but still maintain adherence to the Nicene Creed, the sacraments, etc. There are also those who also learn what is helpful in other religious traditions while maintaining their own Christian faith. I am speaking here only of those who have publicly abandoned Christianity or formally joined another religious tradition. I stand here with the Council of Ephesus that they should be deposed and not return.

While this may seem harsh, clergy are seen as “professional Christians.” Rightly or wrongly, our example carries much sway with Christians and with non-Christians. If we give up public profession of our faith, we have abandoned our call. One can always revert to Christianity, but not as a cleric. 

 

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?'” - John 11:25-26.

Control Issues in Autocephalous Catholicism

My church believes as me,
I control all I that I see,
Titles and dressing up are so much fun,
Yet now I am but a church of one.

We have a control problem in Autocephalous Catholicism. It starts early, as my dumb little ditty says. First, we find a jurisdiction that believes (almost) everything we do. After all, we might have come from mainstream denominations that we judged had too many liberals or too many conservatives, so we want to recreate the perfect oasis for ourselves and our beliefs. Naturally, the next step is to seek ordination. Our movement is, I have argued, almost opposite to clericalism because few people aren’t ordained! Inevitably, the next step is to move towards the episcopacy. Bishop so and so wants an auxiliary, we want to ensure we have some control, the succession must be preserved, etc. There are numerous reasons for it happening. And then comes the power struggle. Over very little.

One of the tests of Independent Catholicism is that we are made up of very independent people. We all want to be in control of our own destinies. This isn’t an inherently bad thing on its own, but when we use it with the desire to rule… Well, then we fall into the quote of Saint John Chrysostom that “the desire to rule of the mother of all heresies.” Unfortunately, this is playing out in several jurisdictions I know of right now and has happen untold times in the past. In a cynical view, a bishop is ordained who then wants to be in control or the bishop in charge does not want to give up control. And a split ensues. Or, in a more neutral sense, people just can’t get along and a split ensues. The result is the same.

I think this is something we need to address. There are a couple of realities we need to face first. Ultimately, we have not been good at continuing parishes and groups past talented leadership or a generation. Since the beginning of our movement, we have had churches, some quite successful, which have come and ultimately gone because they had a charismatic pastor (until they didn’t) or had a supportive group carrying it (until they didn’t). We also have not been good at keeping groups together on a larger scale. Parishes split off or groups discontinue, leaving dioceses with few constituents and jurisdictions with few members.

We have also never been good at screening candidates who want to serve. I’m not suggesting that we are alone in this dilemma. There are plenty of mainstream clergy who want to dress up and feel important as well, lest we be condemned as such. But the essence of ministry is service, not being served. How can we call people who truly want to serve the People of God by offering the sacraments of God? And how can we find a way to support them in this role?

Some path forward: Figure out why people are joining the jurisdiction. Is it because they believe exactly what you do? Is this a good thing necessarily? What are you willing to allow in divergent beliefs before you start anathematizing each other? Next, ask candidates what they plan to do with their ministry. Hold them to that and ensure that they are doing some ministry. It does not matter if you have less clergy because you don’t want people who don’t do anything. The majority of people think we are strange anyway, so having more people doesn’t necessarily even make an impact. Is it just to dress up? Why do they want to dress up?

Then and most significantly, identify and address control issues. What is it that is trying to be controlled? Why? Does it even really matter? I’m willing to do a lot to keep communion with people because it matters. Relationships matter. We have but a short time on this earth, and it’s a pity to spend any of it fighting over stupid things.

Now, I’m not saying this is a magic bullet for us all to live in harmony and grow. But I think it is some concrete steps to identify how we can stop some of the stigma we have had since Peter Anson’s time and move forward. If we can get control of our control issues, we’ll all be a lot better off in the end.

 

“You must not abandon the ship in a storm because you cannot control the winds. What you cannot turn to good, you must, at least, make as little bad as you can.” – St. Thomas More 

Morality vs Moralizing

I recently came across an obituary that stopped me in my tracks. It was a remembrance of Father James (Jim) Doherty of Glasgow. It is hard not to be struck by the stories listed in The Telegraph about him. Hagiography or not, they provide insight into the life of what sounds like an extraordinary priest. Here is one of the stories, courtesy of The Telegraph:

His bluntness irked the bishops, but to the laity it spelt sincerity and an absence of snobbery. An oft-repeated story told of Doherty ringing up a woman who had not been to church for years to see if she would like him to bless her home. “The old priest never came to see us,” the woman said, “because of our living arrangements – you see, I’m living with my partner and we’ve three bairns out of wedlock.”

“I’m here to bless your house, honey, not judge your circumstances,” replied Doherty. “Where do you live?”

“Oh, thank you father. We live in a flat, our name is Smith, but press the top buzzer. There are Smiths below us, but you don’t want to go there because they’re a couple of poofs.”

“Is that right? Well, see, if I do press the wrong buzzer and I get the two poofs, I’ll just say: ‘Hello you two poofs, can you tell me where the two fornicating adulterers and their three bastard children live?’ ”

A characteristic act of Doherty’s was to attach an HIV red ribbon to a statue of St Vincent. And in 2005 he addressed the Scottish Parliament. “Having a morality and moralising are two different things,” he said. “My Church has been trying to get its own house in order since it began.”

This story points out an important issue: there is a difference between morality and moralizing. For us as Christians, we are called to examine ourselves frequently and even harshly. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk reminds us: "Let us examine these things and the rest, and let us look at how we live, how we conduct ourselves, how we think, how we talk, how we act, with what kind of heart we go about before the God who sees all things, how we treat one another." Our morality and ethics are how we judge ourselves.

Yet, so often we have the desire to moralize and judge others. Saint Maximus the Confessor says: "Whoever is curious to know about the sins of others or judges his brother out of suspicion has not yet begun to repent, neither does he care to know about his own sins, heavier than heaviest lead indeed. He does not know why people are heavy-hearted, take pleasure in vanity and seek after falsehood (Psalms 4:3). So, as a madman wandering in the dark and neglecting his own sins, he muses on the sins of others—either real or imaginary—guided by his suspicion. "

As clergy and laity, let us focus on our own sins and not the sins of others. There are, of course, times when things must be dealt with accordingly. Those in the church have swept things under the rug far too often. This does not mean we turn a blind eye to grave scandal or someone is being injured, hurt, or in imminent danger. In these circumstances, we have a moral imperative to stop evil from occurring. Besides the harmful actions of others, when it comes to their sins, we leave those to God who is the only true judge.

To view Fr. Jim's requiem, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPkMvmb1JwI. To read the obituary in The Telegraph, view here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2022/01/21/fr-james-big-jim-doherty-well-loved-glasgow-catholic-priest/.

“Those who look well after their own consciences rarely fall into the sin of judging others.” – St. Francis de Sales

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