Authenticity

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges of this movement is that some people are drawn to a lack of authenticity. This ties in, somewhat, to my post related to hypocrisy. But I think the issue of authenticity relates to a macro scale.

I joined the Autocephalous Catholic movement at the tender age of 16. Since then, I have done my very best to document its history as well as become an expert on the theologies and figures of the movement as a whole. From studying the movement for many years now I have noticed some consistent things about the movement. These are not academic observations just just commonalities I have discovered:

1. Lay people are often attracted to "Roman replicators" because the liturgy is familiar and it is akin to going to St. Mary's down the street. This can be problematic for clergy who like a particular liturgy or have attached themselves to a certain ethos to differentiate themselves from Rome.
2. There is not a lot of jurisdictional "buy in" from lay people in terms of keeping a jurisdiction going. They may identify as "xyz Catholic" but typically they will just call themselves Catholic.
3. The most difficult thing in this movement is keeping a parish going. Most communities do not survive the charismatic founder stage.
4. There are a lot of clergy and jurisdictions that say one thing but reality is very different. In my experience it is the honest clergy and jurisdictions who are the most successful.

The purpose of this post is regarding observation 4. My experience has included a number of jurisdictions who say one thing but practice another. Unfortunately this typically describes entities which are very conscious about other people's thoughts. This can range from proclaiming to be traditional but actually being open to esotericism, proclaiming traditional morality while priests live with "roomates," and even being open about the crazier side of their history. While this information is tightly stored away we find that it was rampant throughout the history of our movement. Some of our most prestigious forefathers pastored Unitarian churches but were apostolic bishops, or dabbled in Esotericism, or were divorced/remarried, or were thought to have been celibate but had a wife and children,  or had any number of personal foibles they may not have wanted others to know.

In many ways this is why I admire some of the more unique entities within our movement. There are groups which have elected their own pope, reshaped their theology, or otherwise differentiated themselves from Roman Catholicism to make them completely unique. What is curious about these groups is that they seem to have staying power. They attract a distinctive following and they generally stay after the leader's demise. I'm not proposing we all go out and elect a pope, but historically it is notable how some of our most successful brethren (or sometimes we may want to say barely cousins) are those which are themselves and who own their individuality. Look at, for example, the Liberal Catholic Church which has 100 years under its belt. The same is true of the Philippine Independent Church and the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, which have each adapted themselves to their local situations and individual needs. There are many other smaller groups which have demonstrated their own staying power because they crafted something truly novel.

Now--a word of warning. Just because groups are authentically themselves does not give them license to do whatever they want. There must be some provisions to prevent falling into cult-like behavior, harming others, or generally completely embarrassing the rest of us. I am a big believer in the professional image of the clergy. We may have inclusive, broad, or even quirky views, but we can't allow that to cause scandal to others. If you're sacrificing animals on your front porch--it's a problem. It is enough to state one's case and be honest about your convictions while maintaining social and legal mores. 

It also does not mean that there is not a place for "Roman Replicators." There are many, many people who are served well by them and who provide sacraments and support to those who can't find it at their home parish. In fact, these groups are often our most numerically successful (as noted in point 1). While the moniker is "Roman Replicators" it is not limited those closely tied to Roman Catholicism. It can be "Constantinople Replicators" or "Canterbury Replicators." There is truly a place for them.

But it is apparent, as I look through my own ecclesiastical history and the churches where I have been committed, that it is those with an authenticity that is uniquely their own charism which continuously outlive the founders. Not always but can. This is true when clergy are themselves and are honest about why they joined the movement in the first place. Because they were authentic in where they felt the spirit calling them. Sometimes our ministries are for an hour, or a day, or a year, or even a dozen years before they end. And that's ok. But sometimes they do last generations. And that's ok too. This is not a road map for success, it's merely built upon my observations of the entities with the longest histories and the people who built them. May we all have the ability to be our authentic selves. 

"Be who you were created to be, and you will set the world on fire!" St. Catherine of Siena.

The Sacred and the Secular

As we end the month of June, I have noticed social media covered in pictures of churches festooned with LGBT pride flags. For me, this is problematic because any secular symbol in the sanctuary is problematic. This is not about LGBT equality and I do not believe this can be singled out to just a pride flag. This extends to a variety of items—sports team chasubles, pride stoles/flags, political statements, and even national flags. Our gathering for the liturgy is a sacred action where we come to receive the very Body and Blood of Christ. We come from a variety of backgrounds--saint and sinner, firm and questioning, committed and struggling--to receive that which gives us strength to continue. It would be different if we were a non-sacramental church where there is no emphasis on eucharistic devotion. But we gather to join ourselves to Our Lord’s ultimate sacrifice. As such we are called to join ourselves wholeheartedly to Our Lord. 

Because of this perspective, anything highlighting a secular cause or campaign is not suitable for the Holy of Holies. I am certainly sympathetic to people wanting to ensure everyone feels welcome and extending hospitality towards those who have been rejected in the past. But when we involve the secular—again be it nationalism, regionalism, a sports team, or highlighting a group—it runs the risk of politicizing or secularizing the sacred. And we’ve seen time and time again how that does not work out. So, put up funny church signs, bless the team before the big game, advertise an extravagant welcome to anyone and everyone on your website, even put things in the narthex, but please keep the sanctuary sacred. 

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” Gal. 2:20

Photo: Altar at Blessed Sacrament Church in Hollywood, Calif.

Veiling Sacred Images

Traditionally after the Vespers of Passion Sunday all statues, images, etc. are veiled in the church (except the stations). This pious custom has also made its way into people's homes where they, too, veil their sacred images. This is one of my favorite parts leading to Holy Week because our once vibrant sanctuaries now look dim and somber. There are no longer sacred images to remind us of the lives of Our Lord, His Mother, and the saints.

While this is one of my favorite customs, it is not always one of my favorite chores. As I prepared to veil the sacred images this year I had the same recurring thoughts. These included "will this be the year I die falling from a ladder?" and "how long will it take to iron out the wrinkles in these veils?" and "where did I put the veils?" It was then that I discovered that the veils I use were in bad shape and I needed to sew more. As I sat down to this seemingly tedious task the previous negative thoughts continued in my head. 

Yet as I sewed my thoughts started to turn to spiritual things. I thought about how lucky I am to belong to a tradition with such beautiful customs. My thoughts also went to how this task can't compare to the agony Our Lord and His Holy Mother endured during these weeks. Finally, I thought how fortunate I was to be able to complete this task and bring more solemnity to my little sanctuary. What started as a tedious task became a spiritual discipline, and I was joyful when I finished.

I mention this to encourage any readers to veil their sacred images during these times. This custom may have fallen away in modern churches, but it really is a meaningful one (even if it can seem tedious). Just as we "dress up" our liturgical observances during important feasts and parish celebrations, it is also important for us to celebrate in a somber way during those times of grief. This action shows those who see the sanctuary that we are preparing for a time where Our Lord will experience death on the cross. It also helps us re-live the experience of the Apostles who went from Our Lord's physical presence to seeking him in prayer and through the Holy Eucharist.

There are so many beautiful customs which have developed during this sacred time--from processions to emphasis on the stations to veiling images to burying the alleluia--each one has risen from sincere devotion. We are so very lucky to have such a rich liturgical calendar and meaningful customs to support us on our journey. So as we begin Passiontide, I hope that it is a meaningful time for you.

"The presentiment of that awful hour leads the afflicted mother to veil the image of her Jesus: the gross is hidden from the eyes of the faithful. The statues of the saints, too, are covered; for it is but just that, if the glory of the Master be eclipsed, the servant should not appear. The interpreters of the liturgy tell us that this ceremony of veiling the crucifix during Passiontide, expresses the humiliation to which our Savior subjected Himself, of hiding Himself when the Jews threatened to stone Him, as is related in the Gospel of Passion Sunday. The Church begins this solemn rite with the Vespers of the Saturday before Passion Sunday. Thus it is that, in those years when the feast of our Lady's Annunciation falls in Passion-week, the statue of Mary, the Mother of God, remains veiled, even on that very day when the Archangel greets her as being full of grace, and blessed among women." - From "The Mystery of Passiontide and Holy Week" in Dom Gueranger's "The Liturgical Year."

Images: My own chapel.

The Mass as Sacrifice

"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387])." - St John Chrysostom 

I opened this post with a quote from St. John Chrysostom because it is, for me, a perfect summary of what we believe about the Holy Mass. Unfortunately, in some quarters, it has become more common to emphasize the Mass as meal and the altar as table. While these terms are accurate--the Mass is a "Heavenly Meal" on the "Table of the Lord" overuse of them can lead to a de-emphasis of the Mass as sacrifice.

Ultimately, if the Mass is not a sacrifice then we are not emulating the commandment at the Last Supper to "do this in memory of me." True, there was in the Early Church (and still today in the beautiful custom of the Eastern Church with the antidoron) the offerings of agape feasts both closely related to the Eucharist and, later, separated from it. Yet these remained distinct from the sacrificial action which was limited to the Body of Christ (excluding, for example, catechumens) and which required baptism, penance, and other expectations.

How, then, did we get here? The reformers had some effect by their denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Still, too, did the liturgical reformers who utilized non-sacrificial terminology in liturgical revisions. This created a de-emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. While I prefer an ad orientem celebration of the Mass I don't think our problems hinge on that single issue. There are numerous ones which have gotten us to our current level of informality. 

So, then, what is the solution? 

1. Proper catechesis. Emphasize in homilies, writings, and other venues the importance of the Holy Mass as sacrifice. Train those entering the Church that the Mass is a sacrificial act. I was recently told be a Catholic convert "I became Catholic but I still don't believe it's really the Body of Christ." That is the wrong attitude, obviously.

2. Appropriate liturgical atmosphere. Even if you're renting space or meeting in a non-liturgical location you can still take steps to ensure the Mass is reverently celebrated. 1. Create an atmosphere of holiness that is separate from peoples' ordinary lives, unique, and reflective. 2. Use the best resources possible when celebrating the liturgy. This means dignified vestments, reverent materials, and proper respect for holy vessels and objects. ABSOLUTELY NO SCARF STOLES (I'm looking at you RCWP). 3. Choose music and other supportive material that emphasizes the holiness of the Mass. If I have to hear "Gather Us In" one more time... 

3. Use clergy appropriately and generously. The beauty of the autocephalous Catholic movement is that we can ordain people more easily. Find appropriate people in your community to act as deacons and priests and encourage their vocation. We don't have to utilize "eucharistic ministers" because we can foster people's vocations without the rigid strictures of the mainstream. This is not only beneficial for the liturgical setting, but the faithful have access to spiritual benefits not available from the laity (like blessing children or catechumens who can't receive the Eucharist--which can't be done by "eucharistic ministers.")

4. Emphasize the holiness of the Eucharist. It has become fashionable to receive Holy Communion in the hand. However, this, too, can do much to de-emphasize the sacrifice of the Mass by promoting familiarity. And familiarity, as we know, can breed contempt. If the Eucharist is received it can be received on the tongue with great reverence. There is less discussion about the method of receiving the Eucharist. While I prefer kneeling, standing has long been the tradition in the Eastern Church. Encouraging a bow, genuflection, or reverence before receiving Holy Communion is laudable.

5. Create a setting of prayer. In all community gatherings or other events, ensure that prayer is offered and that prayer is at the heart of the event (as it is ideally within our lives). Whether it is a parish picnic, retreat, or any other setting use it as a chance to provide reverent prayer. Also use time-honored liturgies, not those created on the fly. As I've previously mentioned--there is a reason why we use liturgies which were created and prayed by saints and within the tradition of the Church.

There are always steps that can be taken to ensure that the sacrificial nature of Mass is honored. These can be done regardless of the Mass rite itself (whether Novus Ordo, Tridentine, etc.). To some, these items may not be important. "People are starving" is a refrain heard whenever one talks about liturgy. They are starving... spiritually starving. And they are starving because of our mediocre liturgies and lack of prayerful atmospheres.

"O Priest of God, say this Mass as though it were your first Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass."

Caption: Rev. George. H. Clements giving Holy Communion, Chicago, 1973. Original caption: Holy Angel Catholic Church on Chicago's South side, 1973.

Caption: Outdoor Mass, reverently celebrated. Source unknown.

Orthodox Theology and the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute

As I have previously mentioned, I have a continual interest in Orthodox Theology. My interest stems from the lack of scholasticism found in the tradition. My theological training was primarily oriented theologically and cerebrally, and I have found in Orthodox writings a training which is of the heart. Despite this training, I will admit that I find the liturgical tradition to be esoteric and complex. This could be because it is, indeed, or complex, or it could be because I am a Westerner too set in my ways for change. Despite these feelings, I do deeply love the mystical tradition of the East.

For me, there is no place where this theology has been more developed than in Paris. In particular, the St. Sergius Institute has created some of the very best writers. These are individuals who wrote from an Eastern perspective while being sensitive to a Western audience. Since 1925 the Institute has fostered an intellectual tradition that is both thoughtful and mystical.

Despite being composed of Russian émigrés, the work produced was/is broad-minded and a bridge to the West. Much of it is focused more spiritually and mystically than within a rigid theological framework, although (as with Clement) theology still informed much of the writing. I believe we have much to learn from the luminaries of the school about how to deepen our spirituality.

I wanted to list some of my favorite writers in the hope that it will be helpful for someone. This is not an exhaustive list nor is it very detailed. There are already books, articles, and numerous internet sites about the authors below. I simply wanted to provide a very brief detail and the book(s) which influenced me personally.

Nicolas Afanassieff - Fr. Afanassieff was a priest who gained some attention because of his eucharistic theology. His emphasis on the local church provided excellent insight into the practices of the Early Church, and he acted as an observer at Vatican II. his book "The Church of the Holy Spirit" is an insightful look into local churches.

Sergei Bulgakov - Fr. Bulgakov is most noted for his Sophiology. I am least familiar with Bulgakov's writings.

Olivier Clément - Professor Clément's focus was heavily influenced by Mystical Theology. A theologian, he believed in the synergy of theology and prayer and that prayer was rooted in theology. His book "Roots of Christian Mysticism: Texts from Patristic Era with Commentary" provides an in-depth look at authentic Christian mysticism.

Paul Evdokimov - Professor Evdokimov's magnum opus, for me, is the work "Orthodoxy." In it, he provides insight into the Orthodox faith that is neither dogmatic in a Western mold but conveys the depths and richness of Orthodoxy.

Georges Florovsky- Fr Florovsky focuses, in my estimation, much on the Russian church itself. His "The Ways of Russian Theology" provides a deeper look at how the Russian Church formed both historically and in it's relationship with the state.

Vladimir Lossky - Professor Lossky was my personal favorite theologian. Lossky's focus on mystical theology culminated in the work "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church." This is my suggested book on those looking to deepen their spiritual understanding when looking East. Lossky's genius is in writing for Western audiences while not diminishing the importance of the subject. His "Orthodox Theology: An Introduction" is also an excellent starting point for those looking East. Lossky was more closely affiliated with the St. Dionysius Theological Institute which taught in French.

John Meyendorff - Fr. Meyendorff was one of the more prolific writers and, as he settled in America, luckily has much of his work in English. Fr. Meyendorff's insights into the history and positions of the Orthodox Church is still pertinent today. His book "Byzantine Theology" as well as his historical works are foundational works.

Alexander Schmemann - Fr. Schmemann's genius, for me, was in his sacramental theology. His works "For the Life of the World" and "Eucharist" are helpful insights into Orthodox sacramental theology. They offer a look into an alternative way of looking at the sacraments from the Western thought. 

"To be freed from every touch of sin and grow continually in grace, it is necessary to be rooted more and more in the unity of nature which has Christ Himself for its hypostasis. The sacrament of the body and the blood is a realization of the unity of our nature both with Christ and, at the same time, with all the members of t the Church." - Fr. Vladmir Lossky

Photo: Wikipedia, HaguardDuNord, 25 September 2010.

Progress Without Throwing Out the Baby

There is an old expression "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" meaning that just because you allow or encourage change don't also remove what is good and pleasing. I have been reflecting on this a lot among Autocephalous Catholics. I was talking with one of my dearest friends about the state of the wider Independent Sacramental Movement. This is a truncated transcript:

Me: "Does it seem to you that there are less people entering the priesthood in the ISM?"

Friend: "Yes. I believe it is partially attributable to an opening in mainstream denominations. Before we were a haven for LGBT people, women called to ministry, etc. Now they can find that in mainstream groups with the promise (although not always reality) of payment as well." 

I have long wrestled with what makes us unique. Often it is because people who could not minister in the "mainstream church" are able to find a home here. Perhaps they are divorced, married, LGBT, women, etc. My dear friend's observation is that we need to nurture that difference from the mainstream church as part of our essential charism. To be honest, in spite of how many people we have who are "Roman Replicators," that is a big part of why we exist--because there are people who can minister here who cannot minister elsewhere.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. We do need to offer a venue to people who have legitimate callings to provide the sacraments. But it does provoke the question of how this changes us in relation to our larger counterparts. If we have groups that ordain women does this even affect our relationship with Rome and Orthodoxy? Do they even care? Would they see us as "valid" even if we didn't? Perhaps we do need to be less focused on the larger, more mainstream churches.

But we don't have just an obligation to Catholicism as a universal group. We also have an obligation to the faithful we serve. If we change our sacraments in terms of who can be ordained or marry does it affect our ministry with those we serve? Do they care? If Rome is right and women, for example, cannot legitimately receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, do we then sever our apostolic succession because of our inclusivity? Or is this too selective of an interpretation because Rome, the Orthodox, etc. have continued talks with the PNCC which regards the Word of God as a sacrament?

It is not my intention to be insensitive in asking these questions, but to provide a train of thought of the many things we need to discuss more as a movement. For those who have not made sacramental changes what do they have that entice the faithful or make them different than the mainstream churches. Do they only exist because their priest cannot minister in a mainstream church? What need are they fulfilling?

A natural question, for me, is also how do organizations make changes in their discipline or polity without becoming a place where "anything goes?" This is a charge often leveled, sometimes rightly so, at the Episcopal Church. They have priests who openly deny the Resurrection as well as question the core tenets of Christianity. Although these seem to be anomalies, they do exist and (I think) cannot be replicated within our movement if we are to be taken seriously. It is worth noting that another friend rightly surmised that "Rome has liturgical and doctrinal abuses without the changes of the Episcopal Church (i.e. ordaining women, LGBT persons, etc.). So we can't reason that this change is the cause of it all."

What does the future of Autocephalous Catholicism look like in the 21st century? Is there a path that will be most successful in reaching the faithful while maintaining true to our catholicism (little c)? I am wary of so-called "big tents" because of the historic example of Anglicanism. I can't quite understand how a section of a church intended to ordain and consecrate "massing priests" while another believed that to be essentially heresy and ordained ministers to provide a symbol. A "smaller tent" is necessary for my understanding of apostolic tradition, but what that looks like is questionable. Does it include sacramental and disciple changes which will further separate us from the "mainstream" to maintain our charism or are we called to be part of the larger tradition in spite of our separation?

So, what do you think?

“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

Mitered Mayhem

Episcopal consecrations in our movement are typically mundane. However, every so often there is the announcement of one that results in half a dozen messages to me of "can you believe this" or "OMG." This happens from time to time, and I may not be writing about something recent. Traditionally they follow the same pattern. An individual who has been with numerous jurisdictions, often has started and ended several parishes and/or religious groups, and will wax philosophical about how terrible the movement is and how awful it is everyone is consecrated a bishop--until it's them. 

From experience I have learned to take these announcements in stride. It is pointless to contact the consecrator about the wisdom of the action. It's always going to happen anyway. In the past these have resulted in hurt friendships or the ignoring of the message. I know of once instance where a bishop pleaded with another not to consecrate someone in his area only to be verbally berated. And we don't always have the full reasoning as to who, what, when, or why. So, life goes on. It either ends up in the person leaving the jurisdiction where they are (because now they have the "all-powerful episcopacy"), continuing their behavior, or, ideally, rising to the challenge. 

The reality is that we in the "Independent" or "Autocephalous" world are no different than any other group. There will always be people who are chosen for the clerical state (any part of it) in all different groups where some might think "really?" I have no doubt that our Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and various other brethren see consecration announcements and think "can you believe this" or "OMG." The issue becomes when the person creates scandal-- when their behavior or actions become scandalous to the faithful. And we Christians have been very successful at creating scandal in all our various ecclesiastical entities! The only real difference is that it's easier to end up a bishop in our corner of the Church.

So, then, what is the remedy? Is it to stay silent? Is it to confront? Well, at some point it is our job to discuss in a diplomatic way if possible. If this is not received, then we have to do something more than shake the dust off our feet. We must pray. This method doesn't just apply to bishops--it's to anyone ordained where we have a concern or an issue. We must pray that their ministry is fruitful. We must pray that they, and we, are transformed by God's limitless grace. We must ask God to bless them and to speak through them. Because, after all, are any of us truly "worthy" to be ordained?

This is true of all of our clergy. I entreat anyone who is reading this to pray for us. Pray for the stumbling clergy, the successful clergy, the addicted clergy, to clergy in need, the beloved clergy, the despised clergy, the shameful clergy, the saintly clergy, and everyone in between. Just pray. And leave the rest to God.

"My dear child, you must believe in God despite what the clergy tells you." 

- Benjamin Jowett