RIP: Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware)

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants” stated Sir Isaac Newton. One of those giants is Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and I know that very few people (myself included) will ever see beyond him. Metropolitan Kallistos, born Timothy Ware, began life as an Anglican. In 1958, at the age of 24, he embraced Orthodoxy and traveled to various monasteries around North America and Europe over the period of several years. In 1966 he was ordained a priest and tonsured a monk. In 1982, he was consecrated as Bishop of Diokleia.

I first came to Metropolitan Kallistos, as did many people, through his book entitled "The Orthodox Church." Orthodoxy, to me as an outsider, seemed unreasonably complex and unintelligible. The liturgy, with its many books, baffled me as did the Orthodox understanding of the Canons. Through him, however, I learned to appreciate the context in which Orthodox theology and practice was formed. I also grew to love Orthodoxy and the tradition it represents.

My greatest admiration of Metropolitan Kallistos came, however, through his understanding of the importance of the local community. For him, Orthodoxy was no mere museum piece. It was the dynamic Body of Christ, formed by many people throughout time immemorial who were earnest and sincere. An indication of this is though his presentation from the St. Sergius Institute in 2005: "Neither an Ecumenical Council, nor the Patriarchate of Constantinople or of Moscow, nor any other Mother-Church can create a new local Church. The most that they can do is to recognise such a Church. But the act of creation must be carried out in situ, locally, by the living Eucharistic cells which are called to gradually make up the body of a new local Church" (with thanks to the Orthodox Church of the Gauls). 

Metropolitan Kallistos was also not afraid to step into controversy. An oft-written criticism of him was his willingness to be open to the gay and lesbian community. In The Wheel, Issue 13/14, Spring/Summer 2018, Metropolitan Kallistos said, in part: "This argument, however, places us in difficulty. Persons of heterosexual orientation have the option of getting married, and so in a positive way they can fulfil their erotic desire with the Church’s blessing through the God-given sacrament of holy matrimony. But homosexuals have no such option. In the words of Vasileios Thermos, 'A homosexual subject is called to lead a celibate life without feeling a vocation for it.' Are we right to impose this heavy burden on the homosexual?" See: https://www.wheeljournal.com/13-14-ware.

An image is given of Metropolitan Kallistos as a pastoral man. Through his writings, we know that he was willing to ask difficult questions while still affirming the uniqueness and call of the individual community to set its destiny. Besides Archbishop Lazar, few Orthodox figures are willing to tempt controversy by even asking questions on how modern issues affect answers to questions given centuries ago.

For me personally, my spiritual life has been enriched because of him. It was through his translation of the Philokalia, with other writers, that I learned the Early Fathers more intently and how to deepen my spiritual life. I am sad that I never had the opportunity to meet him, but pray I will after this life. May his memory be eternal!

“We see that it is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.”- Metropolitan Kallistos

Image: Wikipedia, User Narsil, 2008.

Loss among Independent Catholics

Forgive an uncharacteristically sentimental post, but please indulge me for a moment. When I entered this movement in 2000, I entered full of hope and opportunity. I was young and saw the movement as a way that I could help other people who felt marginalized by the Church. Here was a place where I could minister in the margins and meet like-minded clergy with the same mission and ideals. I thought I would stay on the same path forever, but things in my life changed. I struggled with my bishop and relied on past friendships to make changes which I felt better suited my life at the time. The break with my bishop was painful for both of us, but it was a necessary step. This break would later be healed, but it was difficult at the time.

I came away from this experience cognizant of the pain that it caused the bishop (and me). I am sympathetic to the pain that comes from having to leave an ecclesiastical relationship because it is not best for you at the moment. Fast forward a decade, and I have also seen it first hand from the opposite side. I think that is something that no one prepares you for in this movement--the realization of loss. Traditionally, in the mainstream, you enter a church and continue through seminary. You make friends in seminary that stay with you throughout your life, and you rely on each other. There will be loss--attrition, death, etc. but you still have a cohort of people with whom you are close. It is different in the Independent Movement because we are so small. Every relationship is amplified and means more in a jurisdiction and as a friendship.

I think this is what makes it so much more difficult, and there are different scenarios of loss. The first loss is often the most common--someone leaves us to become a bishop. We are trained that becoming a bishop will solve all of our problems, and bring us supreme happiness. It is exactly the opposite. Yet, time and time again I have seen someone leave their jurisdiction and sever friendships to become a bishop. I have been in that position and I am wiser now. I know it is unhelpful to look back and say "don't make this mistake," but I'm putting it out there. 

Another loss is when someone abandons the priesthood or leaves the movement entirely. I have seen this as well and it is painful. The relationship you had previously changes in many ways. Previously, you shared the same goals but they are different now. They become involved in their new community or abandon the priesthood, and there is a loss of fraternity that is deeply felt. Or, perhaps they leave to join another group. This may be good for everyone in the long run, but there still is a sense of loss even if it is best for all involved. Finally, there is also the loss of common geography. You have a kindred relationship with someone who has to move away for a job, family, etc. Suddenly the clericus that you have formed is now done by Zoom and phone calls. Visits lessen the pain, but there is little replacement for being together and "breaking bread."

I have, to some extent, experienced all of these things. Unfortunately, I have no wise words for making things better. People will come into your life for a season and will leave. They will want to be consecrated to the episcopacy, want to exit the movement, need to move, etc. Each loss is, again, more amplified because of our size. I have seen some people try to mitigate this to some extent. A dear friend of mine has released attachment from ordination. This person ordains people outside their jurisdiction with no expectation of joining, so they are a "free agent" except for mutual support. This can help mitigate loss and liability. Others do not seem to be affected by loss. They get upset or frustrated but there are no long-term effects. 

I'm not saying that everyone has to be in the same group to feel fraternity or togetherness. The ISM is full of friendships which have formed through mutual respect and understanding and not jurisdictional affiliation. What I am saying is that when that mutual commitment has been made, it can often be much more difficult than in mainstream churches when it is severed. But I do feel a duty to warn everyone who enters this movement that loss is something they will experience. It never gets easier, but at least if you know it is something to anticipate.

“Love and sacrifice are closely linked, like the sun and the light. We cannot love without suffering and we cannot suffer without love.” - Saint Gianna Beretta Molla

The Form of Consecration

I was asked my opinion on (and one question always popular in the Independent Catholic (Autocephalous Catholic) world) is on the form of sacramental rites. Ideally, I will do a series on this topic but I am starting with consecration (and to a lesser extent ordination) according to various theological writers. Traditionally, this is matter, form, and intent. For ordination, matter is the laying on of hands on the head. Intent is to do what the church does. 

 

In the Western Church, Pope Leo XII when discussing Anglican Ordinations stated: For to the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, not only were the words “for the office and work of a bishop”, etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, “Almighty God”, since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium. 1

The issue was that the Ordinal of Edward VI was invalid because the form did not discuss (for bishops) the fullness of the priesthood and, for priests, a sacrificial priesthood. The words “for the office and work of a priest" were not deemed enough to confect the sacrament.

Next, Pope Pius XII weighed in through Sacramentum Ordinis. In this encyclical, Pope Pius XII stated that the words of the preface are absolutely necessary for ordination and consecration primary to the Traditio Instrumentorum as documented by some theologians. The handing over of the instruments (chalice and paten, for example) was considered an essential part of the form by some theologians until this point. 2

Thus, according to Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII one must have the matter of laying on of hands, a form which includes the essential words of the preface and denotes ordaining to offer sacrifice, and the intent to do what the Church does.

 

The specific forms are:

In the Pre-1969 Pontifical:

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.” [“Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”] 3

In the Paul VI Pontifical:

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

The Orthodox do not have the same scholastic theology as the West and the defined matter, form, and intent discussions. However, generally the laying on of hands with the "prayer of the episcopacy" is considered the form among some Westerners: 4

O Master, Lord our God, who through thine all-laudable Apostle Paul hast established for us an ordinance of degrees and ranks, unto the service and divine celebration of thine august and all-spotless Mysteries upon thy holy Altar ; first, Apostles, secondly, Prophets, thirdly, teachers : Do thou, the same Lord of all, who also hast graciously enabled this chosen person to come under the yoke of the Gospel and the dignity of a Bishop through the laying-on of hands of us, his fellow Bishops here present, strengthen him by the inspiration and power and grace of thy Holy Spirit, as thou didst strengthen thy holy Apostles and Prophets ; as thou didst anoint Kings ; as thou hast consecrated Bishops : And make his Bishopric to be blameless ; and adorning him with all dignity, present thou him holy, that he may be worthy to ask those things which are for the salvation of the people, and that thou mayest give ear unto him. For blessed is thy Name, and glorified thy Kingdom, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. 

 

The notable scholar Dom Gregory Dix, an Anglican, states that "form should be taken as the order which was conferred... the matter is the laying on of hands with prayer to the Holy Spirit." 4 As evidence, he points to the ordination prayer of Saint Hippolytus as well as the rite of St. Sarapion. Dix states that "nowhere is there mention of sacrifice [in early sacramentaries] as the essential 'grace and power' of the sacrament." 4 Dix further states that among Easterners the laying on of hands with the prayer to the Holy Spirit is the matter and form, which are not described as such.

So, what does all of this mean? For me, it is:

1. The "matter" of hands touching the head must always be present.

2. Dix has documented exhaustively (as have other RC authors when speaking of the new rite of consecration) that the form has varied throughout the centuries and by church. However, it is in the Independent Catholics' best interest to use an accepted form to ensure proper transmission of the sacrament. If the Western Rite is used, I personally follow the Pius XII form.

3. The intent is always to do what the Church does.

 

------------

1. Apostolicae Curae, 1896

2. A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Otten, 1918

3. Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947

4. The Question of Anglican Orders, Dix, 1956.

The Golden Calf: Mainstream Recognition

“To go to Rome is little profit, endless pain;
the master that you seek in Rome you find at home or seek in vain.”

This epigram by Sedulius has been one of my favorites for years. Sedulius speaks about a pilgrimage to Rome and how it is unnecessary, but it has taken on a larger context for those in the Independent Movement. So many of us want so desperately to be validated. Like Pinocchio, we are desperate to be a “real boy.” We seek a validation from Rome, Utrecht, or any other historic see which will never come. Thus, it is essential that we find it from the people to whom we minister.

Bishop Kallistos Ware says “Neither an Ecumenical Council, nor the Patriarchate of Constantinople or of Moscow, nor any other Mother-Church can create a new local Church. The most that they can do is to recognise such a Church. But the act of creation must be carried out in situ, locally, by the living Eucharistic cells which are called to gradually make up the body of a new local Church.” Our validation is through our building up the Body of Christ, not from any external source.

We have become accustomed to being outside the mainstream. Rome basically continued to exist alongside Utrecht until the re-establishment of the hierarchy in 1853. The Archbishops of Utrecht, while giving their allegiance were treated as outsiders. They were joined by Old Catholics who were alienated by the pronouncement of Papal Infallibility and found themselves outside the mainstream. Mathew's group then separated from Utrecht and a separation of the Union of Utrecht with the Mariavites later occurred.

Utrecht declared early on that it would not recognize Mathew’s orders or anyone from Independent Catholicism. This was repeated by Christoph Schuler in 1997 in “The Mathew affair: the failure to establish an Old Catholic Church in England in the context of Anglican Old Catholic relations between 1902 and 1925.” The rationale was that Mathew did not have the support he was promised for his consecration, but Mathew informed Utrecht of this in 1908 and was exonerated. Anglicanism declared at the Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1920 that anyone from Mathew would be re-ordained sub-conditione. This was seemly under the guise that they had "the desire expressed at previous Conferences to maintain and strengthen the friendly relations which exist between the Churches of the Anglican Communion and the ancient Church of Holland and the Old Catholic Churches, especially in Germany, Switzerland and Austria."

Similarly in Brazil, Rome declared that "the Church has not recognized, does not recognize, and will not recognize [those ordained and consecrated by Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa]."1 However, this was not consistently followed with the reception of Bishop Salomao Barbosa Ferraz. ICAB was forced to change their rites of ordination and consecration because of the law prohibiting them from resembling Roman Catholicism.2 Yet, there is nothing to indicate that they are invalid wholesale or that they do not "do what the church intends."

Of course, part of the reality of these pronouncements is that no one truly recognizes each other. Since 1896, Rome has not recognized Anglican Orders. This recognition is less likely with the consecration of women bishops. Some Orthodox Churches recognized Anglican Orders, but this has also changed with the ordination of women. If and when the Union of Utrecht consecrates women, their orders will also be null in the eyes of Rome. Regarding Rome, the Orthodox do not have a unified view with some accepting their Orders and others even re-baptizing Roman Catholics. The Anglican Church considers some of the Lutheran Churches to have apostolic succession, but Rome (as of 2007) does not. Of course, Rome also states that consecrations which happened from their bishops outside of Rome will not be recognized (Milingo, Thuc, etc.) and for their part some of the bishops consecrated don’t recognize Rome (Thucites, etc.)! 

I should note that I do not think it is ill advised to to use the proper matter, form, and intent and ensure that your sacraments are acceptable in a wider ecumenical context for the benefit of the people of God. But, I understand this to be a separate issue than seeking validation. It is simply following the rescripts of larger Christianity.

I am not so naïve to think that life would not be a lot easier if we became part of a mainstream group. Ideally, there would be access to clergy, congregations, financial support, etc. that is not available in our present situation. It also would make us less likely to have schisms (although not entirely, as we have seen with Rome and the traditionalists, Canterbury and the Continuing Anglicans, Utrecht and the PNCC and Slovakia, etc.)

But I also see the reality presented. Groups joining Rome have not had the easiest time. The same is true for Western Orthodox groups joining Orthodoxy.  Both have or do experience suspicion from the inside and outside. Similarly, Utrecht would be ill advised to harm exclusivity with the much larger Anglican/Episcopal Church by recognizing Old Catholic groups in America. A desire does not translate to an easy journey or recognition.

Our movement is not easy. Every time I talk to a new candidate, I ask them “are you sure you really want to do this? It is a challenging life.” But I suppose you pick your poison. You can join with a larger denomination and lose independence but gain stability. Or you can remain and lose stability but gain independence. But, whatever we choose we have to legitimize ourselves and not look for the golden calf outside our own identities. 

1. Dr. Edward Jarvis, "God, Land, and Freedom."

2. Ibid.

A Cult of Personality

Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit a priest friend of mine. During our visit, he remarked that he is doing everything possible to prevent himself from becoming the central feature of the parish. At the time, I reflected on how mature this is and how this should be encouraged in every formation program. This is a great risk in the Autocephalous Catholic movement and once that will completely decimate a parish.

In our movement, the priest often has to start the parish. This means that there is a risk from the very beginning of making the parish about the identity of the priest. Maybe the priest is considered the venerable founder or maybe he came from another denomination and took people with him who view their activity in the movement as centered around the priest's establishment in the parish. From there, the risk can amplify. Maybe the parish priest is not willing to share duties (either because they are a workaholic, or they like doing it, or maybe they don't want to give up control) which sometimes can lead to the perception that "we would be lost without Father X." Or, maybe the priest is unwilling to get committees involved to help with certain processes. This is not in a "death by committee" situation, but where involving people would be really beneficial to the parish. Or, perhaps the priest makes all decisions come through him which makes everyone dependent on his instructions. 

The logical conclusion in these situations is that when the priest leaves or dies, the parish does as well. They have either entrenched themselves with the priest since the beginning and find it is time to move on when he does, they cannot imagine being there without him, or they have never been accustomed to doing the hard work ("father's always done that") and aren't interested in starting.

While this is directed at an Autocephalous Catholic audience, it is not exclusive to our movement. I have seen it time and time again. A Protestant church had a pastor who was there for decades and, after he left, the church endured a half-dozen interim clergy for about a decade. Other churches where the people just did not like the preaching of the new minister and left, almost closing the church. This is not a new phenomenon.

The reality is that people will always prefer a certain cleric. Maybe they prefer the pastoral style, preaching, or liturgical acumen of one individual cleric. This is unavoidable. I also realize that this does not mean that everything needs to be done without a central leader. The new model of governance seems to be the "leadership circle" where both everyone and no one is accountable. This can be truly the stuff of nightmares. A central leader is often necessary and advisable, establishing that "the buck stops here" while not being dictatorial. 

There are positive steps both clergy and laity can take in churches to prevent this from happening. Empower members of the church to take on ministries and share ownership. Let them make decisions. Establish checks and balances, such as financial oversight and regulatory oversight, to prevent scandal. Share the liturgical rota even if people prefer one cleric or you, in your estimation, "do it better." Remind people that everyone is necessary for the success of the church. Don't try to control the Spirit but trust in other people. Often times the results are "pressed down, shaken together and running over." This can be difficult. We all want to be in charge, especially in this movement. But what you build today may be gone tomorrow without incorporating at least some of these steps.

"Too many of us are lonely ministers practicing a lonely ministry." - Henry Nouwen

Morality vs Moralism

"Moralism is the last refuge of the pervert" stated Archbishop Lazar. At first, these words struck me and I was taken aback by them. But then, I thought about the roots of morality and moralism. Morality, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Moralism, according to the same, is "the practice of moralizing, especially showing a tendency to make judgments about others' morality."

What people seem to like is having black and white rules. Thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not steal. But, what if killing protects the lives of others? What if stealing keeps your children alive? Life is full of very few black and white answers, despite what fundamentalists would tell you. And, sadly, when many of them realize this it is too late. I was recently speaking with a lady whose father was pastor of a church. Unfortunately, his wife did not want to stay married and divorced him. Ultimately, he lost his job as pastor and was shunned by the church because of something outside of his control. Sometimes, things are more complicated than they seem.

How does this affect us as clergy? Well, history has taught us that we can fall into moralism easier than anyone else. We have all made judgments about others that were unkind or unfair. Our job is to share what the church teaches and each individual has to use their own conscience to dictate what is best for them and their relationship with God. To judge another is to neglect our own place as "chief of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15). 

There are times when we have to admonish each other. But, when it is done from a place of goodness the intention is different as in Rom. 15:14: "and concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another." Admonishing each other in sincerity and privacy is ideal, rather than criticizing someone for everyone to see. This does nothing but divides us and brings joy to the evil one.

“To judge sins is the business of one who is sinless, but who is sinless except God? Who ever thinks about the multitude of his own sins in his heart never wants to make the sins of others a topic of conversation. To judge a man who has gone astray is a sign of pride, and God resists the proud. On the other hand, one who every hour prepares himself to give answer for his own sins will not quickly lift up his head to examine the mistakes of others.” — St. Gennadius of Constantinople, The Golden Chain, 53-55

The Necessity of a Bishop

It has been posited that among Old/Independent Catholics, a bishop is not needed for a community.
Indeed, many communities exist as individual communities on their own without a larger connection. However, this is not an easy path. The community has to exist on its own and find a wandering bishop to ordain for it and provide episcopal services. However, it is also true that it is not easy to belong to a group in our movement. Bishops in our tradition can be untrained, despotic, and overbearing. However, this is not different from any other Church where the bishop can be difficult. I recently saw the movie "Man of God," where St. Nectarios of Aegina was treated terribly by the Patriarch of Alexandria and suffered great persecution from the Synod. In fact, Nectarios was later canonized and the Patriarchate apologized for their cruel treatment.

Despite not being easy, it is necessary for communities to have a bishop. St. Ignatius of Antioch stated in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop." 

In the early Church, there were likely presbyter-bishops and deacons who shepherded congregations. As Christianity grew, bishops became monarchical and the three-fold ministry became predominant with priests as an extension of bishops. The deacon is also connected in a special way to the bishop. Bishops were responsible for consecrating other bishops (with 1-2 others), ordaining priests and deacons, as well as shepherding the regional church. There is the exception of the Church of Alexandria who ordained their bishop through the laying on of hands of priests, but this appears to be an exception and died out relatively quickly.

In the Old Catholic tradition, Varlet provided the episcopacy to the Church of Utrecht out of necessity and the church continued through its people, clergy, and bishop. This was affirmed by the Statute of the International Bishops' Conference in 2000 which said (emphasis mine):

"[the local church is a] communion of people, which by the reconciliation in Jesus Christ and by the outpouring and the continuous work of the Holy Spirit is constituted as a unity in a given place around a bishop with the eucharist as its center."

Dr. Esser affirms "The bishop is the sign of unity in his church. The spiritual centre of this unity is the Eucharist, in which the bishop represents the crucified, risen and real present Christ in the congregation. He is the real leader of the Eucharist. The priests in the parishes actually celebrate 'only' being commissioned by the bishop and acting in his place." He goes on to state that Urs van Arx defines the specific Old Catholic charism of the episcopate being "personal, collegial, and communal." 1

Of course, this is complicated in Independent Catholicism. There are hundreds of "wandering bishops" which present challenges to organizational structures (although I do see parallels to bishops of dicasteries and diplomatic missions). But, becoming a bishop is so accessible in Independent Catholicism there are not a lot of reasons to not have some affiliation to a bishop. It is also not outside the  realm of possibility that the pastor of a large congregation becomes a bishop in the early church model, surrounded by priests (presbyters) and deacons. Or, even a loose association can be worked out where a congregation has a tie to a bishop who has oversight (even while the congregation maintains autonomy). However, for Catholics the episcopacy is necessary even when it is difficult.

1: Episcopacy - conciliarity - collegiality - primacy: the theology and the task episcopacy from an Old Catholic perspective.