|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Schismatic mini-churches and wandering bishops
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Over the past century and a half there have been countless little churches with their own bishops and frequently unstable or even nonexistent congregations. The ones that use the Roman Rite call themselves Indepedent Catholic and similar churches exist that use Anglican and Orthodox liturgies.
These churches generally believe in the Augustinian concept of Apostolic Succession - that if someone is validly ordained a bishop by someone who was validly ordained a bishop and so on going back to the apostles their sacraments are valid even if the church they are being ordained to lead only consists of their house or a rented space in a strip mall (or if they're lucky a rented chapel or church), possibly one or two parishioners that may be friends or family, and perhaps a legal entity as well. But their their little local church is still part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, they say.
In addition to discussing these independent sacramental churches in general and the wandering bishops (episcopi vagantes - or whatever the Latin is) that lead them (and often split from them to form their own).
Small evangelical churches spring up all the time but something just seems really incongruous to me about an Independent Catholic Church of the type described above. Their justification for their schism from the larger communion seems to be over issues like divorce, birth control, women's ordination, homosexuality, etc, (many are liberal but there are other groups that are so conservative they make the Society of St. Pius X look liberal). As such they seem to be full of Cradle Catholics who have become disaffected with their Church but not with the Catholic Mass (and for whom the Episcopal Church, despite its similar worship style, does not seem appealing for whatever reason).
It just seems odd to buy all the vestments and sacred vessels you would find in a normal Catholic Church to say Mass in a strip mall or someone's house. I don't want them to stop using chasubles or to use anything other than precious metals to hold the Body and Blood of Christ, but the whole combination just doesn't fit together for me. I admit that I am biased towards pretty buildings and recognizable institutions.
My question is, if it is ok for people who simply cannot in their consciences assent to the teachings of their church to join another denomination (I know many would say that is not ok but let's assume it is), is it wrong to join one of these mini churches? I want to say yes but I think the reason I have my doubts is that they were started by either clergy who felt that they could start a church better than the one they had supposedly given their lives and total obedience to, or by laypeople who felt they could skip all of the scrutiny of a seminary education and seek someone with apostolic succession to ordain them? Ok some independent Catholic Bishops are very careful about who they ordain - but the whole process of discerning vocations still seems to me to be way too informal and too prone to attract people wanting to au dress up.
I must confess that I am a Roman Catholic man married to another man who is an Independent Catholic Bishop. I met him when I was in RCIA (I had only been baptized Catholic and was not taken to church as a kid) and was confirmed in his church before changing my mind, telling the priest running my RCiA that I was gay, confessing my schism and my homosexual acts to him and being confirmed as a Roman Catholic.
Now I admit openly that in the RCC's leaders eyes I am a heretic, given what I believe about the dead horses and other issues. I am still in the RCC though, at the same gay friendly parish I have always been going to (my RCIA was with a conservative priest away at university). I have been a leader in my parish's gay and lesbian ministry until recently and am still a part of that group.
My husband was actually never Roman Catholic. He was raised High Church Anglican in Australia but attended every church you can think of as a teenager. He studied comparative religion and psychology at university, spent time at an ashram in India, became involved in natural medicine and new age spirituality, and later became a Uniting Church in Australia minister. All this time and up to now though he has earned his income in a successful business career. He married a woman who also turned out to be gay and they divorced six years later. He considered the Catholic priesthood but a Jesuit priest recommended he look into Independent Catholicism instead. Now he is presiding bishop of a church that has all of its parishes far away from where we live. He administers them from afar and flies down for clergy meetings and Holy Week. He does not say mass where we live - he did at one point before a schism that divided his church in half but not many people came and it was hard to find priests to fill in she. He had to travel for business. When I was looking for a place to have a priest friend marry us I found a Lutheran Church willin to let us rent the space. When our priest friend said he could not celebrate the wedding because his television job would not approve we asked the Lutheran church's pastor to celebrate and she did. Now instead of not going to church at all while at home, he goes to that Lutheran church, although he does not believe in Lutheran teachings.
I guess I wonder whether I should encourage my husband to try to start a parish if his church up where we live and whether I should help him with it. I would in effect be excommunicating myself even if I continue to go to RCC Mass but my questions is more along the lines of whether small independent churches are illegitimate and wrong not because of their schism or heresy (which I would not call heresy in most cases) but because of their lack of institutional-ity or organizational formality, etc. I don't want to feel like I am part of some club that puts on a performance of the liturgy in a rented space. I don't know how a schismatic group makes people like me feel that it is legitimate.
Thoughts? You can talk about similar groups that have split from the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, too, if that us what you are more familiar with.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I guess I should clarify that it was to poor attendance and the difficulty finding priests to say Mass on Sundays when my husband was traveling for work that made him stop saying Mass where we live (long before he met me) and that the schism in his church happened much later over some political stuff that I am not sure even my husband understands.
As another clarifying note, most of my husband's priests are former Roman Catholic priests or seminarians whereas my husband as I said was never RC to begin with.
And if anyone figures out from all this who I am it my husband is, please respect our privacy and don't reveal it on the Ship.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
I´m not sure if I understand the whole story, but... why don´t you join one of the existing gay-friendly denominations, or maybe evangelize people in your area in order to make a proper congregation. A bishop without a congregation seems rather pointless.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
For some reason, this reminds me of a friend, a missionary, who was speaking at a church while on furlough.
When the service ended, someone came up to him, introduced himself as the Global Director of a missionary organization, and took him to meet the European Director.
After a few minutes of conversation, my friend realised that these were the only two members of the organisation.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
I would in effect be excommunicating myself even if I continue to go to RCC Mass
You are already excommunicate latae sententiae for purporting to contract a gay marriage.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Gosh, how very tangled.
I think Gorpo is on the right track: see if you can find something fairly local(ish) that you can both identify with and that sees being gay as a fact of life, rather than something to be judgmental about.
Whatever you decide, good luck and I hope you find a satisfactory solution to your problem.
CL: whether or not you or the RCC recognise the fact is immaterial - they are married. I sometimes wonder if "good Irish" people realise just how many "good Irish" men and women choose to live elsewhere in the world because they can't stand the stifling censorious, hypocritcal environment at home in the island of Ireland. Particularly ironic given the scale of the abuses of every kind and at every level in the RCC of Ireland.
How you can speak about someone being excommunicate for contracting a marriage ... the RCC would do better to excommunicate people like bishops Eamonn Casey, Eamonn Walsh, Ray Field, Donal Murray, Jim Moriarty, not to mention Cardinals Brady and O'Brien.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My question is, if it is ok for people who simply cannot in their consciences assent to the teachings of their church to join another denomination (I know many would say that is not ok but let's assume it is), is it wrong to join one of these mini churches? I want to say yes but I think the reason I have my doubts is that they were started by either clergy who felt that they could start a church better than the one they had supposedly given their lives and total obedience to, or by laypeople who felt they could skip all of the scrutiny of a seminary education and seek someone with apostolic succession to ordain them? Ok some independent Catholic Bishops are very careful about who they ordain - but the whole process of discerning vocations still seems to me to be way too informal and too prone to attract people wanting to au dress up.
Stonespring, do you mean you want to say 'yes, it is okay to join one of these mini churches'?
Assuming that's the case, I personally think it's fine to join such a church but then I'm not at ease with the concepts of both clergy and church as institution. If someone feels what they'd describe as a prompting from God to start a new church, then I'd say go for it. I don't think there is inherently more danger and risk with an autonomous church than with a church that is part of a bigger institution. The dangers are different, that's all...
Mind you, in my way of seeing things 'starting a new church' could simply mean gathering with a group of friends to pray, read the Bible and help one another share the gospel in their communities. For people who aren't keen on the institutional model of church, this is perhaps the only way they can find church while being true to their beliefs. I don't think it'd be fair to tell those people they are schismatic or what have you; it's better to put the positive case in favour of belonging to a multi-church institution.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the disconnect comes, South Coast Kevin, not from a Protestant sensibility, where it's 'ok' to go off and set up a new church with your mates - but from within a Catholic paradigm which takes a dim view of schism per se.
So what these splinter-groups from more 'Catholic' settings are doing is something rather more serious than it would be in a Protestant one.
If you and some of your pals set up a church in a hall near you, you wouldn't necessarily be saying, 'We've got it right but the rest of you can sod off ...'
But in a more Catholic kind of setting there'd be more baggage attached - 'I'm the True Bishop here, I'm the one who is really in Apostolic Succession ... the rest of you have missed the mark over [tick issue as appropriate]'
So there's a different resonance at play here.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the disconnect comes, South Coast Kevin, not from a Protestant sensibility, where it's 'ok' to go off and set up a new church with your mates - but from within a Catholic paradigm which takes a dim view of schism per se.
Yeah, absolutely. I realise my context is very different from stonespring's but I thought it might still be useful or interesting. And I loathe the word 'schism' so wanted to give a more positive angle. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
I would in effect be excommunicating myself even if I continue to go to RCC Mass
You are already excommunicate latae sententiae for purporting to contract a gay marriage.
Other than the "purporting" part, he's probably correct. Not that I like it, mind you.
It might be time to shake the RC dust off your shoes and commit to a church that you can embrace more whole-heartedly. Like your husband's. Or something.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by stonespring
I guess I wonder whether I should encourage my husband to try to start a parish if his church up where we live and whether I should help him with it. I would in effect be excommunicating myself even if I continue to go to RCC Mass but my questions is more along the lines of whether small independent churches are illegitimate and wrong not because of their schism or heresy (which I would not call heresy in most cases) but because of their lack of institutional-ity or organizational formality, etc. I don't want to feel like I am part of some club that puts on a performance of the liturgy in a rented space. I don't know how a schismatic group makes people like me feel that it is legitimate.
Only you can decide whether and, if so, to what extent you should encourage your husband to start up a new parish. I don’t see that it would be illegitimate, its not as if he’s going to advertise or name it as being Roman Catholic or Church of England (or similar), is it?
As for a lack of organisational structure or formality – well, many people might see that as being only a good thing, and you could describe all churches to some extent as having the feeling of a “club” to someone who hasn’t been before.
If your husband decides after thought and prayer that this is the way forward in all sincerity and faith then that genuine sense should be perceivable by others. Don’t call yourself a schismatic if you feel the Spirit is moving you to take the journey with him: “schismatic” and “heretic” are man-made labels.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
"Latae sententiae" basically means "automatically." There are not a lot of offenses with a latae sententiae excommunication attached, and I am not sure that contracting a gay marriage actually is one of them.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Hi CL,
To avoid debating the dead horse issue of the morality or permissibility of same sex marriage, I will only discuss this in terms of canon law.
I may have excommunicated myself in terms of canon law long before we got married by persisting willingly in what is defined as a mortal sin, committing formal heresy, etc. etc. I am not sure if canon law mentions entering into civil same sex marriage to be incurring a large sententiae excommunication. if there is mo such law there probably will be soon. I think the automatic penalty is associated rather with attempting a sacramental marriage as a marrying party or as celebrant with improper (ie, same sex) matter. There is also the matter of marrying outside the church and I do not know if that incurs automatic excommunication or not. If our Indepedent Catholic priest friend had celebrated the marriage we would I guess have been guilty of simulating a sacrament with improper matter so I guess that could be automatic excommunication. The Lutheran Pastor who celebrated our wedding told us she did not believe marriage is a sacrament. Granted, I do believe it is although I believe it is dissolvable (there's some heresy for you). I at the time thought about making sure the prayers she used were worded so as to be more like a blessing of a same sex union than a religious marriage but in the end we did not do that. We got married, it was a Christian ceremony, she said marriage, husband, etc, in the ceremony so if that means I was excommunicated then that is what happened in terms of canon law. The wedding occurred in late 2011.
As a side note I should mention that my then RC pastor whom I spoke with before our wedding, my new RC pastor, and the RC priest I see for confession all have not mentioned anything about our wedding being sinful or causing us to incur excommunication and have rather expressed their happiness, best wishes, and at least in the case of my current pastor outright approval. Of course that does not mean anything - we all know how rampant disobedience is in the priesthood - and I think that if there was a sentence of large sententiae excommunication it was wrong of them not to tell me - not that that would remove me from culpability.
That said, let's put the dead horse back in its stable and talk about what my OP was really focused on.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
More notes worth making.
My husband's Independent Catholic Church does not claim any more legitimacy than the RC Church or than any other church with apostolic succession. They're not sedevacantists or anything like that.
Even if I come around to believing my husband's church isn't just a bunch of people playing dress up or (as the RCC leadership would describe it) much worse, my husband may not be willing to found a parish up where we live. I seem to be much more concerned that he is a bishop who hardly ever says Mass than he is. Maybe he could be convinced to do it if I really nag him about it, but his work schedule would mean I would have to do a lot of the organizing of things (I am a layperson and intend on staying that way!)
Finally, this is purgatory not therapy. I appreciate all the advice but this thread is to discuss the legitimacy (and perhaps the viability as well) of independent sacramental/apostolic-succession claiming churches. Let's do that.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough.
I don't know much about independent Catholic Churches, except that they exist - nor do I know much about Churches such as the Uniates over in Eastern Europe - who, I believe, are essentially Orthodox but owe allegiance to Rome(if that's the right word). There are also Eastern Catholics who are different to Roman Catholics, as far as I understand it, yet who aren't in communion with the canonical Orthodox.
I'm also aware that there are non-canonical Orthodox Churches which aren't seen as kosher by the 'official' Orthodox. I don't know much about these either, but understand from Orthodox friends that some of these can be rather odd indeed - trying to 'out-Orthodox' the Orthodox over petty issues and niceties. Some can even be quite cult-like in tone.
Equally, there are others which are non-canonical but otherwise 'normal' - their only distinguishing feature that they aren't in communion with a 'proper' or kosher Orthodox bishop.
My own impression, though, of the kind of 'episcopi vagantes' type independent Catholic or Catholic-style churches is that they can be pretty eccentric. In the UK at least, they used to appeal to a particular form of ecclesiastical hobbyist who would set up his diocesan HQ in his garden shed and call himself Bishop of Glastonbury and Heirarch of Nether Wallop or some such and go around in startling vestments even though there was only him, his brother-in-law, a half-deaf old lady and his cat in his congregation.
I'm sure there are others which don't fit that stereotype. Your husband's might be one of them.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
stonespring, I'm having difficulty seeing exactly what your objection to small jurisdictions actually is. If it's merely that they're small and worship in rented spaces, then frankly it's just snobbery and you should get over it.
My objection is to the fact that the bishop of this jurisdiction/diocese is not functioning as a pastor in his own area. A bishop who is not celebrating the sacrament on Sundays and Holy Days (minimally) is derelict in his duties. I don't buy the excuse that nobody shows up; if nothing else, you could show up and serve him at the altar, or if there's no canonical prohibition of private Masses, he could celebrate on his own. If his jurisdiction is that moribund, perhaps he should consider a merge with a similarly-inclined group, or closing it down entirely.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I think there is a clear difference between the schismatic groups that claim more legitimacy than (or at least compete for legitimacy with) the larger more established group that they broke away from, and those groups that break away due to an irreconcilable difference over modern social issues but still recognize the full legitimacy of the group they left. The first group of schismatic groups includes sedevacantist Catholics, Old Calendarist Orthodox, Continuing Anglicans, etc. Groups in the Anglican "Realignment" like the ACNA are somewhere I between since they petition for recognition by the larger communion as a replacement for the groups they left (The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada). The Society of Saint Pius X is also a special case since the claim to be guarding correct liturgy and correct doctrine until the Vatican ceases to be led by people who have succumbed to the "errors" of Vatican II - they claim loyalty to the Pope but express that loyalty by defending what they feel is vital to the Church even when that defense requires a certain punt of disobedience. Then there are the Old Catholics of Utrecht (different from the so called Old Catholics of the English speaking world, which Utrecht does not recognize), who believe the Vatican has fallen under heresy by defining Papal infallibility but still believe the RCC to have valid sacraments.
There is also the Polish National Catholic Church, founded because of difficulty obtaining permission to use Polish in the Liturgy but otherwise conservative on most social issues except clerical celibacy, divorce and birth control. You could also include the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil (the source of my husband's apostolic succession), founded as a precursor of sorts to liberation theology and the Married Priests Now started by excommunicated and Laicized archbishop Malingo (with ties to Rev. Moon's Unification Church) as other schismatic groups that at least had a former RC bishop as their founder.
I am not particularly interested in discussing any of these. I am interested in the groups that might have their lines of apostolic succession from one if the above groups but today consist of clergy that usually have to work at secular jobs to earn a living and who have to try to build up congregations from the ground up. These groups are small and have an alphabet soup of different names. They tend to be small and attempts to join the together are often unsuccessful. Enforcing obedience to bishops is difficult when priests know there are countless other jurisdictions willing to take them. Getting bishops to cooperate with each other is also difficult when a bishop knows he or she can always leave to start a new church. And being dependent on the secular world for work makes it hard for priests to devote themselves to their parish (and avoid having to move for work). Some priests manage to make a living doing weddings and funerals for Catholics who do not want to follow the rules needed to have their services done in the RCC, but this seems like simony to me (of course you could always call the income optional donations to the church).
I am unconvinced about the validity of apostolic succession outside of a historical diocese. I know that there are Orthodox bishops in the West and vice versa, but in both cases you have a historical connection to territorial jurisdictions that have existed since the earliest days of Christianity. I guess you could say I feel more comfortable with a Ptolemaic definition of apostolic succession (one of a network of succession that you can't just break away from) rather than a linear Augustinian definition where valid succession can exist in the isolation of schism. I guess you could argue for the validity of the Polish National Catholic Church's orders (supplied by the Old Catholics of Utrecht) because Utrecht at one time was an RC jurisdiction that got separated from communion with Rome by the Reformation (prior even to the Infallibility dispute if the 19th century). The whole idea if starting up a church ex nihilo with only a sheet of paper saying your lines of succession just seems illegitimate to me even if I can't say why. That said, my husband is convinced his ordination is valid and I feel bad thinking that he is fooling himself.
As for my husband, I agree that, if he is really a bishop, he should be saying Mass and evangelizing where he lives and not just going on trips to run things for the far away parishes he administers. I think he is a monastic at heart (he was gojng to join an independent catholic monastery when i met him) and only agreed to be presiding bishop (he already was a bishop) because he was needed and there was no one else willing to fill the role. Now several years later there is still no one else willing to fill the role and he is tired of all of the personify conflicts and eccentricity that characterizes independent Catholicism. He thinks that monastic life with its stability in one location and with set rules for living together would work much better. In fact he has even thought about adapting the Rule of St Benedict so that it can work for married couples and people with secular jobs. However, rather than promote this vision of true Christianity as a worldwide scattering of independent monasteries each with its own secular oblates in the outside world, he seems to think it is too late for him to try something new (he is 49 and I am 28) and he should focus on save g for retirement now or else medical and other expenses of old age will bankrupt us once he becomes older. (We do live in the US after all.) If we won the lottery he would found a monastery (not sure what we would do about monastic celibacy. Let me just say it would be no problem for him!)
In addition to all that I think I wouldn't feel at home as an Anglo-Catholic, Luthero-Catholic or in some other gay friendly church. I also think I will continue to attend and support the RCC and work to change it no matter what else I do. But pretending that I will ever be able to fully participate in the RCC without relying on the protection of liberal priests feels like a lie. If I am already excommunicated or will soon be anyway, even if I believe I should not have been, am I lying to myself each time I receive communion in the RCC or act as a leader in its lay ministries? It certainly feels that way. And don't mention gay reform movements like Dignity and Quest. They basically are setting up their own denomination and writing their own liturgies while still claiming to be fully RC. That seems hypocritical too. But again, this isn't an advice thread, so let's get back to discussing whether the small independent sacramental churches I have mentioned are really legitimate and viable or whether they are fooling themselves.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
They're fooling themselves.
I realise that my Charismatic Evangelical Anglican fellowship is the worst apart from all others. I'm no schismatic and they'll have to have me jailed or sectioned to stop me coming. And they won't. The via media is enshrined. A lesbian couple with children are joining us with the conservative vicar's blessing. I'm just SO impressed at everybody concerned.
Someone used the term 'abomination'. He WARNED them not to ever again
Hold your ground stonespring. That's our calling.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865
|
Posted
The OP might find this book helpful. The review on that page is from a well-regarded scholar of the "independent sacramental movement," who is himself a bishop of the ISM.
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865
|
Posted
That said, I'm not sure what prevents your husband from retiring from active service and living out his religious life saying private Masses and the Office at home, while you continue to assist at RC Masses as your conscience dictates. He can even adapt the Rule for life as a householder, as many Oblates do--and as a bishop, he can approve of that rule for himself. Even if no one is there to serve or assist at his Masses, they are linked spiritually to his brethren in the ISM, for whom he will likely continue to offer them.
Aside from that, well, you've answered your own question--you see more sense in the Ptolemaic notion of valid orders than the Augustinian one, and you have little interest in joining a non-RC parish. You also find yourself with a lot of GLBT-friendly priests and parishioners. Grow where you are planted, and let His Excellency do the same.
[ 09. May 2013, 21:11: Message edited by: Extol ]
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Extol,
I think I've seen that book on the bookshelf of a certain Independent Catholic that lives in New Jersey...of course there are probably a number of such people.
I guess one source of tension in our family is the my husband thinks that I think the RC is more legitimate than his. He hates that I give money to a church that believes what is taught about gay people and that actively campaigns around the world to keep our marriage from being legally recognized.
Anyway, enough about me.
Martin, why do you think Independent Catholic clergy are fooling themselves? My husband, for example, never was RC so he didn't "let the bad guys win" by pushing him out of any church.
I guess one things that annoys me about independent Catholicism is that no efforts ever seem to succes to unite it into a global denomination. What is so important about being independent and having clergy who work at secular jobs? There is definitely a sizeable niche of people who feel completely alienated from the RCC. And the Episcopal Church and simar churches, although they have the pretty buildings (a very important thing for me), don't seem to be serving the majority of them (although they do serve a significant minority). There are a lot of unchurched people too who see the Catholic conception of church as more appealing than other ones but are put off by the RCC for one reason or other. Why don't they start polling their money, building churches, founding seminaries and universities, etc? That takes a
a lot of money but the way to get a lot often is to get a lt of enthusiastic congregants and the way to do that is to evangelize. And as long as each new church has to come up with some crazy name that hasn't been used before such as the North American Continental National Apostolic Catholic
Church, Inc. (I am sure that name is taken already), that isn't going to happen. I think that although there was a serious downside to when the Church acquired the legitimacy f imperial power there was also a serious and possibly even bigger upside and that is institutional coherence and continuity. No independent Catholic Church seems to have those qualities in a way that is capable of outliving its current leaders, in my opinion. That frustrates me.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I guess one things that annoys me about independent Catholicism is that no efforts ever seem to succes to unite it into a global denomination. What is so important about being independent and having clergy who work at secular jobs? There is definitely a sizeable niche of people who feel completely alienated from the RCC. And the Episcopal Church and simar churches, although they have the pretty buildings (a very important thing for me), don't seem to be serving the majority of them (although they do serve a significant minority). There are a lot of unchurched people too who see the Catholic conception of church as more appealing than other ones but are put off by the RCC for one reason or other. Why don't they start polling their money, building churches, founding seminaries and universities, etc? That takes a a lot of money but the way to get a lot often is to get a lt of enthusiastic congregants and the way to do that is to evangelize.
I come from a very different theological background from you, but I was struck by your assumptions as to what a church movement should look like. Perhaps as a Catholic you have a firm image of church-as-institution in your mind. But that's not how church has to be. In fact, in the modern Western world that form of church is probably in the process of dying, and recreating new churches according that model surely isn't wise.
Lessons can be learnt from the house church/cell church/organic church models. Look into how these models have been used - even in the RCC - to develop Christian communities in the developing world. They're far more sustainable than what's been created in the West: big, top heavy denominations that are now in the long-term process of managing decline.
And surely, the purpose of evangelism isn't to raise money to open seminaries, universities and grand church buildings, but to see people become followers of Jesus Christ! The early church grew rapidly without any of those other things!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865
|
Posted
I second that. Many members of the ISM have no interest in the trappings of respectability that you favor, and are fine with being a decentralized, anarchic movement--Dr. Plummer once likened the ISM to the "Temporary Autonomous Zones" envisioned by the philosopher Hakim Bey.
This matter of respectability also gets us back to your question about orders. Respectable church jurisdictions question the validity of ISM orders, and some members of the ISM internalize that and go to great lengths to argue for their validity, their attempts to be recognized by this or that respectable Communion, etc. Others are not interested in proving their validity to people who are not disposed to recognize it, and just get on with the practice of religion. Even if we could objectively answer your question, and say no, these orders are not valid according to Roman/Orthodox/Anglican criteria, some ISM bishops might well say, so what?
So, you two will have to figure out how to answer that question, and what that answer means.
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
stonespring: Over the past century and a half there have been countless little churches with their own bishops and frequently unstable or even nonexistent congregations. The ones that use the Roman Rite call themselves Indepedent Catholic and similar churches exist that use Anglican and Orthodox liturgies.
These churches generally believe in the Augustinian concept of Apostolic Succession
I don't know an awful lot about them, but in the Netherlands there are churches within this description that have existed for decades, and that are quite respected.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
ISTM there's a difference between a.) breaking away to found your own church, and b.) joining such a church once it's already been founded.
a.) I can see is problematic from a Catholic point of view. On b.) though, ISTM many people join congregations for reasons that have little to do with that congregation's doctrine, history or praxis.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
I would in effect be excommunicating myself even if I continue to go to RCC Mass
You are already excommunicate latae sententiae for purporting to contract a gay marriage.
Comment on the rules here - I've already made it in the Styx.
For the record, although very well known foreign language tags are likely to get a pass, our normal guideline is for Shipmates to use the English translation or, if you want to use the tag because it's customary, provide the tag and translation yourself.
Google renders it as "sentence (already) passed" with the implication, as Zach says, that it is automatic as a result of actions.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair enough.
I don't know much about independent Catholic Churches, except that they exist - nor do I know much about Churches such as the Uniates over in Eastern Europe - who, I believe, are essentially Orthodox but owe allegiance to Rome(if that's the right word). There are also Eastern Catholics who are different to Roman Catholics, as far as I understand it, yet who aren't in communion with the canonical Orthodox.
I'm also aware that there are non-canonical Orthodox Churches which aren't seen as kosher by the 'official' Orthodox. I don't know much about these either, but understand from Orthodox friends that some of these can be rather odd indeed - trying to 'out-Orthodox' the Orthodox over petty issues and niceties. Some can even be quite cult-like in tone.
Equally, there are others which are non-canonical but otherwise 'normal' - their only distinguishing feature that they aren't in communion with a 'proper' or kosher Orthodox bishop.
My own impression, though, of the kind of 'episcopi vagantes' type independent Catholic or Catholic-style churches is that they can be pretty eccentric. In the UK at least, they used to appeal to a particular form of ecclesiastical hobbyist who would set up his diocesan HQ in his garden shed and call himself Bishop of Glastonbury and Heirarch of Nether Wallop or some such and go around in startling vestments even though there was only him, his brother-in-law, a half-deaf old lady and his cat in his congregation.
I'm sure there are others which don't fit that stereotype. Your husband's might be one of them.
Uniates (this term is politically loaded nowadays) are Eastern Catholics; they are Eastern Churches who either restored communion with Rome or never broke it.
The non-canonical Orthodox Churches are primarily either [/i]popovtsy[i] Old Believers who split from Moscow in the 17th century, and Greek Old Calendarists.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
I would in effect be excommunicating myself even if I continue to go to RCC Mass
You are already excommunicate latae sententiae for purporting to contract a gay marriage.
Comment on the rules here - I've already made it in the Styx.
For the record, although very well known foreign language tags are likely to get a pass, our normal guideline is for Shipmates to use the English translation or, if you want to use the tag because it's customary, provide the tag and translation yourself.
Google renders it as "sentence (already) passed" with the implication, as Zach says, that it is automatic as a result of actions.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Hmm, I'd have expected the term latae sententiae to be reasonably well known.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair enough.
I don't know much about independent Catholic Churches, except that they exist - nor do I know much about Churches such as the Uniates over in Eastern Europe - who, I believe, are essentially Orthodox but owe allegiance to Rome(if that's the right word). There are also Eastern Catholics who are different to Roman Catholics, as far as I understand it, yet who aren't in communion with the canonical Orthodox.
I'm also aware that there are non-canonical Orthodox Churches which aren't seen as kosher by the 'official' Orthodox. I don't know much about these either, but understand from Orthodox friends that some of these can be rather odd indeed - trying to 'out-Orthodox' the Orthodox over petty issues and niceties. Some can even be quite cult-like in tone.
Equally, there are others which are non-canonical but otherwise 'normal' - their only distinguishing feature that they aren't in communion with a 'proper' or kosher Orthodox bishop.
My own impression, though, of the kind of 'episcopi vagantes' type independent Catholic or Catholic-style churches is that they can be pretty eccentric. In the UK at least, they used to appeal to a particular form of ecclesiastical hobbyist who would set up his diocesan HQ in his garden shed and call himself Bishop of Glastonbury and Heirarch of Nether Wallop or some such and go around in startling vestments even though there was only him, his brother-in-law, a half-deaf old lady and his cat in his congregation.
I'm sure there are others which don't fit that stereotype. Your husband's might be one of them.
Uniates (this term is politically loaded nowadays) are Eastern Catholics; they are Eastern Churches who either restored communion with Rome or never broke it.
The non-canonical Orthodox Churches are primarily either popovtsy Old Believers who split from Moscow in the 17th century, and Greek Old Calendarists.
In light of the host's previous post:
Popovtsy means "priested" as opposed to bespopovtsy meaning "priestless". The latter are Old Believers who went far beyond the pale believing the entire Church to have apostatised, apostolic succession to have ended and the Antichrist to be reigning. In some respects they are the Eastern equivalent of extremist Protestant millenarianists. The odd story that rears it's head every once in a while about families discovered in the most remote parts of Siberia who have no knowledge of the outside world and whom the Soviet Union by-passed completely are almost always bespopovtsy.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
CL
The Styx is the proper forum for querying that policy, or my interpretation of it. Feel free to open a thread there.
[Thanks for the clarification of popovtsy. That was not known to me (though your Latin tag was), so I'd taken Old Believers to be Gamaliel's translation.]
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Stonespring I feel that the problem which you have explained to us is more your problem rather than that of your husband.
You have said several times that you wish to remain as RC and that is good.Of the supposed more than one billion RCs there are few ,myself included,who understand clearly all of the doctrines of the Church,there are even fewer,myself included,who are able to follow them in their entirety.Many people think that there are only sins concerning sexuality,but we all fall short in so many areas and that is part of the imperfect condition of human beings.Do not think of yourself as a heretic or even a schismatic if you are unable to give full assent or to follow in its entirety the teachings of the Church, the important thing is that you try.
You say that you have a husband,whom you presumably love and find some sort of fulfilment with.You must try to reconcile your love for your husband with your love of God and your wish to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church.
As far as the independent Catholic churches are concerned,they are very obviously NOT part of the visible organisation of the(Roman) Catholic church
but I get the impression that this does not bother your husband,don't let it bother you either.
I don';t know anything about the Jesuit priest who indicated to him that he should join an independent Catholic church,but have you ever thought that the priest was very aware that what your husband wanted to do or be, he could not do within the (Roman) Catholic church.One simply cannot become a bishop and then find parishioners.
Your husband must do what he thinks best.If he is sincere in his trying to serve God,the Good Lord, who knows all our weaknesses ,will not hold it against him.
You,in the meantime, are right to maintain your links with the visible worldwide Catholic church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The non-canonical Orthodox Churches are primarily either [/i]popovtsy[i] Old Believers who split from Moscow in the 17th century, and Greek Old Calendarists.
There are also a fair number of non- or semi-canonical Orthodox churches that have split away for political reasons, generally because they see themselves as representative of a country that has declared independence from whatever other country their metropolitan would otherwise be located in.
e.g. the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, and I believe there are similar bodies in Macedonia and Montenegro.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Communion without obedience is toxic, in my opinion and life experience. I can say that my disobedience of my bishop and the Pope is justified by my obedience to the Church or to Christ. That is nonsense that turns 2000 years of teaching on its head. The fact that I am not able in good conscience to obey my bishop or the Pope about so many key aspects if moral teaching either means that I have not been properly taught (not true), that I am a heretic (which the RCC leadership would say) or that the human part of the Church is very very sick. I can try to help heal it but little healing will occur in my lifetime. I still fail to understand how anyone can make a difference in the church when the ability to Change things is dependent on obedience. Look at the Saints who challenged Popes or even were excommunicated for a time, you may say. Did they challenge authority about sex? (The lady who died rather than have an abortion and the girl who died rather than allow herself to be raped do not count.) No and no one who does will ever become a saint for centuries if ever.
The culture of acting first and asking questions letter has become cancerous in the RCC. The rules exist only to punish undesirables when it is convenient. Even those in authority do not follow all their own rules about liturgy, and fail to punish countless people who are close to them. This is a horrible legacy of the rule of men rather than law, of royal court style of ingratiating oneself to those in power. But the Pope is a man and he can change Canon Law at any time, you might say. The issues of morals I disobey over are ones that countless Popes have said are irrefromable - divinely revealed and not in their authority to change. And yet they fail to consistently enforce their own irreformable rules even in the cases when they have the resources to enforce them out of a warped sense of being pastoral. Avoiding controversy and alienating the masses by neglecting to enforce rules you say are part of the eternal deposit of faith is not protecting the Church's ability to reach people in the modern world - it is protecting your own office and comfort. If a rule cannot be enforced consistently without deafening the people to the Gospel message then the rule is wrong. It was never part of the eternal truth. It takes a prophet type personality to see that. And as long as we have pastoral popes like the current one who bend rules to reach out to people the Church will consider to get sicker and sicker.
So, as I said, communion without obedience is toxic. The opposite extreme, obedience to yourself and no one else, is psychotic. That is Independent Catholicism a the most extreme level and sadly does exist in some places.
My question is, if staying in the RCC when It feels like dying a slow death and when I know nothing important will change no matter how many protests I organize, what is there to do?
Independent Catholicism on its current forms feels like egomania. Joining any other denomination feels like a lie. And staying in the RCC is like swallowing moral poison every day. I need to be somewhere where I can OBEY someone other than myself and my own interpretation of Christ's teachings.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Oops. When I said the culture of acting first and asking questions later, I meant the culture of acting first and asking permission later. Most Catholic laypeople where I live do and believe whatever they want knowing they won't be punished and simply avoid putting themselves in positions where the Church can force them to do anything. (A priest can be found that will let you do almost anything, especially if you have the time and money to look around.) as for the priests, almost all f them I know have five different faces depending on who they are talking to. This includes the liberal prophetic priests I know who occasionally get into trouble because even they know who gives them food shelter and free medical care.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Sorry if I used hellish language in my invective. I won't do it again. I already said cutting myself off fully from the RCC is not an option. I guess my choices are somehow being both an RCC and an Anglo Catholic (if I can stomach that) or both being an RCC and an Independent Cstholic (and deal with the discomfort from all the dress up parties they call Mass) or continuing as an RC in liberal parishes that wink at the rules (which makes me sick) and living life in exile from ever feeling like I believe grand am accepted.
On a note more germane to the discussion of Independent Churches, The Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts-Schori once said in response to the secessions occurring in her church that it was a very old theological argument that schism is even a worse sin than heresy. How Anglican of her! That is one reason why I think I might never belong in the Anglican Church. But maintaining communion and paying lip service and nothing more to obedience when there are irreconcilable differences over essential issues of doctrine (and yes, sexual morality is essential) in order to avoid the greater sin (structural sin? Social sin?) of schism is an interesting idea.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
