Yesterday, I wrote about the question of a priest saying Mass on his own – whether it is because he considers the Mass as some kind of private magical prayer, or because he wants to participate in the communion of the Church in spite of being isolated from the particular church he belongs to as a priest.
Going one step further, what do we think about a priest who is no longer in an ecclesial community? Does he cease to be a priest? Does the reason for his estrangement make any difference, for example because he wants to be a priest for himself or because his Church disintegrated and he has nowhere else to go. There are all kinds of permutations, like a priest having a congregation but no Bishop, or vice versa.
The theology and canon law of the Eastern Orthodox tradition is troubling, as found in this interesting article – Theological Aspects of Order in Byzantine / Orthodox Canon Law. My own reaction on reading this was “What a lot of baggage!” Where is the simplicity of the Gospel? Roman Catholics are known to be legalists, but the Orthodox are formalists. The Pharisees were pious Jews in their time, and aimed for holiness in their prayers and observance of the Law, but something of the spirit was lost. We are also no longer living in a time when priests can decently treat their wives in the same way as Muslim men treat their spouses and daughters in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia!
I take it for granted that my own future as a priest is uncertain, but I would appreciate constructive comments to build a development of this theme. There are several priests in the world who have been ordained in the TAC, or have “taken refuge” there, and have been left in difficult situations because of the recent changes. I read in a private letter from Archbishop Prakash that he and the TAC College of Bishops under his Acting Primacy are determined that no priest should be left without episcopal oversight unless he has decided to join another Church. This is an eminently pastoral attitude that no one can ignore.
We certainly need to study the question of priestly ministry. In Christian countries, priests are naturally charged with parish ministry and given the Cure of Souls. In other countries, the Church is persecuted, so pastoral ministry takes other forms. The notion of the worker priest is of interest as the clerical institution of the Church alienated the working class from the parishes. There is also the idea of a “contemplative presence” among people who are not Christians or practising Christians. Teaching and writing are also forms of ministry, but do they justify a man being a priest? Should the Church be dioceses / parishes with buildings and institutions – or nothing?
Let us discuss these questions, and I would be happy to hear from priests in difficult situations, either on the blog or privately. Let’s get it out in the open!
The Blue Flower 
“Roman Catholics are known to be legalists, but the Orthodox are formalists.”
Largely true, that, especially the Byzantines. Less true of the Oriental Orthodox. This is one reason why I wish to see Anglicanism, or at least a significant section of it, become an Old Catholic manifestation of the Orthodox Church in the West, fully Orthodox in faith and practice, but free, not only of Roman Catholic legalism but also of this “formalism” except when and where it is clearly “essential” if any such situation actually exists.
As to the rest of it, regarding priesthood: “Thou art a priest FOREVER, after the order of Melchizadek….”
Dear Father, I’ve always been under the impression that a priest stood in for the Bishop “in persona Christi”? Thus a priest needs a bishop to stand in his stead? This pertains primarily to the Mass but by extension I suppose to other Sacraments too? Hence “Faculties” etc? “Ecclesia supplet” I think is for literally “in extremis” situations rather than a “coverall” for canonical irregularity?
I will ask you a concrete question, and the hypothetical case is not my own. A priest is ordained and incardinated in a Church and that community dissolves through the death of its bishop or some other cause that is not the fault of the priest. He is in a way “orphaned”. He has no bishop. Should he cease forthwith all priestly functions until he finds a new bishop?
You are a priest of a Church that is considered by strict Roman Catholics as a false entity deceiving the faithful and not qualified to be considered a Church like, for example, the Orthodox or the Union of Utrecht before they started ordaining women. What are the criteria by which an Old Roman Catholic Church, etc. can claim to be Catholic? Being in an ecumenical dialogue with Rome?
Please understand that I am not trashing anything. I am seeking for clarity of thought and honesty. Rome would call your Church irregular. Who would you call irregular? Where is the line drawn?
Before joining the ALCC, I found myself in this situation – as a bishop! The rest of the (then) Holy Cross Anglican Communion literally dissovled. People started dropping out and joining other groups; it was chaos. I was lost, and I am not one to start another “jurisdiction” just because I can.
I say this, because for me it was a matter of asking “by whose authority was I made a priest and bishop?” Granted it was by the grace of God, but for what purpose and under what authority? These are questions I believe each priest must ask himself when he finds himself alone. For me, I felt I needed someone else to be accountable to – other than simply God.
I don’t really think it’s a matter of denominational identity, or a matter of who is really Catholic (or Anglican, or Lutheran, or…). Rather, it is a matter of being obedient to the way I understand Christ set up His Church. I have to be accountable to someone else, whether it is another bishop or a congregation of laity.
Needless to say, I would make a lousy hermit monk. 🙂
+Ed
Fr Chadwick,
The episcopate is, always and everywhere, the essential Apostolic ministry, and the priest is the bishop’s delegate and always functions as his delegate. St Ignatius said “let that Eucharist be accounted valid which is offered by the bishop, or by him to whom the bishop has delegated it.”
In the case of a diocese that is widowed, the authority that was given to the priests by the late bishop is still valid until the new bishop is elected and consecrated. If the diocese is not only widowed, but so isolated from any other dioceses that it is not possible to elect and consecrate another bishop, then one has to question whether or not an actual Church still exists. So it’s not so much “finding another bishop” as it is finding another properly-constituted local Church to be a part of.
So it’s not so much “finding another bishop” as it is finding another properly-constituted local Church to be a part of.
Sorry not to have been explicit, but this is precisely what I mean by “another Bishop” – the Church of which he is a Bishop.
As you know dear Father, from your own experience, anybody not in a canonically regular position with Rome is regarded by Rome as “irregular”. What has been interesting of late ref the TAC and Ordinariates is her regard for the “irregularity” of those from other “regular” denominations? As I seem to remember reading here somewhere or on the English Catholic, it would appear Rome would have preferred the clergy of the TAC to have remained in communion with Canterbury throughout the apostasy and seems to regard the “regular” Anglican clergy who did as more desirable?!
I now take accusations of “deception” very seriously and a certain RC blogger will soon know that, despite my charitable silence ref previous attempts to impugn my ministry. I conduct my ministry in a very open and accessible way, full information is readily available about Old Roman Catholicism through our website(s), and we have deliberately remained a member of Churches Together so that ecumenical colleagues can know us and observe us. Whilst some would rather “sweep us under the carpet” many are appreciative of our active participation and the opportunity to know and understand more about us. Our website is very clear about who we minister to sacramentally and whom we won’t. There is no reason, certainly locally, for anyone to confuse me with a “regular” RC priest.
More importantly perhaps is our active engagement and partnerships in the local community – we’re not about “Mass in the garage Catholicism” but about active apostolates addressing the needs of our urban society with all its various issues. We are partners in a homeless project, outreach project and a mental health project and are firmly committed to “living the Faith”. That witness is credible, real and proof of our commitment to Christ together with our daily Mass offered in a public space and internet broadcasts reaching hundreds of souls per month. We’re about as “regular” a church as an “independent” outfit might be without the advantages of historic legacies and benefactions! We’re not materially rich, but we can sustain a public worship space and ministry that is observable and appreciable. Perhaps that’s why I/we get so much “stick” from those with all the advantages of being “mainstream” but who for some strange reason see us as competition?
“Catholic” – yes, I believe we are. We believe we have valid Sacraments and have enough “evidence” to support such belief for most enquirers. Its rather boring to go into “all that” (as you know) but we’re not stupid when it comes to Sacramental theology and believe we fit all necessary criteria both for Western and Eastern* appreciations. We teach the Catholic Faith – perhaps with a more contemporary and pastorally sensitive approach compared to other orthodox Catholics – but our teaching is wholly Apostolic and traditionally conservative but includes a great dollop of charity to ease and coax troubled souls as they spiritually grow and develop in faith rather than club and judge the sinners we’re called to save. We can appreciate everything doctrinally previously agreed between Old Catholics and the Orthodox (which you have been good enough to make available elsewhere on this blog) and yet resist the relatively recent doctrinal quirks of the PNCC (which interestingly you haven’t addressed yet, at least I don’t remember you doing so).
Re “canonical regularity” we’re as regular as the next church – we try to behave as “canonically” as possible re our internal discipline and we try as much as possible to follow recognised canonical “norms”. Do we desire an accommodation with Rome like the Ordinariates? I think the jury is still out on that as everyone watches the rise and fall of the dust. We’re certainly no more or less “irregular” than any Continuing Church from Anglicanism, which of course we claim doctrinally similarly to be ref “Old” Roman Catholicism. Do we desire communion with Rome? Yes, of course, ultimately, but we’re still content with the old “probably not in our lifetime” scenario and happy actually to leave the doctrinal discussions to the Orthodox with Rome; when they reach an accommodation or an understanding then we would have to address such ourselves. Meanwhile, we have and are developing our ecumenical dialogue with the Holy See, which is something better than nothing.
Ultimately, I don’t think you can beat St Vincent of Lerins’ definition of what is “Catholic” and ancient ecclesiology seems clear that priests co-operate with a bishop. In a perfect world there would be one bishop for any given geographical area and a college of priests co-operating with him. We don’t live in a perfect world though and unfortunately must work with what we (for a variety of reasons) believe we have to. Should a priest who suddenly finds himself without a bishop, cease to act sacramentally until he find another? I would have to answer “yes” to that. But that’s only my very humble and perhaps naive opinion?
[*There was an intercommunion, still technically extant, made between the Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria of 1911 and our (much maligned, misrepresented, though we appreciate naive) forefather +A H Mathew which has never been formally revoked and which included a grant of autocephaly. We’re all too aware of the unfortunate characters and history of the past – no church is without blemish – but in recent years a great sorting of the “chiff from the chaff” and a greater desire for mutual co-operation between ORC jurisdictions provides an opportunity to perhaps revisit and refresh this covenant. No doubt the detractors will be many, but would a genuine desire by churches recognisably distinct yet in traceable continuity from the past and orthodox in faith and praxis be waived out of hand? Who knows until we try. But arguably and technically we’re not historically “irregular” as far as one “lung” of the Church was concerned having been previously granted autocephaly. Messed up? Yes, regrettably so. But then Continuing Anglicanism seems to have made all the same mistakes again… and has never achieved an accommodation with any historic See.]
I have written a posting about all this on New Goliards.
The hypothetical is very interesting and very knotty. Perhaps this is the practical reason for being in communion with a Primate or Patriarch (of whatever type), and a part of its reason in the early Church? If a priest’s own bishopric ceases function, he remains in some sense linked to a bishop.
I think the question is inherently sacramental: is the priesthood a fully coherent thing in itself, or a kind of incomplete episcopate, conferred for convenience? If the former, then the priest cannot function on his own; if the latter, then certainly the parish remains a functional entity independent of a bishop and bishopric to oversee it, I think.
Father Chadwick, I don’t wish to deprive anyone of the oxygen for commentray on this, but I will comment briefly if for no other reason than to encourage priests and others to discuss these difficult but important questions, as you have requested.
The issue, as I see it, might be expressed in practical terms: how can I best fulfil relationship with God and others?. How we answer that question depends on how we understand the character of it: is the Kingdom realised through relationship with others? Is the kingdom relationship indicated by the harvest of love, generosity, affirmation, forgiveness, (perhaps more importantly,ready-to-forgiveness), co-suffering, empthay, sympathy, practical help, respect? Is “priesthood” all these things?
I suspect so. We can rightly speak of the “baptismal priesthood” which I take to mean the commitment to all these things contingent upon the acknowledegment of one’s baptism.
But what of the sacramental dimension of the Christian life? That is, the notion that certain forms and words make visible the grace or power and light of God. What are the sacraments? Ultimately they are a set of rituals that express meaning or reflect experience at critical aspects of human life:- when we are born and embrace faith; when we acknowledge our fault and limitation; when we desire communion with each other; when we grow into strong, mature adulthood; when we marry and take on the awesome responsibility of loving another human being; when we dedicate ourselves to bringing grace to others whatever their condition, and finally, when we .sicken and die. A sacrament for every occasion.
The sacraments may, from one angle, be a little arbitrary, being based on things contained in the Gospels in not so many words. It is not so outlandish to imagine that there might be more. But the bottom line is that sacraments become, by consensus and tradition, “holy” spaces and moments. Thus we get the notion of “priest” – “sacerdos” – the holy makers. Whether they are elected by a community or appointed, by a bishop, priests serve…..others, a community, however small. Perhaps the community is virtual, remote, by correspondence. It is the service relationship to others in the interest and aim of holiness that I think makes the priest, not the training, not the garb, not the “success”.
For this reason, arguing whether priesthood is ontological or functional, or whether it is linked formally to a church or not, is, I think, the wrong focus. I conclude rather that priesthood is as priesthood does. There is nothing wrong with a vagans priest until the point is reached where the interest of the vagans priest becomes or is paramount or central. In that sense, I think it is correct to say that priesthood makes no sense without community.
But we do not have control over the environment, however much we are capable of destroying it. Once we insist that a priest needs x or y number of supporters, we reduce the notion of priesthood to something vague. On the contrary, I think priesthood is very real, and can be abiding in all circumstances, and something a person can feel and sense and act out existentially, in their very root of being and individuality. But that latter sense is not something which a Bishop can instil or produce; it is something that lies and is born very intimately between a person and God. I don;t think it is something that separates one person from another, as the Roman Catholic emphasis on ontological difference would have it.
These are some of my thoughts about this question..
.
Dear Father,
I think the ideal is, obviously, that there is a bishop who supplies faculties and from whom the priest draws his sacerdotal ministry. As you and Bishop-Elect Lloyd note, this has been the tradition of the church and the priestly ministry is dependant on the apostolic ministry of the bishop.
However, these are also very different times. I have seen traditional priests that have found themselves without a bishop because their own local bishop is adverse to their traditional sympathies. They also feel that they cannot be in communion with their local ordinary because of (perceived) heresy, etc. The converse is also true, as I have seem progressive priests in the same spot. This seems to be the new norm in a lot of ways. This presents a number of problems, the first being the lack of ability to ordain to perpetuate the sacraments within the congregation. The second is the issue of Confirmation, although this is less problematic given that Orthodox and Eastern Rite priests have been confirming for years now.
It is acknowledged that in the larger movement of independent jurisdictions that there are a great number of scoundrels and charlatans. This is most unfortunate, but it naturally follows when you have less of a “weeding out process.” They can be dictatorial, inept, or downright cruel in some circumstances. I don’t think this absolves a priest from searching for a bishop with whom he can draw his sacramental ministry, as to totally disdain the office of bishop makes one a congregationalist. However, I also think that there can be a situation in which the Church can supply jurisdiction. Modern times have taught us that Christ sometimes acts outside of the institutional jurisdictions to meet the needs of His people.
I think you are in a particularly curious position, given your past history. You will never be truly a vagante priest.
Just my .02 cents! Or pence, as it were!
Thank you for the sympathetic words. You have understood.
When a priest finds he cannot be under an episcopal jurisdiction, the answer is to stop functioning as a priest or get consecrated. Thus bishops breed like rabbits.
But, bishops need to be in an episcopal college or synod, something that constitutes an autocephalous Church. Bishops cannot be acephalous (without a head) any more than priests. I would say that three bishops who truly represent and lead communities with priests and laity could legitimately constitute an autocephalous Church – and never mind if other Churches do not recognise it!
“You will never be truly a vagante priest“. It depends what we mean by being vagante. One man’s regular priest is another’s vagante – or there is something more objective like belief in the Church, education, I don’t know what – once you’re excommunicated from Rome…
Pingback: Absolute Ordinations Revisited | As the Sun in its Orb & New Goliards