The Blue Flower

I feel highly enriched by this conversation about independent sacramental clergy and their communities, and personal reflection helps me see clear.

If we see things from the institutional churches, especially Rome and those Orthodox jurisdictions interested in attracting western converts, I’ll caricature it a little for the sake of clarity, though there are nuances in reality. For the “one true” churches, you are either in or out. The Catholic Church subsists in that institution wholly and entirely, and anything outside it is devoid of grace. Usually the Roman Catholic Church is more nuanced than that in the teachings of Vatican II and more recent doctrinal statements concerning ecclesiology coming from the Vatican. In practice, when it is a matter of the clergy, the application of canon law is quite “black and white” and the authorities would almost be more comfortable seeing a man lose his faith and become an atheist than live his faith in a different ecclesial context. I have often heard it said than schism is worse than heresy! As in Erastian Anglicanism, institutional integrity is more important than doctrinal integrity. That is quite an indictment.

When dealing with separate bodies, the Roman Catholic Church has tended to distinguish between historical schisms of large bodies, including the recent example of the Society of Saint Pius X, sanctioned by excommunication for the uncanonical consecration of four bishops in 1988, and – on the other hand – marginal groups founded by small groups of clergy or individuals. This seems to be a distinction we must bear in mind. The canonical procedure is entirely different for a priest who was originally Roman Catholic, joined the Society of Saint Pius X, was ordained by one of its bishops, and then wished to reconcile with Rome. From the mid 1980’s, these ordinations were accepted as valid, and the cleric in question could be incardinated in a Roman Catholic jurisdiction without any re-ordination, even conditional. The same thing happens with a cleric having joined one of the sedevacantist bodies in the USA founded around a bishop in the Ngo-Dinh-Thuc lineage. The cleric will be judged as possibly valid but under canonical irregularities, and therefore may be received only as a layman. It is the same procedure as with all the bishops labelled as episcopi vagantes. It is also the case of a Roman Catholic who joins another church body, even a mainstream one, and wants to return. There are few exceptions to this rule. As we were taught at university, canon law is a practical expression of ecclesiology. There are also rules that govern the application of economy as the Orthodox call it or epikeia (also a Greek word) as Latin canon lawyers term it.

It is also a question of ecclesial context. There is a difficulty, that of knowing whether a very small community of laity and priests electing a bishop does or does not have the essential and ontological characteristics of a Church. The SSPX has several hundred priests, several thousand lay faithful and has money, property and a high profile. It is verifiable and tangible. Anything smaller, especially if little known, has to be checked out for these essential characteristics.

A point I have made is that the rigidity of the mainstream churches in certain matters has been the cause of schisms. Typically, the official authorities changed something that should have left as it was or introduced doctrines and changes of discipline that meant only one thing – more centralised power and control. Other schisms and dissidences have been caused by pastoral negligence or by a strategy involving driving the “problem” clergy into schism. Give someone an order he cannot execute, and then punish him for failing to carry out the order. It is the oldest one in the book! If Rome ever accepts the blame for a breakaway, it is not until centuries later and when the differences are so engrained that reconciliation becomes impossible. It was also the same in Russian Orthodoxy with the Reform of Peter the Great and the Raskol (Old Believers) in the 1660’s. Go back to the days of the Inquisition in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, and one will find hundreds of little groups of revolted men and women in their little groups. History repeats itself again and again.

This point had to be made, not to offend devout Roman Catholics, but to give the starting point from which it is possible to make an argument. Dr Tighe has rightly made the point that there have always been hundreds of heretical and schismatic groups like the Donatists, the Novatianists, the Marcionites, Montanists, Gnostics and many more. Some claimed to be legitimate churches and others remained as “movements”. In the middle-ages, there were various groups more or less radical or inspired by St Francis of Assisi reacting against the wealth and political power of the institutional Church. Later, there were the Lollards and the first Reformation movements. When we analyse it, innovations made by the “official” authorities clashed with the conservative instinct.

Dr Tighe would conclude that the number of those tiny groups would point to their being wrong and only the mainstream Church being right. The heretics and schismatics had only to return to the unity of the Church, not merely the sacramental and ontological unity of the Church but also its material, institutional and political unity maintained by some form of constraint. I see things differently. The past and present existence of these groups, or some of them, points to the notion of the main Church being inadequate in some way or lacking in the mark of Catholicity – being open to all.

These problems have to be addressed and not swept under the carpet in a puff of complacent dismissal. I believe that people become heretical or lose the faith through anger at not been heard, understood and included in a dialogue. The bitterness in some of Luther’s writings betrays this possibility. Much evil has been committed on the side of those who claimed to uphold orthodoxy and institutional unity. This process continues to this day, and it is apparent in the diatribes of some clergy in the traditionalist movement. I will merely mention the name of Bishop Williamson of the SSPX, about to be expelled.

I return to the theme of the dissident community and the dissident individual. I have seen few if any individual clerics having succeeded in building up a durable community, one that would survive the founder’s death. This, I believe, is the essential problem with many independent communities. Their theology can be difficult to discern, especially if they have done little in the way of studies of theology, church history, scripture and all the other traditional disciplines. Ignorance is very dangerous when it is the characteristic of a man who thinks he knows everything and has narcissistic tendencies. If the reason of existence of a community is an individual; this is something that is hard to accept as a church.

The individual, fundamentally, has two options – joining an established church (not necessarily the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox or the Canterbury Anglicans but perhaps a member Church of the Union of Scranton, one of the Lutheran synods or a Continuing Anglican jurisdiction like the ACC), or going it alone. If he goes it alone, the only vocation open to him is as a hermit, a solitary contemplative who exercises the priesthood in the same way as a monk in a monastery. Such a vocation, if authentically lived, can attract credibility and respect.

There is another possibility for individuals who have got themselves ordained and wish to pursue some form of ministry. Now this idea comes from the newest tendency which I have also described, a kind of sacramental emerging church movement. Admittedly, most of these churches are extremely liberal and go further in this direction than even the Episcopal Church in the USA. Even if this approach is fraught with danger, and it is not one that attracts me personally, it is something that needs to be studied. It may represent a pastoral outreach to marginal persons who cannot be reached by ordinary parochial and diocesan structures and methods. There is a notion of “niche” ministry similar to the Worker Priest movement of the post-war period in France. I think good can be done by unconventional means, and I keep an open mind.

These are the distinctions I am making to promote a sense of tolerance and understanding, a quest for justice and pastoral inclusion to the greatest extent possible, and for a multi-sided and constructive reflection. Keep the comments coming!

I can anticipate the question in some people’s minds, asking whether I have opened the flood gates and am prepared to condone the behaviour of all those who get themselves consecrated or ordained. I think I have been clear about the self-aggrandizing, the quacks and criminal elements. I have bumped into a few myself, especially in this country (France), and it is so frustrating to see a noble idea shot down by the lack of accountability that unbounded freedom can entail.

Anson dwelt at length about the eccentric and criminal elements of so many prelates and priests. This aspect dominates Bishops at Large, and he is sympathetic only in regard to the intellectual Freidrich Heiler, a Lutheran theologian who was consecrated by a Vilatte-lineage bishop. He rips the others to pieces.

It would be a mistake for me to mention any names on pain of legal action being initiated against me. That has already happened about 13 years ago when a French document forger, compulsive liar and fraud took me to court, accusing me of publishing a libellous website, which actually was published by another person. My lawyer found it simpler to argue for prescription (statute of limitations) – the site had been up for so long that in the absence of legal action, its sayings no longer constituted a breach of libel laws. The case was thrown out of court in the Cour d’Instance. The “bishop” appealed and lost the appeal. My lawyer suggested that I could prosecute him for taking out frivolous legal action against me. I declined, because law courts and conflicts are not exactly my cup of tea. Forgiveness seems the best way, and he went his way and I went mine. The man has made several attempts to join respectable churches, and I am thankful that my warnings have been heeded.

The small number of independent bishops here in France are well-documented, and various books and other publications have been written. A few are frauds and document forgers, claiming consecrations that never occurred. Others are simply quacks, offering exorcisms and spiritual healings for money. I have met one who sells blessed roses on St Rita’s day – at twice the price if they are blessed individually rather than as one of a pile of flowers. Others still are so grand in their finery out of all proportion with their humble surroundings!

So, my readers will see that I am all too aware of the sleaze factor in the independent sacramental world. From thence comes the self-defensive instinct to claim some special status and legitimacy to place oneself above the charlatans and crooks. So, we have the absurd situation of someone being considered a pariah by Rome or the local Anglican vicar, and then considering someone “under” his level as a pariah, and so it goes on.

In England, I have read about a certain number of troublemakers, whose names I will not mention. However, those in the know will guess. There is one who dresses up as a cardinal, has a group composed of bishops he consecrated or got his consecrator to consecrate. They misrepresent themselves as Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholic bishops in England and elsewhere have had to issue warnings. Another prelate in England has a Post the Host service (sending consecrated hosts through the Post to people requesting them) and numerous other eccentricities that make me cringe to read about them. It is of no suprise that Damian Thompson has picked up on this subject with his usual merciless manner of a journalist:

As it happens, we do. Let me introduce you to the loopy world of episcopi vagantes – “wandering bishops” – which is springing back to life now that the Anglican Communion is tearing itself into tiny pieces.

“Independent bishops”, as they prefer to be known these days, are men and women who have left the mainstream Churches and got themselves consecrated “bishop” by someone who claims to have authentic episcopal orders. Normally these orders will have been passed down from the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches via a breakaway group such as the Old Catholics of the Netherlands. If you have a spare couple of hours, try asking one of these bishops to take you through his or her episcopal pedigree. Trainspotters have nothing on these guys.

As a rule, the grandeur of a self-styled bishop’s title, robes and ceremonies is in inverse proportion to the size of his Church. So the Metropolitan Archbishop of Great Britain and the Colonies, Supreme Patriarch of the Reformed Western Orthodox Church (Ethiopian Rite), will devote four hours to his Pontifical High Mass in his Cathedral, otherwise known as the sitting room of No 3, Gasworks Lane, Edgbaston. Also in the sanctuary: the Master of Ceremonies (the missus) and the deacon and sub-deacon (the kids). Congregation: Hilda from next door, who will stay on for Strictly Come Dancing once the ceremonies are over.

The classic book on this subculture is Bishops At Large by Peter Anson, published in 1963, by which time the phenomenon was already a century old. Anson lovingly details the theatrical schisms that led the bishops – electricity clerks during the week but dripping with lace and gold embroidery on Sundays – to excommunicate each other in “synods” held in railway hotels.

It looked as if the amateur bishops would die out. But the internet has revived this strange hobby. I’m looking right now at the website of a gloriously bedecked prelate who used to run a dry-cleaning business.

Some of these bishops are ultra-liberal. This week I received an email from a tiny denomination run by a very pompous woman bishop and lesbian rights campaigner furiously anathematising one of her rivals. (I won’t mention names, because these folk are pathologically litigious.)

But it’s the high-camp Anglo-Catholics you need to watch. For years many have been behaving like prince-bishops in their parishes. But now the C of E wants to get rid of them, and they can’t face the discipline of Rome. So I’m expecting a number of traddies to flounce out of their vicarages to join (or set up) an outfit where they can receive the mitre that’s always been denied them.

I can’t wait. Witnessing a DIY bishop in full flow is easily as much fun as seeing some old trout dance the fandango on Strictly. A colleague once interviewed an “independent” prelate who turned up wearing a dog collar underneath a raincoat flecked with cigarette ash. “Good morning, Reverend,” my friend said respectfully.

The little chap drew himself up to his full height and replied: “Your Holiness, if you don’t mind.”

I can’t honestly say that I am surprised that such things would be said about such pitiful men. I find the language ratty and waspish, coming as it does from a conservative Roman Catholic point of view. Such sneering is just unnecessary, but this is journalism, appealing as it does to the reader’s curiosity and sense of the exotic. But, one can all the same understand why there should either be a very severe curtailing of religious freedom to all except the Roman Catholics, Anglicans a few selected non-conformist denominations and the main non-Christian religions like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism – or a new reform movement involving a return to pre-Constantinian sacramental Christianity or a “new monastic” vision.

I have Fréderic Luz’s book Le Soufre et l’Encens (Paris 1995) in which he writes about his enquiry into parallel churches and dissident bishops. Perhaps I might translate it into English if I can get the author’s permission and find a publisher to pay me for the job. Vital distinctions are made, but the stories of charlatans and antipopes are harrowing. There are a few bishops doing some kind of ministry and show signs of genuine piety and spirituality. Generally, here in France, it is not a scene I would ever want to be involved with since my own priestly ordination by one of the more genuine of those bishops and my brush with the document forger and fraud.

When things go beyond a certain limit, French legislation sanctions a category of delinquency called dérives sectaires, cult-like tendencies like brainwashing, separating people from their cultural and affective roots, making people pay exorbitant amounts of money, dividing families, breaking the law, endangering health and life, and various other questions related to life, property and rights of the human person. Cults can hide criminal psychopaths and narcissistic personalities.

This is something I have to be very clear about, and we do have to realise that – as in the mainstream churches – the good grain cannot be separated from the weeds, or the gentle sheep from the ravening wolves until the Parousia. I am sceptical about the idea some bishops have of compiling lists of “goodies” and “baddies”. If a bishop has a substantial organisation, he can say who belongs to his church and who are in communion with him according to mutually agreed terms. This is the tragedy of Christianity and human freedom as Christ desired for us in the Gospel message. We can only go by discernment, knowing the way is dangerous, knowing it is the price of liberty. Mainstream churches are generally convinced that the people who live in the boundaries of their dioceses and parishes are their “property”, or so childish and stunted that they have to be protected. Most people I know are quite critical of the mainstream priests and lay pastoral administrators they know in the parishes!

We all have to assume our freedom and intelligence. As always, it is buyer beware. There’s nothing wrong with buying a second-hand car, but at least give it a good look over first, check that it works properly or have a friend who knows something about mechanics to give his opinion before you commit yourself. It’s just the same with clergy and someone who has a religious ideology to sell or share free of charge.

A priest embarking on this journey is likely to have a very lonely and frustrating life.

Know what you’re doing before accepting that ordination!

I am continuing my series of articles and reflections on what is being termed by many as independent sacramental Christianity so that the category may include both those who are orthodox and unorthodox by classical Roman Catholic standards. At one end of the spectrum are traditionalist Roman Catholics of various “positions” and tendencies (sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, etc.) and at the other end are neo-gnostics, theosophists and the more liberal or progressive tendencies. The term seems to cover the whole spectrum on the basis that all these communities have a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons (unlike most Protestant denominations) and a liturgical / sacramental life according to traditional and modern rites.

There is a website called the Mathew Center for the Study of the ISM, dedicated to the history of the Old Catholic movement in England and other English-speaking countries. It has not been updated since last year. It has mutual links with the European- American University. This educational institution is run by Bishop John Kersey, a prelate identifying with the Liberal Catholic tradition and an accomplished concert pianist.

On the page dealing with the Arnold Harris Mathew Center for the Study of the Independent Sacramental Movement, we find a fascinating introduction to Catholicism beyond Rome. Kersey is clear about the one criterion that defines Catholic churches – the Apostolic Succession, which means bishops, the Priesthood and the Sacraments. A church can be independent from Rome, get its members to pray and hear God’s Word, but it is only Catholic if it has valid bishops. Rome would say that the canonical aspect has to be right too, but does concede some Catholicity in separated churches like the Orthodox and the Old Catholics (at least before the latter started ordaining women). Kersey is concerned to give the widest possible meaning to the word Catholic to include the liberal notion of it encompassing all mankind.

A denomination is defined as an organisation of Christian believers with a common vision and administration. In this more liberal vision, Catholicism may be expressed in any number of denominations without losing its essential ontological unity. I have used the analogy of the Blessed Sacrament – the Host can be broken up into any number of pieces, but each piece contains the whole and entire Sacrament of Christ’s Presence. That is simply a reflection of standard Thomist theology and expressed in the liturgy for Corpus Christi. It is an idea I have always found interesting in authors like Soloviev and Khomiakov in their ecclesiological speculation based on the Eastern Orthodox tradition. With my refusal to compartmentalise everything into ontologically separate packages, as the Nominalists did, I find the Catholic Church expressed often in the most unlikely places and people! Among the Catholic denominations, there is of course the Roman Catholic Church with its local and particular churches in communion with Rome, and then there are the “canonical” and “non-canonical” Orthodox Churches. There are also all the Churches that for one reason or another broke away from institutional Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy and the branches of Lutheranism with bishops and a sacramental life. There are also churches with a valid priesthood that strive for originality in a world that is tired of clerical tyranny and is affected by conditions of modernity and post-modernity. There is no longer a notion of “true Catholic” and “imitator / impostor / deceiver”, though some individuals may have bad intentions, but a Catholic ideal with any number of expressions to suit differences of culture, temperament and conditions of life.

Like John Plummer (mentioned in previous articles about this subject), Kersey has introduced the various categories he includes in the genus of independent sacramental Christians. After the Old Catholics, directly broken away from Roman Catholicism (pastoral neglect of the Archdiocese of Utrecht on the pretext of Jansenism and the definition of Papal infallibility – the growing “totalitarianism” of Rome in both cases), there are Continuing Anglicans like the TAC, the ACC and many other smaller jurisdictions. He divides the category of “non-Roman” Catholics into the three adjectives traditional, old and independent.

Roughly speaking, the traditional Catholics are a direct split-off from Rome on account of the liturgical reforms and liberal drifts of Rome since Vatican II, and appeal to the Tridentine monolith as prevailed until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. The Old Catholics come in two versions: Old Catholic and Old Roman Catholic. The former are modelled on the Swiss and German reaction against Vatican I and the definition of Papal infallibility in 1870. The latter are modelled on the Dutch Church prior to the Union of Utrecht and Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew’s rejection of some of the reforms introduced in 1910 like the vernacular in the liturgy, the abolition of clerical celibacy and the introduction of radically reformed and simplified rites based on Enlightenment principles (cf. Synod of Pistoia). Thus, Old Catholics are inspired by the Union of Utrecht as it was until quite recently, and Old Roman Catholics are similar to traditional Catholics except for allowing married priests, a vernacular liturgy and a less radical political outlook.

Old Catholicism outside the Union of Utrecht has done better in the United States than in England or continental Europe. This side of the Atlantic, independent Catholic churches suffer hostility from Roman Catholics and Anglicans, so it has always been difficult to establish a foothold and gain credibility – that together with the lack of discipline and eccentricities of too many clerics.

With most of those attracted to these churches seeking a path to ordination, their model tends not to be that of a traditional parish but rather that of a clergy union or dispersed order.

That seems a succinct way of putting it. These churches are needed by clergy and have little in the way of lay membership, because the mainstream churches have less oppressive control over the laity than the clergy. The laity can generally find their tolerant niche without leaving the mainstream churches. Kersey is realistic about the fact that many Old Catholic churches are hostile to each other, a trait that parallels the alphabet soup world of Continuing Anglicans. Such hostility, sadly, can only play into the self-satisfaction and smugness of mainstream “totalitarianism”. Many independent Catholics and Anglicans are concerned to find a new way to open the way to greater unity in diversity, tolerance and respect of difference.

There are various traits that attract interest, notably the idea of being moderately liturgically traditionalist and theologically liberal with less of an emphasis on “truth” and obligation of uniformity and compliance. Such an attitude can open the way to a bewildering kaleidoscope of individual opinions and obscure the notion of orthodoxy and Catholic unity, but it resolves many conflicts between persons and groups. The pre-Constantinian theme is also present with extremely spiritually open attitudes. That is Bishop John Plummer’s approach, with which I am brought to sympathise, tired as I am of conflict and hostility between Christians. The problem is the reductio ad absurdam. How far does inclusivity go? That is an unresolved problem. At least we can talk with each other even if we are not prepared to do same-sex unions and ordain women ourselves. But it is difficult…

Kersey addresses many other questions that people frequently ask, and the article is worth reading in its place. He has done interesting work about this subject as an academic discipline. We find the same conflicts between conservatives and liberals, but the consequences are usually splits and the birth of new denominations. It all seems complex, and ISM communities can be very unstable. Very few scholars in the mainstream have been prepared to undertake such studies, apart from Dr Jean-François Mayer of Fribourg University whose mind is extremely open and enquiring, given the diversity of his own experience as a spiritual seeker. The mainstream churches see independents as a threat, competition, and very much like the way the Inquisition of old viewed the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the Goliards and the Fraticelli. There are periods of history when small groups and sects proliferate, and there may be some constants to observe each time such a phenomenon occurs.

Independent groups exist because there is a need for them, a need that is not catered for in the mainstream churches. It seems logical. The laity are cared for in one mainstream church or another. A lay Roman Catholic who finds his church too intolerant can go to the Anglicans, or an Anglican looking for the “true church” and is disappointed with liberalism can “convert” to Roman Catholicism. People move around. Clerics go further when they find they are stricken with perpetual canonical irregularities and are convinced that the ecclesiastical equivalent of capital punishment (vindictive sanctions) in their case is unjust. Churches of clerics? Is such a thing possible or desirable? Can there not be a more pastoral approach by the mainstream churches if independent communities are so threatening?

There are several interesting articles in this website:

• About Catholicism beyond Rome
• About the Apostolic Succession and independent bishops
• Roman Catholic views on holy orders in the Old Catholic and independent sacramental movements
  

Studies on particular personalities (Word document format):

• Antoine Aneed (Antoun Anid)
• Sophronios Beshara (Bishara)
• William Montgomery Brown
• William Albert Nichols
• Joseph John Skureth

Bishop Kersey has written several books

• Joseph-René Vilatte (1854-1929): Some Aspects of his Life, Work and Succession
• Arnold Harris Mathew and the Old Catholic Movement in England 1908-52
• A History of the Old Catholic Movement in England (2 volumes)
• Two Works by Archbishop Bernard Mary Williams, Second Archbishop of The Old Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain: A Summary of the History, Faith, Discipline, and Aims of The Old Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain (1924); A Pastoral Letter for Advent, 1920

He has edited several works by Leadbeater, the Science of the Sacraments in particular. Some of these works are no longer available, and others can still be found.

Dr Bertil Persson is another fascinating personality and prolific writer.

All in all, I believe in religious freedom and the right for individuals and communities to practice their faith according to their conscience. Many of us who “feel legitimate” may be afraid of being discredited by unscrupulous abusers of freedom, imitators, shenanigans, but that seems to be the price to pay. Caveat emptor! Anyone going this way needs to tread carefully in an underworld that contains both the sublime and the criminal. There are no guarantees of anything, but such is life or the voyage of the adventurous mariner who faces a fickle sea and unpredictable weather!

We all have questions to ask of ourselves…

I have been writing a few articles recently about independent Catholicism, and Analysis of the Independents has attracted some attention from the persons running St. Rafe’s and Bože, the Slavonic word for God. As far as I can gather, in these two sites, we seem to be faced with a new, more intellectual and more spiritual tendency. My article has been reviewed in An Interesting Consideration of Independent Catholicism, and I left a comment.

What do I find in this posting? I don’t like the word indie very much. It is short for independent, and seems to be a self-description of clerics and lay Christians who identify with what has come to be termed the independent sacramental movement. The shortened word suggests what the pretty girls call Indiana Jones in the famous adventure films, or a somewhat trite and banal brand name like aspies for people who are diagnosed with Apergers Syndrome. It is very American, and I tend to be something of an old-fashioned Brit. Anyway, my opinion is of little consequence.

This subject as a religious phenomenon is a learning curve for us all. For the author of this posting, called Alexis, I seem to accept “standard criticism” of the Indie movement saying that it’s a dead end before moving onto a more open and positive evaluation of some tendencies that distance themselves from the caricatures portrayed by Anson and Brandreth and confirmed by some of the more narcissistic prelates in real life.

If we in the Traditional Anglican Communion have been tempted to look down our noses at independent Catholics and Anglicans, we are getting a taste of our own medicine in no uncertain manner. Our former Primate set in motion a sequence of events that enabled “suitable” elements to be assimilated into the Roman Catholic Church and the trash left on the beach with the wreckage. Anything other than empathy and a compassionate attitude on my part would be the pot calling the kettle black – or l’hospice qui se fout de la charité. I have heard Archbishop Hepworth criticise episcopi vagantes in the past, and I am profoundly embarrassed by some of the articles I have been reading in the blogs and Australian newspapers over the past few days! I should keep my peace on this subject, and will say no more.

What does “dead end” mean? It is the typical attitude one would find with a Roman Catholic cleric or one in the Anglican Communion who would say that the independents have no or few churches, lay faithful, education or patrimony. Therefore, a community founded by a person will die with that person. What will that person leave behind when he dies, a question we all ask in one way or another. Most of us will leave property to our children or favourite charities. Wanting to be remembered is part of our survival instinct once we accept that we are mortal.

I see all this a little like what I have discovered about Joshua Slocum, who preferred to sail alone and for no purpose other than writing a book about sailing around the world. He did serve and command as a merchant seaman and was a victim of bad luck in a sequence of double and multiple whammies. Having lost his wife, his choice was to lie down and die or to take up the challenge. Perhaps that epic voyage in an old converted fishing boat will serve as a perfect analogy of independent sacramental Christian existence!

I wrote in my comment:

What seems not to be a dead end is our spirituality and supernatural life. Independent Christian communities can be as mortal as their founders, or something passes onto a new generation. This is certainly what the mainstream churches represent or used to represent. They have generations behind them and they count of generations being before them into the future. It is quite a materialistic conception of the Church – as visible as the Republic of Venice, a saying attributed to the Counter-Reformation Jesuit theologian Robert Bellarmine.

How can something so ephemeral be someone’s spiritual home, when you’re the only bishop or priest and either living an underground existence or offering some related “service to customers” on an individual basis like exorcisms or medium readings? Many of us have been through this agony, including some “official church” priests and clergy from then more “successful” churches – successful at bringing in the laity and source of financial income, building parishes and structures, and so forth.

Part of the crisis of modern Christianity is depending on the old “worldly success” and keeping the buildings and visible symbols going at all costs. The essential message I am learning from the “indies” is that the Church is not the visible institution, or at least confined by it. The Spirit blows where the Spirit wills, and grace can be conveyed by the poorest, broken and most unlikely vessels. That is the message of Jesus when he said the first will be last and the last first.

Much energy is wasted in justifying the existence of a small marginal community in relation to the mainstream churches, which don’t want the “rabble” in any case. Saying – We are not like you but are like you and share in your priesthood provokes no end of polemics and the answer comes back, saying – You are copying us to take our faithful and our money, and you have no right to exist!

It really does seem to me that if the “indie” world has any value, and I believe some elements have, the only future I can see is indeed a kind of “secular monasticism” and a ministry of availability to the world and all who come our way.

I would certainly appreciate comments if they show compassion and empathy. Make the effort and perhaps the conversation can go wider and deeper.