Hey, those lines look, um, familiar . . .
Reminds me of an Old Catholic bishop I once knew who says Mass in his converted garage. He had the same excuse of "ministering" to Catholics who felt neglected by the post-Vatican II church. To be fair, I think the bishop I knew was much saner.
Some people will do anything for Holy Orders. It also reminds me of my infatuation with Roman Catholic traditionalism less than ten years ago now. I found it fascinating that independent priests said the old Mass in rather shabby looking buildings or converted trailers. There was a romanticism to it, one that the Holy Father's recent Motu Proprio is making more and more rare. I guess the idea of the "little remnant" is intoxicating for many people, though some have recourse to these people since they really feel that the "official" Church has neglected them.
If you Google +Jason Spadafore, you will find that every site listed includes the same comment and inquiry about the book "Communicatio In Sacris" that graced your own comments box. You will also find some hilarious vagantes outfits.
Where did you recognise him from, lukacs? Thanks for the Google heads-up.
Some people will do anything for Holy Orders.
There's a name for that I learnt from old friend Jeff Culbreath (never a clergyman), 'collar lust'. People left and right with no real calling or ministry who want to be ordained for all the wrong reasons: imagined or perceived status and/or power, to feel important.
(There's a closely related malady in the vagante and Continuing anglican worlds, 'purple fever', 'I wanna be a bishop... noooooow'.)
There was a romanticism to it, one that the Holy Father's recent Motu Proprio is making more and more rare. I guess the idea of the "little remnant" is intoxicating for many people, though some have recourse to these people since they really feel that the "official" Church has neglected them.
I don't deny that. It's related to this (but do the self-identified Roman trads realise it?)... but runs the risk of turning into this, an artificial, self-righteous ecclesiola (the 'intoxicating' aspect you name), part of what you fled in RC traditionalism.
YF, I meant his lines of consecration look familiar, as you point out on the Ancient-Future blog.
Also, just to add to what you and Arturo have said, I think there is a certain romantic and appealing quality to the "house church" phenomenon, which can manifest itself positively (like *some* of the "emergent church" or "new monastic" communities) and negatively (vagantes looniness). I read stories of the house priory run by the WRO Benedictine Dom Denis Chambault in Paris in the 1960s and I imagine that must have been an amazing community--but the trick seems to be that it was under the supervision of a stable and well-regarded ROCOR bishop who in turn ensured the priory's stability and doctrinal purity.
"Also, just to add to what you and Arturo have said, I think there is a certain romantic and appealing quality to the "house church" phenomenon, which can manifest itself positively (like *some* of the "emergent church" or "new monastic" communities) and negatively (vagantes looniness)." -lukacs
I'm not sure about romantic or appealing being a major driving force for this at least where Old Catholic/Ind Catholic is concerned. Since OC/IC clergy don't get any pay for their ministry, sometimes the house church is the most economically feasible option. I'd be cautious about judging any community by the niceness of its buildings. I've been to a lot of beautiful cathedrals with spiritually dead congregations and to some run-down worship spaces with vibrant communities---it's not about the building.
As for romanticism in general, a few months up close and personal in any regularly worshiping community will beat that out of you.
Oh, yes, the first time Jason Spadafore was consecrated a bishop by somebody, during the period when apparently he lapsed from traditionalism and checked out the left. Yes, I know some of those people (not Bishop Plummer). He was reconsecrated conditionally for what he's doing now, resuming his traditionalist ministry but now as a bishop.
And exactly: although in theory a micro-denomination that's Catholic - sound in doctrine and praxis - isn't much of a problem, in practice, and here I'll only use Bishop Spadafore's name, who other than Bishop Spadafore keeps Bishop Spadafore in line?
[anorak] 'Who Watches the Watchers?' [/anorak]
Welcome, Lyngine! Good seeing you and Carol on New Year's Eve. Good point about indy clergy but what then is the incentive for indy laity other than friendships/fellowship (again that could be part of the romance of the small including house church)? Why not simply be an Episcopalian?
Hi, YF-
It was good seeing you on New Year's too! Good question about indy laity. For me (one of the few Ind Catholics with zero need to be ordained), it was walking into a church where Mass and liturgy could be just about worship--where the focus is God, completely and totally. No worrying about being included/excluded for being lesbian or about women's ordination or all the other satellite issues---important but not necessarily central to faith---and yet distracting and painful enough to be impediment. I got tired of walking into the churches of various denominations (I was raised Roman Catholic) and having my main and continuing question be: If they knew I was lesbian, would this be an issue? I don't think that should be the first or the main question for anyone walking into any worshiping community. The main question, the only question for me in a lot of ways is: Is there where I find God? And for me the answer is the current Independent Catholic jurisdiction and parish that I'm in. It's a worshiping community where, for me, the Sacraments and prayer can be that and only that--no more, but also no less.
Although we have a weekly Sunday Mass at a local Unitarian church, we additionally celebrate Eucharist in parishioner's homes on other occasions. The house churches for me were interesting because it was the first time I had seen a community for whom the celebration of the Eucharist was so important that celebration of the Sacrament isn't confined to once a week in one place---where two or three are gathered is enough, literally. It's not about any romantic notions---we're just gathering to celebrate Eucharist--and the simple celebration of that Sacrament with other Christians holds more meaning and depth for me than any romantic notion ever could. Celebrating Mass in a house is no more or less romantic than celebrating Eucharist in a church---it's the Sacrament that's important to me, not the place.
Finally, it's the only church I've been in where one's faith is lived, integrated, and expressed at all levels of one's life. I've learned more about Christianity--its traditions, its demands, its joy--in the year I've been Independent Catholic than all the years I was Roman Catholic.
I'm Independent Catholic because it's where I find God and where I can express and live my faith to a depth and fullness I've never experienced in other churches/denominations.
Curious thing today: Coming back from Delaware, on Kent Island I came across a storefront Anglican church. (I could tell it was supposed to be Anglican because had the tell-tale ersatz Episcopal heraldry.) Well, tonight I go to look it up, and it is proving exceptionally difficult to pin down. This page lists it as a CEC parish (see under "Chester, MD"), but the ICCEC website doesn't acknowledge that there are any CEC parishes anywhere in Maryland. Maybe that's because the Maryland part of the CEC broke off to join the Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic National Churches, which traces back to Carlos Duarte Costa, a Brazilian RC bishop excommunicated by Pius XII for reasons that appear to have been partly political. But it doesn't appear in the relevant diocesan site. It doesn't seem to have to do with the group that broke off from that, either.
At the end of all this I still can't find a church that claims this place as a parish!
Lyngine: Thanks. So you found that with the indies and not a liturgical, liberal mainline church. Still ISTM you like the good side of small/house churches but I understand you're saying that's not the main point (it's not a small/house church for romantic reasons/its own sake).
Traditional Catholic churches say Controversial Issues™ aren't the main point either: all are welcome to come and pray there or at least they ought to be. I understand that often it's not so.
...where one's faith is lived, integrated, and expressed at all levels of one's life.
As you've got people like Bishop Tim Cravens I think I understand. I've found that true as well of at least some devout Roman Catholics and Orthodox.
Charley: Yes, the odyssey of the Charismatic Episcopal Church... charismatics who became do-it-yourself anglicans (they were never Anglicans) and at one point in their 16-year history got their holy orders from that Brazilian church. Just read up on the latter - apparently they've tried four times to have an American church, the first two groups spinning off on their own in the indy world. The Charismatic Episcopal Church was their third go. Until recently that seemed a successful new denomination but it just had a split (a former bishop is a Roman Catholic layman at least for now and a few churches have gone to the Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite), producing this, the Brazilian church's latest American effort.
Used to know online a former priest who left before the recent breakup; he became an Orthodox layman.
I wonder why the Brazilian church didn't join the Old Catholics.
Of historical note is the odyssey of Bishop Salomão Barbosa Ferraz, one of the Brazilian church's bishops (he wasn't a Roman Catholic priest to begin with) who later converted to Rome and was received in his orders: a legitimately married Roman Catholic bishop in recent times.
In a most roundabout way, the CEC put Per Christum on the map... A random enough blog entry on the matter lead to a forum that I got involved in and was later invited to join PC...
One of our group's number - David Zampino - is formerly a priest of the CEC who did a lot of the leg work that lead to the Brazillian consecrations. He is now teaching at a Catholic college while doing some grad work...
While they were never Episcopalians, they were a bit of a microcosm of aspects of conservative Anglicanism, making an effort to be Catholic, Reformed and Evangelical while (mostly) using the BCP.
They did a good job early on of reaching out and working with smaller Evangelical type outfits to bring them into the fold as churches, as I recall, that is how they got a presence in Estonia, and throughtout Europe via a Filipino Evangelical community that came on board with them...
I was amazed at how well they seemed to do for how long they seemed to be doing well...
There is, in the end (among many other reasons of course) something that is slightly problematic in how very esoteric Evangelicals with a vague understanding of "seven sacraments too!" can be. Invariably people will start to ask "Why aren't we RC? Why aren't we Orthodox?" or "Do we really need those if we just have Jesus?"
Coming up with a reason for why you advance a vague notion of "the seven sacraments" but are not Anglican/Roman/EO becomes difficult.
By the numbers, one could argue that they were VERY clergy heavy...
David Zampino writes here:
http://blog.ancient-future.net/2...hts-on-
cec.html
"The numbers themselves look very bad -- and when analyzed, look much worse. 4,000 persons -- 90 churches. That adds up to about 45 persons per church. Not very viable. But there's more. 6 of those congregations are cathedral parishes, which tend to be much larger than the typical CEC congregation. If we assume an average membership of 150 for those six congregations (which is conservative indeed) we're left with about 3,100 persons in 84 parishes/missions. That adds up to about to about 37 members per congregation. But it gets worse than that. Among those 4,000 people, are between 400 and 450 clergy! For 90 churches! Most members of the CEC clergy have families, and many of those families are quite large. Just assuming an average of 4.5 members per clergy family (which again is conservative indeed) and we see between 1,800 and 2,000 members of CEC churches who are either clergy, or families of clergy. That number approaches 50%. This is not viable denominational growth!"
(For the record, they are not alone in this problem... I have written about it before in another church...)
Of course I would not play the "Providence card" against better empirical evidence or more thoughtful theological reasoning or apologetic, but in the back of my mind, it always occurs to me that the utter lack of growth most IC/OC folks have might (or should) be a cause for concern among people flirting with IC/OC situations.
I am hard-pressed to point to any personalities that have been successful for generations or decades in actually creating a real and growing community. Most seem to stay in their garages until the time comes to venture out, to consecrate new bishops... who will return to their garages.
It may have been through Zampino at Per Christum that I learnt of the breakup of the ICCEC. All I can say here is my impression is for all the clerical top-heaviness you describe these charismatics and former evangelicals didn't seem to understand the objective way an episcopal church is supposed to be governed so when some personal issues came up the church split.
"...it always occurs to me that the utter lack of growth most IC/OC folks have might (or should) be a cause for concern among people flirting with IC/OC situations." -ASimpleSinner
Nope, it's 0% concern actually---because the goal isn't denominational growth. That falsely assumes that bigger is better, that bigger means more legitimacy, that denominational growth is a goal that demands my focus and time. By that logic, I should be most concerned with what is least important---pandering to what most people will "like" or find inoffensive so that they will join an OC/IC church. This is idolatry---it puts growth and numbers before God and Gospel.
The things that actually cause me concern as an Independent Catholic---how well does our liturgy place the focus on God, how well do our lives reflect the Gospel, how well do we welcome the stranger, how well do we live and love as Christian community, how well do we serve those who may find a spiritual home in an OC/IC parish, how do I do this with integrity and consistency day in and day out. These are the things I worry about most days. These are the things that matter.
Add small-o orthodoxy to that list and I say the same.
"Nope, it's 0% concern actually---because the goal isn't denominational growth. That falsely assumes that bigger is better, that bigger means more legitimacy, that denominational growth is a goal that demands my focus and time. By that logic, I should be most concerned with what is least important---pandering to what most people will "like" or find inoffensive so that they will join an OC/IC church. This is idolatry---it puts growth and numbers before God and Gospel."
Serge and I are both Eastern Christians... By and large our communities are not growing terribly (enthusaistic convert anecdotes aside, post-(Euro)-ethnic suburbia is not flocking to Byzantium...) I don't think either of us will tell you (call me out if I am wrong, YF!) a parish is only "successful" if it is bringing in the seekers left and right and planning to expand...
BUT, growth is a real and pressing concearn when you are talking about folks who are meeting in tiny chapels to establish something. I am not talking about brininging in the pricey "Church growth consultants" to turn your parish into a mega-box church... I am not saying the numbers are the only thing. Far from it.
Anyone who knows me certainly knows I have NO INTEREST whatsoever in "pandering to what most people will "like" or find inoffensive so that they will join an OC/IC church" (Interesting you would make that connection, I don't think pandering and growth go hand in hand at all.) Then again, in a smallish back-room or garage chapel among folks of IC/OC devotion, with a handful of followers if any, it is hard to conceptualize what "pandering" would be to begin with.
My concearn when I talk about growh is where are the people brought to faith in these communities? Where are their families, that in turn have children who are members, grow up, bring spouses in, have more babies... Lather, rinse, repeat.
Where are the monuments of faith - even the small chapels built by folks who said "I put this much of my income up a week to the planning and care of the house of God"...
I find it odd that on most of the IC/OC webpages and lit I have ever seen, "growth" seems to mean what new bishops we consecrated this week.
So no, I can not agree with your assesment.
I think we may agree more than may be obvious from my previous comments.
In terms of where are the people brought to faith in the OC/IC communities--mostly we draw from people who have, for various reasons, not been able to express or live their faith in their church of origin. Our parish for example (www.inclusivecatholics.org) is about 75% from the LGBT community. Others come because of conflicts due to teachings regarding various issues of marriage/sex/role of women/etc that are central to their lives and which they are unable to reconcile with their church of origin---or if they find a socially liberal church, the liturgy just isn't right for them. The specific charism of OC/IC churches is to provide a spiritual home for those for whom the mainline churches just don't work. There can be a lot of disagreement here on whether it is better to leave a mainline church or stay and suffer---I think in the end that is between an individual's conscience and God. But for people for whom mainline churches are an obstacle to faith, we can be a spiritual home. We do have families at our parish (if you look at the "News" section of the website and scroll down you'll see the pictures), but this isn't the main way we bring people to faith.
I don't frame the question so much as one of growth. I think of it in terms of ministry---I worry that people who may need us won't find us. So for me, putting advertisements in newspapers, having a table at LGBT events, etc isn't about being bigger or being sustainable. It's more about doing what we can to bring God and Gospel to people who may be looking. I don't know what this means about sustainability in the long term, but it can make a difference for those who are here now.
As for the monuments of faith 
---my partner just gave a talk at an academic conference on religious spaces within homes. About half our parish has a dedicated prayer corner in their homes with varying degrees of complexity in design. Two members have transformed spare bedrooms into chapels. These are private chapels for their personal prayer---the community as a whole meets for Sunday Mass at a UU church. One of these chapels is from a member who was once Byzantine Catholic and would be the green envy of many devout people. These are private spaces so wouldn't be necessarily seen on websites.
As for weekly income for the planning and care of the house of God---beyond the private prayer spaces and chapels (not to mention the huge liturgical book collections), all vestments, liturgical supplies, rental fees, outreach materials, charitable giving, etc is funded by a very small community with no large overarching authority providing any money. Something to keep in mind additionally is that ALL our clergy are volunteer. So they do their ministry (Sunday Mass, visiting the sick, baptism/marriage/confirmation prep, teach the seminarians, plan retreats, basically don't sleep much) on top of working a 40 hour+ week to earn their living. So it's not just a matter of weekly income, but also of weekly time donated. OC/IC communities most likely will never leave large physical buildings as monuments. However, we can build vibrant, living faith communities.
As for websites where "growth" means all the new bishops we consecrated this week...there is nothing even remotely charitable I can say about that...We are most like in agreement on this matter.
Hi again, Lyngine. That's essentially how your bishop described his ministry to me when I asked him more than a year ago. He's not about trying to compete with the big churches - he has no delusions of grandeur or inflated titles - but ministering to the people who fall through the cracks and otherwise would go to no church. I imagine other indy churches that are real - that have congregations that meet regularly - are the same or similar.
I didn't post this to attack indies even though I may not agree with many of them. But ASimpleSinner has a point that having generational members gets respect from me as a sign of being real. (It's not just a club or burial society for angry ex-whatevers.) Like the Polish National Catholic Church in America (1890s immigrant schism from Rome), a tiny but very real church with fourth-generation members in Pennsylvania and other North-Eastern industrial states, and represented in my blogroll by Deacon's Blog, the Revd Jim Konicki in New York state. I don't think their position makes sense in some ways (they also happen to be relatively conservative with services resembling 'reform of the reform' RCs so we do share much) but again they're real. Respect doesn't mean agreement, being in communion or joining.
I can vouch for you of course that you've run across the kind of indy who gives the lot a bad name (whose ministry consists primarily of being seen wearing a clerical collar).
I was hoping to read the last few comments that appear on the right side of the front page but they don't seem to be showing up here.
I think Haloscan's wonky. Try the comment links under the entries.
I noticed that the above comments concern small communities, but the conversation began with a statements concerning Bishop Jason Spadafore.
It just seems to me that people who are supposed to be Catholic and are supposed to practice love and tolerance have gone way off to the left
So my question is: Do any of you know him personally enough that you are able to make these comments?
I don't think any of us criticized +Spadafore here, and he has since made it clear that someone besmirched his ostensibly good name by spamming a bunch of sites with references to all manner of odd accusations. That said, +Spadafore appears to have retired from public ministry for the time being.
Commenting by HaloScan
