Why orthodox Old Catholics should support the Pope

Originally posted on "The Parish Blog", February 21st 2009 - and still true now...

A question that has been posed to me, especially of late, and that I feel I ought to respond to publicly is... "Why do you, as an Old Catholic priest, support the Pope [of Rome]?".

An initial response: simply because, despite being an "Old Catholic" I must surely recognise the Bishop of Rome as the historical and legitimate "Patriarch of the West". Now I know that particular title has been "dropped" from the official titles of the Pope (since the 2006 edition of the Annuario Pontificio) but nonetheless, it is an historic title (and completely defensible by resources/references from anitiquity) of the Bishop of Rome - far more so than "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church"! Also, historically, it is important to remember where "Old" Catholics come from...

"Old" Catholics are so-called because after the promulgation of "Pastor Aeternus" (the doctrine of Papal Infallibility) promulgated the by the First Vatican Council (VCI) in 1870, Catholic scholars and theologians opposed to the doctrine met together in Germany at Munich at what was to become the "First Old Catholic Congress" in 1871, rejecting the "innovation" of the "new" doctrine as defined by the decree. They called themselves "Old Catholics" because they saw themselves as adhering to the Catholic Faith as it had been received and transmitted basically according to the principles of the Vincentian Canon "that which has been believed everywhere and by all" and to the OEcumenical Councils predating 1054 (the divide between the Eastern and Western Catholicates) inspite of VCI and the declarations thereof. What they did affirm about the Papacy was;

"We acknowledge the primacy of the Roman bishop, as it was received by the Fathers on the ground of Scripture. We declare that the dogmas of can only be defined in accordance with Holy Scripture, and that the dogmatic decisions of a Council must be shown to be in harmony with the originally delivered faith of the Church, in the direct consciousness of belief of the Catholic people and theological science."

I hold then, that it is utterly defensible as an "Old" Catholic to recognise and acknowledge the Bishop of Rome (Pope) as the "Chief Pastor" of the historical Western Catholicate, the Church which Old Catholicism claims to be a continuation of. It is for this self-same reason that Old Catholics using the Tridentine Rite, whether in the vernacular or in Latin, have always mentioned the Bishop of Rome as the "Chief Pastor" in the Canon of the Mass. At no time did the Old Catholic Congresses (of Munich 1871, Cologne 1872, Constance 1873 or Bonn 1874) at any time in any of their declarations refute the the primacy of the See of Peter, rather they refuted the exageration of the claims made by the Papal See under Pius IX and sought to "reform" the Church from abuses regarding indulgences, imposed celibacy etc.

It is wholly appropriate therefore, for Old Catholics to share culturally with other Western Catholics, a deep love and concern for the Holy Father. It is wholly natural for them to pray for the Pope and where they can in conscience work collaboratively with him and defend or support him in his role as Prime Bishop of the Western Catholicate in defense of the Catholic Faith. It behoves Old Catholic Clergy to guide their faithful in the proper support that may be shown and demonstrated for the Holy Father, particularly where this does not impede, contradict or otherwise endanger a proper knowledge or understanding of true Catholic doctrine - without falling into the trap of extraneous material that is not consistant with the "received" Catholic Faith or contrary to the spirit or purpose of those declarations of the Old Catholic Congresses.

In short, "Old" Catholics are essentially "Roman" Catholics without adhering to the doctrine of "Papal Infallibility" and that only as it is defined in Pastor Aeternus. Old Catholics do recognise the Primacy of the See of Rome and the Petrine Ministry, it is, if you like, only the "workings out" of it that they disagree upon as it has been defined. Cardinal Newman himself expressed doubts about the decree Pastor Aeternus and many Bishops and theologians at the time were not wholly convinced of it's argument. An Old Catholic can be a Papal supporter without being disingenuous to our position on Papal Infallibility! We should all hope and pray for that day when East and West can come together again in Council to agree and decide on these issues.

For the reasons given above, I find myself, particularly during the present climate of hostility towards the whole Catholic Church targeted particularly at the present moment in the person of the present Pope, needing to demonstrate my solidarity with other Catholics in support of the Holy Father. Benedict XVI to my mind represents the best hope for reconciliation between the members of the Catholic Church than any other Pontiff, certainly in my lifetime, has before. Mindful of the fact that his presence and guidance has been evident throughout the pontificate of the last Pope, John Paul II, the Holy Father has shown demonstrable understanding together with distinct theological credibility regarding an appreciation of the whole Catholic Church and Faith consonant with Scripture and Tradition that seeks to reconcile and make whole the "one flock". Admittedly, it is the area of the "one shepherd" on earth that presents the greatest difficulty and I would suggest the Holy Father should seek dialogue and address sooner rather than later with the other historical and recognised Catholic Patriarchs.

Frequent and assiduous viewers of our online broadcast of the Mass may have noticed of late my inclusion from the Tabula Orationum, the additional Propers Con Perscutores Ecclesiae and Pro Papa, namely the additional Collects, Secrets and Postcommunion Prayers For the Church and For the Pope. Those who have listened to my homilies may also have picked up my warnings and themes regarding a persecution of the Church now and in our time. To my mind, we as Catholics, are facing a persecution as great as that which our forbears withstood in the 3rd Century under Diocletian (amongst others). Similarly we are also battling with apostasy - or as John Paul II called a "silent apostasy" within our ranks.

Prayers are urgently needed and required for the whole Church, the whole corporate Body of Christ as we need to bear witness to not just an increasingly secularised world but one which is growing in the arrogance that Man is the summit and pinnacle of all creation, is the ruler of life and death and in independent control over his own destiny and that of the whole world. Humanism - not that utopian principle such as St Thomas Moore extolled, but the new kind which preaches the centralist perspective of "ego" is threatening the moral cohesiveness of human society by extolling the virtue of "self" above all others. A greater witness than ever needs to be made for "Charity" - not conscience relieving alms giving - but that Divine Love expressed through the Body of Christ - spiritually, sacramentally, corporately, intelligently, compassionately and unselfishly amongst all who believe.

Papalism without Infallibility

Orthodox Old [Roman] Catholicism

It would seem opportune, whilst the great debate about Anglicanorum Coetibus rages on, to propose the consideration of another option. "Pro-Roman" or "Pro-Papal" does not, I propose, have to mean an acceptance of Papal Infallibility, at least not as presently defined by Pastor Aeternus. It is possible, I would assert, to express a deep love, affection and respect for the Successor of Peter without becoming a Roman Catholic.

Orthodox Old [Roman] Catholicism i.e. the tradition derived from the Old Roman Catholic Church of the Netherlands (that Church which was usurped by the institution of an alternative hierarchy by Pope Pius IX illegally i.e. Canonically) is, I would counter, an option for Anglicans of a "Pro-Papal" bent but who are unable in good conscience to submit to Papal Infallibility as it is currently defined and required as dogma.

Whilst there are many who call themselves "Old Catholic" churches and clergy, there are very few who really are. Regrettably, of course, that includes the Union of Utrecht Churches who have individually fallen into or condone apostasy for erroneous beliefs and praxis such as the ordination of women as Sacred Ministers. There are then a plethora of "episcopi vagante" clergy of various stripes, who, claiming descendence through Old Catholic Apostolic Succession (however obtained) fail to understand the contradiction in terms in describing themselves "independent Catholics"! There are then within that stripe "Liberal" and "Theosophic and even "Gnostic" supposed "Old Catholics" etc who fail to recognise or understand the requirement for adherence to the received Catholic Faith as necessary for validity - both ecclesiologically and Sacramentally; let alone the nutters, hypocrites, soothsayers and intellectually challenged who claim to be "valid" Old Catholics even though it is clear from their praxis they haven't the faintest idea what being an "Old Catholic" means?!

Let us first understand what "Old [Roman] Catholicism" is. It is in fact not a tradition based on the idea of independence from Rome. In the first place it was the defence by the national Church of Holland to it's right to jurisdiction and self-governance, granted it by ancient custom and Papal favour. This inalienable right was trounced upon by several Popes with an "ultramontane" agenda (from 1700) until eventually Pope Pius IX instituted another Roman Catholic hierarchy (1853) and refused to recognise the pre-existing Roman Catholic hierarchy in the Netherlands. Hence the term "Old Roman Catholic" used to differentiate in Holland between the continuing pre-existing Catholic Church and that imposed anew by Pius IX. (For a more complete history of the events that led up to this situation, please read this comprehensive account.)

Thus, Old Roman Catholicism initially referred simply to the ancient Catholic Church in Holland, until 1870 when other Roman Catholics, unpersuaded by the arguments for Papal Infallibility promulgated at the First Vatican Council, petitioned the Archbishop of Utrecht for episcopal and Sacramental care and oversight. The "Old Catholic" movement was thus born, bringing together Catholics on the Continent from Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere into communion with the ancient See of Utrecht and out of communion with the perceived erring See of Rome. However, these "Old Catholics", so called as they perceived themselves to be practising Catholicism as it was pre-1870 without the addition of Papal Infallibility, nonetheless were themselves to begin to follow a path that would take them away from the purpose of their first ideal. Rather like the Reformation on the Continent and in England some three hundred years earlier, some of the "reformers" of Catholicism began to take things a bit too far in their strive to research, practice and redefine "primitive" Catholicism.

It wasn't enough simply to continue to practice the Roman Catholic faith and tradition without the addition of Papal Infallibility (and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) but the "Old Catholics" sought to "reform" other customs, traditions and beliefs also. So that, by the turn of the 20thC, Old Catholicism had not only reverted liturgical language to the vulgar tongue, but advocated the cessation of asking the intercession of the Saints and auricular Confession also. These "reforms", the two latter particularly, were the reason why the progenitor of contemporary Old [Roman] Catholicism, Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew, declared his independence from the See of Utrecht in 1910 (the Centennial of this event is 29 Dec 2010).

Despite the misfortunate and often unfortunate events of the life and career of ++Mathew, it was nonetheless his desire to return to the practice of the Old Roman Catholic religion without "additions" and later "reforms", that he sought to establish a continuance of his original mission to Great Britain, formerly authorised by the See of Utrecht and the justification of his consecration by that See. Whilst it is clear in his eagerness to succeed in his mission he in turn consecrated some dubious individuals, nonetheless, there still exist to this day, fruits of that ministry which he began, now in the USA and more recently again in the UK who follow in the same intention of their "founder". There are of course others, who followed those of lesser Catholic credit, who had variously persuaded or mislead ++Mathew as to the sincerity of their intentions when seeking his Orders and whose rotting fruit still exists and infects more souls to their eternal detriment [those in the "succession" of the Theosophists and Freemasons and who describe themselves as "Liberal" and "Gnostic" etc].

Of those then, the contemporaries of ++Mathew's intent to practice the Old Roman Catholic religion, there are but few and though in small number are easily recognisable by their adherence to the ancient Catholic religion. Most notably the Old [Roman] Catholic Church of America, the Catholic Apostolic National Church USA (formerly the Old Catholic Church of the USA) and the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America, each of whom derive from the original mission founded in the USA by Bishop Landes-de-Berghes consecrated by ++Mathew. Of the earlier "Old Catholic" movement (of the Utrecht Union that preceded ++Mathew), the last orthodox jurisdiction is the Polish National Catholic Church whose founder and first Bishop, +Francis Hodur had also received consecration from the See of Utrecht. [There are others in the first category who continue the tradition of ++Mathew, but who are not as well known or established.]

Of course, in recent years, these Churches have themselves, rather than remained "preservationists for preservation's sake" have developed liturgy and customs as other denominations have. However, in the main these few Churches use only historical Roman Catholic liturgies (the codified Latin Mass of Trent and a few the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, only the PNCC has developed it's own modern liturgy, but this itself may be understood as a variation of the Novus Ordo and certainly in sympathy with traditional concepts of matter, form and intention) and the majority the Tridentine Ordinal for the continuation of the Sacred Ministry and Apostolic Succession. In terms of faith and praxis, these Old [Roman] Catholic Churches maintain that "which was believed everywhere and by all" [Vincentian Canon] prior to 1870, with varying degrees of relaxation re some disciplines [e.g. clerical celibacy] and required personal custom [e.g. eucharistic fast, private Confession etc]. However, despite variances in faith and praxis, these Churches maintain an authentic expression of the "primitive" Catholic Faith (i.e. of the Church of the first millennium) instantly recognisable to Anglican Catholics and even the Eastern Orthodox.

The culture of these Churches, in Faith, liturgy and in personal custom and praxis, closely resembles that of most "Anglo-Paplists" or "Pro-Roman" Anglican Catholics and would seem, under the present circumstances, to lend itself to such as these unable to maintain membership of some Anglican Churches due to apostasy or submit to Roman Catholicism fully (i.e. with Papal Infallibility). Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are held by these Old [Roman] Catholics as matters of "personal pious belief" rather than as dogma, which means belief in them is not a bar to membership of these Churches and often these Marian Feasts are celebrated or at least commemorated. But more importantly, Old [Roman] Catholics pray the Mass una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro and demonstrate in so doing their desire for reconciliation with the Holy See.

Despite the fact that the possibility of reconciliation between the Holy See and the See of Urecht would appear to be impossible now, due to the latter having apostasized from the Catholic Faith; still it is the hope of those in the Old [Roman] Catholic tradition that a reconciliation of orthodox Old Catholics and the See of Rome might yet be possible. Obviously such a reconciliation would no longer be based upon the restitution of the ancient rights of the See of Utrecht, but yet it might upon the basis of recognised Catholics wanting to be reunited with the Successor of Peter.

To be continued...