(Old) Catholic Thoughts on the Feast of the Theotokos

When I started The Wild Reed in May of 2006 it was to share "thoughts and reflections from a progressive, gay, Catholic perspective." This remains true today as it was back then. However, over the years I've discovered that the "Catholic" is actually more Old Catholic than Roman Catholic. I have my good friend Bob, an Old Catholic priest whom I first meet back in July 2007, to thank for this discovery. Bob recently married his longtime partner John. (Yes, Old Catholicism, despite its name, is a very progressive, inclusive, and thus authentic expression of Catholicism!) Currently, Bob is serving as an Old Catholic military chaplain in Kuwait. (Yes, a married gay Catholic priest serving openly in the U.S. military. When I first met Bob in 2007, this was pretty much unthinkable. How far we've come in such a short time!)

In short, thanks to Bob and in particular his authoring of the book on Old Catholicism in America, I've come to understand and greatly appreciate Old Catholicism and the ways it aligns with and differs from Roman Catholicism.

I share all of this as a way of introducing the following reflection that Bob wrote earlier today and shared on Facebook. It's a reflection on the feast of the Theotokos (Mary the Mother of God), a feast that Old Catholics, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics celebrate today.

Old Catholics and Orthodox view Mary's role differently from the Roman Catholic Church, theologically speaking.

The use of the term "the stain of Original Sin" is exclusive Roman Catholic Church terminology and is NOT the language of Old Catholic or Orthodox Christians.

The Old Catholic and Orthodox doctrinal belief is we are all born into a sinful world made sinful by the Fall/Pride of Adam. No one is or ever has been conceived and born with a “stain” resulting from Adam’s sin. In her lifetime, the Blessed Virgin Mary chose the good and holy with the help of the Holy Spirit. The most perfect example of this is when she allowed the Holy Spirit to overshadow her at the annunciation.

Because Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that all people bear the stain and guilt of original sin from the moment of their conception in the womb, the Roman Catholic Church had to devise a “Doctrine of Immaculate Conception” (a product of the infallibility doctrine) to confirm that the Holy Mother was sinless because, the Vatican rationalized, our Lord could not be born of someone sinful.

The Old Catholic and Orthodox way (because there is a strong emphasis of Christian freedom of conscience in both churches) assert that the immaculate conception doctrine makes Mary different from the rest of humankind; it makes her not fully human because she was not by her own choice sinless but by the will of God. If Mary were sinless by God’s choice, not hers, then by virtue of the fact that she was as fully human as all of humankind is and has been, then God could make us all sinless and take away the free will given to us by our being created in His image and likeness. The immaculate conception is altogether a different teaching from that of the Early Church fathers about Mary's importance in God's plan of salvation.

For further reading, see Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, by Blessed John Maximovitch, published by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, CA.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 1)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 2)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 3)
• Robert Caruso's Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism
• The Declaration of Utrecht
• Celebrating the Dormition of Mary
• Celebrating the Risen Christ – Old Catholic Style
• Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral
• An Old Catholic Perspective on the Roman Hierarchy's "Dumbing Down" of the Catholic Church
• An Old Catholic Perspective on the Papacy
• Adventures in Mississippi River Bluff Country

Image: Theotokos of Vladimir.

Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 2)

For this second installment of The Wild Reed's special papal conclave series I share excerpts from my 2007 interview with Robert Caruso (right), a priest within the Old Catholic Church. Since this interview, my friend Robert has gone on to write the definitive book on Old Catholicism (excerpts of which are shared in The Wild Reed series "Understanding the Old Catholic Church," beginning here).

Before I share Robert's words let me just say that the papacy of today's Roman Catholic Church has been several hundred years in the making. Historically, its development can be traced as a series of increasingly reactionary measures orchestrated in response to new insights and understandings brought to light by advances in the sciences and by the rise and spread of democracy throughout Europe. Today the papacy serves primarily as a pitiful remnant of a once formidable bastion of defensiveness against these new understandings and developments. It wasn't always like this, nor does it need to remain so.

Old Catholicism views its understanding of the papacy as an authentically traditional one. At the same time, the Old Catholic Church is a very dynamic and progressive expression of Catholicism. Robert notes, for instance, that women and LGBT persons are not just welcome to the table at Eucharist but are also welcome to "fully participate in the gospel ministry of Christ’s church by sharing their diverse gifts with the local eucharistic fellowship."

Following are Robert Caruso's thoughts on the papacy from an Old Catholic perspective, a perspective I believe is both important and helpful for Roman Catholics who are serious about reconsidering and reforming the papacy.

Old Catholics share similarities with the Roman church liturgically and theologically; they believe in the seven sacraments of the church, the Eucharist as the local church’s central act of worship, and bishops, priests, and deacons functioning as ministers of Christ’s mystical body: the local church universal.

Old Catholics disagree with the universal supremacy of the papacy (i.e. the pope), and all so-called infallible dogmatic teachings decreed post council of Trent (1546). However, Old Catholics maintain the primacy of the pope in stating that he holds a primus inter pares (first among equals) position among the college of bishops in the church. The disagreement between the papacy and the Union of Utrecht (generally speaking) is focused on Old Catholic’s maintaining that the pope and the papacy is not a divinely inspired institution, nor should the pope possess supreme jurisdictional power over all local churches throughout the world.

Other differences between the Old and Roman Catholic churches are more visible; the Old Catholic church of Germany ordained it first two women to the ministerial priesthood in 1996, homosexuals (gay and lesbian) are welcome to full participation in the body of Christ, and nobody is ever denied Eucharist. The church is understood as healer, lover, sustainer, and forgiver. Meaning, Old Catholics elevate the dignity and conscience of the baptized in understanding what sin (the separation between God and oneself) is and how it affects her or him in their lives. There is no black and white social moral catechism for Old Catholics because social morality is viewed as being relative, and the Church (the body of the baptized) moves with and in the power of the Spirit to meet the needs and hurts of all the parts of the body throughout the ages. Hence, social morality is not demeaned but significantly valued in recognizing its complexity and relativistic nature.

The pope, according to Old Catholic European theologians, holds a place of primacy as the bishop of Rome because this geographical location is traditionally known as the place where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred. The pope is the symbol of unity for every local church universal throughout the world, and his historical place in the catholic (universal) Church is one of honor, not power.

Old Catholics do not agree that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and supreme head of the universal local churches. There is one head for the body and that is Christ Jesus (Eph. 4:15). The bishop is a representative of Christ for the local church, and no one bishop is superior to any other local church bishop. Furthermore Old Catholics do not affirm that the bishop of Rome (as an individual) is infallible in any way, shape, or form. The Church (the entire body of the baptized) teaches infallibly through the power of the Holy Spirit. No one human being stands alone and speaks for the universal Church because it is antithetical to its salvific communal and universal nature. Meaning, as individuals our human pride fools us into believing the illusion that we are free agents – it is only when we (the baptized) function in communion with the entire body, that we truly begin to understand Christ’s paschal mystery and the salvific nature of the local church universal in relationship with the Triune God.

. . . How did the Old Catholics arrive at a theological justification for a Catholic Church not in communion with Rome? Old Catholics cannot be fully understood (from a historical and theological perspective) apart from Vatican I and the doctrine (teaching) of papal infallibility. The disagreement with Rome and Utrecht had everything to do with the “crisis of conscience” between a local church (Utrecht) and papal authority. When the papacy forced certain local national churches to accept the doctrine of infallibility of the pope or face excommunication, a theological crisis of conscience emerged yet again and conflict ensued between the papacy and certain national churches in Europe. This “anti-infallibility” movement was led by Ignaz von Dölinger (a Roman Catholic theologian present at the Vatican I council), who later became a major “classical” theologian for the Old Catholic Church. Dölinger was against the doctrine of papal infallibility because he claimed it was a novel teaching foreign to what the ancient church fathers taught regarding the bishop of Rome. He further stated that if the Roman church accepted the infallibility doctrine of the pope, the church would quintessentially redefine itself apart from the tradition of the ancient church. Dölinger asserted that Vatican I, by accepting the papal infallibility doctrine, created a new Catholic Church, and he further asserted that he would remain part of the old Catholic Church – the church that did not distance itself from the tradition of the ancient church. Hence, the term “Old Catholic” was coined and reserved for those national churches that did not accept the papal infallibility doctrine promulgated at the Vatican I council. It is important to note that the Old Catholic churches did not schism with the Roman Catholic Church; they were rather expelled (excommunicated) by the papacy for refusing to submit to the Vatican counsel. Hence, these local churches had no choice but to unite with each other, so to preserve their Catholicity apart from Rome.

NEXT: Part 3

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 1)
• An Old Catholic Perspective on the Roman Hierarchy's "Dumbing Down" of the Catholic Church
• Robert Caruso's Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 1)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 2)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 3)
• Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral
• Celebrating the Risen Christ, Old Catholic Style
• Beyond Papalism
• Casanova-inspired Reflections on Papal Power - at 30,000 ft.
• What It Means to Be Catholic
• No Patriarchal Hierarchy, No Rigid Conformity
• Rome Falling
• Re-Forming "the Vatican" Doesn't Mean Destroying the Church
• Pan's Labyrinth: Critiquing the Cult of Unquestioning Obedience
• What the Vatican Can Learn from the X-Men
• Roger Haight on the Church We Need

Recommended Off-site Links:
On Day Before Papal Vote, Talk Shifts to Ritual – Joshua J. McElwee (National Catholic Reporter, March 11, 2013).
SNAP to Cardinal Angelo Sodano: Step Down Tomorrow as Papal Conclave Begins – William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, March 11, 2013).
What Will Happen Inside the Vatican Conclave to Choose the Next Pope? – David Wright and Alyssa Newcomb (ABC News, March 11, 2013).
Picking the Pope: Holy Spirit or 'Groupthink' – David Gibson (Religion News Service via The National Catholic Reporter, March 9, 2013).
Mary Hunt on CBS News: "Conclave a 'Farce' When Women Have No Say” – WATER (March 11, 2013).
The Next Pope Should Be Catholic – Timothy George (First Things, March 8, 2013).
Father Marcial Maciel And The Popes He Stained – Jason Berry (The Daily Beast, March 11, 2013).
Vatican Summoned Before UN Committee on the Rights of the Child – Barbara Blaine (SNAP, February 28, 2013).
What Would Christ Say If He Could See the Church Today? – Fr. Peter Daly (National Catholic Reporter, March 11, 2013).

An Old Catholic Perspective on the Roman Hierarchy's "Dumbing Down" of the Catholic Church

The following article by my friend Bob Caruso was published in the latest issue of the Minneapolis newspaper Southside Pride. Bob is an ordained priest in the Old Catholic Church and serves as pastor to Cornerstone Old Catholic Community.

____________________________________

The "Dumbing Down" of the Roman Catholic Church

By Rev. Robert W. Caruso

Southside Pride
November 2010
Vol. XIX, Issue 11

The Roman Catholic Church has always been controversial on social issues. In recent years the Roman leadership has spiraled further and further into a more aggressive absolutist, monarchical and judgmental kind of leadership that distinctly and genuinely has embraced a power that is neither pastoral nor loving.

Minnesota's Roman Catholic Archbishop Neinstedt has singled out a persecuted minority group to demonize and bully. As a gay man in a relationship for close to 14 years, and as an ordained Old Catholic priest, I feel compelled to say something for the sake of the Catholic Church and the GLBT community here in the Twin Cities. Let me be clear that I love the Church and believe that the Second Vatican Council was Spirit-driven in a most dynamic way. But I believe the Roman Catholic leadership in Minnesota has imposed extreme injustices on Catholic gay and lesbian persons as well as on progressive Catholics in general.

It is indeed dangerous for us to remain silent or wait for better days within the Catholic Church when such horrible psychological abuse is inflicted upon gay and lesbian persons who merely seek to fully live their lives in harmony and peace with others. It is no longer acceptable to be "bi-partisan" or "non-controversial" on this issue when such psychological abuse from Archbishop Neinstedt is apparent and unapologetic.

The conciliatory renewal that was to occur in the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church has gone stagnant. The pastoral constitution of "Gaudium et Spes" ("Joy and Hope") has all but been ignored by Pope Benedict and more locally by Archbishop Neinstedt. It is clear that the church's fidelity to persons having a God-given gift of freedom of conscience is a very scary idea for men like them because complex social moral issues such as same-sex marriage indeed require something more than calculated vagaries of fear and manipulation. Dialogue needs to happen, and this can only occur among persons with free consciences. Moreover, Vatican II explicitly proclaims that bishops are called to "direct the energies" of the church "towards its common good" in a manner that is pastoral in character and "not in a mechanical or despotic fashion." (GS, Ch. 4, sec. 74)

The recent political actions of Archbishop Neinstedt, the mailing of 400,000 DVDs in opposition to the civil rights movement of same-sex marriage, are grotesque, to say the least. Neinstedt's DVD message is but one example among others of what many Catholics and non-Catholics believe is the systematic "dumbing down" of the Roman Catholic Church. The message contained in the DVD was neither theological nor intelligent, but deceptively political in singling out gay and lesbian persons.

I will no longer participate in the "dumbing down" of the Catholic Church I grew up with and love. We are the church of Ireaneus, Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa; we are a church that cherishes a pastorally reasonable and coherent tradition! We are a Christian tradition that is comprised primarily of eucharistic table communities where worship reminds us that we live in an ordered creation that moves Christians to love in generosity and nonviolence. The Roman Catholic leadership has clearly ostracized Catholic gay and lesbian persons from the eucharistic table! It is time to celebrate our Catholic faith apart from the Roman Catholic leadership — it is time for us progressive Catholics to form eucharistic table communities as a "counter-structure" from the Roman leadership.

The spirit of Vatican II is not dead, but alive in those of us who seek to fully live our lives as the People of God, regardless of sexual orientation.

That is to say, the spirit of Vatican II continues to move beyond the denominational borders of Roman Catholicism! Our hope, our joy is our coming together as a eucharistic community where the tradition of the church is not "dumbed down," but enriched and transformed in the communion of the Spirit!

Fr. Bob is pastor of Cornerstone Old Catholic Community of the Twin Cities.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 1)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 2)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 3)
• Robert Caruso's Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism
• Celebrating the Risen Christ - Old Catholic Style

Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 3)

This is the third and final installment of the special Wild Reed series featuring excerpts from my friend Robert Caruso’s recently-released book, The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in North America.

This particular excerpt examines the relationship between the Anglican Communion and Old Catholicism – first by looking at the Bonn Conference of 1874 and the Bonn Agreement of 1931, and then the convergence that is presently occurring between the Episcopal Church (USA) and Old Catholicism.

(NOTE: To start at the beginning of this series, click here.)

_________________________________________

From its inception, the Union of Utrecht re-examined its Catholic identity apart from seeking any kind of validation from the Roman communion. This offered a sense of clarity and freedom for the Union of Utrecht to describe its Catholicity apart from Rome, and further opened the doors toward unity with other local-universal churches throughout the world, e.g., the Anglican Communion.

The ever-flourishing ecumenical relationship between the Union of Utrecht and the Anglican Communion in the late nineteenth-century reached a new plateau at the Old Catholic Union Conference at Bonn, Germany in 1874. The Old Catholic leaders convoked this conference “. . . specially for the purpose of promoting reunion, these were informal and unofficial conferences of theologians from various churches but primarily Anglican and Old Catholic.”* The Bonn conference of 1874 should not be underestimated or overlooked because it is at this meeting that the Old Catholics and Anglicans become theologically aware of each other and their shared existence as local-universal churches.

The fourteen theological theses’ of agreement (known as the Bonn Theses of 1874) were produced at this conference, offering for the first time written evidence of a shared consensus between Old Catholic and Anglican theologians on a variety of general theological topics. Systematically speaking, the Bonn theses delineates Anglican and Old Catholic theological agreement in the following areas of revelation: in both scripture and tradition as possessing equal authority in the life of the Church (Bonn 1874, no. 1-3, and 9), sacramentology (Bonn 1874, no. 8, and 11), justification and salvation (Bonn 1874, no 5-7, and 12), and the Eucharistic ecclesiology of the local-universal church (Bonn 1874, no. 4, 8b, 9b, 10, 13-14).

. . . The Bonn theses of 1874 provided the theological room necessary for Old Catholic and Anglican theologians to focus intently on one another’s ecclesiology, which ultimately led to the mutual recognition of standards of communion as expressed in the 1931 Bonn Agreement. . . . Three principles form the Bonn Agreement. They are doctrinal unity, mutual recognition, and independent cooperation..

. . . [A]n ecclesiological convergence is occurring at this present time in history between Anglicans and Old Catholics in ways never before seen. Here on the local level we can begin to observe a lived early church Eucharistic ecclesiology surfacing in various dioceses in the Episcopal Church (USA). The Episcopal Church is beginning to resemble the Old Catholic Church, and the Old Catholic Church is beginning to resemble the Anglican Communion. In other words, what we are observing in contemporary history is the transformation of two local-universal church communions in the West, converging with each other ecclesiologically and sharing with each other the eseential Eucharistic character of communion and common mission in becoming the Catholic Church envisioned by early church theologians like St. Irenaeus, among others.

There is a place for “Vatican II” Catholics in the Old Catholic faith! There is a place where you can celebrate your sacramental life as a Catholic seeking unity in diversity in the Old Catholic faith!

Independent Old Catholics need to realize that the Eucharistic charisma of Old Catholicism is alive and well in the greater communion of the Episcopal Church, and in time we will need to find ways of fostering friendships with clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church.

I firmly believe that no Old Catholic local church will ever exist in the U.S. without it being intimately related with the Episcopal Church (USA). We must remember that the Union of Utrecht and the Episcopal Church (USA) are in communion with each other, and endeavor to be one church. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Utrecht will never establish opposing dioceses in the U.S. against the Episcopal Church (USA). If we Old Catholics, living in the Diaspora of the U.S., truly want to be at home with our faith and be at peace with God and each other, then we must actively seek fellowship with the Episcopal Church (USA) on the local level any way we possibly can.

In short, Anglicans and Old Catholics are currently in the process of converging with one another ecclesiologically on the academic and local/practical levels of the church. The engagement that occurred over seventy years at Bonn between Anglicans and Old Catholics is coming to an end, and the marriage banquet of authentic communion centered in hospitality is getter closer at hand.

* Wright, J. Robert, “Anglican and Old Catholic Theology Compared” in Old Catholics and Anglican, 125.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 1)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 2)
• Robert Caruso’s Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism
• The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome - An interview with Robert Caruso.
• The Declaration of Utrecht
• Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral

Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 2)

This is the second installment of the three-part Wild Reed series featuring excerpts from my friend Robert Caruso’s recently-released book, The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in North America.

This particular excerpt provides an informative and concise explanation of the importance of the conciliar nature of the church for Old Catholicism.

(NOTE: To start at the beginning of this series, click here.)

__________________________________

[A major] distinction of Old Catholicism is its inherent conciliar (non-institutional and dynamic) approach to understanding the nature of the church. In attempting to express their identity that is neither papal nor Protestant/Reformed, the Old Catholic church focused its attention anew having the conciliar nature of the church in mind when theologically explicating questions such as “what is the church?” “How should the church exist in its earthly form?” “How should authority be understood in the church?” The conciliar nature of the church is a complex (and broad) phrase that is difficult to concisely define theologically. It can, however, be described as a concept that moves beyond institutional governance and emphasizes rather the intrinsic relational character of the church between God, human beings and all of creation. This theanthropic renewed understanding of the conciliar nature of the church transforms empty theory into an organic constitutive reality of what the Church has always been: an embodied and dynamic catholic (universal) experience of the holy Trinity recognized by faith through freedom and love.

Old Catholic theologians of the Union of Utrecht recognize that conciliarism was a lived experience since the apostolic age of the early church. Since ancient church times, local churches always maintained faith-based relationships with other local churches that would come together in council when important matters needed to be discussed. The conciliar nature of the church was not created but received in all humility by humanity as a gift (grace) from God. Further stated, the conciliar church is relational in that it reflects the communal nature of the divine Trinity, celebrating unity in diversity. For this reason the early ecumenical councils, albeit important and foundational to Old Catholic faith and theology, in ho way exhaust the concilar definition of the church. Rather, a council of this sort is an event, a “reflection and manifestation of the conciliar nature of the church.

When the Roman Empire eventually adopted Christianity as its state religion the church gradually moved away from its organic and relational (conciliar) character to a more imperial and sovereign hierarchal power structure, i.e., the centralization of church authority gradually assumed by the pope (the bishop of Rome). It is during the Middle Ages that conciliar ideas resurface amidst the imperial power structure of the papal Western Church through its ecclesiologists and canon lawyers. Conciliar theory eventually evolved into a Western Church historical movement in the mid-thirteenth to early fifteenth-centuries that would rival papal authority, and culminate theory into reality at the great council of Constance in 1414 CE.

The conciliar theory movement in the fourteenth-century was an epic moment in church history because it attempted a major paradigm shift in transferring ultimate ecclesial authority to an ecumenical council, superior even to the pope. The Old Catholic churches of the Union of Utrecht are remnant heirs of the conciliarist movement and cannot be understood apart from it. In order to fully comprehend the complexity of the conciliar movement, a concise study of the internal powers of the early and medieval church’s organization is necessary; this implies that medieval canon law, common law, and ecclesiology (theology of the church) are intricately related to the conciliar theory. And conciliarism cannot be fully understood outside these parameters. . . .

The . . . developments on conciliar theory culminated at the ecumenical council of Constance (1414-1418), “. . . the last council of the Western Church that spoke with one voice.” The council was called forth to end the Great Schism of 1378 and reform the church. Constance was a unique council because it was evoked by the whole church (lay, clergy, and bishops), and its authority is unquestionably recognized historically in the Roman church to date. The council produced a text entitled Sacrosancta, which has been referred to as the most revolutionary reform document ever produced by the Catholic Church. The ideas expressed in this ecumenical treatise stated, “The whole Christian community was superior to any prelate, however exalted; the Pope was to be a servant of the Church rather than its master.” It is from the council of Constance that a new pope was elected (Martin V), and through this council the newly elected pope (and all his successors) was canonically given apostolic authority and succession in the Roman Catholic Church.

This section further argues, based upon the authoritative claims made at the conciliar council of Constance, against the so-called papal divine rights of jurisdictional supremacy over the entire Church and its members, as well as the infallibility of the pope. The council of Constance lucidly proclaimed in its fourth and fifth sessions that “. . . this holy Synod of Constance, being a General Council lawfully assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost, and representing the Church militant, has received immediately from Jesus Christ a power to which all persons of whatever rank and dignity, not excepting the Pope himself, are bound to submit in those matters which concerns the faith, the extirpation of the existing schism, and the reformation of the Church in head and in members,” further stated, “. . . the Council of Constance declared explicitly that a general council is above the Pope, and can judge or even depose him.” Clearly, the divine right of the church was not to be found in the papacy alone; but rather, it was to be found in the congragatio fidelium (the body of the baptized) in general council together as the body of Christ being tenderly guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore it can be persuasively argued that the council at Constance, albeit not perfect because it burned John Huss at the stake as a heretic and did not enforce a reform in the church, did canonically validate and procure the pope’s limited apostolic authority and Petrine succession by the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the current monolithic school of thought in the Roman church – that claims the papacy is directly established by the Triune God – was challenged.

Consequently, conciliar theory rather than papal primacy helps to compose the colorful and contextual background needed to fully comprehend and appreciate the Old Catholic movement in lieu of papal supremacy. The council of Constance is significant for Old Catholics because its conciliar authority was real, and it established precedence in the Catholic Church that power can be and should be properly delegated by all the faithful, and not exclusively in the plenitude potestasis (complete power) of the papacy. Hence, the institutional papal claims of divine right of supremacy became the main theological and political crux that would later form the Old Catholic movement in the mid- to late nineteenth-century.


NEXT: Part 3


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 1)
• Robert Caruso’s Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism
• The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome - An interview with Robert Caruso.
• The Declaration of Utrecht
• Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral

Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 1)

This is the first of three posts featuring excerpts from my friend Robert Caruso’s recently-released book, The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in North America.

It’s a highly accessible book and one that has been described as a “well-researched and passionately argued presentation of the Old Catholic understanding of the dynamic nature of what the Nicene Creed describes as the ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.’”

I have to say that the more of the Old Catholic Church that I experience, the more I recognize it (ironically enough) as a truer embodiment of Vatican II’s understanding of church than that offered by the current expression of Roman Catholicism – mired as it is in a sad and sorry state of retrenchment and reaction. (More about this in Part 3.)

Oh, and don’t let the “Old” part fool you. The Old Catholic Church is a very dynamic and progressive expression of Catholicism - one that is accepting and welcoming of women and gay people. How welcoming? Well, here’s what Fr. Caruso (who’s a partnered gay man) had to say about this matter when I interviewed him for The Wild Reed in September 2007:

The Old Catholic Church welcomes all to the full participation in the life, mission, and worship of the local church. This means that gays and lesbians are not just welcome to the table at Eucharist, but are welcome to fully participate in the gospel ministry of Christ’s church sharing his or her diverse gifts with the local eucharistic fellowship.

The Church (in general) must be reminded of its eschatological nature that it has forgotten about in its preoccupation of idolizing heterosexual marriage (specifically marital procreation) as the foundational model of God, Christ, and the pilgrim Church on earth. Same-sex couples show all Christians just how truly queer Christianity is. “In Christ there is no male or female (Galations 3:23)…In heaven there is no marriage (Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:35).” Gay and lesbian couples may help the Church recover its vision of heaven, through our mutual covenant bond in baptism and the celebration of Eucharist together. This quintessentially speaks to the eucharistic ecclesiological Old Catholic nature of unity in diversity.

Robert Caruso is pastor of Cornerstone Old Catholic Community in St. Paul, and after this community’s weekly Mass on Saturday, September 19, Robert presented a short but fascinating lecture on Old Catholicism. The images that accompany this post were taken at this event – one that was held at St. Paul on the Hill Episcopal Church.

_______________________________________

The Old Catholic Church is a path that enriches the complex history of the universal church through the ages. The historical complexity of Old Catholicism involves the three different movements that compose the current unified European Old Catholic churches known as the “Union of Utrecht.” Each national church belonging to the Union of Utrecht is rooted in its own historical situation and epoch, which testifies to the diversity and independence Old Catholics generally value.

The Old Catholic churches throughout the world are independent national churches that disagreed with the absolute power of the papacy and the claims of papal infallibility after the Council of Trent (1545-63). This opposition occurred in three separate and distinct historical movements. First, the Old Catholic church of Holland (1724); second, the churches of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and Czech-Slovakia at the first Vatican Council (1869-70); and lastly, church groups located in North America, Great Britain, Philippines, and the Slavic nations in the twentieth-century leading to the present day. The novelty about these revolutionary movements against the Roman papacy is that they occurred from within the Roman rite (the principal ancient liturgical and canonical) tradition of the Latin rite Western Church. This implies that the genesis of Old Catholicism occurred as a Roman Catholic revolt against papal supremacy in all its forms. It must be clearly understood that Old Catholics never sought to create another church. The difference between Old Catholics and the churches born out of the Reformation is one of local church rights (Old Catholic) verses theological doctrinal differences (Reformation). This stated, Old Catholics still to this day “. . . do not wish to deny the historical primacy which several Ecumenical Councils and Fathers of the ancient church have attributed to the Bishop of Rome by recognizing him in title as Primus inter pares (first among equals).”*

The Old Catholic churches are distinctly different from the Protestant, Orthodox, and Anglican churches because the genesis of the Old Catholic movement occurred after the late fifteenth to early sixteenth-centuries’ Counter-Reformation and Council of Trent (1545-63). These events uniquely established and defined the Roman-rite (i.e., liturgical, canonical, monasticism) of the Catholic church for close to four centuries thereafter (ca., 1563-1869). This stated, Old Catholicism maintained much of its distinctive Roman-rite characteristics in its liturgies and customs (e.g., the centrality of the seven sacraments and the celebration of Eucharist as the summit of the Christian life); and today, Old Catholic communicants, especially those who convert from the Roman church, are content being Old Catholic because of its liturgical similarities with the Roman-rite. It is very much a pietistic affection that is experienced in the heart of every Catholic, which in turn effects how one lives his or her life in the Eucharistic community of the local-universal church (the Body of Christ).

* The Declaration of Utrecht, 1889, para. 2. parenthesis added (English text).


NEXT: Part 2




See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome - An interview with Robert Caruso.
• Robert Caruso’s Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism
• The Declaration of Utrecht
• Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral

Robert Caruso's Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism

I take the opportunity today to share a review by local writer Elaine Klaassen of my friend Robert Caruso’s recently released book on Old Catholicism.

But first a bit of background information: I first met Robert, who serves as pastor at Cornerstone Old Catholic Community in St. Paul, when he presided at a Dignity Twin Cities liturgy in July 2007. (He’s pictured at right with Dignity president Brian McNeill, center, and Dignity member Jeanne Cornish.)


Finding myself intrigued by Old Catholicism, I accepted Bob’s invitation to attend, later that summer, both a conference on Old Catholicism in Collegeville, MN, and Cornerstone Old Catholic Community’s annual retreat on the shores of Clear Lake (left). It was around this time that I asked Robert if I could interview him for The Wild Reed. He happily obliged, granting me an extensive and insightful interview (which can be found here). We’ve been friends ever since that summer two years ago.

Earlier this year, Robert and his partner John hosted a wonderful “Passover seder meal for Christians” (right) – to which I, my housemate Brian, and my friend Kay were invited. More recently, Robert shared his thoughts on The Wild Reed about the Rainbow Sash presence at the Cathedral of St. Paul, and presided at a Mass in my home for members and friends of Cornerstone Old Catholic Community.


Robert’s currently completing his Master of Divinity and Master of Arts in Religion and Theology at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, and has just had his first book published, The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in North America (Apocryphile Press, 2009), described as “one of the most well researched and perceptive expositions of Old Catholic ecclesiology in the English language.”

Earlier this month, Bob’s scholarly book was reviewed by Elaine Klaassen for the Minneapolis neighborhood newspaper Southside Pride. Following is Klaassen’s review.

____________________________________________

New Book on Old Catholic Church
Explores Nature of Church

By Elaine Klaassen
Southside Pride
July 2009

Bob Caruso, that is Rev. Robert Caruso, or Fr. Bob, has written a book called The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in America. The book, which is part of the Independent Catholic Heritage Series published by Apocryphile Press in Berkeley, California, has been available in bookstores and online since June 1.

In the book, Caruso is not talking about the day-to-day level of church concerns. And he is not interested in church as a sociological or anthropological phenomenon, but rather as a theological and visionary, if not mystical, entity. He is talking specifically about the Old Catholic Church and its vision of what being church means. He’s saying that church mirrors the mystical body of Christ.

The book is scholarly and theological, so don’t feel bad if you need to keep your dictionary handy. Get used to terms like “eucharistic ecclesiology.” Although the book is not easy to read, and you have to use your imagination to envision what would be the tangible manifestation of the theology, it’s worth the trouble. Only briefly does he cite concrete outcomes, such as the ordination of women and the blessing of homosexual relationships. I asked him about the sharing of earthly goods, and he said the theology could easily lead to that. Bob says, “Theology is not understandable except as lived in the church.”

Five short chapters and many pages of footnotes will get you started in your understanding of the Old Catholic Church. Caruso’s ardor is present on every page.

In chapter one, he covers the historical developments that led to the Declaration of Utrecht in 1889, in Holland, a document that describes the theological consensus of a consortium of autonomous Catholic churches who differed with Rome and gradually became known as the Old Catholic Church. One of their main differences was that they rejected the theological doctrine of the pope’s infallibility. They also longed to recapture the theology of the early church, an essence that all Christian bodies could embrace; they fostered an ecumenical consciousness.

Chapter two is a soaring outpouring that outlines what the church truly is. These are the distinguishing characteristics of the Old Catholic Church: The reality of love and freedom that exists in the relationship within the Trinity is present. The body is conciliar (open to discussion in groups, where everyone has a voice), dynamic (nothing is set in stone), relational and organic – the opposite of institutional, imperial, and sovereign. There is shared authority among the laity, clergy, and bishops.

The first two chapters support Caruso’s argument in chapter three that independent Old Catholic groups in North America are not aligned with the Union of Utrecht. He writes, “There are some who still insist that a reliable Old Catholic church in North America exists, however, this claim is not based on reason but exists rather in the realm of illusion. Old Catholicism is fairly new to North America, and its history in the U.S. is complex to state the least.”

Bob discovered the Old Catholic Church online at a time when he realized the Roman Catholic Church, in which he was raised, and with whom he studied for the priesthood, would never accept him as a gay man. The idea for the book came about when he started researching Old Catholicism and became aware of the limited information about it available in English, and the inaccuracy of much of it. According to his perceptions based on his research, only the Union of Utrecht is authentically Old Catholic. “Old Catholic history has been distorted and inaccurately represented for a very long time in North America by many self-published authors,” he writes.

Bob considers his book an introductory work. His goal was to create a foundational book, to present Old Catholicism in an authentic light, paving the way for further scholarship on the subject. “It hasn’t been presented like this in English,” he said. He wants other scholars to “take the work seriously and move it forward.”

He plans to finish his Master of Divinity and Master of Arts in Religion and Theology at United Theological Seminary in New Brighton by 2012. He is ordained for the Cornerstone Old Catholic Community in St. Paul, where he presides at Eucharist and makes pastoral visits.


See also the related Wild Reed posts:
• The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome
• The Declaration of Utrecht
• Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral

Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral

As I’ve mentioned in a number of previous posts, my friend Robert Caruso (pictured at right) serves as priest for Cornerstone Old Catholic Community in St. Paul.

I actually first met Robert when he was presiding at a Dignity Twin Cities liturgy in July 2007. Finding myself intrigued by Old Catholicism, I asked Robert if I could interview him for The Wild Reed. He happily obliged, granting me an extensive and insightful interview which can be found here.

More recently, Robert and his partner John hosted a wonderful “Passover seder meal for Christians” for member and friends of Cornerstone Old Catholic Community – to which I, my housemate Brian, and my friend Kay were invited.

Robert’s currently completing his Master of Divinity and Master of Arts in Religion and Theology at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, and has just had his first book published, The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in North America (Apocryphile Press, 2009), described as “one of the most well researched and perceptive expositions of Old Catholic ecclesiology in the English language.”

Despite his busy schedule, I’m happy to say that Robert manages to keep tabs on the goings-on at The Wild Reed, and he was so taken by what Brian McNeill shared in his article “Who Really ‘Disrupted’ the Pentecost Sunday Mass at the Cathedral?” (posted here on June 3), that he asked me if he could write a reflection in response to it. I told him I’d be both honored and thrilled to share his scholarly insights on my blog – something that I do so today.

___________________________________

Who Disrupted the Pentecost Mass
at the Cathedral of St. Paul?

A Brief Reflection

By Rev. Robert Caruso

Pentecost is a major feast day in the church’s yearly liturgical calendar because it celebrates the full manifestation and revelation of God as Father-Son-Holy Spirit. Some say Pentecost is the “birthday” of the Church; however, I am more inclined to believe the Church was constituted (birthed) at the Annunciation when Mary accepted God’s invitation to bear Jesus the Christ and allowed the Holy Spirit to overshadow her with grace and love. So, Pentecost is indeed a divine revelation, a realization of Christian unity in diversity constituted in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is by the energy of the Spirit that the apostolic community is capable to proclaim Jesus as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3) through the ages unto the end of time (eschatos). The significance of the Pentecost event as described in Acts 2 is the realization in this world of the anticipated fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven. (1) That is to say, Pentecost is the great feast which constitutes the transformation of humanity as being persons united in Christ by the energy of the Spirit amidst their diverse languages, personalities, gender, and (dare I say) sexuality, etc. Pentecost is the beginning of the apostolic age in the proclamation of Christ’s good news to and for the entire world!

This reflection paper concerns itself with an article by Brian McNeill, published June 3, 2009 on Michael Bayly’s blogsite, The Wild Reed. McNeill’s article was about the Rainbow Sash Alliance USA and its local members’ recent attendance at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St. Paul’s Pentecost Mass celebration. Specifically, this paper intends to reflect on some of McNeill’s thoughts concerning Paul’s letter to the Galatian community (specifically Gal. 5:16-25), the Rainbow Sash Alliance, and his overall questions and observations of what occurred at the St. Paul Cathedral Pentecost liturgy.

Let me begin by stating that I am a gay man who has been in a committed same-sex relationship for twelve-plus years. I am also an ordained Old Catholic priest who serves a small Old Catholic community (Cornerstone Old Catholic Community). (2) Having stated this, I do not, in any manner, officially represent in this essay the community I serve or the Episcopal diocese of MN nor its bishop. I write this paper as a concerned Catholic Christian and gay man.


Galatians 5:16-25 as a Pentecost text

I always find it interesting when the Apostle Paul’s epistles, specifically Galatians 5:16-25 (typically known as “the works of the flesh” passage), is used in a manner that supports bigotry (either directly or indirectly) towards homosexual persons. Indeed, I am compelled to ponder the question of what was Paul trying to communicate in this specific passage, keeping in mind (of course) the whole body of his theological work found in the New Testament canon as we have it today. Why was Galatians 5:16-25 read (instead of 1 Corinthians 12:3-7;12-13) at the recent Pentecost Mass at the St. Paul Cathedral, and why is Galatians 5:16-25 even listed in the Catholic lectionary as an “alternative text” for Pentecost Mass? At first glance, a reading from Galatians 5:16-25 does seem “unusual” or out of place for the Pentecost liturgy; however a closer historical and theological analysis of the text leads one to a better understanding as to why it is indeed relevant to the Pentecost event as described in Acts 2.

First, a brief historical clarification is necessary here if one endeavors to accurately interpret Paul’s letters in the New Testament canon; especially those sections of his letters that have been typically translated and exegeted by some as moral judgments against homosexuality. That is to say, one must always have in mind the historical context Paul’s letters were originally written in, e.g. Paul’s letters come to us already edited – they are not purely from Paul and therefore must be carefully elucidated. Further, Paul himself comes to us already interpreted in that we know he was an educated “Torah-observant Pharisee” (3) (who wrote in Greek, and believed he was called by Christ to be a missionary to the Gentiles or non-Jews). Nothing within the letters of Paul, historically speaking, was addressed to the modern reader; we are, in a sense, reading somebody else’s mail. (4) Exegetically speaking, we must also take into account all of Paul’s letters in New Testament canon when reading and interpreting specific sections of them. That is, one cannot dissect Paul’s letters from each other – they are a corporate body of his thoughts and ideas concerning the relationship of Christ and the Spirit in relation to God the Father and the Church. Lastly, when one reads Paul’s list of “the works of the flesh” in Gal. 5:19-21 its intent is not immediately evident and further contextual elucidation is necessary so to avoid tainting the text by interpolating one’s modern context and moralistic ideology into its meaning.


Apologetic

Most biblical scholars today would agree that the character of Paul’s letter to the Galatian community is apologetic (defensive) in trying to persuade this mostly Gentile community that his apostleship, as well as his gospel message, was authentic and faithful to the teachings of Peter and the other “acknowledged pillars” of the Jewish Jesus-believing communities (Gal. 2:7-9). It is more than evident in the Galatian epistle (as we have it today) that there was much confusion among the members of this community concerning the gospel Paul preached to them about Jesus, the Messiah of Israel. That is, Paul preached a gospel of salvation through the justification of faith in Christ alone; For Paul, Christ is the fulfillment of Israel’s Covenant and its prescribed Law, i.e. male circumcision (Gal. 2:15). Paul taught that faith in Christ is the new justification for salvation from sin and death for all people, Jew and Gentile alike. Some of the original apostles of Jesus (i.e. Peter and James, the Lord’s brother) and their mostly Jewish followers did not necessarily agree with Paul’s justification by faith alone gospel, which caused major problems for Paul and his Gentile communities like the one in Galatia. It is likely that after Paul preached the gospel message at Galatia, other followers from James’ communities may have come over and preached a different gospel message – a message that demanded both Jews and Gentiles still observe the original Covenant of Israel.

To be sure, a letter which no longer exists was probably sent to Paul by the Galatian community informing him that after hearing a different gospel message – one that seemed more authentic than his – they were prepared to disregard his gospel message and probably went so far to even question the authenticity of his ministry as an apostle of Christ. In other words, Paul’s message to the Gentiles of his day – who were aware of the sectarian and faith traditions of the Jewish people of their day – seemed too good to be true! It is only logical that the Gentiles would have to follow the Law of the Covenant made between God and Israel, especially knowing that Jesus was a faithful Jew who knew and followed the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, and embraced the Temple and its priesthood as the apex of Jewish worship to God (YHWH).

The letter from the Galatian community may have been a scathing message to Paul questioning his apostleship and accusing him of trying to trick them. (5) It is clear in the Galatian epistle that Paul is angry and very defensive; he begins the letter by informing them of his astonishment of how quickly they turned on him (Gal. 1:6), and that those who teach a different gospel than his are doing nothing but confusing them (1:7). Further, Paul curses these persons who preached a gospel contrary to his, and even repeats this curse in the very next sentence stating, “As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed (Gal. 1:9)!” He then moves to defending the authenticity of his apostleship asking the community to whom should he seek approval, human beings or God (1:10)? And even informs them that if his mission was indeed to please people, he would not be a servant of Christ (1:10). Paul even goes so far as to defend his Jewish (Pharisaic) heritage against these others who preach a different gospel by asserting that he was “…far more zealous for the traditions of [his] ancestors (1:13).” He even rebukes Peter openly labeling him and his followers hypocrites for drawing back from eating and drinking with the Gentiles “…for fear of the circumcision faction. (2:12);”and furthermore asks the question of how can the Jesus-believing Jews compel the Jesus believing Gentiles to live like Jews – it makes no sense to Paul (2:14)! Moreover, Paul calls the Galatian community “foolish” and turns the tables in asking who “bewitched” them into believing the Law takes precedent over the crucified and risen Lord (3:1-5).


Something radical, new, and transformative

The point to be made here is that for Paul something radical, new, and transformative had occurred in the world through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Those who have faith and are baptized into Christ Jesus are now intimately related with him in his death and resurrection, so that we no longer live for our selves alone (a/k/a the false-self) but for Christ who is our salvation and justification before God the Father and Creator of all (2 Cor. 5:14-17). Furthermore, Paul informs us that it is the Spirit who actualizes this relationship between Christ, the baptized, and all of creation in a manner that binds them together in a diverse, yet unified organic body where Christ is the head. Salvation in Christ is a corporate reality that ontologically transforms a baptized individual into a relational person through freedom and love (1 Cor. 13:4-7). That is to say, Paul believed that “Christ’s truth is not located in his individuality, but in his ontological personhood. Meaning, Christ is the embodied truth for humanity and all creation…[Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit] is our reality for what it means to be wholly and freely relational with each other and with the Divine. (6)

Paul asserts many times in his letters that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s covenantal relationship with Israel established through Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:1-3, 15-21). So, the “work of the flesh” (i.e. male circumcision) that Paul alludes to in Galatians 5:18 was Israel’s instrument, rule, or law that sealed the covenantal promises assured to Abraham and Sarah’s offspring by God (Gen. 17:12-14). Paul’s radical claim in Galatians is that circumcision is no longer needed because in Christ human flesh (sarx) is ontologically transformed in the energy of the Spirit into a relational body (soma) of persons united in their diversity to the glory of God the Father. Faith in Christ voids the necessity of circumcision; “…the only thing that counts is faith working through love (Gal. 5:6).” The fulfillment of God’s promise to remain with Israel for all time is now extended to all in creation through faith in Christ Jesus (3:26-29). Thus the covenant with the God of Israel is no longer an individual’s “work of the flesh” – for the flesh of the false-self is indeed opposed to the relational energy of the Spirit – but is rather a corporate reality of related persons baptized and sealed in Christ manifested in this world as unified and diverse organic body constituted in the Holy Spirit to the glory of the God the Father (a/k/a the local Church catholic).

Now that we have a better, albeit concise, historical and theological background of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians we can begin to understand why Galatians 5:16-25 is actually a very relevant passage to read at the Pentecost liturgy. Recall that Pentecost is the great feast which constitutes the transformation of humanity as related persons united in Christ by the energy of the Spirit amidst their diversity. Paul’s “works of the flesh” litany in Galatians 5:19-21 has nothing to do with homosexuality and/or same-sex acts, but rather alludes to the sole focus of the self and not on the other. That is, the “works of the flesh” is what inevitably occurs when one ceases to be a relational person and digresses into the illusion of depending on one’s self for all things (i.e. the false-self). This occurs because the false-self has no care for others, and views them as individual commodities for one’s usage and/or pleasure. The idealized “I” replaces God and is naturally opposed to anything genuinely relational or “of the Spirit.” Living by the Spirit is living for oneself as well as for others in Christ Jesus – it is living in the relational essence of what Martin Buber philosophically coined as the “I & Thou” of what constitutes authentic personhood.


Living by the Spirit

What is interesting about the usage of Galatians 5:16-25 at the Pentecost Mass is not so much the litany of “the works of the flesh”, but of Paul’s assertion to “live by the Spirit (Gal.1:1).” How does one “live by the Spirit?” I do not believe Paul’s assertion here lies in some superfluous moralistic way of living, but is rather a claim based on one’s being (ontology) as a baptized person and member of Christ’s body constituted in the Spirit in all its diversity. To live in the Spirit means one must exude agapē or service oriented love toward others in Christ’s name; to live by the Spirit means we are united because of our differences in freedom and mutual service toward each other and all creation. Our differences are gifts of the Spirit when they are used to honor and support the body as a whole (1Cor. 12:4-13)! Paul’s insight of “living by the Spirit” is much more than a pseudo-Gnostic duality of good (spirit) versus evil (flesh, matter). The “mortification” of the flesh is not some grotesque medieval self-infliction of pain. Mortification of the flesh, in its more profound sense, occurs when we humans begin to understand our “selves” as relational beings, as the very image of God’s being as communion. Paul speaks to this post-Pentecost reality of the baptized as being in communion with God and all of creation through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Let us now turn to the final question that generated this reflection to begin with. Who disrupted the Pentecost Mass at the Cathedral of St. Paul on May 31, 2009? Brian McNeill asks his readers the following questions:

Now that Pentecost is over, I think it is fair to ask the question who disrupted the noon liturgy? Was it the thirty people who quietly and prayerfully were present as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Catholics? Or was it Archbishop Nienstedt and Fr. Adams who perhaps chose the Galatians text for the specific purpose of bearing false witness against us? Who perhaps intentionally opted for the alternative reading from Galatians because it served their sectarian and political purposes, to make their point, and discredit the wearers of the Rainbow Sash as disruptive protesters? (7)

Keeping in mind all that has been stated thus far about Paul’s understanding of humanity, Christ and the Spirit, God and the Church, I would like to try and briefly answer Brian’s questions quoted above.


Sexuality: gift of the Spirit

The wearers of the rainbow sash make the claim that the sash is a symbol of celebration, presumably of one’s homosexual identity. I commend the wearers of the rainbow sash in trying to honor gays and lesbians in this way because the Roman Church, as well as society at large, has done much to discredit and abuse gays and lesbians in various ways. I celebrate the fact that gay men and lesbian women are no longer tolerating the Roman Church’s bigoted and abusive attitude toward them, and refuse to believe that their sexual identity is “objectively disordered.” (8)

I believe in my heart of hearts that human sexuality is a complex part of one’s ontological nature, and is yet another gift of the Spirit who values and honors the beauty of diversity in forming unity within the body of Christ. The Roman Church condemns same-sex relationships generally speaking, and in doing so casts such persons out of the body of Christ by refusing them Eucharist at Mass. In essence, the Roman Church claims it does not exile gays and lesbians, who are indeed children of God, based upon their ontological make-up as human beings because (again generally speaking) Roman doctrine is clear in stating that the Church does not condemn homosexual persons, only their active (sexual) relationships with one another. (9) How is this language not abusive and contradicting?

That is to say, if a homosexual person wants to remain Roman Catholic and be able to fully participate in the celebration of Holy Eucharist, he or she must masochistically deny their very nature (their very being) as secondary, unimportant, objectively morbid and naturally unable to experience God’s Shalom (wholeness, peace and joy) in life. This is not only antithetical to the eucharistic life of Catholics, but also a diminution of the Holy Spirit – the third Person of the Holy Triune. The Roman Church’s official teaching concerning gays and lesbians fails to instill hope (resurrection) to these persons who are members of Christ’s body and children of God, and it devalues the Holy Spirit, who is the Giver of Life, into a Gnostic and mechanistic instrument of moral mortification towards the very flesh Christ came to redeem in all its beautiful diversity!

The celebration of Eucharist (a/k/a the Mass) is the source and summit of the Christian faith because within the act of leitourgia the body of Christ is manifested corporally in the assembly of the laos (the baptized: lay and ordained) as well as substantially and truly in the Sacrament of the Altar-Table. The Spirit is what unifies us in our baptism, and the celebration of Eucharist is the manifestation of this baptismal unity in diversity, where the gifts of the Spirit are shared in Christ to the glory of God the Father. Our baptismal identity is what unites us amidst our diversity, and our unity is manifested in a most profound way through the shared celebration of Eucharist on the local level. In baptism, one enters into a transformative relationship with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and from that point on all other titles of honor, race, class, gender, sexuality, etc. become secondary. That is, all our other identities (i.e. gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class, wealth, etc.) culminate in our one baptismal and eucharistic identity through, with, and in Christ; in the unity of the Holy Spirit; to the praise, laud and thanksgiving of the Creator of all! Thus God’s very being as communion is what unites us in all our diversity through the grace-filled waters of baptism, and “…at the celebration of Eucharist we become known to each other primarily through our ecclesial [eucharistic] identity – the mark of our baptism in Christ’s paschal mystery.” (10)

The honoring of others at Eucharist lies in the assembly’s hospitable attitude towards all in attendance. When the baptized gather to celebrate Eucharist with each other it is Christ who unites them in the Spirit for the meal of love. Therefore, our baptismal and eucharistic identity is Christian; not gay or lesbian, male or female, rich or poor Christians, but just Christian. The problem is when the church begins distinguishing and selecting those who are and those who are not worthy to be part of the eucharistic assembly. Catholics who are of homosexual orientation mourn the fact that the Roman Church views them as second-class members of Christ’s body, and have tried in various ways for the church to respect and honor their full personhood (sexuality and all) in the life of the organic church. Unfortunately, they have been met with animosity, judgment, and are labeled as “outsiders” and “disrupters” of the church’s celebration of the Holy Eucharist.


A two-fold disruption

The disruption that occurred at the St. Paul Cathedral’s Pentecost liturgy, in my opinion, was two-fold in that Fr. Adams, as the presider of the Pentecost Eucharist, did not exude a Christ-like character of hospitality, care and compassion towards certain members of Christ’s body; whereas the rainbow sash wearers seemed more attuned to celebrating their sexuality rather than the unity of the local Church at Eucharist. The disruption by Fr. Adams is obvious in that he failed to show genuine care towards those considered inferior within the local body of Christ. His focus seemed more intent on implementing the law rather than the faith of the church.

The rainbow sash worn by Catholic homosexuals and their supporters really has no place within the celebration of Holy Eucharist because the focus should not be about celebrating one’s sexuality, but rather about uniting one’s personhood (sexual orientation included) with the gathered assembly in holy communion with the Triune God and creation. The Christian homosexual identity is much more than just the individual! The baptized are all children of God and members of the diverse body of Christ, and some of these members happen to be gay and lesbian, not by their choosing but by their very God-given nature. That is, we are gay with or without our sash, and we can honor our sexuality with or without a sash. Paul tells the community at Corinth, “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it (1 Cor.12:27).” He further states that “…God has so arranged the body, giving greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body…(12:24),” which tells me that it is because of the church’s failure to understand Paul’s assertion here that Christian gay and lesbian persons are compelled to wear sashes, so to maintain a sense of self-worth in their ecclesial identity (e.g. wearing rainbow sashes at Mass); a quality that has been severally damaged by the doctrines of the Roman Church.


Conclusion

This paper has reflected on some of Brian McNeill’s thoughts in his article concerning Paul’s letter to the Galatian community (specifically Gal. 5:16-25), the Rainbow Sash Alliance, and his overall description/opinion of what occurred at the recent St. Paul Cathedral Mass on Pentecost. Specifically, it has elucidated that the above Galatians passage is indeed a profound text to read and preach on for the Pentecost liturgy, and supported this assertion through a concise historical and theological exgesis of the Apostle Paul and his letter to the Galatians. Lastly, I briefly focus on answering this essay’s question by theologically reflecting on what it means to live as the body of Christ in connection with the celebration of Eucharist on the local level. I will end here in quoting Old Catholic theologian, ecumenist, and professor at the University of Bern, Switzerland, Urs von Arx, he states:

Communion is not only an encounter between Christ and the individual believer (this aspect has shaped much of our eucharistic piety), but more importantly a community building event integrating each believer in the communal fellowship of brothers and sisters in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29) (11)

Notes

1. John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 112.

2. Cornerstone Old Catholic Community is the presiding chapter of the Christian Community of Old Catholics and Episcopalians, and is affiliated with the Episcopal Church, USA as an observing member of the National Association of Episcopal Christian Communities (NAECC). It should be made clear that Cornerstone, including myself, is not affiliated in any way with the independent Old Catholic groups that currently exist in North America. Our Christian Community’s vision is to foster the 1931 Bonn Agreement (full) communion standards between the Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht and the Anglican Communion, i.e. the Episcopal Church, USA. Meaning, our community views the Episcopal Church as the local Church universal in the USA and affiliates its school of eucharistic spirituality and apostolic ministries within the order of this church polity in North America.

3. See Marilyn J. Salmon, Preaching Without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), esp. p. 91; and Acts 23:6-9 (NRSV).

4. John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook, rev. ed. (Louisville; London: Westminister John Knox Press, 1973), 14-15.

5. Professor of Religious Studies at Macalester College, Calvin J. Roetzel, informs us that in contrast to Peter and James, “…Paul’s claim to be an apostle was weak and his gospel suspect. He was no disciple. He had not known Jesus “according to the flesh.” His gospel, therefore, came not directly from Jesus but from other sources (human?). He had once been the persecutor of the church, seeking to eradicate it. His gospel had previously been challenged in Philippi. And, in view of some his commission and gospel appeared to be totally dependent on human, not divine, sources. Calvin J. Roetzel, Paul: The Man and the Myth (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 48.

6. Robert W. Caruso, The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in North America (Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 2009), 53.

7. Brian McNeill, “Who Really ‘Disrupted’ the Pentecost Sunday Mass at the Cathedral?” The Wild Reed, 3 June 2009; Internet; accessed 7 June 2009.

8. Daniel A. Helminiak, Sex and the Sacred: Gay Identity and Spiritual Growth (New York, NY: Harrington Park Press, 2006), 147.

9. Ibid.

10. Caruso, 85.

11. Urs von Arx, Unity and Communion, Mystical and Visible in Towards Further Convergence: Anglican and Old Catholic Ecclesiologies ed. Urs von Arx, et al., Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 96 (2006), 168.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome
The Declaration of Utrecht

Recommended Off-site Link:
One Archdiocesan Community, Two Mindsets - Paula Ruddy (Progressive Catholic Voice, June 1, 2009).