Old Catholic Union with Rome.
Necessary Steps from the Old Catholic Perspective.
When explaining to Roman Catholics about Old Catholicism. I frequently get the question: "Why don't you come home to Rome?", in one form or another. I reply that there are political reasons, rather than theological ones, and go on from there, as the questioner's interest and patience allow me.
My Great & Good Friend, Jeff Duntemann, keeps encouraging me to write on the subject (as I keep encouraging him to write about his expertise). I recently wrote a couple of pieces about excommunication and Roman Catholic Canon Law, so this subject seemed to follow on naturally.
The question of Old Catholic reunion with Rome involves a great deal of history (and no little politics), going back to Apostolic times. I will try to lay it out in as clear and sequential manner as I can.
All power and authority flow from Jesus Christ, of course, and in Matt 16:19, He said: “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Douay-Rheims English Translation, ca. 1585) In a slightly different context, he also gives them wide latitude: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23, D.-R.)
The Apostles obviously understood this grant of authority and power literally, since, in Acts 15 (describing what is sometimes called the First Council in Jerusalem) they absolve Gentile converts from the burden of observing all of the Jewish Law. Think about it – a bunch of low-class Galilean fishermen and their buddies, nullifying the Law and the Prophets. No wonder the Rabbinical schools were upset at them.
Looking at the process described in Acts 15, we see the pattern of Church legislation established: The Apostles (and/or their successors, the Bishops) meeting in groups, to discuss, pray about, and act on issuing legislation for the running of the Church. Soon after the Council in Jerusalem, we fell under the lash of Roman persecutions, and there were local synods in times when pressure let off, but no General Councils until after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D.
Starting with the First Ecumenical Council -- held in Nicea in 325 A.D. -- we see a clear pattern of Conciliar legislation, both in internal, procedural matters, and in matters of Faith and Morals. Nicea both condemns the Arian heresy, and gives instructions on how clergy are to behave in the world.
Six more Ecumenical Councils are recognized by both East and West, ending with 2nd Nicea, in 792 A.D. Since that time, the political and cultural differences between East and West have prevented the convening of a truly Ecumenical Council -- all "Councils" since then have been, essentially, local Synods.
The basic reason behind the schism between Rome and Utrecht (we Old Catholics are descended from the Archbishops of Utrecht, in the Netherlands) lies in Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381 A.D.:
"CANON II.
THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian (Asia Minor -- modern Turkey) Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic (area near the Black Sea) bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."
Notice especially: "... the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province...". and "... bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches..." Not to put too fine a point on it, no bishop, however grand, has the right or power to interfere in the affairs of another bishop's diocese.
All bishops were and are not entirely equal, however. Bishops were appointed for particular regions, which corresponded to the subdivisions of the Roman Empire called -- SURPRISE! -- dioceses! The bishop of the largest town in the vicinity, which would be the headquarters of the next larger imperial subdivision -- the Province -- would serve as the chairman of the bishops meeting in synod, and would generally oversee matters -- but not interfere directly. These "city bishops" or "Provincials" came to be called "Metropolitans" in the East, and "Archbishops" in the West.
Over and above the Metropolitan Sees, several historical Sees became important, both for their association with certain Apostles, and because of their political importance in the Empire. In order of foundation, they are: Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem.
Interestingly, St. Peter was first Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome, and the Bishops of Antioch count their Apostolic Succession from him. Also interestingly, the first Bishop/Patriarch of Alexandria was St. Mark the Evangelist, who was Peter's secretary -- so Alexandria's Apostolic Succession is from Peter, too. Constantinople claims Andrew, Peter's brother, as the founder of the See, but some suspect it was founded out of Antioch. Jerusalem was definitely re-founded out of Antioch, when Jews and Christians were allowed back in after the Emperor Hadrian's destruction of the city in 135 AD.
The archbishops of these important Metropolitan Sees became known as Patriarchs, and influenced the organization and liturgy in the areas where they held sway. Note that 4 of the 5 historical Patriarchates are in the Greek-speaking East, and only 1 in the Latin-Speaking West.
There would have been another -- Carthage -- serving the grain-growing provinces in North Africa from Cyrene westward to the Gates of Hercules (Gibraltar), but it was successively destroyed by the Vandals (430 AD), the Byzantines (under Belisarius, 533 AD), and the Muslims (695 AD), and so did not develop into a Patriarchate.
Rome, among the Patriarchates, was (and still is) the "First among equals" -- first in honor and first in precedence, since both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred there. But after the fall of Italy to the Ostrogoths in the 400s, Rome lost intimate contact with her 4 sisters in the East. They spoke Greek -- Rome, increasingly, no longer did. In the 400s, the Liturgy in the West came to be said in Latin, not the former Greek. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) was a master of Latin oratory -- but had no Greek.
With the fall of the Western Empire, the Papacy and the Roman Curia became the only organized entity larger than a city-state, and the focus of Western Christians' hopes and dreams. Popes had enough clout & charisma to talk barbarian chieftains out of sacking Rome itself.
Philip Shaff, in "Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume
I. The History of Creeds.", records that:
"Gregory I., or the Great, the last of the Latin Fathers, and the first of the mediaeval Popes (590-604), stoutly protested against the assumption of the title Oecumenical or universal Bishop on the part of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and denounced this whole title and claim as blasphemous, anti-Christian, and devilish, since Christ alone was the Head and Bishop of the Church universal, while Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John, were members under the same Head, and heads only of single portions of the whole. Gregory would rather call himself 'the servant of the servants of God,'"
Gregory's successors, however, alone in their dominant position in the West, and without the criticism and communion with other Patriarchs, continued to assert more and more thoroughly Imperial claims toward other churches, culminating with Pius IX's self-proclamation of Dogmatic Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction.
In Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Documents of Vatican I, Pius IX declares:
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
In the 1983 Roman Code of Canon Law, it says:
"Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely."
And:
"Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff."
See a pattern?
THIS is what separates us Old Catholics from Rome -- as it separates the Orthodox.
And THIS is what will have to change before we consider re-uniting with Rome.
I am necessarily not holding my breath.
===================
What would I like to see, instead of iron imperial dominion?
Well, first of all, I am an American of the generation that grew up right after WWII, and got a strong dose of Constitutional theory in Civics classes. I was much impressed with the idea of separation of powers -- Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Despite cynical remarks about the U.S. having the Best Congress money can buy, it has worked out fairly well.
"Power corrupts, they say, 'and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Pius IX is a glaring example of this dictum.
I would like to see Popes (and the other Patriarchs) subject to the review of truly Ecumenical Councils (comprised of delegates from both East and West). I would like to see a formal structure of an independent Judiciary. I would like to see mandatory Civil Audits (according to professional standards of best practices) of Church finances and properties at all levels. I would like to see mandatory inclusion of the laity in decision-making about mundane affairs.
I would like to see Pastors (and Bishops; and Metropolitans; and Patriarchs; and Popes) be men of religion -- spending their time on Teaching and the Sacraments, not fund-raising and administrivia. Modern Generals are responsible for the operation of their units, but they have well-ordered Staffs to handle the details of implementation.
I would like to see the Bishop of Rome, the First Among Equals, speak TRULY infallibly, as the spokesman for the Whole Church, in Council Assembled.
+Samuel B. Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop
of Zzyzx in California
(Waving the Black Flag of Anarchy
under the Noses of the Roman Curia)
