As I previously mentioned, the Old Catholic tradition has long fascinated me. Years ago in seminary, I devoured websites dedicated to Old Catholicism. I read books on the movement as well as the modernist controversy in Catholicism. While I loved many of the ideas, I regretted that there was no real Old Catholic community nearby. I grew up in a rural area and Catholicism itself was in the minority. Such an environment almost forces a person to maintain strongly defined beliefs to withstand the misunderstanding of other faith groups.
Even as a Roman Catholic priest, I continued holding the Old Catholics and modernists in high esteem. Finally, I came across the book “The Pope and the Professor” which brought to life so many thoughts which had arisen over the years. My reservations regarding papal absolutism and universal jurisdiction came front and center. I have long understood the role of papal primacy in terms of jurisdiction, but came to understand other approaches as being necessary. One of the most common forms of ecclesiology held today is the church as communion. The Old Catholic tradition recognized modern institutional ecclesiology was a dead-end and wanted to creatively bring back ancient understandings of ecclesiology. For me, the question remains if the Old Catholic tradition has understood the tradition sufficiently to offer a compelling apologia to the masses. Sadly, I do not think it has and I will explain why.
This past weekend, I started reading the book “The Old Catholic Movement: It’s Origins and History” by Moss. Page 113 explains the issue between the group that later was identified as Old Catholics and the Roman Catholic position. Essentially the Old Catholics believed the ancient privileges granted to the See of Utrecht remained in existence while the Roman Catholics believes they ceased to exist at the time of the Protestant Reformation. If you look at many churches in the Old Catholic tradition, they use the papal privileges granted to Utrecht as a justification for why they ceased being in communion with Rome. I understand the need to provide a nice history to readers, but a deeper question arises. If the pope as Bishop of Rome first granted the privileges, could he not revoke these at a later time? Were these privileges granted to the see by the pope or should they have rightly belonged to the see to begin with?
A lot of Old Catholic justification does not go sufficiently to the heart of the matter which is ecclesiological rather than historical. Does the pope have universal jurisdiction so that bishops are simply functionaries of the pope and do everything by delegation rather than their apostolic authority? If bishops are truly the successors of the apostles, then ecclesiology must reflect the communion that the original apostles had with one another. This communion meant that there were differences, but each apostle had their own territory while remaining in union with one another.
Much of Old Catholic ecclesiology emphasizes the historical circumstances of the break without examining the deeper ecclesiological issue of the authority of a bishop and the ancient privileges that belonged to each diocese. The role of the laity and the clergy in electing their bishop was removed and reserved to the pope. The role of the bishop in the local church was greatly diminished by the expansion of papal authority in the church. Sadly, these changes crept in slowly so it was only in hindsight that we can see the ancient privileges that were lost.
Old Catholicism has much to offer our contemporary situation, but the question arises as to how we can share the story without depending upon privileges granted to a diocese by a pope. The argument is circular as it depends upon a privilege granted by the pope to defend against the revocation of the privilege by another pope. I argue that it was never the pope’s privilege to grant in the first place. Such apologetics must always be done in charity for I want nothing more than the pope as Bishop of Rome to recognize the importance of his role as one who is to strengthen others as Jesus commands him. The Bishop of Rome should be given honor as the successor to the apostles on the apostolic see based upon the faith of St. Peter and St. Paul. This see of honor maintained the faith in difficult circumstances and was forged by the ancient martyrs.
While individual popes have failed their mission to strengthen others and became a stumbling block, the faith has remained. We must pray that our faith never fails and that we can work together to build up one another and develop an ecclesiology that recognizes the dignity and faith of one another.
Comentários