The Problem of Jurisdiction Names in the Independent Sacramental Movement

Names matter. A name makes a claim, signals an identity, and shapes how others understand us before they hear a sermon, witness a liturgy, or speak to a bishop or priest. In the Independent Sacramental Movement, jurisdictional names often carry especially heavy meaning. They do more than distinguish one body from another. They frequently attempt to locate a community within the long memory of the Church.

That is why so many jurisdictions adopt names such as Ancient Apostolic, Holy Orthodox, Old Catholic, or names associated with historic Christian centers such as Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem. Others invoke the names of apostles such as John, Peter, or Thomas. These names are not chosen at random. Usually they are aspirational. They express a desire to stand in continuity with the apostolic faith, the sacramental life of the Church, and the ancient Christian tradition. In themselves, such aspirations are understandable and even admirable. Many of us entered the Independent Sacramental Movement precisely because we were not seeking novelty. We were seeking the depth of Christian antiquity, sacramental seriousness, liturgical reverence, and fidelity to the apostolic faith.

Yet aspiration and reality are not always the same thing. That is where the problem begins.

Too often, jurisdictional names say more than a community can honestly sustain. A title may suggest recognized continuity with a historic see, communion with an established church, or a depth of theological and liturgical rootedness that is not actually present. A jurisdiction may invoke Antioch while having no meaningful relationship to the historical churches of Antioch, no serious formation in Antiochene theology, and no real accountability beyond its own self-description. Another may claim the title Old Catholic while existing entirely outside communion with the Old Catholic churches of the Union of Utrecht and outside the historical development that gave Old Catholicism its particular identity. Still others may speak in apostolic language while lacking even the most basic structures of formation, discipline, theological coherence, or pastoral stability.

This is not merely a branding issue. It is an ecclesial and moral issue.

For those in the Independent Sacramental Movement, the question is especially urgent. The ISM often stands in a complicated relationship to history. On the one hand, it regularly appeals to apostolic succession, sacramental continuity, catholic identity, ancient liturgy, and traditional doctrine. On the other hand, it often exists outside the formal structures through which many historic churches have defined and regulated authority. This can produce both great freedom and great instability. It can generate creativity, pastoral flexibility, and genuine recovery of neglected traditions. It can also generate confusion, selective appropriation, inflated claims, and shallow appeals to “the ancient Church” that are not grounded in serious study.

That tension must be faced honestly. There is a difference between drawing inspiration from the ancient Church and implying that one simply is the ancient Church in recognizable continuity. There is a difference between reverencing Antioch and naming oneself as though one has inherited Antioch. There is a difference between honoring the apostles and adopting apostolic names in ways that may suggest a legitimacy one has not truly earned. To use such names without the substance to support them risks becoming an exercise in borrowed grandeur. It may comfort insiders, but it often raises legitimate questions from outsiders.

And those outsiders are not always hostile. Sometimes they are simply confused. Sometimes they are seekers trying to understand who we are. Sometimes they are clergy or laity from historic communions trying to determine whether our claims are transparent and responsible. Sometimes they are people wounded by institutional religion who are looking for a sacramental home and deserve clarity rather than ambiguity.

Honesty is not weakness. In fact, honesty may be one of the greatest strengths the Independent Sacramental Movement can cultivate.

Perhaps that means choosing names that are more modest, more descriptive, and more truthful. The language of sacramental jurisdiction, sacramental Christian, or even convergence may lack some of the grandeur of ancient titles, but it may better reflect reality. Such names do not pretend to be what we are not. They leave room for reverence toward the past without collapsing aspiration into accomplishment. They can signal seriousness and invite conversation rather than create false impressions.

Even the term Old Catholic, which many of us love for good reason, requires caution. It carries theological, historical, and ecclesial meaning. It can express a genuine affinity with Old Catholic principles such as catholicity without ultramontanism, synodality, sacramental life, and rootedness in the undivided Church. Yet when used carelessly, it can also mislead. If we are not in communion with the historic Old Catholic churches, then we should say so plainly. If we are inspired by Old Catholic thought without formally belonging to Old Catholic communions, then clarity serves both truth and charity.

This is not a call to abandon the past. Quite the opposite. It is a call to honor the past enough not to use it lightly.

If we invoke apostolic succession, then let us live apostolically. If we appeal to catholicity, then let us show the marks of catholic life: sacramental depth, doctrinal seriousness, pastoral charity, ecclesial humility, and missionary faithfulness. If we speak of the ancient Church, then let us study it carefully, receive it reverently, and resist the temptation to turn it into a collection of symbols for self-legitimation. The ancient Church is not a costume closet from which we borrow impressive garments. It is a demanding inheritance.

In the end, our credibility will not rest on names, titles, elaborate jurisdictions, or proximity to romanticized antiquity. Our credibility will rest on whether we actually live the apostolic faith and mission. It will rest on whether our communities bear good fruit. It will rest on whether we form clergy responsibly, celebrate the sacraments faithfully, teach the faith honestly, serve the suffering concretely, and embody the holiness we so readily claim in words.

A grand name cannot create apostolic substance. At best, it can point toward it. At worst, it can conceal its absence.

The Independent Sacramental Movement does not need more inflated titles. It needs more integrity. It needs names that are honest enough to tell the truth about who we are, and communities holy enough that, over time, the truth of our life together speaks more loudly than any title ever could.

Peace,

Ben