I grew up knowing what “Old Catholic” was, because many of my immediate family were “Old Catholic”. As I became more engaged in things OC in the late 80’s and early 90’s I also began hearing the term “Independent Catholic” used ostensibly as a synonym, thus, the familiar acronym “OC/IC”. Recently (and I admit I am woefully behind the times here) through my friends +John Plummer, Siobhan Houston, and others, I’ve become aware of the new term “Independent Sacramental” – which if I’m not mistaken is originally coined by John.

I wish to admit from the beginning that I cannot possibly hope to address all of the questions and variables popping into my own mind in relation to this topic in a single blog entry. There is much that I’m leaving out here largely for the sake of staying focussed to get the topic up and running.

Lets take a minute and look at the older terms. What do they convey? What do they omit? “Old Catholic” is the original. In the US it has been the preferred term for all those communities and groups born from the original Old Catholics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There are some obvious, and confusing difficulties with this term.

Firstly, those of us whose primary apostolic line (and therefore, course of history) derives from Vilatte, are not strictly speaking Old Catholic. Vilatte was ordained to the priesthood by the Old Catholics in Europe (without looking I think it was Herzog of Berne) and later consecrated by Alvarez of Goa. Alvarez was not Old Catholic, but Syrian Orthodox. Mixed in with Vilatte’s original “line” is the, strictly speaking, “true” Old Catholic line of Arnold Matthew, who was consecrated in 1908 by Gul.

Sharing the history of and link via the “apostolic line” of Vilatte & Matthew is not reason enough to describe one’s self as “Old Catholic”. There is a theological outlook born out of the history of the term, which so many of our folk know little or nothing about – which is I think a real shame, as I believe it would really enrich our current understanding of who we are as . . . dare I do it. . . .”OC/IC/ISM” folk. Part of this outlook, includes: encouraging the development of the laity, encouraging solid scholarship in theology and church history, enforcing synodical rule within the community. This is not an exhaustive list but it gives you a clear sense of what is painfully absent in wide swathes of today’s OC/IC community. So there’s the history – do the descendent communities (many having this “unified” line) rightly refer to ourselves as Old Catholic?

Without fully appreciating the origin of the term “Old Catholic” which comes to us from a “liberal” religio-political movement in Southern Germany, many have the mistaken idea that “Old” Catholic means traditionalist, tridintine, pre-Vatican II. This pseudo-traditionalism has nothing at all to do with the origin and current state of the historic Old Catholic community here in Europe, which abandoned celibacy in the early 20th century, ordains women, and has radically modernised the liturgy. This mis-conception of “Old Catholic” however, has had a substantial impact on developments in various communities in the US, and is worth considering as we develop our Nomen-Bestiary.

“Independent Catholic” seems to have emerged in the mid 80’s and early 90’s as a common synonym in the US, in particular. I’m not entirely certain of its origin, so I beg your lenience as I “reasonably speculate” a bit. “Independent Catholic” seems to allow for describing those groups which do not directly share in the history connected with Utrecht (such as the Brazilians, and more loosely married “former” RC priests) as well as those communities which do share that history, but which have developed incorporating new and different theologies and ideologies (New Age, neo-Gnosticism, Creation Spirituality, Teillard de Chardain (sp?) etc.).

“Independent Catholic” it seems recognises the shifting scene of the movement at the time, but it does raise other questions. The most obvious: independent of what, exactly? This is a question that suggests not an authentic tradition (which I fully believe we are) but rather a “temporary” reactionary movement that is fickle and inconsistent. Sound familiar? This mentality has plagued our community now for 70 years, and it is one we all need to strive to overcome as it has, and continues to create enormous problems for us as a whole. We allow people to come into, and remain in, the movement who are not fully “OC/IC/ISM” folk. Rather they are reacting against some point or set of points of their “own” religious tradition that they refuse to leave behind. We “let” them use us – and its wrong (but this is a side issue for another post). The fact is, and it is inescapable, those who mock us, have successfully latched on to our biggest weakness – we present ourselves as reactionaries, when we should “be” and present ourselves as authentic, thoughtful, engaged believers of an honourable (though eclectic) tradition.

“Independent Sacramental” is a relatively new term to me, and I think I’m safe in thinking that if he did not create it +John Plummer is responsible for its popularisation (forgive me John if I’m wrong here). Having read +John’s book, I think I’m correct saying that “Independent Sacramental” is a further expansion on “Independent Catholic” in that it includes all of the previously understood “categories” as well as newer groups forming a much wider spectrum from Continuing Anglicans to some of the more radical esoteric communities.

My partner’s initial response to “Independent Sacramental” is interesting, and worth repeating, he thinks of it as an anthropological term, one that is neutral, and etic, rather than one which is emic – used by us to describe ourselves. In fairness to John Plummer, his work is the result of academic research, and when learning about and reporting on the many groups within the wider community an etic approach is necessary if one is to maintain one’s sanity.

In a recent email Rob Angus Jones raises the point that “Independent Sacramental” also includes those in the movement who do not consider themselves “catholic” – an entirely new angle to me, but which I suspect is rooted largely in those from Protestant theological backgrounds.

Here we are faced with another beastie what does “catholic” mean? While we are at it, what do we mean, “really” when we employ the term “sacramental” and “sacrament”? Just as the names of our Nomen-Bestiary are expanding, and billowing in what they include, so too we have within the current landscape a multitude of understandings of “sacrament” and “catholic”.

Once, we were confident what Old Catholic meant. Then we understood that Independent Catholic was a necessary adjustment and little more than a new phylum. Is Independent Sacramental an entirely new species in our Nomen-Bestiary? What is missing here is a “definition” of “Independent Sacramental”. My own reading of +John Plummer’s work is that he does a fine job of describing the various branches and groups – but he does not offer a solid definition. In all fairness – I’m not entirely certain one is possible. That said, without a “definition” we are faced with a whole raft of questions about our identity. As my partner pointed out, “Indpendent Sacramental” is not necessarily something one within the movement would use to describe one’s self. What is the “defining” point at which once passed one is not an “Independent Sacramental” person? How do we amalgamate Christian sacramental and “non-Christian” sacramental when I think it is a safe bet that they are very different beasties in our Nomen-Bestiary? Again, where does one draw the distinction there? What is the spectrum of esotericism; at which point does one move from being an esoteric Christian, to something else? These may seem like wild questions, but they are all currently included in “Independent Sacramental”. How do we begin to make sense of it all?

In his email, Rob Angus Jones suggested that perhaps it is time we think more creatively about what we call ourselves. Bestiaries are wonderful things, they include reality and fantasy, and often alongside the descriptions and stories, there is a moral – an end point that makes you stop and consider where you are. Perhaps in our Nomen-Bestiary we have come to that point in the story where we would all benefit from taking a moment, and considering where we are and where we are going. I am not afraid to say that this segment of the movement is akin to me and this is not, this is not judgement but pragmatic discernment, and does not preclude my being able to engage fruitfully with another from that segment (just as my being Christian does not preclude me from having a fruitful relationship with someone who is not). I am not afraid, nor am I ashamed, to acknowledge the history and shared journey. But I do ask myself: how many ecclesiastical species do we now have in our bestiary? How strongly interlinked is one with the other? Is this a healthy symbiosis, or are we setting ourselves up to be bitten by the beasties?

Yes, I do believe that it is time we re-consider how we describe ourselves. But first we need to build a consensus within the various strains of the current movement as to what constitutes strain X and what constitutes strain Y so that with integrity and respecting (and not fearing or attacking) X or Y those groups with a commonality can build fruitful relationships both within their own self understanding, and with other strains.

In the meantime . . . in the meantime. . . I have become so comfortable with “OC/IC” not only because of my own family’s connection with the Old Catholic community, but also because it has been the term we have used for over a decade. I admit it is not perfect. It does have its problems, but it is a “known” quantity. Until we are able to answer some of the questions relating to our identity, our sense of community and our theologies I’m not so sure it is wise to rush into creating a new name – for in so doing, we may artificially create a new species.