Arnold Mathew

IBC bishops had corresponded with O'Halloran since 1902.[35][36]^(p344) O'Halloran believed that such a movement would interest a large number of disaffected Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. In June 1906 the Royal Commission appointed in 1904 to inquire into "ecclesiastical disorders", afterwards known as the Ritual Commission,[37] The king issued Letters of Business after the report. It was expected that the Catholic-minded Anglican clergy, with their congregations, might, by Act of Parliament, be forced out of the Anglican Communion.[38] Persuaded by O'Halloran, Mathew joined the movement and was elected the first Regionary Old Catholic Bishop for Great Britain and in 1908 the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands (OKKN) was petitioned to consecrate him to this charge.

Mathew's election was to some extent a precautionary endeavour by those anticipating a precipitous action by the Government regarding the Ritual Commission's findings, there were only a small number of Old Catholics in England. However, the King's Letters of Business dealing with the Report of the Ritual Commission received no further attention and no action was taken. The result was that those who had taken part in Mathew's election were able to remain within the Anglican Communion. Added to the natural differences with their former brethren in the Roman Church was a campaign of persecution directed by certain elements of the CoE. In 1898 Willibald Beyschlag wrote, in The American Journal of Theology, that Old Catholic churches sought "federation with other churches having an" episcopal polity. They sought "recognition that they all belong to the one ecumenical church which rests upon the dogmatic and episcopal foundation of the early church, and can, therefore, practice communion with each other." Those negotiations had "no tangible result" in 1898, according to Beyschlag, who did not "think that such a result would be of any great value," because some Anglicans "emphatically desire to be 'catholic', and are at the same time wholly out of sympathy with the Old Catholics." Beyschlag distinguished that the Ritualist Anglican Catholics "are on the way to Rome; the Old Catholics on the way from Rome."[39]

Mathew was consecrated in St. Gertrude's Cathedral, Utrecht, on 28 April 1908, by the OKKN Archbishop Gerardus Gul of Utrecht, assisted by two OKKN bishops, Jacobus Johannes van Thiel of Haarlem and Nicolaus Bartholomeus Petrus Spit of Deventer, and one Catholic Diocese of the Old Catholics in Germany bishop, Josef Demmel of Bonn.[4]^(p12)

Soon after the consecration, Mathew and O'Halloran were estranged and O'Halloran, under a pseudonym,[36]^(p346) questioned if the seventeen priests and the eight congregations did not exist in reality but were only a deception and if "the Old Catholic theology teaches that deception of any kind invalidates the consecration" then was Mathew "a validly consecrated Old Catholic bishop according to the teaching of Old Catholic theology?"[40] Unprepared for the position in which he then found himself, Mathew informed Gul that he was himself a deceived victim and "the information given him by O'Halloran was entirely false" and offered to resign but his resignation was not accepted.[4]^(pp12–13)[23]^{(pp174–175)}[lower-alpha 3] Yet weeks earlier, Mathew and O'Halloran traveled to Utrecht where Mathew personally presented him to Gul.[36]^(p346) Within weeks, van Thiel wrote that the IBC "had no reason to suppose that we were mistaken in complying with" O'Halloran's request and stated that their "confidence in Bishop Mathew remains unshaken, after carefully perusing a large number of the documents bearing upon this matter," and they "earnestly hope that his ministrations will be abundantly blessed by Almighty God, and that he will receive the cordial support of the British people and Church in the trying circumstances in which he has been placed."[35][lower-alpha 4] Brandreth thought that the IBC "exonerated him from personal blame" in this letter.[4]^(p13) But Anson believed that it "was a polite way of stating that he had been consecrated under false pretenses, though not of his making."[23]^(p176)

The 1908 Lambeth Conference "deprecate[d] the setting up of a new organised body" and requested that Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, notify the IBC bishops about the resolution.[42] This was a protest against the consecration and although it was not publicized at the time,[43] Gul replied with explanations and promised "that in future they 'would take care not to make trouble by encroaching on the order of a friendly Church'."[44]^{(pp154–156)}

Arnold Harris Mathew being consecrated a bishop by Gerardus Gul, the OKKN's Archbishop of Utrecht

Mathew published The Old Catholic Missal & Ritual in 1909, for Old Catholics using the English language.[45]

In September 1909, he attended the Old Catholic Congress in Vienna, where he sympathized with the Dutch Old Catholics conservative position which opposed the innovations being introduced among the German and Swiss Old Catholics to renounce the Sacrament of Penance (auricular confession), the intercession of saints and alterations to the liturgy, including the omission of the Pope's name from the Canon of the Mass. He proposed the acceptance of the 1673 Synod of Jerusalem's doctrines.[46]^(p303) Mathew expressed fears that the trend of Continental Old Catholicism was towards Modernism, perhaps because of the growing association with Anglicans and Lutherans, and hoped for a return to the traditional principles of the Church of Utrecht. Moss wrote that Mathew thought they were becoming "steadily more Protestant".[46]^(p302) IBC rejected Herford's request to join. "the IBC was uncertain about Herford's credentials" and, only one bishop, i.e. Mathew, was needed for England.[47]^(p196) Mathew also rejected Herford's applications several times.[29]

Brandreth wrote that for two years Mathew, "with the status of a missionary bishop", remained in full communion with the UU. In October 1909, Mathew assisted Gul at the consecration of Jan Maria Michał Kowalski as archbishop of the Old Catholic Mariavite Church.[4]^(p13)

In June 1910, he secretly consecrated, without agreement of the IBC,[47]^(p193) Beale and Howarth, both of whom did not accept or sign the Convention of Utrecht,[46]^(p302)[48] and Mathew informed the Holy See of these consecrations.[26] Beale and Howarth were suspended.[49]

In August, van Thiel declared that Old Catholics "could not be considered responsible for [...] Mathew's eventual particular attitude or opinions, because he only represents his own clergy and himself in England." Mathew was "in no sense a representative of the Church of Holland in England."[lower-alpha 5] In October, Mathew defended the consecrations in The Church Times against a critical article in Katholik.[lower-alpha 6] In December 1910, De Oud-Katholiek concluded that Mathew had "given up communion with the other Old Catholics" when he acted against the Convention of Utrecht. He ignored "his duty to inform" the IBC prior to "any consecration", so "that the case may be duly examined and all precautions taken that no unworthy person be consecrated;" he consecrated men who belonged to another Church "knowing that they were Roman Catholics and would probably remain so"; he consecrated alone without need and in secret.[46]^(p302)[48]

Within weeks of the De Oud-Katholiek article, on 29 December 1910, Mathew issued A Declaration of Autonomy And Independence from the UU.[50] On 7 January 1911, Mathew consecrated four men to the episcopate: Francis Herbert Bacon, Cuthbert Francis Hinton, William Edmond Scott-Hall, and Frederick Clement Christie Egerton. An episcopal synod then followed and Mathew was unanimously elected Old Roman Catholic Archbishop of Great Britain and Ireland.

Although the Holy See usually did not respond to notifications about episcopal consecrations,[26] in this case, on 11 February 1911, Pope Pius X excommunicated Beale, Howarth, and Mathew. The Times reported on their excommunication and included an English language translation of the Latin language document which described Mathew as a "pseudo-bishop".[51][52][lower-alpha 8] to summon, to a court of first instance in Cologne, Philip of Burgundy, his treasurer, and his ecclesiastical and secular subjects.[53][lower-alpha 9] John Mason Neale explained that Leo X only confirmed a right of the Church but Leo X's confirmation "was providential" in respect to the future schism.[54]^(p72)</ref> Father David Fleming testified during the Mathew v. "The Times" Publishing Co., Ltd. trial at the King's Bench Division in April 1913 that the three were excommunicated on the strength of their own communication to the Holy See.[55]

A noted author and historian, Mathew had an excellent knowledge of the Eastern Orthodox Church and established cordial relations between the English Old Catholics and the Patriarchal See of Antioch. Now an archbishop, Mathew was in contact with people interested in expanding the Eastern Orthodox Churches' presence in Western Europe. Olga Novikov,[lower-alpha 10] along with Baroness Natalie Uxkull-Gyllenband, encouraged and financially assisted Mathew and according to Anson, one of them also introduced Mathew to Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch Archbishop Gerassimos Messara, Metropolitan of Beirut.[23]^(p186) On 5 August 1911, Messara, Legate of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Mathew and others. After a long and full discussion the faith of the Old Roman Catholic Church under Archbishop Mathew was considered in full accord with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Mathew was then solemnly received into the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch by Messara and the Old Roman Catholic Church into union with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch as an autocephalous jurisdiction of the Holy Synod Moss wrote that Messara "had no power to do this without the consent of" Gregory IV, in Damascus, "which was never given".[46]^(p306) According to Herzog, Gregory IV retracted Messara's statement.[lower-alpha 11] "It is hard to believe that an Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch would have been prepared to accept a married prelate into communion with his Church," Anson wrote. Mathew's wife "did not take part in the conference, and it is probable that her existence behind the scenes was again kept dark, as at the time of her husband's consecration in 1908."[23]^(p186) On 26 February 1912, Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria Patriarch Photius of Alexandria, also accepted this union.[59] The Mathew v. "The Times" Publishing Co., Ltd. trial revealed that although Mathew "was originally informed that all were welcome, he was not ultimately admitted" as a cleric into the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.[25] As this status has never been formally withdrawn or repudiated, it may be reasonably argued that Old Roman Catholic bishops are not in fact episcopi vagantes but bishops of a canonically autocephalous church in communion with two historical patriarchal sees of the ancient undivided Church.

What distinguished Mathew and the episcopate he established in Scotland and America from that of the continental Old Catholics was his insistence on the inviolable episcopal authority of each national body of Old Catholics. This had been in the minds of the original Old Catholic congresses, but the German episcopate, because of its preponderance of numbers and wealth attempted to create a small hierarchical system patterned on the Roman administration with the Archbishop of Utrecht in the position of ranking prelate or "little pope". The English Old Catholics, seeing in this the possibilities of the former mistake of the Western Church with a Germanic, instead of an Italian, spiritual protectorate over the whole Christian world, restated the original Old Catholic principles of autonomy and had received the support of their Orthodox friends in this respect.

The trial, Mathew v. "The Times" Publishing Co., Ltd., "was tense with laughter over the elaborate and convoluted ecclesiastical definitions."[1] Mathew lost the case.[60] A "material part of the case" about whether Mathew was truthful was the 1889 printed announcement sent to his congregation in Bath. The trial revealed that in 1897 Mathew restated that he had apostatized in 1889 and had circulated the printed announcement but by 1897 had concluded that his change in belief was a mistake; he therefore recanted the 1889 document, in 1897, which during the trial he said that he never wrote. He testified that he was hypnotized in Bath and so the announcement was written without his knowledge.[25] The jury considered whether the consecrations of Beale and Howarth "would not be rightfully described as a sacrilegious crime of which all those holding Christian views would be ashamed."[25] Mathew's attorney argued that publication of the excommunication by The Times in English was high treason under a 1571 law re-enacted in 1846.[lower-alpha 12] The trial was, according to a 1932 article in The Tablet, the last time this principle was invoked and the judge, Charles Darling, 1st Baron Darling, "held that it was not unlawful to publish a Papal Bull in a newspaper simply for the information of the public."[61][62]

Either Novikov or Uxkull-Gyllenband, according to Anson, introduced Mathew to Rudolph de Landas Berghes.[23]^(p189) By 1913 all six bishops which Mathew consecrated had separated from him, so he consecrated Berghes to continue his succession and initially to establish the ministry of the Old Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and then later in the United States. After Berghes emigrated to the U.S., Mathew consecrated Bernard Mary Williams, in 1916, and on 25 March 1917, Mathew appointed Williams as his successor.

Shortly thereafter, Father Carmel Henry Carfora, an Italian Franciscan friar, who had been excommunicated from the RCC, was elected to succeed Berghes as Archbishop of the Old Roman Catholic Diocese of America.

Like five of his bishops and several of his priests, in December 1915, Mathew sought to reconcile with the RCC.[63] Mathew wrote to The Tablet within a month:

Although the Orders of the Dutch schismatical clergy were, down to 1910, undisputed in Rome, I make no claim to be recognized as a bishop, or to exercise episcopal functions, or to use any episcopal insignia. I desire to conform in everything to whatever may be the commands or wishes of the Holy See. Neither do I intend or claim even to exercise priestly functions, unless and until, as I earnestly hope, this privilege may be permitted to me. It is my firm resolve, which nothing will ever alter, to obey the commands of the Holy Father, whose word I am perfectly willing to await, and I shall do nothing whatever, whether publicly or privately, in any ecclesiastical matters without the permission of Superiors.[64]

But because the Holy See insisted that he would only be reconciled as a layman and would be obliged to accept the doctrine of papal infallibility and primacy of the Roman Pontiff, Mathew then sought union with the CoE but the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to give him any position in the CoE. Mathew retired to South Mimms, a village in the English countryside in Hertfordshire, and contented himself with assisting at services in a CoE parish church. He died suddenly, on 20 December 1919, at South Mimms and was buried in the churchyard at South Mimms.[65]

After Mathew's death, Bernard Mary Williams was the only bishop. Being now the only active Old Catholic in Great Britain, Williams considered safeguarding the succession. Being unwilling to see any repetition of the scandals of the past (the consecrations of undisclosed Theosophists resulting in the Liberal Catholic Church), he arrived at a mutual understanding with Carfora, that, should either die without leaving a successor, the survivor would consecrate a duly elected person to fill the vacancy.[66]

In 1925, Williams issued a new constitution which repudiated the whole historical and doctrinal position of Old Roman Catholicism, the very position upon which Mathew had stood firm. By this constitution, he repudiated the objections[67] of the Church of Utrecht to the Roman Church and renewed his acceptance of the canons and decrees of the council of Trent, all with the aim of creating a pro-Roman rite and eventual reconciliation with the Church of Rome. Williams died on 9 June 1952 leaving no successor.

In 1964, Anson identified several independent sects which derived their apostolic succession through Mathew: the "Old Roman Catholic Church (Western Catholic Uniate Church)",[lower-alpha 13] "Old Catholic Church of Ireland", Liberal Catholic Church, "The Church Catholic", "Old Catholic Church in America",[lower-alpha 14] and the "North American Old Roman Catholic Church".[lower-alpha 14] He noted that, except for the Liberal Catholic Church, the "sects hardly counted numerically at all."[23]^(p324) Moss characterized, in 1948, that "there are several sects which claim to derive their episcopal succession from him, which are often confused with the Old Catholics, and which in some cases make use of the name 'Old Catholic'." But, Moss emphasized, "none of these sects is Old Catholic, or is recognized in any way by the genuine Old Catholic churches in communion with the Archbishop of Utrecht."[46]^(p308)

There are many independent churches, "rites" and ecclesiastic bodies in the English speaking world, particularly in North America and some in Continental Europe which trace derive their apostolic succession through Mathew. This makes Mathew a significant figure in the Independent Sacramental Movement. However, genuine Old Roman Catholic jurisdictions directly descended from the missionary endeavours of the first generation of Mathew's bishops are very few.

Mathew's activities as a bishop gave birth to the Liberal Catholic Church and the more conservative Old Roman Catholic churches, which are autocephalous churches holding to a traditional Roman Catholic worship style, most rejecting the dogmas of the First Vatican Council but some offering nominal acceptance.

In Europe the maintenance of traditional Old Roman Catholicism (i.e. maintaining the original aims of Mathew and arguably the original mission of the Ultrajectines) is maintained by the Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe (ORCCE) [part of the Old Roman Catholic Church Latin Rite (ORCC/LR), the only global Old Roman Catholic jurisdiction with provinces in North America, South America, Asia and Africa] and the Old Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain (ORCC/GB) headed by Archbishop Douglas Lewins, who claims to be the lineal descendant of Mathew's original church.

In the United States, as well as the Old Roman Catholic Church Latin Rite (ORCC/LR), the following are the only churches descended directly from the Old Roman Catholic Church of North America founded by Landas Berghes succeeded by Carfora, namely the Old Roman Catholic Church: See of Caer-Glow (ORCC/SoG) headed by Archbishop John Humphreys; the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America (ORCCNA) headed by Archbishop Francis P. Facione; the North American Old Roman Catholic Church (NAORCC) headed by Archbishop Edward J. Ford; the North American Old Roman Catholic Church (NAORCC) headed by Archbishop Theodore Rematt and the North American Old Roman Catholic Church - Utrecht Succession, Archdiocese of California (NAORCC) headed by Archbishop Joseph A. Vellone. There are other churches using the name "Old Roman Catholic" that have no direct connection to the above jurisdictions and are not directly descended from the original Old Roman Catholic missions. Such churches' claims to being Old Roman Catholic are usually by virtue of having attained Mathew's succession from various episcopi vagantes or by adopting the polity of Old Roman Catholicism.

Mathew was a traditional Ultrajectine and Roman Catholic in his religious beliefs and believed the bishops he consecrated were orthodox in their theology as well, preaching doctrines common to the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.

Anson wrote that, for at least two years, Mathew was "in close touch with leading Theosophists, apparently without investigating the orthodoxy of their beliefs," and believed that Mathew "had no excuse" for not understanding the cult of Maitreya beliefs held by the majority of his clergy.[23]^{(pp195–196)} The manifestations of Maitreya included the Hindu deity Krishna and Christ during the three years of the ministry of Jesus.[73]^(p278) Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke wrote, in Constructing Tradition, that the identification of Christ as Maitreya was Charles Webster Leadbeater's "innovation, closely linked to his assimilation of Christianity to Theosophy."[74]^(p144) According to Catholic Encyclopedia, theosophy "is a form of pantheism and denies a personal God,"[75] and pantheism is simply atheism.[76] According to Anson, the majority of clergy involved with Mathew were members of the Theosophical Society and the Order of the Star in the East (OSE), and were dismayed when Mathew directed them to separate from these organizations in 1915.[23]^{(pp200, 342)} Instead, within weeks, they had separated from Mathew and elected Rupert Gauntlett, secretary of the Theosophical Society's Order of Healers, and Robert King, a consulting psychic and astrologer, to the episcopate.[4]^(p19)[23]^(p344)

But the "effective leader of the schism" was James Ingall Wedgwood.[23]^(p344)[77]^(p32) Wedgwood explored an Anglo-Catholic vocation in the CoE and was associated with the Order of Corporate Reunion prior to his involvement with the Theosophical Society.[78]^(p573) Mathew ordained Wedgwood as a priest in 1913.[23]^{(pp345–348)} In 1916 Frederick Samuel Willoughby, who had been consecrated by Mathew, consecrated Gauntlett, King, and Wedgwood.[4]^(p19) Leadbeater wrote to Annie Besant, in 1916, that Wedgwood offered Mathew's Old Catholic movement to Maitreya, one of the Great White Brotherhood's ascended masters and holder of the office of World Teacher, "as one of the vehicles for [... Maitreya's] force, and a channel for the preparation of His Coming." Leadbeater took Wedgwood during a festival in Sydney to make that offering.[79]^(pp3–5)[lower-alpha 15] Goodrick-Clarke wrote that the LCC was used for "the assimilation of Catholicism and its sacraments into the Theosophical Society" as a subsidiary movement of a diversified second generation Neo-Theosophy which emphasized "the acquisition and practice of psychic and occult powers, notably clairvoyance, explorations of the astral plane, past lives research."[74]^(p142) Leadbeater promoted an unorthodox esoteric understanding of Christian creeds;[lower-alpha 16] he interpreted Christian doctrines through Theosophy.[83]^(p160)[lower-alpha 17][lower-alpha 18] Leadbeater and Wedgwood revised The Old Catholic Missal and Ritual, c. 1916 – c. 1918, by "eliminating references to fear of God, everlasting damnation, the insistence on sinfulness and appeals for mercy," according to Joanne Pearson, in Wicca and the Christian Heritage.[77]^(p33)[79]^(pp6–8) Later that year, before the end of World War I, the schism which separated from Mathew's group was renamed the Liberal Catholic Church (LCC) and Wedgwood became the first presiding bishop.[77]^(p32)[lower-alpha 19] Leadbeater informed Besant that Maitreya approved of the LCC founding.[84]^(p39–40) The LCC "affirms a number of Christian beliefs but injects a Gnostic or theosophical meaning into them," according to Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. "The church believes that humans are sparks of divinity (rather than creatures of God) and believes in reincarnation (rather than resurrection). The church also accepts the idea of the spiritual hierarchy of masters, or highly evolved beings who guide the spiritual development of the race. In this regard, it accepts the idea that Jesus is one of the masters, but separates the human Jesus [...] from the master Jesus." In other words, Jesus, "the person known in his early life as Appolonius of Tyanna" in that system of beliefs, is not the same as the entity known as Maitreya in that same system beliefs.[85]

The LCC self identifies as a part of the historical Catholic Church; has doctrines but does not regulate how they are believed by congregants, unlike Roman Catholic dogma; and has membership based on acceptance of a common worship without the profession of a common belief.[86]

In Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation, Henrik Bogdan compared the network containing the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica (EGC) to the network containing the LCC.[87]

After Mathew died in 1919, the IBC declared in 1920 that Mathew's "consecration was obtained mala fide and that consequently it is null and void."[4]^{(xvi, pp14–15)} The suggestion was that the petition for his consecration and its 150 signatories collated by O'Halloran was false in its premise for the consecration and thus the consecration was invalid.[88]^(p97) However, Mathew had disclosed the matter fully to the Dutch bishops days after the consecration when it transpired that the Anglicans who had participated in his election withdrew from the petition due to the changed situation regarding the Ritual Commission (see above). Certain unprincipled elements of this Anglo-Catholic group exerted pressure on the Dutch Church to disavow the English Old Catholics, but without result. At one time they intended to besmirch the Mathew's character by elaborating on a statement made by a Roman Catholic editor that Mathew's credentials to the Dutch Church contained false statements, but the bishops of the Netherlands, after a thorough investigation themselves, vindicated Mathew. The Roman priest himself recalled the original statement, saying that since he made it he had satisfied himself by a personal investigation that it was groundless. The IBC bishops inquired into the circumstances and Mathew was publicly exonerated from all suggestion of misrepresentation in a letter to The Guardian of 3 June 1908, the bishops also refused Mathew's request to retire. Also, on 5 October 1909, Mathew assisted Gul together with Thiel, Demmel, and Spit at Kowalski's consecration, so clearly there was no suggestion of mala fides or "invalidity" then by the Old Catholic bishops.

Smit explained that in 1913, "ties of the IBC with Mathew were formally severed",[47]^(p197) and after World War I, the IBC "distanced itself more from the 'episcopus vagans' Mathew and those ordained and consecrated by him."[47]^(p213) Consecrations derived from Mathew were not recognised by the IBC.[4]^(xvi)

Though the IBC did also state that consecrated persons and communities connected with Mathew would not be welcome by the UU.[41] (though recently an invitation was extended to such see Conference of North American Old Catholic Bishops).

Herzog's discourse was published in Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift in 1915. He wrote that a surreptitious consecration, under false pretenses and on presentation of false documents, can not be recognized as valid, even if the rite of ordination had been accurately performed by real bishops.[89]^(pp271)

The new determination by Utrecht may have been influenced by a desire to have closer relations with the Anglican Communion. In 1908, Lambeth had expressed regret over the consecration of Mathew. Lambeth also indicated a desire for a closer relationship with Utrecht. This may have been due to Pope Leo XIII's 1896 pronouncement, in Apostolicae curae, that Anglican orders were "null and void". Leo XIII's pronouncement was the impetus for some Anglican clergy to seek Mathew for clandestine reordination. Leo XIII's pronouncement may almost have been the basis upon which some had supported the petition for his consecration by Utrecht. Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, and William Maclagan, Archbishop of York, replied to the Holy See in Saepius officio[90] giving a defence of Anglican orders. Discussions about union with Utrecht had been taking place since the end of the 19th century, such as the conferences of reunion in Bonn in 1874 and 1875 convoked by Johann von Döllinger. Though the Dutch bishops in a report of 1894 still could not decide on the recognition of Anglican orders.[88]^(p109) It would appear that a desire for closer cooperation on the part of Utrecht with an Anglican desire for the recognition of their orders, conspired to impugn the reputation of Mathew.[91] By June 1925, Davidson stated that the OKKN had "after lengthy investigations and serious discussions" arrived "without any reservation (to recognise) that the apostolic succession was not interrupted in the Church of England"[41] and in 1931 the Bonn Agreement was signed and intercommunion agreed between the UU and the Anglican Communion.

The new Utrecht position however, cannot and does not alter the sacramental validity of Mathew's consecration which relies solely on the ceremony and intentions of the consecrating bishops rather than on any external circumstances.

As the ceremony took place and no-one questioned the intentions of the bishops involved, according to sacramental theology and canonical principles,[lower-alpha 22] Mathew's consecration can only be considered valid. "…an act, especially one as solemn as an ordination, must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated."[95][96]

Old Roman Catholic jurisdictions have consistently employed the Tridentine Ordinal and Roman Pontifical for the conferral of ordinations and the consecration of bishops. This was the case with the See of Utrecht right up to and some years beyond the consecration of Mathew himself, without any alterations to the ceremonies. Mathew's Old Catholic Missal & Ritual contains his English translation of the Roman Pontifical;[45]^(p289–326) and, either this or the original Latin is used in all Old Roman Catholic ceremonies still to this day, even by those jurisdictions who permit modern liturgies for the Mass.

"A priest or bishop who confers a sacrament doesn't have to 'prove' that he intends to do what the Church does. He is automatically presumed to intend what the rite means. This is certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church. And to deny it is 'theologically rash'," according to Cekada.[92][lower-alpha 23]

According to Cekada, Traditionalist Catholics sometimes assert that "without a papal dispensation, an episcopal consecration performed without two priest-assistants is doubtful".[92] Using the 1917 Code of Canon Law but not the current 1983 Code of Canon Law which replaced it, he argued against this assertion and stated that "no law or canonist supports this" and reasoned that "teachings of the canonists directly contradict it too".[92] Cekada quoted Marie Dominique Bouix, who wrote: "Even if there should be a consecration without any assistants and without obtaining a pontifical dispensation, it would still be valid."[92][97] Cekada wrote that Eduardo Regatillo's writing "goes even further. He [Regatillo] says that a consecration performed without a dispensation would be valid even if the bishop 'is the only one who is present at the consecration';"[92][98] and that, "Pope Alexander VII, Pope Clement XI and Pope Benedict XIV declared that consecrations performed without such a dispensation are valid."[92][99][lower-alpha 24]

Sometimes, it is asserted that, because Mathew was excommunicated by Pius X, anyone ordained or consecrated by him thereafter incurs the same penalty.

"Penalties aren't 'contagious'", according to Cekada, even if a bishop "had personally incurred excommunication, it would not be incurred by clergy who derive their orders from him"; he wrote that the CIC1917 states: "It is not permitted to extend penalties from person to person or from case to case, even though the reason is the same or even stronger."[100]^(can.2219.3)[95] "Receiving orders from an excommunicate incurs only suspension", wrote Cekada, which prohibits "licitly exercising orders".[95][lower-alpha 25]

Thus, based on the CIC1917, Mathew's excommunication is not "contagious" and would not pass to clergy deriving their orders from him.

Furthermore, the CIC1917 states that "Except as provided in §3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request."[100]^(can.2261)[95]

No Old Roman Catholic bishops have been declared excommunicate since Mathew.[lower-alpha 26] Thus as his excommunication is not contagious, this scenario does not apply.

It is also suggested that such orders are "illicit", i.e. non-canonical.

The canonical dispute between the Holy See and the See of Utrecht about whether the Ultrajectine See could elect its own bishops was never canonically, i.e. legally, concluded. Pius IX ignored "due process" and erected an uncanonical hierarchy in the Netherlands in 1853. Thus, it is arguably only just according to canonical principles to assume that the inalienable right granted by Papal Bull of Pope Eugene III is still extant and in effect.[lower-alpha 8]

Gul consecrated and commissioned Mathew as a bishop in accordance with the norms of universal ecclesiastical law, nominating and electing him to a title. When the See of Utrecht fell into "apostasy" in 1910, Mathew declared autonomy from the UU on 29 December 1910[50] and asserted of canonical rights and prerogatives for the continuation and perpetuation of the Old Roman Catholic Church from Utrecht.

There are instances where Old Roman Catholic orders have been affirmed by theologians, canonists and even representatives of the Holy See.

The Old Catholic Church of British Columbia (OCCBC) was, c. 2006 – c. 2007, a probationary member of the UU;[101]^{( [letter] )} the OCCBC's orders are derived from Mathew, the union accepted the validity of their orders.[lower-alpha 27]

In 1915, Berghes participated in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (PECUSA) consecration of Hiram Richard Hulse. According to supporters, Hulse's consecration indicated that the PECUSA regarded the Mathew line as being not only valid but even desirable. This indicates that there were no apparent perceived problems in relation to valid holy orders in the early 20th century. Berghes orders were apparently viewed by his contemporaries as valid despite being consecrated after Mathew left the UU which adversely commented on the validity of his orders. Anglican Communion bishops stated in 1920 Lambeth Conference resolution 27 and 1958 Lambeth Conference resolution 54 that they do not regard the Old Catholic Church in Great Britain, its extensions overseas, and "'episcopi vagantes' who call themselves either 'Old Catholic' or 'Orthodox,' in combination with other names" "as properly constituted Churches, or recognise the orders of their ministers."[44]^(p34)[102]

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Quebec, in a public statement, which included an apology made for miscategorizing Father Claude Lacroix, acknowledged the validity of Lacroix's holy orders and stated that OCCBC's certificates of baptism "may be accepted for the inscription of children to First Communion and Confirmation program" in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Quebec. It also stated that when "Roman Catholics marry before an ordained minister belonging to another religious denomination, as in the case of the [... OCCBC], their marriage is invalid from a religious point of view."[103]

In 2002, Cardinal Édouard Gagnon investigated the documentation of Bishop André Letellier's episcopal orders and consecration. Letellier was consecrated on 23 May 1968 by Archbishop André Leon Zotique Barbeau of the Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada.[lower-alpha 28] Gagnon commented that, "nothing allows me to doubt the validity of episcopal ordination of Mgr André Letellier by Archbishop André Barbeau and that of Archbishop Barbeau by Archbishop Ignatius Charles Brearley, Primate of the Church of the 'Old Catholics' having its seat in England. The ordinations of the 'Old Catholics' are generally considered to be the same as those of Orthodox bishops."[104]

It can be argued that the apostolic succession of Mathew originating from the OKKN, has been considered "valid" by Vatican officials and Roman Catholic canon lawyers and theologians.[lower-alpha 29] In 1913, Fleming testified in Mathew v. "The Times" Publishing Co., Ltd. about the OKKN that, "The Holy See or the Pontiff has never condemned these orders as invalid; but he has never explicitly recognized them."[55]