Episcopal Resistance in Fort Worth

The bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Fort Worth, Jack Iker, writes his diocese about their relation to the Episcopal Church:

To the clergy of the Diocese of Fort Worth,

The Realignment Moves Forward

At our Diocesan Convention in 2003, the following resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority vote of both the clergy and the lay delegates:

We declare our commitment to work with those Bishops and dioceses and those primates and Provinces that will now move forward with a realignment of the Anglican Communion; we reaffirm the authority of Holy Scripture and our intention to continue faithfully to uphold and propagate the historic Faith and Order of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church under the sovereignty of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

A lot has transpired in the four years since we made that bold declaration, and a great deal has taken place just this past summer that has reinforced that firm resolve. I am pleased to report to you that the realignment of the Anglican Communion is well under way. Take for example the events of last week, when a number of the primates of Provinces of the Global South took the historic action of consecrating three American priests as bishops to provide episcopal ministry and oversight to former Episcopalians here in the States. These congregations share our commitment to the historic Faith and Order of the Church but have decided that they can no longer remain faithful Anglicans and still remain officially associated with The Episcopal Church.

As you know, in March the House of Bishops voted down a very workable proposal for alternative primatial oversight that the primates’ Meeting had offered to provide for our expressed needs, and no other alternative plan has been suggested. This resulted in the declaration that the Standing Committee and I made on May 16th that we would now have to pursue our original appeal for APO – an appeal that was supported by an overwhelming majority vote at our Diocesan Convention last year – independent of the structures of The Episcopal Church. We have had some very encouraging meetings and conversations over the summer months with a number of Bishops and dioceses and primates and Provinces that share our concerns and our commitment to Christian orthodoxy. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been kept informed of these developments. More about this will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead.

One of the most encouraging signs of the realignment that is under way is the first-ever Council of Bishops of the Common Cause Partners which is to meet in Pittsburgh during the last week of September. This is a gathering of all bishops exercising active ministry within the member bodies of Common Cause.* The purpose of the meeting is to explore ways in which we can work together for a biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America. I will be among some 60 bishops in attendance, as will be the newly consecrated bishops serving those congregations here in the States that are under the Provinces of Uganda and Kenya.

By the end of this month, the House of Bishops will have decided the future direction of TEC, and as a result we too will have to declare our future as a diocese. I do not expect that TEC will comply with the requests of the primates in their Dar es Salaam Communiqué. In that case, we will see further fraction and division in the Communion during the months ahead. We will then have to choose in favor of the Anglican Communion majority at the expense of our historic relationship with the General Convention Church.

Pray, my brothers and sisters, for the peace and unity of the Church. Pray that the Bishops of The Episcopal Church will turn back, even at this late hour, from the course they have been pursuing, a course that has sown seeds of discord and broken fellowship far and wide. Pray too for the leadership of this diocese as the realignment continues, that we may remain faithful to the received faith and practice of historic, biblical Christianity.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
September 6, 2007

Comments

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Let me postulate a theorm and seek comments on it: Over time, the Holy Spirit will move to separate orthodox believers from the heterodox. That can occur in many ways, and it is apparent that there is wide latitude in practice (but perhaps less in belief/doctrine) among othodox "mere Christianity" churches, but open heresy and orthodoxy are as incapable of mixing in the same vessel over time as are oil and water.

[Judy Warner]

I'm glad this is happening. However, I have not heard of any movement among all of these "orthodox" Episcopalians and African Anglicans to repeal women's ordination or to repudiate the 1979 "book of common prayer."

[Gene Godbold]

I think heresy and orthodoxy can mix in some people over large numbers of years. It happens all the time.

Indeed, Judy, you're going to have to wait a *very* long time before that happens.

[Judy Warner]

I don't expect it to happen at all, Gene. It does annoy me that these folks don the mantle of orthodoxy when they've already allowed so much heresy.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Well, the African Anglicans don't have to repeal women's ordination because their jurisdictions do not practice it. In western nations, some dissident groups of churches do and some don't, but it is certainly a matter of discussion among them. However, like the United States and England confronting Hitler, a pact with Stalin was appropriate no matter what his internal policies were because he was the enemy (after being the friend, of course) of our enemy... Don't forget, orthodox Episcopalians were promised for decades that they would be allowed to dissent from the decisions of the General Convention --- until the heretics achieved critical mass, when the "now you bigots have to toe the line" word went out.

[David Mills]

Well, the African Anglicans don't have to repeal women's ordination because their jurisdictions do not practice it.

Actually, several of them do, including Uganda and (I think) Rwanda and Kenya, three of the African Anglican churches most supportive of American Episcopal conservatives. The number who do will probably only increase. And those that don't ordain women do not seem to see the innovation as a very bad thing.

What seems to be happening among the conservative Anglicans is that the generally shared definition of Anglican orthodoxy has come to include the ordination of women (or at least the acceptance of ordained women and those who accept their ministry, even if one doesn't agree) and draws the dividing line at the approval of homosexuality.

[Gene Godbold]

David's right about Africans and ordaining women. The South Africans accept it as well. Akinola and the Nigerians aren't on board with it, though.

[Scott Pennington]

As a former Episcopalian, then member of the Anglican Catholic Church and now of the Orthodox Church, I have to say that while the present developments may be encouraging in some sense, it is not exactly a plus for traditional Christianity. Bear in mind that many of those who now wish to separate left the Anglo-Catholics out to dry in the '70's over women's ordination.

The phenomenon is present throughout the culture. It's called boiling a frog. The trick is to turn up the heat so gradually that the frog doesn't know it's being cooked until it's too late. Now, what people call "orthodoxy" would have been considered heresy 50 or 100 years ago. They believe they are faithful Christians, they believe they are conservative, even orthodox because they won't go as far as outright apostates. But the seeds of destruction that led the apostates to their present position are present in the faith of the newly minted "orthodox".

May God have mercy on them all.

[Reid]

Scott, I suppose your note encourages us all to "look to the rock from which we were cut." If my touchstones for orthodoxy are all contemporary with me, then I can, at best, mark the drift from truth relative to where I started. If I want to mark the drift absolutely, I have to seek the understanding of my forefathers in the faith, tested and approved by the Church through time.

[Scott Pennington]

Reid,

Very well said!

[Ethan C.]

The much-drawn connection between women's ordination and approval of homosexuality makes me curious about something: is there a single denomination anywhere, no matter how small, that approves homosexuality but doesn't approve women's ordination? That would be a sight to behold, or at least a great trivia answer.

[William Tighe]

Ethan,

At one point a number of tiny pseudo "Old Catholic" organizations (especially in England and North America) were full of sodomites and quite indulgent of the vice, but aghast at WO, but now when I visit the websites of some of these groups (the "Catholic Apostolic Church in North America" comes to mind, but there are many others), they now embrace both vices with equal fervor.

As to African Anglicans, those African Anglican Churches which are largely Anglo-Catholic in complexion (such as the Province of Central Africa and that of which Ghana is a part) have been strongly opposed to WO, while those that are largely Evangelical (with the unique exception of Nigeria -- where +Akinola is hardly stalwart in his opposition, he having more than once uttered phrases to the effect that "there is no demand or need for it here .. we have not studied the matter yet" and having authorized Bishop Minns of Nigeria's American offshoot, CANA, to "ordain" women) either rushed to embrace it early on, as did Uganda (1978) and Kenya (1979) or more recently (and, more's the pity, under the influence of modern "conservative" Episcopalian "evangelicals") Congo (2003). In Tanzania, where about a third of the dioceses are totally Anglo-Catholic and the rest largely Evangelical, the innovation was long forborne, until about 5 years ago their synod decided to allow "diocesan option," following which all the Anglo-Catholic repudiated the innovation in strong and categorical terms, while most of the Evangelical ones rushed to introduce it.

In Kenya, one peculiar result of the Anglican adoption of WO was that a number of African Anglicans became Lutherans (the Lutheran church in Kenya was of largely Swedish origin), and today the Kenyan Lutheran church, under the leadership of its archbishop, Walter Obare Umwaza, is firmly and totally opposed to WO.

[William Tighe]

I have copied the following from the "Canterbury Tales" blog (April 2006); it might be of interest:

*********************************

This will give you a clear idea to what extent the Anglican Communion accepts the ordination of women. The stats are only as of February 2004.

There are only eight Anglican provinces that outrightly refuse to ordain women to all three Holy Orders (deacon, priest, bishop):

Central Africa
Jerusalem and the Middle East
Korea
Melanesia (its present abp. has been trying to bring in WO for the past two years -- wjt)
Nigeria
Papua New Guinea
Southeast Asia
Tanzania (no longer the case; "diocesan option" from 2004 onwards -- wjt)

There are four provinces that ordain women only to the diaconate:

Indian Ocean
Southern Cone (in South America)
Congo (started to "do priestesses" in 2004 -- wjt)
Pakistan

All the other Anglican provinces ordain women to the priesthood.

[William Tighe]

I have copied the following from the "Canterbury Tales" blog (April 2006); it might be of interest:

*********************************

This will give you a clear idea to what extent the Anglican Communion accepts the ordination of women. The stats are only as of February 2004.

There are only eight Anglican provinces that outrightly refuse to ordain women to all three Holy Orders (deacon, priest, bishop):

Central Africa
Jerusalem and the Middle East
Korea
Melanesia (its present abp. has been trying to bring in WO for the past two years -- wjt)
Nigeria
Papua New Guinea
Southeast Asia
Tanzania (no longer the case; "diocesan option" from 2004 onwards -- wjt)

There are four provinces that ordain women only to the diaconate:

Indian Ocean
Southern Cone (in South America)
Congo (started to "do priestesses" in 2004 -- wjt)
Pakistan

All the other Anglican provinces ordain women to the priesthood.

[Fr. Ray Williams]

This is all very exciting. Why, with the further breakup of the Anglican "Communion," yet another Protestant denomination will be born! So now we are to have another "break-off" of a "break-off." As a Catholic, I have to wonder why such seemingly good men as Mr. Jack Iker do not come home. I mean, really, the handwriting on the wall of the Episcopalian establishment has for a long time been spelling out "exit." But to where? Well, toward a new denomination of the "Anglican" sort. But I, as a former Episcopalian, have to wonder: what on earth does "Englishness" have to do with the right ordering of Christian unity and communion? After all, every "developed" branch of the Protestant Revolt -- you name it: Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran -- has succumbed to any number of heresies, and that, not only in the expressed opinions of some of their prominent members, but in official and binding statements. My sympathies are, in many ways, with Mr. Iker, but what is one to think about belonging to a so-called "tradition" that has come to the place of present-day Anglicanism? Why be so attached to a "tradition" that has, in the end, proved to be yet another deadend?

[GL]

With all due respect, Fr. Ray, wouldn't you agree that one should convert to Catholicism only if he is convinced of all of its dogmas and of its claim to be the One True Church? Perhaps that explains Mr. Iker's not converting. (I do not know him, but I must assume that were he convinced of the claims and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, he would convert.)

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Of course, some of the provinces Prof. Tighe has listed are among the Anglican world's largest, but be that as it may -- there will still come a separation between heresy and orthodoxy, and that most certainly will be a separation between those who ordain women to sacerdotal positions (that is, excluding the diaconate) and those who don't. WO + time = Homosexual ordination (I couldn't bring myself to write HO) is as certain an equation as E-MC2.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>With all due respect, Fr. Ray, wouldn't you agree that one should convert to Catholicism only if he is convinced of all of its dogmas and of its claim to be the One True Church? Perhaps that explains Mr. Iker's not converting. (I do not know him, but I must assume that were he convinced of the claims and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, he would convert.)<<<

He doesn't have to become Roman Catholic to be a member of the apostolic Church. He could always become Eastern Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic, or, if he's feeling particularly exotic, perhaps a Copt or Armenian or Assyrian, Or even Western Rite Orthodox, which is perhaps the most exotic of all.

[Sally]

I've read this rather quickly, so forgive me if someone's already said this, but re women's ordination: Fort Worth is one of two or three Episcopal dioceses in the US in which women's ordination is not countenanced or practiced. Until our conversion to Roman Catholicism (NOT because of developments in the ECUSA, though they did make the decision to leave that much more a no-brainer) my husband was an Episcopal priest who transferred his canoncial residency, not without a great deal of flak and ad hominem abuse from the (female) bishop of our original diocese (who did NOT ordain him), to that of Fort Worth. Both Forth Worth and Quincy, Illinois, are Episcopal dioceses which will accept candidates turned away from the ordination process in other dioceses for any number of trumped-up "reasons of unfitness for ordained ministry" which boil down to being orthodox and male.

In the admittedly small Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, plenty of people strenuously oppose women's ordination, and there's a strong tradition of a celibate priesthood, with special sodalities and the whole nine yards -- but everyone knows at least one "flower fairy" (gay men who take over the flower arranging from the church ladies -- and I didn't make up the epithet).

[Sally]

Canonical, I meant, not canoncial. Anyway, I should add that we read Bishop Iker's communication with interest and a great deal of sympathy, as well as gratitude for his personal graciousness to us, coming and going. Which really has nothing to do with the larger issues at hand, of course, which have to do with Anglicanism's continual problems with Catholicity, to which my husband could speak far more knowledgeably than I can, having written a doctoral thesis on the subject (and ended up Catholic as a result. I was just the proofreader, but I ended up Catholic, too). We have friends in various conservative Anglican networks, and we pray for them in what is surely a thankless position, but at the end of the day it seemed to us that, no matter how faithfully people tried to hold anything like an orthodox line, the whole thing was going to erode from under their feet, and that it was the fact of erosion, and not the particular erosive agents, that was the ultimate problem.

[David Gray]

>As a Catholic, I have to wonder why such seemingly good men as Mr. Jack Iker do not come home. I mean, really, the handwriting on the wall of the Episcopalian establishment has for a long time been spelling out "exit." But to where? Well, toward a new denomination of the "Anglican" sort. But I, as a former Episcopalian, have to wonder: what on earth does "Englishness" have to do with the right ordering of Christian unity and communion? After all, every "developed" branch of the Protestant Revolt -- you name it: Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran -- has succumbed to any number of heresies, and that, not only in the expressed opinions of some of their prominent members, but in official and binding statements.

This seems to be a remarkably frivolous statement.

>He doesn't have to become Roman Catholic to be a member of the apostolic Church. He could always become Eastern Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic, or, if he's feeling particularly exotic, perhaps a Copt or Armenian or Assyrian,

Or he could become Presbyterian in which case he could accept the Nicene Creed, unlike some of the above.

[GL]

Or he could become Presbyterian

Sounds good to me, David, especially since we are assuming that he accepts each of our own distinctives.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Or he could become Presbyterian in which case he could accept the Nicene Creed, unlike some of the above.<<<

David,

The Nicene Creed is the one thing on which ALL the apostolic Churches agree. All acccept both the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). The Church of the East (the so-called Nestorians) did not accept the Council of Ephesus (431), while the Oriental Orthodox (he so-called Monophysites) did not accept the Council of Chalcedon (451). Thus, all accept that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all consubstantial. Regarding Christology, though they have different doctrinal formulations, all the apsotolic Churches believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both true God and true man, who did not surrender his divinity in becoming human, nor differ from us in his humanity in any way save being free from all sin.

[Judy Warner]

The early church in Britain had influences from both Rome and the East, with Celtic influences that were only indirectly from Rome through St. Patrick's mission to Scotland, which spread throughout northern England. It's a complicated history. Anglo-Catholics look back beyond Henry VIII to that early church and consider Anglicanism a branch of the Holy Catholic Church equivalent to RC, EC or EO.

[David Gray]

>The Nicene Creed is the one thing on which ALL the apostolic Churches agree. All acccept both the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). The Church of the East (the so-called Nestorians) did not accept the Council of Ephesus (431), while the Oriental Orthodox (he so-called Monophysites) did not accept the Council of Chalcedon (451).

Oops. Mea Culpa. That's what I get for posting at 0230...

[Sally]

"Anglo-Catholics look back beyond Henry VIII to that early church and consider Anglicanism a branch of the Holy Catholic Church equivalent to RC, EC or EO."

Precisely, Judy. In our own case, it was a short step from being Anglo-Catholic (in England, particularly, in the last years of our life as Anglicans), and from belonging to organizations like the Society of Mary, the Catholic League, etc, and realizing that we were in fact practicing our belief in the truth claims of the Catholic Church, to saying, "Well, why AREN'T we in communion with Rome?"

I think, though, that even the more Catholically-minded wing of the ECUSA is culturally quite different from English Anglo-Catholicism, being distilled through American history and culture, and that "coming home," as it's been put, isn't that obvious a step for someone like Bp. Iker, whether "home" is Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or whatever. I'm not sure I've got the wherewithal to articulate quite why this is -- surely someone can explain it better and more accurately than I'm prepared to do.

[James A. Altena]

Fr. Ray,

Your patronizing sneering at Anglicans and Protestants -- all too typical of certain converts who need to prove themselves to be more "X" than the cradle members of church "X" -- does not impress. And this staunchly traditional Anglo-Catholic (*not* Episcopalian) for one does *not* regard Rome as "home" -- especially in its current condition in the USA. If and when I must finally leave Anglicanism (never, I hope), it will be for Eastern Orthodoxy. If you wish to understand why, Chapters 9-10 of E. L. Mascall's "The Recovery of Unity" will provide you with an excellent start.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Fr. Ray,

I find this sort of Catholic triumphalism rather appalling. The Christian unity we all long for will not, in my view, be gained by the "defeat" of Protestantism. What good does it do for all the ecumenically minded orthodox members of Protestant denominations to convert to Catholicism? Would it not be far far better, if they are able to do so, for them to stay in their churches and foster unity and health there, so that our churches may someday reunite?

Not that I condemn all converts - I just condemn the mindset that sees Christian unity coming through individual conversions and the defeat of churches. It needs to come through churches reuniting.

[Fr. Ray Williams]

It is hazardous to want to be a member of what is called "an apostolic church." After all, that's only one of the marks of the true Church, one of the other marks being "One." If someone can cling to Anglicanism these days and then turn around and claim that the condition of the Roman Catholic Church keeps him from becoming Catholic... well, there's a thinking problem here.

I am certainly not "sneering" at Iker; on the contrary, as I wrote, I am in much sympathy with him. Is it such a fault these days to hope for another Christian to become a Catholic, when I believe, as Rome just recently reiterated, that the fullness of the Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church? Am I NOT supposed to believe this, what Catholics have believed for two thousand years?

I've not read Mascall's book (whatever its “authority”), but I have read history, the Church Fathers, and Catholic apologetics. And they all remind us of the centrality of Rome in the unity of the one true Church. One cannot say that one holds to the Nicene Creed and then give it the denominational interpretation one wants. What is its ancient and continual meaning? Someone wrote above that Presbyterians hold to the Nicene Creed, that ecclesial community whose ruling synod was busy not long ago coming up with new names for the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. "But there are those other 'break-off' groups," one might protest. And that's my point: if a tradition -- and its development/corruption -- becomes unacceptable to what is orthodox, then the tradition is not the true one. Starting a new community is not the answer; but rather, finding the true Tradition is, the existence and continuation of which was promised by our Lord Himself. This was all very clearly investigated by John Henry Newman, as an Anglican, in his "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." Well worth a read. He also, in other works, buried the "branch theory" of Anglicanism.

Finally, what I've written above is not because I am "typical of certain converts," but because I believe it's the truth; it is what the Catholic Church teaches about herself. I don't think Mr. Altena is really that offended by what he detects as my "sneering" as much as what I had to say: I am calling into question this relativizing of "orthodoxy," parceling it out among the "accepted" isms (Anglo-Catholicism, Orthodoxy, "traditional" Protestantism), when all of these have very serious areas of disagreement among themselves. Orthodoxy is a standard, and there can then be only One. Again, what are we going to do about that other, Nicene mark of the Church, that she is One?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I find this sort of Catholic triumphalism rather appalling.<<<

For the record, so does this Greek Catholic--who has been on the receiving end of it more than once.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Orthodoxy is a standard, and there can then be only One. Again, what are we going to do about that other, Nicene mark of the Church, that she is One?<<<

See what I mean? Orthodoxy is the standard, and Rome is not the only standard-bearer, since only Rome has determined that communion with Rome is the one standard of orthodoxy. But the fullness (katholike) of the Church of God is present in all those Churches which have maintained the fullness of the apostolic Tradition. Yes, the Church is ONE, but the Church is also MANY, just as the Eucharist, being the Body of Christ, is also one and many at the same moment. Christ is one and indivisible, so that as the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood, there can be only one Eucharist, yet at any given moment, the Eucharist is being celebrated in many places around the world and that very Body and Blood which is one is received by the many. So, too, the Church of Christ is present wherever the Eucharist of the Lord is celebrated by rightly ordained bishops in the Apostolic Succession, assisted by their presbyters and deacons, and surrounded by the people of God assembled in one place at one time. The universality of the Church is sustained by the communion of bishops with each other, not the communion of all bishops with one particular bishop. If the Church of Rome asserts that other Churches are defective because of the absence of communion with Rome, so equally is the Church of Rome defective because of its absence of communion with all.

[DGP]

If the Church of Rome asserts that other Churches are defective because of the absence of communion with Rome, so equally is the Church of Rome defective because of its absence of communion with all.

That's actually a pretty good way of putting it. The word "defective" may not be best, as it sometimes implies an affirmative error beyond merely an incompleteness or poverty. But the sense of this remark suitably expresses at least the Roman chagrin at the East-West schism.

[James A. Altena]

Fr/ Ray simply proceeds on with further disingenuos and fautous remarks, which I will not dignify with a further reply, as they amply illustrate the truth of my previous post. In short, Fr. Ray is the one with a "thinking problem" -- as in inability to think at all.

[GL]

I was trying to be more gentle in my rebuke. I believe Fr. Ray is new to our discussion and has, in fact, made some insightful and valuable contributions already. However, he may be unaware of the unspoken etiquette here that frowns upon broad stroke condemnations and belittling of entire traditions.

David and I are Presbyterians, but I do not belong to the denomination of Presbyterians to which Fr. Ray refers. James and Gene are Anglicans, but they do not belong to the sect which ordains practicing homosexuals. Stuart, Fr. Ray and D.GP are Catholic, but they do not condone the conduct of those of their ordained brothers who have molested minors. We gather here as traditionalists and as orthodox believers within are respective traditions. Snide remarks do not advance our ecumenicisms, which refuses false unity by denying or white washing important distinctives which we hold. I could, and have in the past, responded to remarks like Fr. Ray's by pointing out the problems, both historic and modern, with his communion. I think it would be better, however, to stop attacking Christians who, as to the issues which unite us on MC, share common beliefs and concerns

[GL]

I should have said that neither David nor I belong to the sect to which Fr. Ray refers. That is, neither of us belongs to the PCUSA.

[Rev. Mark Reiff]

As an ELCA pastor, Father Ray, I believe your statement was right on target. Its always the yelping dog, as Lincoln said, that's been hit. I believe you are speaking a hard truth that is so very difficult for institutional protestants to hear due to our ingrained rebellion against authority in general and Rome in particular. As a Lutheran I believe we have a duty, since Vatican II, to heal the breach and return. Obviously, many of the bright academic stars in the ELCA have also reached this conclusion and returned already. I do wish those who have departed would have done more to help bring the rest of us along. I certainly believe that today Martin Luther would be appalled by the state of the ELCA and other Lutheran groups and would himself be in communion with Rome. Vatican II brought to a close the need for the Reformation era to continue. But unwilling to see it and hear it, Mainline Protestantism has moved even further afield creating new (and heretical?) issues of division that only serve to justify our continued existence as separate sectarian bodies.

[DGP]

Its always the yelping dog, as Lincoln said, that's been hit.

True, but that doesn't justify the shooting or the shooter. We defend ourselves out of a perceived vulnerability, but our vulnerability doesn't mean it's wrong for us to defend ourselves. The justice of the matter usually lies principally in the substance of the argument, not the method of argument.

[David Gray]

>Vatican II brought to a close the need for the Reformation era to continue.

Not for those who actually thought Luther and Calvin had a point.

[David Gray]

>Again, what are we going to do about that other, Nicene mark of the Church, that she is One?

That depends on what it means.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That depends on what it means.<<<

Indeed, I think David and I are closer to each other than to those who believe Church unity can exist only by blanket acceptance of the Roman Church's claims of papal perquisites. And I speak as a Catholic.

[DGP]

Not for those who actually thought Luther and Calvin had a point.

They did indeed have a point -- more than one, in fact -- but that's putting it rather weakly, as it makes no claim to truth.

While I recognize that many, Catholic or Evangelical or Reformed, might think otherwise, I, too, am of the opinion that the Reformation issues are pretty much resolved. By this I mean that the large soteriological parties that were so much at odds with each other in the 16th century have "developed" their understanding to the point that the differences are far shallower than nearly five centuries ago. Moreover, other developments in Christianity have made possible a kind of magnanimity of theological language, according to which differences between traditions and schools of thought are more bridgeable than before.

Of course, this can be taken too far, as our liberals frequently illustrate. It is nonetheless true, and can be practiced in thoroughly orthodox manners. The Joint Declaration on Justification remains the best example: We acknowledge serious differences, but we believe these differences no longer warrant the antagonism of an earlier era. Even where we still believe the other is in error, we acknowledge that these errors, inherited from a longstanding tradition, are no longer directly attributable to the bad faith of the heirs.

I think David and I are closer to each other than to those who believe Church unity can exist only by blanket acceptance of the Roman Church's claims of papal perquisites.

Such believers are themselves arguably dissenting from Rome.

[Poppy]

I'd propose marriage to Stuart Koehl for that comment up there, if it wouldn't be illegal, sinful, and a mixed marriage, as I'm still an Episcopalian--of the reasserting type.

[GL]

Rev. Reiff,

Why then haven't you converted? You really should if you feel that way. I, for one, do not believe Luther would be running back to Rome. He would, however, be turning his mighty pen on those who now claim his name, especially those who want a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays and those who have crossed the Tiber.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Such believers are themselves arguably dissenting from Rome.<<<

I am loyal to a Tradition, not to any one bishop.

[DGP]

>> >>>Such believers are themselves arguably dissenting from Rome.<<< I am loyal to a Tradition, not to any one bishop.<<

Well, la-di-da. The comment was not about you. I was calling attention to the irony of hyperorthodoxy.

As for serving a tradition or a bishop, this issue already came up somewhat earlier: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, la-di-da. The comment was not about you. I was calling attention to the irony of hyperorthodoxy.<<<

There's that, too.

>>>As for serving a tradition or a bishop, this issue already came up somewhat earlier: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"<<<

I've met quite a few bishops who think that we were baptized in THEIR name.

[DGP]

I've met quite a few bishops who think that we were baptized in THEIR name.

No doubt. Many of us priests are like that, too.

[craig]

I want to take issue with this remark: "...The Christian unity we all long for will not, in my view, be gained by the "defeat" of Protestantism. What good does it do for all the ecumenically minded orthodox members of Protestant denominations to convert to Catholicism? Would it not be far far better, if they are able to do so, for them to stay in their churches and foster unity and health there, so that our churches may someday reunite?"

Call it defeat, capitulation, surrender, whatever you wish; if you what you have is true, you should not want any less than the whole truth for your fellow man. This idea that "splitting the difference" between faiths is a valid means to achieve communion is bogus. It is indifferentism raised to the status of a virtue.

So I don't think any good is to be had by people who agree with Rome staying in their own communions that reject Rome. By leaving, they witness that Truth is important enough to warrant upsetting the apple cart.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Call it defeat, capitulation, surrender, whatever you wish; if you what you have is true, you should not want any less than the whole truth for your fellow man. This idea that "splitting the difference" between faiths is a valid means to achieve communion is bogus. It is indifferentism raised to the status of a virtue.<<<

Christian unity will not be attained by the submission or subordination of one Church to another, or by the assimilation of one Tradition into another. To think in such terms is to apply worldly criteria to the Church, which is a symbol of the Kingdom of God and the image of the Holy Trinity. Real unity will be achieved through nothing less than true communion in the Holy Spirit, and that, I am afraid, will not be accomplished through our action alone, but only through the descent of the divine grace, and our own willingness to cooperate with it when it comes. Do the leaders of our various community have the humility to do so, to surrender their pomp, pretentions and perquisites? One really has to wonder.

[John]

For me, Rome is not home. It's foreign, Continental and odd. I respect those of my friends who are Roman Catholics, but I can't be one.

What has being "English" to do with Church? It gives one a certain way of looking at theology and church, just like the "Greek" or "Antiochan" in fromt of "Orthodox" or the "German" or "Swedish" in front of "Lutheran" does. It's the sign of a tradition, one which diverges at several points from the Roman. Maybe Bishop Iker thinks those points are important enough to stay, as do about 70 million Anglicans throughout the globe? Just a guess.

[DGP]

>>What has being "English" to do with Church? It gives one a certain way of looking at theology and church, just like the "Greek" or "Antiochan" in fromt of "Orthodox" or the "German" or "Swedish" in front of "Lutheran" does. It's the sign of a tradition, one which diverges at several points from the Roman.<<

All this is true and right: There are many ways of looking at things, some quite divergent. But if you stop there, and say nothing further, doesn't it feel incomplete? Does Christ not orient us toward a certain kind of *communio,* or sharing, with each other? Is the mutual love to which he commanded us something that must remain a hidden affair of the spirit, without ever taking on the flesh of real communal relations?

Mr. Koehl is also quite right: We can't achieve the *communio* on our own. I'll go even further, and say that it would be an offense to push farther or faster than the Holy Spirit leads. But it would be equally offensive to rule out the Spirit preemptively, to declare elements of a realized unity impossible or unnecessary, and so absolve ourselves of any of the pain, penance, or prayer required in docility to the Spirit.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What has being "English" to do with Church? It gives one a certain way of looking at theology and church, just like the "Greek" or "Antiochan" in fromt of "Orthodox" or the "German" or "Swedish" in front of "Lutheran" does. It's the sign of a tradition, one which diverges at several points from the Roman. Maybe Bishop Iker thinks those points are important enough to stay, as do about 70 million Anglicans throughout the globe? Just a guess.<<<

An interesting and to a limited extent, valid perspective--but its validity is due almost entirely to the Reformation that separated a number of distinct national Churches from communion with Rome. Rome more or less did the rest through its relentless centralization that suppressed most of the unique usages of the Latin Church--the Gallic rite, the Mozerabic rite, the Ambrosian rite, and several others, all of which were legitimate examples of 'inculturation"--for inculturation is what John really means by the statement above. This is something of a shame, because in place of legitimate, organic inculturation, the Roman Church has since Vatican II been trying to invent various kinds of false inculturation, which, precisely because they are artificial constructs and not organic outgrowths of the culture of the people, ring false in their ears and convince no one.

At a deeper level, though, I think that John is missing an important point, one which is becoming more prominent as the Anglican communion succumbs to the centrifugal forces pulling it into smaller and smaller groups, each with its own outlook and agenda. That point is the need to transcend parochialism in the strict sense of the word--the notion of a Church centered on the individual parish, and the need to establish horizons bigger than the parish or even the diocese.

John Zizoulis (Metropolitan John of Pergamon), the noted Greek theologian, points to this flaw i the "Eucharistic ecclesiology" of Nicholas Afanasiev, who said that the Church exists in its fullness wherever the bishop is celebrating the Eucharist; hence the local Church has the fullness of the Church in the sense of being sufficient for the salvation of its adherents.

True, as far as it goes; it covers one aspect of "katholike", but not the other, which is universality. While not accepting the kind of reductionist notion of the universal Church as an aggregation of individual local Churches (or, conversely, of the local Church just being a atomistic element of the universal Church, Zizoulis points to the need for universality expressed through the communion of all bishops. And for that communion to function properly, for it even to exist, there must be primacy as well as conciliarity. There must be a visible center of unity, someone to whom all may look for guidance, who can exhort the brethren, mediate disputes, and preside over the gatherings of the entire Church.

Primacy is merely the other side of conciliarity, as expressed in Canon of the Holy Apostles No.34: "Let all the bishops look to he who is first among them, and do nothing out of the ordinary without his consent; but let he who is first do nothing extraordinary without the advice and consent of all".

Historically, there has been only one center of unity, which is to say the Church of Rome, the Church with priority, the "Church that presides in love". Other centers have been tried over the centuries--the Roman emperors, the Sultan of the Turks, the Tsar, the Komissars, the various kings, princes and dukes of Protestant Europe--none of these has proven capable of fulfillng the mandate of the Petrine ministry.

Protestants and Orthodox alike have been loathe to recognize this reality--and for entirely different reasons--but just as it is becoming clear to many Orthodox that their conciliarity is meaningless without some form of primacy to hold it together, so too Protestants need to recognize that absent some form of primacy, they too will be pulled into ever smaller autonomous units, each convinced that it holds the truth, each unable to assert a vision that embraces the whole world. Moreover, without some focus of unity, there is nothing to prevent the kinds of distortions of Christian belief that occur when small groups operate in a vacuum, exaggerating those beliefs which appeal to them, ignoring those which do not. Absent a center of unity, they look to the world for leadership, and thus surrender to the Prince of this world; or, alternatively, turning their back on the world they forget the Great Commission, and look only to tend their own gardens. Neither is consistent with the true mission of the Church.

The Anglican Communion, the Lutheran Church, and even the many Reformed denominations--all of them spring from one root, which is the Apostolic Church in the West, a Church which, while centered on Rome from the 6th century onward, maintained until very recently distinctive theologies, spiritiualities and modes of expression rooted deeply in the cultures in which they developed. They need to rediscover these roots, their "catholicity" which springs from their common origins, and reconnect themselves to the larger Church.

This does not mean they must become Roman Catholics. it does not even mean they need to buy into the current definition of papal primacy. It does mean that they have to stop contemplating their own navels and drinking their own bathwater. Some real introspection and historical understanding would be deeply welcome, and would yield valuable results even short of full and visible communion. There are many intermediate steps along the path of Christian unity, and each one that we take brings us closer to each other and closer to Christ. And given the present state of the world, we are going to need all the solidarity we can get.

[Rev. Mark Reiff]

Oddly enough several Lutheran scholars in Europe do in fact believe that Luther today would be a Roman Catholic and they have publicly said so. My three brothers (all Lutheran pastors) agree that Luther would today be a Roman Catholic. I can't speak for Calvin after all Luther and Calvin were so very different and were not in agreement. And, as I mentioned, some of the best Lutheran scholars in this country have already converted. I currently remain in the Lutheran church because it is the church that my family has served as pastors for generations going back to Germany and, like other ELCA and LC-MS pastors I know of, will probably convert or at least attend the Catholic church when I retire. My own retirement is less than five years away and believe me the temptation to flee the ongoing descent of the ELCA into liberal mainline theological swamp is overwhelming. But I would have to think long and hard about abandoning the good flock that I serve to the wolves that will follow. I have to, at least, give them good guidance and arm them for the future.

[GL]

As a Memphian (though only a transplant, not a native), on this thread about the current state of the Episcopal Church, I feel compelled to point out that today, September 9, is the feast of Constance and her Companions, The Martyrs of Memphis, who gave their lives to care for the sick and dying of Memphis during the Yellow Fever epidemic of 1878. Constance was head of the (Anglican) Community of St Mary, who returned early from a vacation in New York state when she learned of the epidemic. She found the city depopulated, as many who could fled. Constance died three weeks later, at the age of 32, as did more than a quarter of those who remained in Memphis, including five others who are known now as her companions, Sisters Thecla, Ruth, and Frances, and the Rev. Charles C. Parsons, Rector of Grace and St. Lazarus Episcopal Church, Memphis, and the Rev. Louis S. Schuyler, assistant at Holy Innocents Episcopal Church, Hoboken, NY. They are all buried at historic Elmwood Cemetery. As we lament the current woes of the Episcopal Church, it may do us well to remember that it has many saints who evangelized the world and who even demonstrated the greatest love by giving their lives for others. Perhaps a loyalty and a sense of duty to these earlier Anglican saints also motivate men like Bishop Iker not to surrender Anglicanism in America to the apostates.

[James A. Altena]

"While I recognize that many, Catholic or Evangelical or Reformed, might think otherwise, I, too, am of the opinion that the Reformation issues are pretty much resolved. By this I mean that the large soteriological parties that were so much at odds with each other in the 16th century have 'developed' their understanding to the point that the differences are far shallower than nearly five centuries ago. Moreover, other developments in Christianity have made possible a kind of magnanimity of theological language, according to which differences between traditions and schools of thought are more bridgeable than before."

The second and third sentences are true. I believe that everyone here wishes that the first was true as well. It is true that many (though not all) of the original issues to which Fr. DGP alludes (e.g. the relation between justification and sanctification) have either been resolved, or narrowed to a point that they ought to be theologeumena within a single visible united church rather than causes of formal schism, among Christians of good will.

Unfortunately, the formal proclamation in 1870 in the document "Pastor Aeternus" of the dogma of ex cathedra papal infallibility has created a subsequent, and I sadly believe insuperable and permanent, obstacle to the restoration of the visible unity of the Church before the Parousia.

That unity will not be possible until that document, with its novel assertions of

a) papal primacy as "not only a primacy of honor, but the supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, both in the things which belong to faith and morals and also in those which belong to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world";
b) corresponding papal claims of jurisdiction as a "power [which] is truly episcopal, ordinary, and immediate both over each and every church, and over each and every one of the pastors and the faithful, and is independent of any human authority";
c) divinely bestowed capacity and authority of the Papacy to define doctrines of faith and morals as necessary to be held by the whole Church, which definitions are inherently "irreformable of themselves and not as a consequence of the Church"

is rescinded by Rome in its entirety as fundamentally erroneous, and not just nuanced or "redefined".

(While friend Stuart has tried valiantly to explain away this language, I do not know of a single other person here -- LRC, ERC, EO, Anglican, or Protestant -- who finds his idiosyncratic interpretations plausible.)

But Rome, having painted itself into a corner with the issuance of this document, has no plausible way to retract it without undergoing ecclesiasstical implosion. And the document is absolutely unacceptable to the rest of Christendom. So, alas, we are all stuck. It is a cause for great sorrow; but I for one see no real way out. Perhaps the invitation of JPII and Benedict XVI to discuss the nature of Petrine primacy provide a small window of opportunity; but, as I have said, the document must be formally rescinded, not just parsed with legalese to try to paper over profound differences.

[DGP]

Unfortunately, the formal proclamation in 1870 in the document "Pastor Aeternus" of the dogma of ex cathedra papal infallibility has created a subsequent, and I sadly believe insuperable and permanent, obstacle to the restoration of the visible unity of the Church before the Parousia.

Mr. Altena,

You misunderstand me. (Or perhaps, you are going out of your way to start another argument.) By Reformation issues, I meant original Reformation issues. *Lots* of other issues have emerged since then, and the nature of Papal primacy is only one of them.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Unfortunately, the formal proclamation in 1870 in the document "Pastor Aeternus" of the dogma of ex cathedra papal infallibility has created a subsequent, and I sadly believe insuperable and permanent, obstacle to the restoration of the visible unity of the Church before the Parousia.<<<

Oh, I really doubt that. The problem with most non-Catholics is they take Catholic proclamations much more seriously than Catholics do themselves.

>>>a) papal primacy as "not only a primacy of honor, but the supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, both in the things which belong to faith and morals and also in those which belong to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world";<<<

See, not even the Pope believes this to be true in any literal sense. Like all such documents, it is subject to interpretation and clarification, a process that began almost immediately the ink was dry on the paper. There is also that little event called the Second Vatican Council, in which the imbalance of Pastor Aeternus was partially offset by the conciliarity expressed in the "ecclesiology of communion" found in Lumen Gentium.

>>>is rescinded by Rome in its entirety as fundamentally erroneous, and not just nuanced or "redefined".<<<

Like a lot of people, James apparently won't be content with winning--he needs to see Rome humiliated as well. Is it really prudent to undermine the main source of legitimacy for the world's largest Christian confession? Will that help orthodox Christians of all stripes, or merely create chaos? If the Orthodox and Catholic Churches do not require the formal adoption of Ephesus by the Church of the East and Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox in order to accept the congruency of their Christological beliefs, why this insistence on formal rejection of a doctrine which is not central to Christian belief, but merely a matter of ecclesastical governance?

>>>While friend Stuart has tried valiantly to explain away this language, I do not know of a single other person here -- LRC, ERC, EO, Anglican, or Protestant -- who finds his idiosyncratic interpretations plausible.)<<<

I travel with bad people, like Edward Cardinal Cassidy, Walter Cardinal Kaspar, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, Archbishop Peter of New York, Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, Father Lawrence Cross, Professor John Erickson--yes, we bad, we bad.

>>>But Rome, having painted itself into a corner with the issuance of this document, has no plausible way to retract it without undergoing ecclesiasstical implosion. And the document is absolutely unacceptable to the rest of Christendom. So, alas, we are all stuck. It is a cause for great sorrow; but I for one see no real way out. Perhaps the invitation of JPII and Benedict XVI to discuss the nature of Petrine primacy provide a small window of opportunity; but, as I have said, the document must be formally rescinded, not just parsed with legalese to try to paper over profound differences.<<<

Instead of bitching and moaning, take up John Paul II's invitation to discuss the matter of primacy seriously. Instead of telling everyone what you won't accept, tell us what you would accept. Because we've already seen how lack of meaningful primacy is just as harmful as an exaggerated primacy that amounts to "principalitas".

[David Gray]

>I travel with bad people, like Edward Cardinal Cassidy, Walter Cardinal Kaspar, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, Archbishop Peter of New York, Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, Father Lawrence Cross, Professor John Erickson

You must have a very crowded car...

And isn't John Erickson predominantly noted for his books on the Eastern Front in WWII?

[GL]

I agree, it is now primarily what the RCC has done since the Reformation which has put an apparently insuperable barrier in the way of reunification. Declaring Mary to be Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for all Christians would be the final nail in the coffin. Explain that anyway you want, devout orthodox Protestants will give their life blood to defended Christ as the sole Redeemer, Mediator and Advocate. However, nuanced the definition, such a dogma will confirm the worst prejudices of orthodox Protestants. Let us hope that the RCC has learned its lesson from the harm done to any possible reunification through the declaration of the last three dogmas.

As I understand it, EOs have not held an ecumenical council in more than 1000 years because they hold that such a council is impossible because of the schism. The RCC would have done well to have followed that practice as well. Much harm could have been avoided and, no doubt, but for the schism, the EO bishops might have checked the overreaching of their brothers in the West which led to the Reformation and much that followed. When RC Christians, like Fr. Ray, chastise Protestants for our undoubtedly shameful splintering, I like to suggest that they look at their own communion as the original source for all splintering among Christians, for long before Luther was born, the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox had split from Rome -- or Rome has split from them, depending on how you look at it -- and even Popes have acknowledged that the RCC shares in the blame for what happened during the Reformation. Division is not the sin of Protestants alone.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And isn't John Erickson predominantly noted for his books on the Eastern Front in WWII?<<<

I know that one, too. But the one in question is John Erickson, professor and former dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary in Crestwood, NY.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As I understand it, EOs have not held an ecumenical council in more than 1000 years because they hold that such a council is impossible because of the schism. <<<

The Eastern Orthodox don't hold ecumenical councils because no council can be ecumenically binding a priori. Councils become ecumenical because their teachings are received throughout the world, not because some abstract set of criteria are met when it is held. Thus, e.g., the Synod of Constantinople in 869-70 (the Anti-Photian Synod) is held by the Latin Church to be the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" in the list begun by Robert Bellarmine, but that council was overturned by the Second Synod of Constantinople in 879-880, which was ratified by Pope John VIII. Yet that synod is not recognized by the Latin Church as being ecumencal at all. By Orthodox standards, neither would be ecumenical because neither was recognized by "the whole world" (the meaning of the word "oikumene").

Theoretically, the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence were intended to be "ecumenical" councils to bring about reunion of East and West, but in the event, neither was able to win acceptance in the Christian East, and so while Latins number them among the "ecumenical councils", none of the Eastern Churches consider them to be such.

The main impediment to calling an general council today is the lack of Orthodox unity. Who would call it? Who would preside? Where would it be held? What issues would it address? These, more than the schism, are what has prevented the calling of such a council in recent centuries.

>>>The RCC would have done well to have followed that practice as well. Much harm could have been avoided and, no doubt, but for the schism, the EO bishops might have checked the overreaching of their brothers in the West which led to the Reformation and much that followed.<<<

Most of the councils called by the Western Church in the second millennium are nothing more than general councils of the Western Church, and have no real pretense to ecuemical status, as most of them did not address any issue relevant to the universal Church.

[DGP]

I agree, it is now primarily what the RCC has done since the Reformation which has put an apparently insuperable barrier in the way of reunification.

Good grief. Here is another way in which Mr. Koehl is correct: In the West, from 1545 to 1962, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are mutually conditioned. Almost every major enterprise of the RCC in that time period was undertaken with Protestantism in mind, and can't really be understood apart from that fact. So much for the magnanimity of which I wrote!

If you really must look for insuperable barriers, you could find more, in every communion.

[James A. Altena]

Fr. DGP,

I took your original statement at its word -- and the word "original" did not appear in it as a qualifer to "Reformation". And papal primacy was certainly a major issue at the time of the Reformation, even though its form has changed since then. So I'm not trying to start another argument -- you just need to learn how to write more precisely the first time around. This is not the first time where you have inserted a clarifying qualifier after the fact and then claimed to have been misunderstood.

Stuart,

Stop playing of the same old broken record -- and you're the resident MC expert in "bitching and moaning" if anyone is. I said nothing about anyone being "bad".

Nor am I the slightest bit interested in seeking humiliation, or even "winning", here. Can't you ever, *ever* respond to disagreement without completely misprepresenting your interlocutor? (As Fr. DGP said elsewhere, it grows tiresome responding to each of your caricatures.) You of all people know that on MC I have not spared my own communion from criticism for its wrongs, and have often defended communions other than my own from unjust criticism. I am only seeking to make a frank and clear assessment of the existing situation, as opposed to engaging in wishful thinking or linguistic ledgerdemain.

I also specifically referenced posters here on MC, not every person in the world. But, since you engage in name-dropping here -- something for which you harshly criticized Francesca on another thread -- would you please cite public documents and statements from those persons you mention who are members of the RC Church, which explicitly -- explicitly -- state *total* agreement with the views you have represented on MC? (I'd love to see e.g. a statement from Cardinal Kaspar saying "See, not even the Pope believes this to be true in any literal sense." For very different reasons, so would Francesca.)

"... why this insistence on formal rejection of a doctrine which is not central to Christian belief, but merely a matter of ecclesastical governance?"

First, because it is *not* "merely a matter of ecclesiastical governance" as you so often claim, but -- as Rome itself has repeatedly said -- a theological dogma, an assertion of ability to formulate binding doctrine for the entire Church. If it were purely jurisdictional and not theological, it would not be so intractable a problem. Second, because if it is not formally rescinded, the endless capacity for "clarification" and "reinterpretation" will inevitably entail resurrection of the unacceptable assertions of universal jurisdiction, unilateral ability to formulate and impose doctrine, etc. Third, because of its sheer importance. Fourth, because the Orthodox and Anglicans and Protestants likewise have their own errors which they too must formally renounce. I do not require of Rome anything that I would not require of myself and my own Church.

As for what I will accept, I refer you (and others) to Chapters 9-10 of E. L. Mascall's "The Recovery of Unity", which I have previously mentioned. (Try actually reading an Anglican theologian -- as I read Orthodox authors -- instead of just making statements about Anglicanism based on second- and third-hand reportage.) He lays out both the theological and jurisdictional dimensions of the issue more neatly that any other author I've seen. If you can't get it at a library, send me your address by e-mail and I'll send you a photocopy of those chapters.

But, in a nutshell, I'll accept the primacy of honor that Rome had during the first five centuries of the Church. Alles klar?

[James A. Altena]

I know of no person more magnanimous than GL, a man who has showm himself to be of splendid integrity, humility, and charity in every post of his I've ever read and every private communication I've exchanged with him. Fallen sinner that I am, I would that I were at his level in such matters.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>First, because it is *not* "merely a matter of ecclesiastical governance" as you so often claim, but -- as Rome itself has repeatedly said -- a theological dogma, an assertion of ability to formulate binding doctrine for the entire Church. If it were purely jurisdictional and not theological, it would not be so intractable a problem. <<<

Rome claims many things are dogmas, but few of them actually bark.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Sept. 8, 2007 For immediate release

A STATEMENT FROM BISHOP IKER CONCERNING THE VISIT OF BONNIE ANDERSON TO THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH

FORT WORTH, Texas – Bonnie Anderson, the President of the House of Deputies of The Episcopal Church, has made a visit to the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, where she was the featured speaker at a forum held on the campus of Texas Christian University on Saturday,
September 8th. The program was sponsored by Brite Divinity School and Fort Worth Via Media.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, has issued the following statement:

“This visit by Mrs. Anderson was arranged without any prior consultation with me or any of the other elected leaders of this diocese. I consider it a breach of protocol and a violation of the basic polity of The Episcopal Church. It is a clear effort on her part to recognize and empower a small group of people who dissent from the stated theological positions of this
diocese and who claim that they alone are the true ‘loyal Episcopalians‘ here in Fort Worth.

“This visit by Mrs. Anderson further exacerbates an already tense, adversarial relationship that has developed between national leaders and diocesan officials. Unfortunately, she has sought to further divide the people of this diocese rather than to promote reconciliation. I regret that Mrs. Anderson has chosen to fan the flames of division and to advocate a rather one-sided view of the controversies that have overtaken The Episcopal Church in recent
decades. Rather than working with me and other diocesan officials, she has chosen to go around us in a blatant attempt to work with the revisionist opposition known as the Via Media.

“I regard her visit as part of a concerted effort to undermine the existing diocesan leadership in favor of those who support the liberal agenda of the General Convention Church. It is disconcerting to see this deepened alienation fostered by one of the top leaders of The Episcopal Church. However, we will not be deterred or side-tracked from our Gospel mission by this kind of political manipulation.”

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth consists of 56 congregations serving 24 north central Texas counties.
The major cities in the diocese include Fort Worth, Arlington, Hurst-Euless-Bedford, Wichita Falls, Grand
Prairie, Richland Hills, Brownwood, and Stephenville. The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker has served as the third Diocesan Bishop of Fort Worth since 1995. The diocese enjoys companion relationships with the Dioceses of Northern Malawi and Northern Mexico.

------

Thought some of you might enjoy that letter.

From: http://www.fwepiscopal.org/news/andersonvisit.pdf

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Via Media<<<

"Theology by press release"?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But, in a nutshell, I'll accept the primacy of honor that Rome had during the first five centuries of the Church. Alles klar?<<<

OK, what does that entail? I've got my very clear ideas on how primacy was defined and exercised, but what does it mean to you?

[Sally]

I'm following all this with interest -- not really much I'm qualified to add.

But GL, we're in the same town. Thanks for the reminder about the Martyrs' feast day.

[DGP]

I took your original statement at its word -- and the word "original" did not appear in it as a qualifer to "Reformation". And papal primacy was certainly a major issue at the time of the Reformation, even though its form has changed since then. So I'm not trying to start another argument -- you just need to learn how to write more precisely the first time around. This is not the first time where you have inserted a clarifying qualifier after the fact and then claimed to have been misunderstood.

Wrong, wrong. I specified exactly what I meant. That's what the phrase, "By this I mean..." means.

[DGP]

Since GL and Mr. Altena have so "magnanimously" decided to offer their opinion that the (RC) 1870 Pastor Aeternus is *the* insuperable obstacle to ecclesial reconciliations, allow me to retort. If we borrow from them the same narrow-minded assumptions about the Holy Spirit's disabilities, then from an RC point of view it is precisely the flip side of Pastor Aeternus that makes reconciliation impossible. That is, with whom could Rome reconcile? Protestants have drunk so deeply of the draught of factionalism that there is no longer any authority, biblical or ecclesial or theological, who could possibly arrange for the reconciliation at the ecclesial level. Any effort of one group of theologians or bishops would immediately be encountered by a reaction, simply re-splitting the communion. Individuals may change communions; on rare occasion so might parishes. At the diocesan or regional level, there would inevitably be a substantial counterreaction, and reconciliation on a higher level is at this point unthinkable.

Above, I am writing like a madman. The work of love does not consist in demonstrating how the other has already made reconciliation impossible, but rather docile fidelity to the Lord. Simply because I cannot imagine Protestants ever learning enough solidarity to make broader reconciliation possible, doesn't mean it's "impossible," nor that the Spirit is at work among both of us.

[DGP]

Sorry, "encountered" should read "countered" above.

[David Gray]

>That is, with whom could Rome reconcile? Protestants have drunk so deeply of the draught of factionalism that there is no longer any authority, biblical or ecclesial or theological, who could possibly arrange for the reconciliation at the ecclesial level.

That is clearly not true unless you want one party to speak for all Protestants. What it does mean is that the equation is more complex.

>Any effort of one group of theologians or bishops would immediately be encountered by a reaction, simply re-splitting the communion.

Which means a portion would be reconciled with Rome.

>Individuals may change communions; on rare occasion so might parishes. At the diocesan or regional level, there would inevitably be a substantial counterreaction, and reconciliation on a higher level is at this point unthinkable.

Well that is because at this point union with Rome is not tenable. That does not mean it will be untenable forever. When union is warranted you'll never take every individual with you but you might well take denominations. I doubt it will be warranted in my lifetime but then I never figured the Soviet Union would dissolve itself either (and I am NOT comparing the RCC with the SU, just that it was a major historical event which seemed rather unlikely). God is sovereign.

[GL]

DGP,

I may not have been magnanimous in saying so, but it is a fact the dogma of papal infallibility is a huge (again, I would say insuperable) barrier to reconciliation. If Rome does not want reconciliation, that's fine; if it does, it really should be very cautious about declaring any more dogmas which will have the predictable result of making reconciliation even harder to obtain.

I agree, there is no center to Protestantism toward which Rome can move; we are a fractious bunch. Again, Rome has not exactly fostered union, going all the way back to the fifth century.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I may not have been magnanimous in saying so, but it is a fact the dogma of papal infallibility is a huge (again, I would say insuperable) barrier to reconciliation. <<<

Well, papal prerogatives are the only substantive issue keeping the Catholics and Orthodox apart, though many Orthodox believe that the infallibility issue can be "clarified" to the point of nullification. Universal ordinary jurisdiction, i.e., the Pope's right to intervene unilaterally in other Churches, presents a more intractable issue for them, and they will seek a canonical solution; i.e., clearly defined limits on what a Pope can do when, where, and how. Of course, with regard to the Protestants, there are also substantive theological issues not present in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

>>>If Rome does not want reconciliation, that's fine; if it does, it really should be very cautious about declaring any more dogmas which will have the predictable result of making reconciliation even harder to obtain.<<<

Not much chance of that, actually. Every Pope since John XXIII has been implored to dogmatize this, that and the other thing, and all have declined to do so. As I said, the Ex cathedra declaration is something like a nuclear weapon: it's an awesome thing, but if you have to use it, you have failed your purpose.

With regard to the Papal prerogatives, I am still waiting for both Protestants and Orthodox to take up John Paul II's invitation in Ut Unum Sint to work with the Pope to find a definition and modality of primacy that promotes Christian unity. For centuries, both Protestants and Orthodox have wanted primacy to be on the table. Now it's there, and nobody wants to touch it--just in case Rome gives in and they have no excuse for remaining separate any longer.

>>>Again, Rome has not exactly fostered union, going all the way back to the fifth century.<<<

That's really not fair. All Roman Popes from Leo the Great onward had a rather exalted vision of their position, but until the eleventh century, all of them put Church unity ahead of their own vanity. Look to the Gregorian reformers and their Cluniac vision for the whole Church as the point where submission to Rome took precedence over the true Petrine ministry.

[DGP]

As I said, the Ex cathedra declaration is something like a nuclear weapon: it's an awesome thing, but if you have to use it, you have failed your purpose.

I didn't remember this from earlier, but even so, it's an awfully clever analogy.

[Isamashii Yuubi (Courageous Grace)]

When anyone reads this comment, please keep in mind that the baby ate my brain and I may not make a whole lot of sense right now (maybe I'll get a few brain cells back after he's born?). That said, I have a couple of comments to make.

Concerning the original topic of this post, I have been a member of the Fort Worth diocese since my confirmation (4 years ago). This letter is a prime example of why I admire Bishop Iker. He is methodical, respectful, and not prone to rash decisions. He is the type of person to consider ALL possible outcomes of a decision (and then some). He has paid attention to what has happened to other dissenting diocese (dioceses? What the heck is the plural for diocese?) and has made his decisions based on how it will affect all of the members of our diocese. He has been gracious and respectful to those who oppose him.

He and Bishop Stanton (Dallas) have worked out a plan concerning women's ordination where women who feel they are called to the priesthood (and parishes who would like to call a woman as rector) may go to Dallas to be ordained (or be under Dallas leadership, respectively). Conversely any male aspirant who does not approve of women's ordination and parishes that feel the same way may come to Fort Worth for leadership (my wording may be a little off but that's the basic idea). This is a most respectable agreement and has not caused any major conflict in either diocese (besides a few women who get all bent out of shape because they don't like Iker).

As for "going to the RC side" as I like to call it, the main reason I can figure out for why Iker has put up with TEC for so long is exactly what I described above...and that he knows he is called to pastor to our diocese and remains a sort of lifeboat for those of us who for various reasons cannot leave TEC right now. I cannot fathom as to why he is not planning to do what Bishop Pope did, but that would be HIS decision to make, not ours. As for someone like myself, there are various reasons I will not convert to the RCC, many of which are because I refuse to convert unless I firmly hold ALL of the doctrine to be true. I cannot in good conscience convert without doing so, otherwise I would be cheating myself and God. I just can't do that.

So I will step off of my little soapbox now and hope some of that made sense, and leave you all with the following comment:

I just can't seem to figure out why I have this strange urge to run up to Bishop Iker and give him a hug every time I see him. Weird.

[James A. Altena]

Fr. DGP,

"... the same narrow-minded assumptions about the Holy Spirit's disabilities...."

You tried to chide me on another thread for supposed begging the question (when I did not). But this statement is as question-begging, narrow-minded, and tendentious as one can get. It evinces a fallacious assumption regularly encountered in RC apologetics, that if X could in principle be the case, then X must actually be the case in some instance. (Here, if it is possible that the the Holy Ghost could speak to the Church through an ex cathedra office of the Papacy, then he must in fact do so at some time, and therefore such an office must exist.)

For the record, we non RC-Christians do not limit how the Holy Ghost *can* operate. Rather, we question whether he *does in fact* ever operate through the Papacy as Rome asserts, or has ever done so, or whether God ever intends such a thing -- in short, whether this is a doctrine of man rather than of God.

Stuart,

As I said before, if you want my views in detail, e-mail me a postal address and I'll mail you the chapters from Mascall, who states it more eloquently than I could. I'm not going to waste my limited time re-typing it out here -- especially since you haven't done so either, as distinct from simply asserting that you have "very clear ideas" about it. (And I'm still waiting for your Scriptural and patristic citations on another MC thread.)

Also, my own ideas are subject to revision, due to study and prayer. Courtesy of a gift from good friend Prof. Tighe, I'm presently reading "The Church and the Papacy: An Historical Survey", the 1942 Bampton Lectures at Oxford University by T. G. Jalland. It is not for the faint of heart -- 568 pages of dense and minute type, the first 360 covering only up to Gregory the Great, studded with an extensive scholarly apparatus and lots of untranslated quotations from original patristic Greek and Latin documents. (At present I'm on p. 292.) As the subtitle indicates, it is not an apologetical work, but rather a study of the actual development of the office of the Papacy in relation to the rest of Christendom. The author is an Anglican, but he effectively makes a far stronger case for Petrine primacy than many non-RCs might wish to believe. Perhaps even Fr. DGP would find it of interest and value. (The rub, of course, if not the existence of that primacy, but its definition, form, and exercise.)

You would probably find that my beliefs regarding the correct operation of Petrine primacy would differ very little from yours. The difference between us is that I reject the idea that "the infallibility issue can be 'clarified' to the point of nullification." For the sake of truth and the good of all, it needs to be formally rescinded. Error (if error it be) cannot simply be "clarified" away while stil leaving its formal assertion on the books. And the same is true if non-RCs are in error here -- their opposition to Petrine primacy as defined in 1870 cannot simply be "clarified" away, but must likewise be formally rescinded. "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay."

[Gene Godbold]

I'm not trying to diminish the good effort that folks (and especially Touchstone folks) exert toward the fulfillment of Jesus' prayer in John 17. But, I think it's good to remember that there will be unity at the eschatological level, when the King who *is* our unity makes known His own. In the interim, we're peering through a fog...

[Ethan C.]

>>Courtesy of a gift from good friend Prof. Tighe, I'm presently reading "The Church and the Papacy: An Historical Survey", the 1942 Bampton Lectures at Oxford University by T. G. Jalland.<<

Ah! I recently received the same book, though it had no note saying who had sent it. Now I know to send a thank you note to Dr. Tighe. Thanks, James!

[Gene Godbold]

Dear James,
Here is one thing I've wondered about that your comment above (For the record, we non RC-Christians do not limit how the Holy Ghost *can* operate. Rather, we question whether he *does in fact* ever operate through the Papacy as Rome asserts, or has ever done so, or whether God ever intends such a thing -- in short, whether this is a doctrine of man rather than of God.) catalyzed.

If a group of Christians, through some frailty or sin, separates themselves from their brethren, does the Holy Spirit leave them? Or does He continue to bestow His grace upon them as they attempt to love Him and obey His commandments? I think one could make the case that He does do that. So even if the RCs are wrong about the exercise of the Petrine organ of unity, that doesn't mean that God doesn't continue to do good things through it. Conversely (picking on our own group), faithful Anglicans--even if the basis of the existence of their ecclesial body is imperfect or even plain wrong--can continue to do good, share the Gospel, and bring people into the Body of Christ. Right? (Or am I missing something?) One would sometimes like a clearer picture of the workings of God and His righteousness than He is pleased to bestown on one. :-)

[GL]

Amen, Gene, amen.

[Gene Godbold]

Or, more likely, I'm just a moron. :-)

[GL]

I was amening to Gene's post of Sep 10, 2007 9:01:33 AM, though I could also amen his post of Sep 10, 2007 9:45:12 AM. :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As the subtitle indicates, it is not an apologetical work, but rather a study of the actual development of the office of the Papacy in relation to the rest of Christendom. <<<

Papadakis and Meyendorff (1994) is not apologetic, either, and based on more recent (and I suspect) more accurate scholarship. Neither the Greek nor the Russian would be expected to be pro-Roman, but both seem a lot more well-disposed towards the Latin Church than you seem to be. One might also look to Francis Dvornik's "Byzantium and the Roman Primacy". A Dominican, Dvornik would not be expected to favor the Orthodox side, but in objective scholarship such allegiences don't count for much. In either case, both books taken together provide an extremely balanced view. For a very erenic Orthodox account, see Olivier Clement's recent "You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy", a good review of which can be found here:http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/CarlsonPrimacy.shtml

[GL]

And I am really glad that I did not say, "I could also amen his last post" as he once again interposed a post between mine. I definitely deny Gene's post of Sep 10, 2007 9:47:22 AM. ;-)

[Gene Godbold]

No, no--if you knew me better, you certainly could.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I'm not sure this former Catholic, now Episcopalian wants to be reunited with Rome.

http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=4371

[Bill R]

“If a group of Christians, through some frailty or sin, separates themselves from their brethren, does the Holy Spirit leave them? Or does He continue to bestow His grace upon them as they attempt to love Him and obey His commandments? I think one could make the case that He does do that. So even if the RCs are wrong about the exercise of the Petrine organ of unity, that doesn't mean that God doesn't continue to do good things through it. Conversely (picking on our own group), faithful Anglicans--even if the basis of the existence of their ecclesial body is imperfect or even plain wrong--can continue to do good, share the Gospel, and bring people into the Body of Christ. Right? (Or am I missing something?) One would sometimes like a clearer picture of the workings of God and His righteousness than He is pleased to bestown on one. :-)” - Gene Godbold

Gene,

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

And no charge for consulting the Oracle. ;-)

[bonobo]

As far as I've followed the argument, I agree more with James than with Stuart about the issue of Petrine primacy. It is (in a sense) a scandal and a source of division among conscientious Christians. It cannot be subject to "nullification" without the RCC imploding...it's inconceivable.

To me, the issue is about the assertion of apostolic authority in an age (since the reformation) when that authority has been contested by individuals (for good reason) and potentates (for bad). If there is such a thing as apostolic authority, then it must be exercised and we must look to those who are both willing and have a claim to do so. Furthermore, the question of primacy is also unavoidable, as the scriptures attest to this even in the very denigration of primacy as it is exercised among the pagans.

The solution (as far as I can see) lies in the recognition that councils treat of questions relevant to their time and cannot be held to answer questions that were not asked of them. Fr. Al Kimel has written very well of this. Therefore clarifications are always possible, but not revocations of the original intent.

Since the first Vatican council, papal primacy has been exercised definitively once, with respect to the ancient doctrine of the assumption. This is a doctrine which the EO agree in substance, though if I understand Stuart correctly, the exercise of the V1 privilege per se was cause for consternation.

The eminently Catholic doctrine of primacy of correctly-formed conscience comes to the rescue, together with a certain trust in Divine Providence. We have been blessed with worthy occupants of the chair of St. Peter in recent times (not least the venerable P12 of assumption fame) and the attention to doctrine exhibited by the likes of MC makes it unlikely that a propounder of false doctrine in said seat would get very far.

I have no doubt that the debate will come to a happy outcome.

[bonobo]

Since the first Vatican council, papal primacy

I should have said infallibility with respect to dogma. I sympathise with questions about immediate jurisdiction.

[GL]

The one thing you can say about the dogma of papal infallibility, it leaves no middle ground. You either accept it, in which case you have no choice but to become (or remain) Catholic or you reject it, in which case you have no choice but to not become (or remain) Catholic. It really is THE ISSUE on which the decision hinges.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The one thing you can say about the dogma of papal infallibility, it leaves no middle ground. You either accept it, in which case you have no choice but to become (or remain) Catholic or you reject it, in which case you have no choice but to not become (or remain) Catholic. It really is THE ISSUE on which the decision hinges.<<<

You really shouldn't tell Catholics what they can and cannot believe, GL. It is interesting that in some ways, Protestants have a much more exalted opinion of papal claims than do the Popes themselves.

In that regard, take this statement from Melkite Patriarch Gregorios III in a recent interview:

You once said: «With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it»
.
GRÉGOIRE III: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn’t have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not “below”. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn’t be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

But do you mean to say that the link with the Church of Rome is a bit tight on you?

GRÉGOIRE III: On the contrary! The papacy, since John XXIII, is the most open authority in the world. In no other Church is there such openness and such democratic praxis as in the Church of Rome. But then there are those who want to appear as the super-Catholics, and they then insist and always only on the sub Petro and sub Roma. And so, according to me, they contradict the true sense of the papacy itself, its office to confirm the brethren in the faith. We have suffered for our communion with Rome. For a hundred and fifty years we have said mass in the catacombs, in Damascus, because we were forbidden do it in public because of our communion with the bishop of Rome. We’re more Roman than the Romans! That’s why we want to benefit from this communion as from a treasure, a gift, a help for our faith. As Saint John says, our faith is our sole victory.

[James A. Altena]

Gene,

I agree with Bill R's response, and am puzzled that you would even think to find any implication to the contrary in anything I wrote. To say that the formal promulgation of Petrine primacy in the particular form it took in 1870 has created an insuperable barrier to visible reunion (short of its being rescinded, or all other churches accepting it) is not to imply that one side or the other is separated from the Holy Ghost. It is simply to make a factual and historical observation of the realities on the ground; it does not express any desire that matters be so. All sides of Christendom have their sins of schism, but (contrary to Ephraim Radner) that does not require the complete absence of the Holy Ghost from all or any one of them, any more than does any other sin except apostasy.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Excerpt.

Hough said that Jefferts Schori's election is a "prophetic statement to the church and the world at a time when aggressive misogyny has reared its ugly head in many Christian communions, determined to restore the full grip of male hegemony in the leadership of Christian Churches."

"She and her church in full view of the world have defied this trend and engendered hope for many of us Christians who abhor this sort of male exclusivism," Hough continued.

Hough said that "since misogyny is almost always accompanied by homophobia, it is hardly surprising that she has been the object of virulent attacks for her openness to gay ordination from some of her fellow bishops and clergy in the Anglican Communion."

"What is so wondrous for me to see is her refusal to engage in white hot polemics in response to this ecclesiastical skullduggery," he added.

From: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_89875_ENG_HTM.htm

[Ethan C.]

>>"What is so wondrous for me to see is her refusal to engage in white hot polemics in response to this ecclesiastical skullduggery," he added.<<

That's absolutely hilarious. Wow, thanks.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear James,
I wasn't arguing against you. Rather, what you wrote catalyzed the realization (in retrospect obvious) that I expressed (or maybe "enthused" is the more appropriate verb :-) above.

[Gene Godbold]

What a crashingly boring ecclesiastical idealogue this presiding bishopress is.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12a)

Universal and transcendent? Or particularized for that time, locale, people, and culture?

Patriarchy = (perception of) misogyny.

Egalitarian = no misogyny and quite likely leads to gay blessings and gay ordinations.

P.S. FWIW, I choose *biblical* patriarchy.

[JRM]

"You either accept it, in which case you have no choice but to become (or remain) Catholic or you reject it, in which case you have no choice but to not become (or remain) Catholic."

Intersting comment. That's not what (many/most) Catholics think. It strikes me as a manifestation of a parochial outlook.