Jump to content

Talk:Charismatic Episcopal Church: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,514,694 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Christianity}}.
 
(226 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
Note: The best information on the Charismatic Episcopal Church is found on their official website:
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid|charismatic-christianity=yes|charismatic christianity-importance=mid}}
}}
==Latest Edits==


I've read through and edited the entire article for accuracy and (in some places) style. While some of the negative point of view content is unnecessary for a short article, included by detractors simply to embarrass and give a false or confusing first impression, particularly the mention of Archbishop Spruit's wife as a co-consecrator of Timothy Barker, it's useless to edit these parts out and these details are part and parcel of the story, no matter how ephemeral to where the CEC has, in fact, ended up. That particular episode illustrates how little the CEC founder's (they were Charismatics, all) knew about the religious world they were entering, but doesn't excuse their lack of research and care. The mention of a woman co-consecrator reveals nothing about what the CEC has become, but it does point up a serious early error, one that caused problems for years, and by remembering this (and other mistakes), keeping them in the forefront of our minds, we might hope to avoid similar errors in the future. [[User:KennethTanner|Kenneth Tanner]] ([[User talk:KennethTanner|talk]]) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
http://www.iccec.org/whowerare/index.html


== Anonymity ==
==Big rework, ommision of timeline ==
Hey, I've redone the whole page, ommitting the timeline. I hope this is ok with everyone. I thought that the timeline was too anchored-down with incedentals that only dealt peripherally with the denomination, and too much information about individual consecrations, etc. This, to me, seems more encyclopedia-ish, but I know there could be a lot of improvement.
[[User:Kennethmyers|Kennethmyers]] 22:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
{{Template:CharismaticWikiProject}}


Anonymity in life, including life on the internet, is inconsistent with Christian belief and practice, for the Christian God discloses himself completely in Jesus Christ and his gospel is public truth. When we "hide" our persona, temptation is nearby. It seems to me that anonymity has no business in the editing of a publicly-available document that is peer-reviewed and strives to be accurate. [[User:KennethTanner|Kenneth Tanner]] ([[User talk:KennethTanner|talk]]) 06:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Current page looks good. Someone messaged me asking for feedback, but didn't sign the request. I am a non-member of the CEC, but do have a vested interest in the validity of its original Apostolic Succession: as I recall at the time, it wasn't so much that the validity itself was being questioned, but rather, that this validity was difficult to establish by the usual methods required by Rome, and there seemed to be a lot of interest in assuring that Rome saw the CEC's orders as valid, if illicit, which, along with the perceived theological abberrations often attendant upon the Spruit succession (which do not affect validity), provided the impetus to seek Apostolic Succession from the Brazilian Church. --[[User:Midnite Critic|Midnite Critic]] 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
==Please read this!==
Recently, when I wrote in the article that the CEC's original lines of succession were invalid, it was changed to say that they were merely questionable or problematic, and then changed again so as to drop the issue altogether. I then tried to introduce the matter in a more factual, less interpretive way by mentioning that among Bp. Barker's consecrators was a female bishop, and the article was again changed to instead include the name of the principle consecrator (her husband). This is all good and well, and I applaud these revisions, which were more NPOV and contextually appropriate, but I do believe that it is our duty to report the true gravity of the problems with the original apostolic line. Any ideas on an agreeable way to do this? Further, the article has been recently edited so as to eradicate any mention of the present crisis. This is equivalent to writing an article about Lebanon without mentioning that they are at war. Bp. Painter's diocese has left, one church in Bp. Jones's diocese has, two in Bp. Myers's, 11 of 13 in Bp. Fick's remain out, 3 priests in Bp. Bates's are calling for his resignation, 6 priests have left from Bp. Sly's diocese, Bp. Zampino left with his community, and Bp. Hines has barred Bp. Adler from entering his churches. Doesn't that deserve mention? I am willing to hammer it out into language we can all agree on, but deleting it outright is near vandalism.
[[User:Kennethmyers|Kennethmyers]] 06:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


==Assessment comment==
:First, Kenneth, thanks for signing your entries. Regarding +Barker's consecration, I'm not sure that the main problem was +Meri's participation which, since she was not the only bishop involved, nor even the principal consecrator, should not be relevant to the question of validity. However, if that was part of the problem, then go ahead and mention it; however, please make it clear that her late husband, +++Herman, was +Barker's principal consecrator. The other side issue here was and is related to the perceived theological quirkiness of the Spruits' and +Barker, although, again, I am not aware of anything there that would affect validity per se. What I do remember reading at the time was that the main issue concerned the fact that the validity of this succession could not be documented feasibly to Rome's satisfaction and that, at least at that time, the ICCEC was very interested in being seen by Rome as having unquestionably valid and well-documented holy orders. Related to this, I have not able to determine if the consecrations performed by the Brazilians were conditional or absolute; theoretically, they should have been the former. Do you know? Do you have a source that can document this, one way or the other?
{{Substituted comment|length=2073|lastedit=20071031142601|comment=I would downgrade the reliability of this article. I have been following this article, and the controversy surrounding the subject it discusses for some time now. The fact is, is that the denomination described by this article has been in absolute turmoil for the last 18 months or so. Mass resignations, leadership changes, theological position changes, and financial and moral scandals have become the order of the day. Many former members of the church vehemently disagree with the statements posted here as "fact", including, I might add, the individual who originally de-stubbed the article. Partisan editing (on both sides of the controversy) have been extremely common and right now, there are a few unsigned contributers who persist in removing the Neutrality Dispute in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines.


This is NOT a reliable article.--[[User:Martin Buber|Martin Buber]] 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:And, yes, the article needs to discuss the "present crisis." You are absolutely correct.--[[User:Midnite Critic|Midnite Critic]] 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


:Interesting spin Martin. Actually, no one disagrees with what's posted, but those that have left the CEC in last year's U.S. based upheavel would like to post so-called information based on things they've heard through the rumor-mill. Some of it is true, much of it is out-of-context, and some of it is outright lies, but most importantly, NONE of it is publically available information and thus does not belong in an encyclopedi article. Just stick to the facts, which are present in the article. All of the clergy and parish departures are mentioned as well as a high-level representation of why. Getting into the specific charges, when those charges are accumulated based on an internet forum and behind the scenes phone calls isn't appropriate. If it can't stand the scrutiny of a court of law, because it can't be proven, you'd better not publish it lest you bring a lawsuit on yourself. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/12.183.17.12|12.183.17.12]] ([[User talk:12.183.17.12|talk]]) 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->}}
:Midnight critic,
Substituted at 11:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I am embarrassed to say I may completely misunderstand the Roman way of reckoning validity. I understood that 3 bishops were needed in order to perform a consecration, and if any one of these were to be a woman (and hence in Roman eyes not a bishop), it would render the consecration invalid. For all I know I'm an idiot and you're a Roman Catholic cardinal, so please excuse my ignorance, but what's your understanding of it all?
With regards to the conditionality of the Brazilian consecrations, I an certain that they required of us that we changed our rite of ordination to include some vows which our Anglican prayer books didn't have. There is also talk on the blogs of a requirement that we not develop in Brazil, but I don't know if it's true. If it is, we definately screwed that one up. Whatever the case, I believe (again in my ignorance) that any violation of these would be incapable of rescinding our apostolic succession, but would only render us illicit and out-of-communion with the Brazilians.
Thank you for re-adding the bit about the present crisis. I am going to remove the word "unsubstantiated", because I think it would be most NPOV to simply mention that there are allegations and not adjudicate on their veracity.
[[User:Kennethmyers|Kennethmyers]] 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:Kenneth,
:In all fairness, the word "unsubstantiated" simply means that there are allegations that have yet to be vetted through a proper system of judication. In the American jurisprudence system there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In the church-world, extreme accusations such as these that have yet to be proven in a proper forum (i.e. according to CEC Cannon Law) should be treated in the same way. To mention allegations with no attempt to adjudicate their veracity smacks of yellow journalism and is simply unfair to mention as if they are fact. How would you feel if someone made up all sorts of spurious allegations about you only to have them quoted as fact throughout the internet for the world to see without giving you the decency of checking on their validity? The way these allegations are mentioned in the article reminds me of the statement, "How long has it been since you quit beating your wife." There is no way for the accused to answer that without sounding defensive. Thus, any mention of allegations should be very balanced and fair to the accused. To do otherwise, is unfair and uncharitable.
:-72.197.26.135


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:Anonymous,
Good point. I still take issue with the word "unsubstantiated" because some of the allegations have been substantiated to the satisfaction of the dissenting. I do agree however that the mere mention of allegations might be problematic too. I like the way it's been rewritten now. It's really superb - well done! I put in a map, but my cousin who just visited the page said I should change to label the dioceses by proper names instead of last names of bishops (which is probably really confusing to non-members). I'll get on it, but I have to get home first.
[[User:Kennethmyers|Kennethmyers]] 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[Charismatic Episcopal Church]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=750433733 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
LOL. No, I not a Cardinal of the Roman Church. Just a simple priest of another jurisdiction whose Holy Orders come to us via +++H.A. Spruit. First, I have added a link to the article which hooks up with another article on a CEC website, written by ++Sly, which discusses the reasons for seeking reconsecration. In the article, it is stated that validity itself was not at issue, and there is no mention of ++Meri's role in consecrating +Barker. From Rome's perspective, all that is needed in order for valid consecration to occur is ONE consecrating bishop, although three is the normal number, going back to very early times. In mainstream Orthodox circles, at least three consecrating bishops are indeed required for the consecration to be deemed acceptable (The language of "validity" is not generally used among the Orthodox.), but this is not the case with the Roman Church. For example, within the last twenty years, the late traditionalist Archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, consecrated bishops for his breakaway movement, the Society of St. Pius X. He acted alone, assisted only by two priests who, since they were priests and not bishops, were in no way co-consecrators. However, Rome recognized his actions as valid: illicit but valid (Since Lefebvre was RC, under the direct jurisdiction of the Pope, he was excommunicated for these consecrations, since he had acted without papal mandate.) Concerning "the Present Crisis," where is +Zampino and his "Life in Jesus" community in all this? --[[User:Midnite Critic|Midnite Critic]] 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015030023/http://www.iccec.org/whowerare/index.html to http://www.iccec.org/whowerare/index.html
:Bishop Zampino and his community have left the communion. Did you know him? [[User:Kennethmyers|Kennethmyers]] 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604124025/http://www.iccec.org/hob/Summary_Patriarchs_Council_Spring_2007.pdf to http://www.iccec.org/hob/Summary_Patriarchs_Council_Spring_2007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105195543/http://cechome.com/ChurchHTML.aspx?t=USA to http://cechome.com/ChurchHTML.aspx?t=USA


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
::I don't know him personally. I've known of him for quite some time, going back to when he was an Episcopal priest. I was just wondering why he isn't mentioned among those who have left ICCEC. --[[User:Midnite Critic|Midnite Critic]] 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::: I do know +Zampino personally and the intimate details of his departure. I removed the reference to his and the LIJ community's departure from the article, it was not directly relevant to the section of the article. The reason he left was not in protest such as +Painter or +Myers. While +Zampino has long been discontented with the CEC, he left because he refused to submit to disciplinary measures brought on by issues that do not belong being discussed on a forum such as this.


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
He should be mentioned, and perhaps others too, but I'm having a hard enough time fielding critiicsm on my talk page from the anonymous California IP as it is. He's now started a talk page for the diocescan map charging me with releasing "sensitive information".
[[User:Kennethmyers|Kennethmyers]] 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


== What allegations? ==
:More people are viewing this article now because of the crisis in the CEC, so I think the crisis should be mentioned here. It will be difficult to maintain NPOV, but this can be accomplished by mentioning both sides of an issue being discussed, or by making general statements that no one can dispute (such as "Bp. Painter left as a result of disagreements with the leadership and direction of the ICCEC", something that's not really disputable). I'm the one who added the timeline last week, just to provide a "backgrounder" reference point for people who've been reading the blogs and wondering things like when it was that our ICAB re-consecration take place, where our Anglican succession come from, etc. I agree the timeline was too full of mundane details. My hope is that the revised article will still serve as a backgrounder, with enough info for people to put the crisis in perspective, in order to see how we got to this point. [[User:Timotheos|Timotheos]] 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


What are the allegations that caused 30% or more to leave? They must be very serious. Was money stolen? Was it sexual? Were there organization shenanigans? Was there a theological dispute? The allegations need to be mentioned otherwise the article is seriously lacking and such a lack suggests a cover-up, which would violate neutral point of view. --[[User:Iloilo Wanderer|Iloilo Wanderer]] ([[User talk:Iloilo Wanderer|talk]]) 17:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
On the question of who can consecrate a bishop, here's what the [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Consecration"] says: ''Besides the consecrator, the ancient canons and the general practice of the Church require two assistant bishops. This is not of Divine but of Apostolic institution (Santi, "Praelectiones Juris Canonici", Vol. I, Tit. vi, n. 49), and hence in cases of necessity, when it is impossible to procure three bishops, the places of the two assistant bishops may, by Apostolic favour, be filled by priests, who should be dignitaries (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 July, 1605). These priests must observe the rubrics of the "Pontificale Romanum" with regard to the imposition of hands and the kiss of peace (Cong. Sac. Rit., 9 June, 1853).'' I don't know if this is still the RC canon today, but this does provide some background on precedents. [[User:Timotheos|Timotheos]] 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Right. This is for legality (liceity) and regularity, not validity. Note that in the absence of two additonal bishops, two priests may assist instead. However, even their absence would not affect validity. --[[User:Midnite Critic|Midnite Critic]] 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

==Sections on Worship and Finance==
I've added a section on Worship and a section on Finance, since these are two features of the CEC that are pretty distinctive. I used the Canon Law for the Finance section, omitting some details about how cathedrals specifically allocate their offerings. I also took some wording from the Canons for the section on Worship. If anyone knows of an online link to the canons, that would be helpful to cite here. Thanks! [[User:Timotheos|Timotheos]] 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Online link to the [http://theprovince.org/docs/international-canons.doc Canons of the CEC] in MS-Word document format -[[User:Hald|Hald]] 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:Cool - thanks! [[User:Timotheos|Timotheos]] 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:Wow, good job with worship and finance! Someone called Maryland CEC, who I assume is in the know, just removed the reference to +Zampino. Does anyone know why?
[[User:Kennethmyers|Kennethmyers]] 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:43, 30 January 2024

Latest Edits

[edit]

I've read through and edited the entire article for accuracy and (in some places) style. While some of the negative point of view content is unnecessary for a short article, included by detractors simply to embarrass and give a false or confusing first impression, particularly the mention of Archbishop Spruit's wife as a co-consecrator of Timothy Barker, it's useless to edit these parts out and these details are part and parcel of the story, no matter how ephemeral to where the CEC has, in fact, ended up. That particular episode illustrates how little the CEC founder's (they were Charismatics, all) knew about the religious world they were entering, but doesn't excuse their lack of research and care. The mention of a woman co-consecrator reveals nothing about what the CEC has become, but it does point up a serious early error, one that caused problems for years, and by remembering this (and other mistakes), keeping them in the forefront of our minds, we might hope to avoid similar errors in the future. Kenneth Tanner (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity

[edit]

Anonymity in life, including life on the internet, is inconsistent with Christian belief and practice, for the Christian God discloses himself completely in Jesus Christ and his gospel is public truth. When we "hide" our persona, temptation is nearby. It seems to me that anonymity has no business in the editing of a publicly-available document that is peer-reviewed and strives to be accurate. Kenneth Tanner (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Charismatic Episcopal Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
I would downgrade the reliability of this article. I have been following this article, and the controversy surrounding the subject it discusses for some time now. The fact is, is that the denomination described by this article has been in absolute turmoil for the last 18 months or so. Mass resignations, leadership changes, theological position changes, and financial and moral scandals have become the order of the day. Many former members of the church vehemently disagree with the statements posted here as "fact", including, I might add, the individual who originally de-stubbed the article. Partisan editing (on both sides of the controversy) have been extremely common and right now, there are a few unsigned contributers who persist in removing the Neutrality Dispute in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines.

This is NOT a reliable article.--Martin Buber 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting spin Martin. Actually, no one disagrees with what's posted, but those that have left the CEC in last year's U.S. based upheavel would like to post so-called information based on things they've heard through the rumor-mill. Some of it is true, much of it is out-of-context, and some of it is outright lies, but most importantly, NONE of it is publically available information and thus does not belong in an encyclopedi article. Just stick to the facts, which are present in the article. All of the clergy and parish departures are mentioned as well as a high-level representation of why. Getting into the specific charges, when those charges are accumulated based on an internet forum and behind the scenes phone calls isn't appropriate. If it can't stand the scrutiny of a court of law, because it can't be proven, you'd better not publish it lest you bring a lawsuit on yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charismatic Episcopal Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What allegations?

[edit]

What are the allegations that caused 30% or more to leave? They must be very serious. Was money stolen? Was it sexual? Were there organization shenanigans? Was there a theological dispute? The allegations need to be mentioned otherwise the article is seriously lacking and such a lack suggests a cover-up, which would violate neutral point of view. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charismatic_Episcopal_Church&oldid=1200792097"