Talk:Charismatic Episcopal Church

Note: The best information on the Charismatic Episcopal Church is found on their official website:

http://www.iccec.org/whowerare/index.html

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. Kennethmyers 22:31, 6 August 2006 (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. --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. Kennethmyers 06:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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?

And, yes, the article needs to discuss the "present crisis." You are absolutely correct.--Midnite Critic 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Midnight critic,

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. Kennethmyers 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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. Kennethmyers 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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? --Midnite Critic 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bishop Zampino and his community have left the communion. Did you know him? Kennethmyers 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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. --Midnite Critic 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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". Kennethmyers 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Timotheos 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On the question of who can consecrate a bishop, here's what the 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. 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. --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! Timotheos 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Online link to the Canons of the CEC in MS-Word document format -Hald 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool - thanks! 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?

Kennethmyers 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)