Some Redirection
I was away yesterday and when I returned to check the blog I was very uncomfortable with several of the comments made to my post about the rift in the ICCEC.
My intentions for this blog are to discuss the general claims of the ICCEC according to the standard of orthodoxy which the ICCEC claims for itself; specifically, where these claims intersect with other bodies who claim the same standard of orthodoxy, namely, the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.
As such, I now realize that I never should have posted news about the ICCEC’s internal conflicts, for such matters are not within the scope of my objectives for this blog. My intentions for posting the news was to merely make note of some hugely significant news pertaining to the subject matter of this blog, not to point out the failings of any people or group of people within the ICCEC. However, the comments to my post soon turned in that direction.
Are there sinners in the ICCEC? I’m sure there are; just as there are sinners in every church. But that brings nothing to bear upon the aforementioned objectives of this blog. As I find myself saying repeatedly, the Church is composed of sinners; therefore, there will be sin in the Church—both in the clergy and in the laity—and this fundamental fact does not affect any church’s claim to be the true Church (as is the case with the Catholic Church) or a true and licit apostolic church (as is the case with the ICCEC). These claims are separate from the failings of individual people or groups of people; and it is these claims which are the topic of this blog—not the failings of the people who make those claims.
I will, though, go on record saying that I, personally, have no reason to suppose that the clergy of the ICCEC are anything but men of good will and honorable intentions, who, like me and many of my fellow Catholics, are “working out their salvation with fear and trembling.” That is my experience, and that is what I will go on believing until I experience otherwise.
I have deleted my post about the rift in the ICCEC and the comments attached to it. And I will add that no member of the ICCEC—lay or clergy—has even suggested that I do so.
posted by Keith @ 10:28 AM
47 comments
47 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Those Catholics who speak negatively about the ICCEC clergy should know that they are doing more harm than good--it hinders (on several levels) authentic ecumenical discussion which might otherwise bear the fruit of bringing our brothers and sisters in the ICCEC into the fullness that Christ has for them in the Catholic Church.
If, per chance, some of the folks who make negative comments here about the ICCEC clergy are members of that church, I encourage them to seek authentic means to resolving their complaints by appealing to clergymen that they trust.
If negative comments about the ICCEC clergy continue, I'll be forced to enable comment moderation (i.e. all comments emailed to me for approval prior to publication); but as that will make for a less liberal and significantly slower discussion, I'd rather avoid it.
Hi Fish,
I appreciate your comments and your re-direction. I was interested in your comment that, even as a Catholic, you considered the ICCEC to be a "true and licit apostolic church".
On what basis do you make this suggestion, as this is a point with which I have struggled?
Blessings,
Hey David,
That is, perhaps, a little unclear on my part.
I was referring to what the ICCEC claims to be.
Here's what I wrote: "there will be sin in the Church—both in the clergy and in the laity—and this fundamental fact does not affect any church’s claim to be...a true and licit apostolic church (as is the case with the ICCEC)."
I, like you, contest this claim; and I was trying to make the point that focusing on the sin and failings of those who makes this claim is not the way to contest it.
If the Polish National Catholic Church is recognized as a true church--and RCs and PNCCs may in pastoral need commune at each others' altars--how would the CEC be any different? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander; the situations are not at all different.
Greetings to "Seraph",
I CAN understand how the CEC would be different. The situations are not at all similar.
The formation of the PNCC, roughly 100 years ago, was far more political than anything else. With regard to the theology of the Eucharist, the Catholic Church and the PNCC are not in conflict.
This has not been my experience with the ICCEC.
Please explain why the situations should be considered as similar.
Blessings,
Hello David!
First, there is little difference between holy orders from a Catholic bishop in Brazil vs. a Catholic bishop in Scranton PA.
Second, it is my understanding that the Eucharistic theology of CEC is "high". At least that is the case at Christ the King Parish in Tullytown PA, where Father Bernie Andracchio certainly teaches transubstantiation, and even has been blessed with a Eucharistic miracle, which I have seen with my own eyes.
If there are some in the CEC who do not measure up to these doctrinal standards, well, perhaps there does need to be housecleaning in the CEC, similar to the housecleaning that took place in Western Europe as when Paschasius Rambertus defended the faith against Berengarius--both of whom were Catholics, remember.
Do not despair of the CEC, David. Bishop Lipka is a true defender of the faith, and believes that a "Catholic overhaul" of the CEC is now taking place. Such a settling down is not surprising when, at the beginning of the CEC, various folks were let in without much doctrinal discussion. Those days are ending, and a solid foundation is being laid in Christ.
In my eyes, besides a firm succession from the Brazilian National Catholic Church, the CEC like them also has the benefit of a pre-schism outlook on the Church and its theology. I believe that the eleventh century development of the papacy is problematic, and that the bishop of Rome has at times overstepped his bounds, as did St. Peter a couple times if you recall. Rome is still valid, but the Orthodox have a point that the papacy is problematic when outside a conciliar framework.
I would love to discuss these questions more with you, but will be unavailable for a week or so. Please contact Fr. Bernie if you would like to discuss these matters further; he will know who I am.
Blessings to you in Jesus Christ.
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church views both the PNCC and the ICCEC as valid churches--they possess valid ordination--but the Catholic Church declares them illicit, i.e. schismatic, without jurisdiction.
Even the Orthodox--who JPII declared the other lung of the Church--is deemed schismatic by that same pope and the Catholic Church because they are not in communion with the Successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ.
>there is little difference between holy orders from a Catholic bishop in Brazil vs. a Catholic bishop in Scranton PA
Same words, maybe; but both have a different view of authority in the Church. It's all about authority.
>If there are some in the CEC who do not measure up to these doctrinal standards, well, perhaps there does need to be housecleaning in the CEC
The issue as I see it is, fundamentally, a matter of authority, not doctrine.
At the moment, the problem is still doctrine nonetheless. Problems arise when there is no theological or doctrinal uniformity. There must never be a compromise on doctrine and theology. All must be one.
Greetings, Collin,
I agree that the problem is largely doctrinal. In my experience, not only is there diversity of worship in the ICCEC (which is healthy, and to be desired and expected) but also a diversity of very fundamental doctrinal issues which is not healthy.
Hey Collin,
Fundamentally, though, submission to the proper authority that God has established takes precedent over doctrine. It is from a uniform submission to God's established authority that we, then, have uniformity in doctrine.
Given the ICCEC is only 14 years old, but moreso, that it has the unique distinction of unifying Christians from various evangelical, charismatic and historical churches in one house, they're will ofcourse be issues of doctrinal uniformity, which will take time to unify as the communion develops... but gee, its not like the historic Catholic Church didn't have it own issues in development;)
It should be seen somewhat remarkable and applaudable that the ICCEC has experienced the growth they have, given it's vision, and against the historical doctrinal and authoritative divisions of the Church that continue today.
But when you're biased against such an accomplishment, well.....
I think that new communions certainly need time to develop theology and doctrine. However, after 14 years, the results of that development within the CEC are abysmal. I also think that, while the CEC did experience tremendous growth initially, it may be time to run the numbers again. Many parish's have left. More are leaving. Numbers overseas are dubious. Someone said earlier that now the CEC may, in fact, be one of the fasting dying churches. And while the original growth may have been because of the vision of the CEC, I truly believe that the reason it is now imploading is because the orignal vision has been abandoned and replaced by something that was never what the CEC was supposed to be about. I'm not biased. I've been a part of the CEC since 1997. I'm saddened by the change in direction, the change in vision, the 180 degree turn of the leaders that are left, the abandonment of doctrine, even to the point of throwing the Creed and Confession out of the service. I think prayer is a must...prayer for the truth...prayer for Christ to shed His light on the goings on in the church...but hold the applause, please...there's nothing to cheer in the CEC at the moment.
Bridgette
The CEC is not the grand thing we envisioned, because we were trying to reinvent the Church. It is already in existence. I will miss the CEC...it breaks my heart.
Do not lose heart. "The gates of hell will not prevail."
Indeed . . . Christ did make that comment . . . to Peter!
To the "anonymous" posting immediately before "one who knows",
Valid criticism is not necessarily bias.
Granted -- in the grand scheme of 2000 years of Christianity, the 14 year existence of the CEC is just a blip on the radar -- and the Early Church took years to fully understand key doctrines.
But the situation in the CEC is different. Doctrinal differences between various dioceses (and even churches within dioceses) are, in some cases, significant enough to be utterly incompatible, even in matters as fundamental as Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist.
For example, some in the CEC do not believe that ordination is a sacrament. This would cause radically different understandings of Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession. Some in the CEC believe in the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. Others do not. Would not this radically affect understandings of what makes a Eucharist even valid?
I honestly think that these issues (and others like them) are valid reasons for serious concern.
Well, whatever said and done, I believe that the CEC still needs to be commended for reintroducing orthodoxy to a lot of Protestants. It is not easy to introduce Catholic/Orthodox structures to Protestants who will need a lot of time to grasp and understand key Catholic concepts but nevertheless, the CEC has done it. For Protestants, doctrine has always been a key issue in "jumping ship".
For them, everything needs to be proven biblically. Of course, we have done it and it will go on but for now, the CEC needs to be firmed up by firming up on "catholicity" or uniformity. This I would say, is the only solution. These bishops who have been doing things at their whim and fancy and not following proper rubrics must be checked and sent for "theological rehabilitation". No church can risk its bishop being theologically unsound as a bishop is the primary teacher, pastor and shepherd of his diocese!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have read through all the comments and don't hear any real evidence of doctrinal departure. I heard one say that there are those who no longer hold ordination as a sacrament and another say that the confession and creed are being thrown out. That's nice but where is this happening ? I am a priest in this communion recently celebrating 8 years ordained(5 as priest 3 as deacon). The CEC that I serve Jesus Christ in is FUNDAMENTALLY the same. The patriarch has longer hair (which offends people) but I have not experienced any change in direction from my bishops. I would ask those who make broad allegations to be more exacting.
In Christ Jesus the church will weather this storm. We will see the Lord heal this great wound .
Blessings In Christ Jesus+++,
Rev Fr Richard C. Maciejewski
Dear Fr. Richard,
Were you in Manila? If so, you would know that the Creed and the Confession were removed from the services held during the week. That was an international convocation. The CEC can't get any more public with their changes in theology than excluding these important parts of the liturgy from an international stage such as Manila. Have there been other cases of this? I have heard that there have been...I guess it depends on which diocese you belong to.
Blessings,
Bridgette
I have to agree with the previous poster -- using only my own personal experience (11 years in the CEC; worshiping in 7 churches in 4 states).
I would respectfully suggest that Fr. Rich is unaware of what is going on in his communion.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
These bishops who have been doing things at their whim and fancy and not following proper rubrics must be checked and sent for "theological rehabilitation". No church can risk its bishop being theologically unsound as a bishop is the primary teacher, pastor and shepherd of his diocese!
Collin,
It is not that they are not following "rubrics", it is that they are not following Canon Law of the CEC - a basic catholic doctrine.
I wholy believe in the CEC vision - but in 14 years, much has changed, and not all for the good. AND - much has not changed as well. There is no administration in the CEC to speak of. SO how can there be proper order? Without administration, it is simply another Charismatic expression of the faith. The Catholicity should bring order - not selective catholicity.
Additionally, there has been no serious effort to form a theological "think tank" or apologetic to examine the ancient councils/church and determine where we line up in Catholicity. No scholarly work has been done to establish a CEC ethos other than we are charismatic nnd wear vestments and have a bishop and Eucharist. It has all been simply reactionary to events as they unfold.
Notice that no one in the world - no news media or outlets - comes to the CEC to get a comment on current events or cultural issues. No one sees the CEC as an authority outside of its own leadership.
SO I would have ot say, there is much more out of order than simply rubrics or the need for theological rehab.
Christ have mercy.
to Bridgette
re: I've been a part of the CEC since 1997. I'm saddened by the change in direction, the change in vision, the 180 degree turn of the leaders that are left, the abandonment of doctrine, even to the point of throwing the Creed and Confession out of the service. I think prayer is a must...prayer for the truth...prayer for Christ to shed His light on the goings on in the church...but hold the applause, please...there's nothing to cheer in the CEC at the moment.
Question : What 180 degree turn are you talking about? What change in doctrine? I'm a member of the CEC and we're doing great in our diocese, walking united in the original vision with a consistent Catholic/Orthodox theology that embraces the Evangelical and Charistmatic and Sacramental streams all in one.
The problems I know about seem to be more personal, than doctrinal/theological. If all the Bishops follow the canons as they agreed to in all matters and procedures, the personal issues get squashed, and the flock is not lead into deception and division.
this blog was not set up for members of the CEC to wage war with others. reading the newest post by Fish, and the corresponding comments, seems to clear up a lot for me!
To Brigdette,
I was in Manila, were you ? I remember one service and one service only where after hearing an annointed 45 minute sermon in a room that was probably 85 degrees- the Patriarch asked something like " do you guys know that creed we say all the time ? Do you believe it ? everyone in attendance replied "YES" - The creed was then foregone- He then asked " Are you sorry for your sins? we replied "YES" Then he gave us ABSOLUTION ! If this is what your speaking of and so worried about please don't be . Our Peatriarch was loving us that night(it was very hot and many of us at that Mass including myself were sick as anything ). What he did is not heresy . That fact is one could make a strong argument that we still affirmed our faith and confessed our sin (and recieved absolution)that night . I am more aware of what is going on in this communion than most might know. It seems many are offended by many things but these things can be resolved. The wheels need not fall off . Let's continue to pray for unity.Bridgette these things that are frightening people are not as cancerous as some fear. Our communion is far from perfect , that is where reliance on Jesus and not fearful scrutiny will win out.
Only in Christ Jesus +++,
Fr Richard C. Maciejewski
Well, it can't really be considered heresy per se, but it can be considered by some to be "liturgical abuse", a problem always being tackled by the RCC. Take the recent issuance of the GIRM as a great example. Of course, I personally see no problem in "summing up" the Creed and Confession, but sometimes, liturgy is best followed as it is. The substance of confessing one's sins and being a confessing Church was there, but being unconventional at times can lead people to having the wrong impression of us emphasising the liturgical - sacramental dimension of the Christian Church.
Therefore, it cannot be interpreted as "omitting" but nevertheless, in liturgy, being unconventional can be seen as "liturgical abuse". Some see reciting the Creed and the Confiteor as spiritual warfare, than just saying a resounding "Yes" and "Hallelujah, Lord Jesus". This is what I think in general but again, circumstances prevail.
From here as well, I hope that the "catholicising" and healing process can begin for the ICCEC by addressing the liturgy as well. And by all means, the ICCEC will be with us in our prayers and may God be with them in their intentions for healing and reconciliation. Amen!
PS: Trying to get the ecumenical spirit alive and kicking here!!!
I agree with Rich and Collin. Liturgical abuse happens...in every communion; and I will add that it has no bearing, really, on the claims of that communion to be in full communion with the Church of the Fathers and Councils (which is the aim of this blog). As Collin said, the Catholic Church is always trying to keep things on the right track in this regard. There are always various priests and bishops who stray from "the rules" and into doing their own thing. That doesn't mean that the whole hierarchy as an institution is guilty, unless it gives its blessing to the clergy to do its own thing. But I don't think that's the case in the ICCEC.
Singing Claymore wrote:
there has been no serious effort to form a theological "think tank" or apologetic to examine the ancient councils/church and determine where we line up in Catholicity. No scholarly work has been done to establish a CEC ethos other than we are charismatic nnd wear vestments and have a bishop and Eucharist.
This is the real problem for the ICCEC. It claims (implicitly if not explicitly) to be among the company of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, yet it in no wise confronts the fact that these institutions do not recognize the ICCEC as a licit apostolic Church. And what compounds the problem is that the ICCEC even recognizes the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches as the bulk and the best of historic Christianity. That's a curious position to be in and that's what the ICCEC needs to deal with if folks are to take seriously its claims to be in harmony with the "undivided Catholic Church during the first millenium of its existence."
Sorry -- I'd consider it not only "liturgical abuse" but ALSO heresy.
I can't imagine ANY body claiming ANY REMOTE connection with an Apostolic body accepting that faux creed -- OR that faux "confession" or "absolution".
I don't blame the laity so much (although there must have been SOME there who knew better) but I do blame the clergy for PRETENDING a moral equivalance.
Look -- you can agree or disagree with my theology or my personal ecclesial choices -- but I'm a good enough historian and liturgical theologian to know that I can't imagine ANY Apostolic church -- East OR West -- that would put up with such nonsense.
David has a point I'd say. In fact, during afterthoughts, I'd call it a "pseudo-confession" and "pseudo-Creed" to begin with. It must never be singled out from the liturgy, irrespective of what the situation may be. Key things that must be in a liturgy to consider it a "liturgy par excellence" is:
i)The Kyrie or Trisagion
ii)The Gloria in Excelsis Deo
iii)The Credo
iv)The Confiteor
v) The Oremus
Of course, there are the other essentials like the Readings, and the liturgy of the Eucharist but those are the "standards". From my experience, the things that I have listed represent what is usually omitted in liturgies.
My parish in Malaysia, run by Jesuits, have very "good" (depending on how you see it) ideas. While they took out the the texts of the "Confiteor", they incorporated and elongated the Kyrie to make it as a climatic hymn of mercy and forgiveness. In fact, it is found on one of Fr. Liam Lawton's albums, which has a very Celtic tone to it. Call it what you want.
As for me now, I am restructuring the 1979 BCP and preparing a new liturgy for the Mass (there will be 2 rites, one beginning with "Blessed be God..." and one more "In The Name...", a Rite of Holy Orders (ordination liturgies for deacons, priests, bishops incorporating the Roman Pontifical Rite... Dunno, someone said its crucial to maintain Apostolic Succession). All my Eucharistic Liturgies have incorporated some elements of adoration, adapting O Salutaris Hostia into the liturgy itself. Please let me know if anyone is interested in having a look.
my email address is collin_nunis@yahoo.com. Just give me your email addresses and I will get back to you.
Regarding the event in Manilla when Abp Adler summed up the creed and confession,, I agree with Fr Richard. I was there as well and there was not intent to repalce the creed and confession. It was as he described it, out of a desire to move the service along because it was running long. To infer any doctrinal change by that is silly. They and every other CEC church I know still say the creed and gen'l confession every week. We ought to be careful not to set aside the word of God for tradition (Mark 7:13) and insult the Spirit of grace, by which we were saved.
Respectfully, I don't see how those who have objected to the attitude exhibited in Manilia toward the Creed or the General Confession (of course, the entire concept of a "General Confession" is held -- at best -- in deep suspicion by both East and West -- but that is the subject of another post!) "sets aside the Word of God for tradition"! I honestly fail to see the connection.
If the service was running so long that "confessing the faith once delivered to the Apostles" was deemed unnecessary, I must wonder what caused the service to run so long? I am aware of other circumstances in the CEC where the Creed was omitted -- even on High Feast Days -- because it interfered with the bishop's 90 minute sermon.
When I first joined the CEC -- back in 1993 -- the bishops -- including Adler -- used to teach that the Creed should be used as a template to measure the orthodoxy of the sermon. When the creed is eliminated, where is that accountability?
Okay, I was in Manila, vested and soaked to the stole (had to be more than 85). Yes, the creed and confession were given short shrift, would have been better to ignore them than to treat them with so little respect. One might excuse a novice, poorly trained, nervously fumbling priest for such a lapse ... but coming from the Patriarch and on an international stage it must not (or cannot) be ignored. When taken in context with the rest of our time there, it did and does signal a major shift (a 180) in the ethos of the CEC. The service ran long due to a rambling sermon and the encouragement to the youth to be excessively exuberant (contrived charismatic emotionalism). Abp Adler's teachings, actions, what he allowed and disallowed, coupled with his vision in Rome, were more than a loving father's correction and a return to a balance of the three streams. It was an abandonment of the ancient faith and a return to an experiential pentecostalism. Our failure to lay firm foundations in doctrine, theology and the weakness of our canons were about to be exposed and tested. If one had any doubt, all one had to do was to watch the bishops during the worship each evening. The division and dissension among them was evident for any to see. Some seemed to relish in the return of their pentencostal roots ... others looked like they were witnessing a train wreck in slow motion ... unable to save a soul. Yes, I will admit this subject hits a raw nerve for me ... it was a defining moment for me within the CEC. It was more than just witnessing a Patriarch with feet of clay...it was having a dream and vision crushed in full bloom....
Padre- Why not use your full name?Why the need for anonymity?
Fr Rich Maciejewski
Fish said, "Those Catholics who speak negatively about the ICCEC clergy should know that they are doing more harm than good--it hinders (on several levels) authentic ecumenical discussion which might otherwise bear the fruit of bringing our brothers and sisters in the ICCEC into the fullness that Christ has for them in the Catholic Church."
I appreciate your comments regarding respectful discussion, even argumentation. However, your positional statement about bringing our brothers and sisters into the fullness that Christ has for them is merely a subjective statement, though you have the right to make it, and make a defense for it.
I can simply counteract this statement with my own personal testimony of how the Lord led me away from Rome and into a local congregation that later became a member of the ICCEC. Why, because it was in that local church where the Catholic faith was more FULLY taught and practiced. It was not a matter of being organizational affiliated with Rome that determined
where one was brought into the fullness of what Christ has for anyone.
Your statement is a "blanket statement", and you also assumedly claiming to speak for Christ, that it is in Rome Catholicism where one must be to be "brought" into this fullness of what Christ desires for his Church.
This is simply not true.
You can ofcourse challenge my testimony, but you have no basis to do so.
Fr Rich
I only seem anonymous because we have never met. I do hope you are not infering that my observations and commentary are any more or less valid because of the color of my shirt, degrees I possess, or the size of my parish. I am one who loves the catholic faith and traditions, especially how it is expressed in the liturgy and the church. What I witnessed in Manila with Abp Hines presiding, was everything the CEC could ever hope or want to be. Everything contrived afterward by Abp Adler departed so far from liturgical form and practice (our ancient faith), one can only conclude that either the CEC had shifted course 180 or Abp Adler had. Either way leaves us in the need of much payer and reform.
Padre,
I wasn't infering anything. But you still haven't anwered the question regaurding anonymity. You don't seem anonymous because I haven't met you. You are anonymous because you don't sign your real name. It's your choice and you don't have any need to so. I was just wondering why. I'm not reading anything into it - just plain curious ,that's all.
Blessings in Christ Jesus+++,
Fr Rich Maciejewski
Fr Rich,
In this small corner of the world PadreT is a moniker by which I am known. I am well aware that on a broader stage, such as this, it may have little or no meaning to ones I haven't met. I was hoping to avoid being put into a camp, or pigeonholed by association, or dismissed out-of-hand by being labled as one or "those guys". Hence, I use the lesser known moniker so that my ideas, comments, and concerns may receive the attention and not where I live and serve.
What I find interesting is your change of subjects. The Partiarch's actions in Manila have been labled here as, at least liturgical abuse and at most heresy. A topic much more worthy of exploration than my name.
Yet, if you must know my name, let me know, I'll introduce myself and we will chat in a less public form.
Padre,
I have no need to know your name . I was merely curious as why you have chosen anonymity . Now I know. As for change of subjects, I have already commented as to what I witnessed in Manila. You and others disagree. I'm ok with that. At this point it doesn't seem any body is changing their mind does it ? Padre , I'm not looking for a fight. I merely asked a straight forward question. I am sorry if it offended you because it seems it may have. Thank you for explaining your disire for anonymity. You had no obligation to do so. Again , thank you,
Blessings in Christ Jesus+++,
Fr Rich Maciejewski
Post a Comment
<< Home