Thinking Anglicans

Fort Worth: a report on some discussions

Updated Wednesday evening

The Bishop of Fort Worth reports that Clergy Discussions on Conflict Produce No Solution.

…At the same time as these conversations were going on, a group of diocesan officials from Fort Worth were meeting with our counterparts in the Diocese of Dallas to see if a pastoral agreement could be worked out between our two dioceses, whereby parishes in Fort Worth that wanted to remain in TEC could do so as part of the Dallas Diocese. These meetings included the Bishops, Chancellors, Canons to the Ordinary, and Presidents of the Standing Committees of the two dioceses. We came up with a proposal whereby, under certain conditions, Fort Worth parishes and clergy could have “associate membership” in Dallas, including seat, voice and vote at their Convention, and their property could be placed temporarily in the name of the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas, to be held in trust for their use.

This plan was then presented to the Rectors, Wardens and Chancellors of five Fort Worth parishes that we thought would like to pursue such an arrangement, at least on a trial basis. They were asked to discuss the proposal with their vestries, and then we would meet a second time for further exploration. Unfortunately, at that second meeting, the Chancellor of Dallas reported on conversations he had initiated with the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, David Booth Beers, about the proposal under discussion. Mr. Beers stated that neither the PB nor the General Convention would support such a plan, and without their support, the Fort Worth parishes were unwilling to continue steps to implement the plan…

Update
Episcopal Life Online now has a report by Mary Frances Schjonberg FORT WORTH: Effort to let parishes join Diocese of Dallas fails.

23
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
23 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
WalsinghamFord ElmsFather Ron SmithRobert Ian WilliamsPat O'Neill Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Pat O'Neill
Guest
Pat O'Neill

Bravo for the PB. There is an Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and those parishes within its geographical boundaries who wish to remain in TEC should be part of it, not of some other diocese. “Associate member,” indeed!

JCF
Guest
JCF

The rank cynicism of (x)Iker, to think that he can go AROUND the PB, the HofB, and GC—to push out 5 parishes and then abscond w- the rest of the DioFW—is gobsmacking…

Lord have mercy!

Nom de Plume
Guest
Nom de Plume

Is there some reason why Jack Iker continues as Bishop of Fort Worth? Surely this is schismatic.

bobinswpa
Guest
bobinswpa

They have tried this in Pittsburgh too. We all got letters (those parishes who have stated that they were opposed to realignment) had to ask to rejoin TEC. If we were to do this, we would so how give the realigners some kind of validity. This won’t fly with the National Church.

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

Exactly what did Jack Iker expect here? An open welcome from another diocese of TEC that has elected to remain in the Anglican Communion – rather than skip to the imagined protection of the southern Cone?

Schismatics can hardly expect the red carpet to be laid out for their machinations of separate jurisdictions for those who do not see eye to eye with their local (former) bishop.

Robert Ian williams
Guest
Robert Ian williams

Fort Worth represents another version of the Gospel compared to Sydney. I wrote the following to a Church newspaper… The Gafcon declaration re-affirms the thirty nine articles. So will not Archbishop Rowan Williams be resolutely condemend by the Gafcon “Primates Council” for preaching at a Roman Catholic Mass and invoking a Saint, in clear violation of the afore mentioned articles. No, the silence will be deafening ,as is the GAFCON failure to discipline the Anglo-Catholic bishops who subscribed to its declaration and are in clear violation of the same articles. Yet we are constantly told that their opposition to homosexuality… Read more »

Martin Reynolds
Guest
Martin Reynolds

Bishop Iker has no time for the Anglican Communion’s present structures as can be gathered here: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/16909/#288496.

Having decided that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates Group, The ACC and the Lambeth Conference are all “dysfunctional”, presumably because they would not give what he wanted, Iker and his allies have done what many have done before him – created a new group that both approves you and grants your wish.

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“Go to the web, and see in the very Cathedral of Bishop Iker , who will soon be held up by GAFCON and Anglican Mainstream as an orthodox defender of the Faith, there is both a rosary group, and a statue of the the Blesed Virgin Mary, in front of which are candles burning and a prie-dieu.” – RIW. Perhaps, Robert, you yourself could offer us long-suffering Anglo-Catholics who do not agree with Bp.Iker’s schismatic move towards an independent Pretender Anglican Province in the USA. As a (newly-converted) representative of the Roman Catholic Church, you could perhaps invite Bp.Iker and… Read more »

David H.
Guest

As my 11-yr old son is wont to roll his eyes and say – “Duh!”

Of *course* this scheme was rejected by TEC. The entire Dio. of Fort Worth was, is, and will remain part of TEC – not just those parts that Prince/Bishop Iker deigns to depart from his illustrious presence.

drdanfee
Guest
drdanfee

Iker’s attempts at master spin doctoring will not last forever, nor fool or mislead absolutely everybody forever. The whole point of this silly exercise in conversations was to try to head off the formation of a continuing TEC diocese when the departing Fort Worth follows the already virtualized Southern Cone Pburghs and SJoaquins. If the alternative believers in Fort Worth had tried any such maneuvers, they would have been scolded, told what awful believers they were, and then asked to absent themselves from the congregations of the Iker orthodoxists. And yes – two great barrier reefs await those who think… Read more »

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

Ron, whilst I believe that the Catholic Church under the successor of Peter is the logical place of sanctuary for all Christians… I realise that many Anglo-Caholics have issues which they could not deal with across the Tiber. There is a high degree of divorce ( many of them ex Roman Catholics) and many, like yourself could not accept Rome’s view of your orders. Plus there is the contraception issue. My point though is that GAFCON, which is Evangelically led and inspired , has taken on Anglo-Catholicsm for political reasons, even though they regard their understanding of Grace, sacraments and… Read more »

Walsingham
Guest
Walsingham

@Robert Ian Williams:

I don’t know why the Prayer of Humble Access should be at all problematic for a Catholic. It’s just a translation of a similar prayer in the Sarum Use, upon which the BCP was largely based. It also has parallels to the prayer in the Roman canon that is based on Matthew 8:8 (“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”).

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“I don’t know why the Prayer of Humble Access should be at all problematic for a Catholic.”

I don’t know why it should be problematic for anybody. I mean, what’s wrong with acknowledging that we are not worthy of ourselves but that it is God who makes us worthy? Some have trouble with the “Body cleansing body, Blood cleansing soul” idea, but that’s just poetry. Are we so numbed of mind that we can’t appreciate poetic license? Apparently we are in Canada, since that passage was left out of the PoHA in the Book of Abysmal Services.

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

The Humble access prayer was in the 1549 Prayer Book and then at the suggestion of continental Reformers further revised to is present form.
i also have problems with other prayers, particularly the phrase, ” In sure and certain hope of the Rssurrection to eternal life. ” in the burial office.

By the way, apparently Fort Worth Diocese was created to buy off the Anglo-Catholics…and look what it will result in. A short term measure for which TEC will now suffer.

Pat O'Neill
Guest
Pat O'Neill

“i also have problems with other prayers, particularly the phrase, ” In sure and certain hope of the Rssurrection to eternal life. ” in the burial office.”

You don’t believe in “the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come” as listed in the Nicene Creed, Robert? What kind of Catholic are you?

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“” In sure and certain hope of the Rssurrection to eternal life. ” in the burial office.”

How so? Presumptuous of Grace?

Walsingham
Guest
Walsingham

@Robert Ian Williams: Sorry, but you haven’t answered my question. The Prayer of Humble Access is just a translation from the (quite Catholic) Sarum Use and is in its content essentially the same as the Roman canon’s prayer adapted from Matthew 8:8. The mere fact that some Continental reformers made suggestions means nothing. They too were often quite orthodox and got things right. Just because they were wrong on some things does not mean they were *always* wrong. What matters is the text of the prayer itself. So I ask again: What *specifically* about the text of the prayer is… Read more »

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

There is no prayer in the Sarum Use suggestive of the prayer of humble access.

The present prayer is the further Protestantised 1552 version with the phrase “in these mysteries expunged.”

As for ” sure and certain hope “…the person referred to may be resurrected to eternal damnation. It is reflective of Cranmers belief in justification by faith alone.

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“the person referred to may be resurrected to eternal damnation. It is reflective of Cranmers belief in justification by faith alone.”

Eternal damnation certainly implies eternal life, does it not? And what’s wrong with justification by faith? Are you suggesting we buy our way into God’s favour? I thought Pelagius was repudiated, at least once.

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

Oh yes, we believe in justification by faith in the Catholic Church, but not justification by faith alone. It is specifically rejected in the BooK of James.

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

Robert, Here again, you are confusing what you probably now believe (as a neophyte R.C.) with what, as an Anglican, you once thought you believed. Regarding your challenge on the important matter of ‘Justification by Faith’, Saint Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, chapter 3: verses 9,10, clearly states that: “Those, therefore, who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith. On the other hand, those who rely on the keeping of the Law are under a curse…” Also, in verse 11, we read: “The Law will not justify anyone in the sight of God, because,… Read more »

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“It is specifically rejected in the BooK of James.”

“Faith without works is vain”? It takes a pretty soulless interpretation of Scripture to take this as rejecting justification by faith.

Walsingham
Guest
Walsingham

@Robert Ian Williams:

“There is no prayer in the Sarum Use suggestive of the prayer of humble access.”

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Cranmer didn’t just make it up.

“Let not the sacrament of thy body and blood, O Lord Jesus, which, although unworthy, I presume to receive, be to me for judgment and condemnation, but may it avail, through thy mercy, for the salvation of my body and soul. Amen.”

(From the English translation of the Sarum Missal.)

There are many other passages suggestive of the same thing. Read it all here:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/English.htm