Comments: Fort Worth: a report on some discussions

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!

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 11:40pm BST

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!

Posted by JCF at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 12:44am BST

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

Posted by Nom de Plume at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 3:09am BST

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.

Posted by bobinswpa at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 3:50am BST

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.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 6:55am BST

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 is based not on homophobia but on a desire for doctrinal orthodoxy within Anglicanism

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.

I sense one word and that is hyprocrisy and not orthodoxy. As for the basis of a GAFCON led Reform movement in the Anglican Communion it seems to a Roman catholic observer both highly selective and problematic.

Posted by Robert Ian williams at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 7:13am BST

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.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 10:19am BST

"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 his fellow 'spikes' to join you and the Pope as a sort of 'American Orthodox Rite Catholic'. This will not please Iker's Sydney friends (nor, maybe, one Gregory Venables), but it would help to clear the air for the rest of us.

What about it, Robert? This could be your very own good deed to the Church of both our separate disciplines. Also, this could help resolve your own so-obvious uncertanty about you stand.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 10:41am BST

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.

Posted by David H. at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 5:11pm BST

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 conservative realignment can not only destroy the Anglican global big tent, but also plunder its good name and its actual resources - (1)the simmering fist fights between new Puritan type realignment Protestants and new Anglo-Catholic in key areas like piety, liturgy, and yes doctrines - plus (2) the unresolved dilemma of what to do with women priests and women bishops (which is simply a summary, stand-in trope for asking what believers are supposed to do with change period in the modern era).

With figures like Iker, Duncan, Schofield and Venebles driving the armada, only one thing seems patently clear so far - no queer folks, absolutely. Well, except for Schofield himself who is, as the tasty phrases now go, ex-gay or post-gay.

Posted by drdanfee at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 6:49pm BST

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 Gospel as false.

That is double-dealing and dishonesty ......


By the way i'm not very struck on the Anglican Use..even though it uses the Roman canon, I could not now use " beautiful " Cranmerian prayers , like the prayer of humble access, knowing the theology behind them. Apparently most people who attend the Use are cradle Catholics!

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 8:09pm BST

@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").

Posted by Walsingham at Thursday, 16 October 2008 at 11:49am BST

"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.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 16 October 2008 at 1:34pm BST

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.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Friday, 17 October 2008 at 5:59am BST

"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?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Friday, 17 October 2008 at 4:17pm BST

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

How so? Presumptuous of Grace?

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 17 October 2008 at 4:37pm BST

@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 so disturbing to you?

Posted by Walsingham at Friday, 17 October 2008 at 4:49pm BST

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.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Monday, 20 October 2008 at 9:58pm BST

"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.

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 12:37pm BST

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.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 6:58pm BST

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, we are told, 'the righteous man finds life through FAITH'" (my emphasis - Jerusalem Bible)

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 10:41pm BST

"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.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 22 October 2008 at 2:30pm BST

@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

Posted by Walsingham at Thursday, 23 October 2008 at 9:16am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.