It is a report of part of the the Speech of Bishop Bennison of PA to his diocese with comments of James Altena who attends St James the Less. -- P.T.
"'Wherever the river goes, everything lives.'" (Ezekiel 47:9)
"'Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the streets of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.'" (Revelation 22:1)
"Jesus said, 'As the scripture has said, "Out of the believer's belly shall flow rivers of living water."' (John 7:38)
[Bp. Bennison proceeds to offer numerous examples of what he claims are examples of how Diocesan activities in the last year are resulting in various sins being healed by the leaves of the tree of life, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, and "adult privilege" that assumes the superiority of adults to children. Then occurs the following text.]
"Healing the Schism of St. James the Less, East Falls --
By the leaves of this tree, Christ is healing the schism begun by the rector and vestry of the Church of St. James the Less, East Falls, when in 1997 they created a 'shell' corporation into which, in April 1999, by a vote of 33 of their 70 members, they merged the corporation of their parish, thereby attempting, in violation of their own corporate charter and our canons, to steal the property of the parish from the Episcopal Church. In 2001, we patiently pursued a mediation process with the parish's leaders. When that process failed, we filed a petition to protect the property. The trial took place on October 14-15, and we are awaiting the judge's decision, due by the end of January. If, as expected, the diocese retains the church property, I will appoint a priest-in-charge to rebuild our ministry in that critical, growing urban neighborhood.
"Healing the Schism of Good Shepherd, Rosemont --
By the leaves of this tree, Christ is healing the schism created by the rector and vestry of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont. For 16 years the parish has not allowed a bishop diocesan to confirm. For a decade the former rector, David Moyer, has refused to receive the bishop. After David told me he would be willing to be a candidate for election as a bishop by a schismatic organization he heads, the Standing Committee prepared and delivered to me last February 26 its finding that based on a consistent pattern of canonical failures over a decade, David had abandoned the discipline, and therefore the communion, of the church. When I affirmed the Standing Committee's findings I was required by canon law to inhibit David. When after six months David neither denied the Standing Committee charges nor retracted the actions on the basis of which they were laid, I was canonically required on September 5 to depose him. Because the wardens and vestry persisted in having David function following his deposition, on October 22 the Standing Committee invoked Diocesan Canon 13.4, declaring the bishop to be the trustee of the parish and consenting to my vesting the parish's property in the Church Foundation. I continue to seek reconciliation and hope to avoid litigation in the civil courts, but I will do what is necessary to retain the property for the Episcopal Church and rebuild the congregation.
"Healing the Schism of All Saints', Wynnewood --
By the leaves of this tree, Christ is healing the schism created by the vestry of All Saints' Church, Wynnewood. When the parish's rector resigned, contrary to diocesan policy the vestry chose the assistant, the Rev. Edward Rix, a priest of the Diocese of Lusaka in the Province of Central Africa. I later agreed to appoint Fr. Rix the interim if he would sign our standard letter of agreement. When he refused to sign the agreement and his annual license to function here expired last January, I did not renew it. Then on October 8 the vestry voted to have Fr. Rix resume celebrating and preaching without a license, and despite my inhibition of him on October 11, he did so. His own bishop has 90 days to initiate disciplinary action regarding Fr. Rix. Should Bishop Mwenda fail to do so, I will. On October 22 the Standing Committee declared that the vestry has violated the discipline of the church, made the bishop trustee of the property, and consented to my vesting the property in the Church Foundation.
"These three situations have been painful in the extreme, making this past year for me an annus horribilis. At the same time, in my 58 years I have had one broken bone and five surgeries, enough to know that the road to health is sometimes paved with pain. I have been blessed by and am deeply grateful for the advice, counsel and courage of our Standing Committee, for the guidance provided by our deans, our Diocesan Council, my staff and hundreds of you. Above all, by the leaves of these trees Christ is healing us and our whole church of the sin of schism and the heresy of Donatism. Donatus, and subsequently the Donatists, claimed that the efficacy of our Christian ministries depends on the purity, the moral quality or the theological confession of us who are administering them. It leads to the attitude that says: 'If the bishop doesn't think or act just like we believe he should, we will not welcome him here.' As Anglicans, by contrast, we believe that the church is a corpus mixtum, a 'mixed body' of saints and sinners, of 'wheat and tares together sown.' Inasmuch as our addressing these parish's schismatic behavior in the way we have has become iconic for the contest with Donatism across the Anglican Communion, inasmuch as many eyes are on Pennsylvania right now, all of us are carrying a burden we neither desired nor deserved, but also find ourselves facing an opportunity to make a significant contribution to our Communion's unity and integrity."
COMMENTS --
As Fr. Ousley has observed on several occasions, "Bp. Bennison appears to have a different conception of 'truth' than we do." Herewith several illustrations:
1) The fact that Bp. Bennison can describe as acts of healing the suing of his own parishes in secular courts, the inhibiting and deposing of godly, faithful, orthodox parish priests, and the expulsion of faithful orthodox Christians, is singularly revelatory of his mindset. Throughout all his dealings with traditionalist parishes, there has been a complete absence of any pastoral concern. Instead, his approach has been one consisting entirely and only of legalistic authority -- "I am the bishop, and therefore you are obliged to do whatever I say." In his meeting with the vestry of St. James the Less while I was a vestry member, he brought to it not a copy of Scripture but of the Constitutions and Canons of the Episcopal Church. He did not cite even one passage of Scripture to support his position, and told the vestry point-blank that it had no right to act upon conscience, but was obligated to obey his interpretation of the canons. This is of completely contrary to all traditional Christian moral theology, which teaches the absolute obligation to act in conformity with scripturally and spiritually informed conscience.
2) The claim that the disaffiliation of SJL from ECUSA by a vote of 33 out of its 70 members is extremely misleading. The parish had about 60, not 70, voting members, all of whom were notified of the meeting in advance by mail. Of those, almost a dozen were hospitalized or homebound by illness or disability, and about ten more were traveling. In short, almost every member of the parish who was able to attend did so. The actual vote for disaffiliation by those attending was 33 to 2. It is a remarkable testimony to the unity of the parish that not one parishioner notified the Diocese in advance of the meeting and vote, and that only one person left the parish as a result of disagreement with the disaffiliation, and even then did not do so until a year afterwards.
3) SJL did not attempt "in violation of their own corporate charter and our canons, to steal the property of the parish from the Episcopal Church." Following the advice of legal counsel, the rector, vestry and parishioners acted in strict conformity with the parish corporate charter, national and diocesan church canons, and corporate law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to effect the disaffiliation. The parish charter and title deeds have always been in the name and possession of the parish itself. The diocese has never contributed even one cent of support to SJL in its 150+ year history. The alleged claim by the national church and diocese to the parish property is based on a national canon that was enacted only at the 1979 General Convention, in a highly irregular manner that did not provide for prior knowledge, review, or informed consent by individual parishes. Our legal counsel contests on several grounds both that this canon applies to SJL, and also distorted diocesan interpretations of the parish charter and by-laws as well as various canons. Also, none of the canons have any provisions regarding merger of an existing parish corporation into another corporate entity in order to perpetuate its existence -- as was undertaken by SJL -- in contrast to dissolution of such a corporation. Use of derogatory terms such as "steal" to describe the parish disaffiliation action are extremely pejorative, inflammatory, and hardly consonant with any claim by Bp. Bennison to be pursuing "reconciliation."
4) The bishop and diocese have not "patiently pursued a mediation process with the parish's leaders." SJL agreed to a mediation process at their request, after which they repeatedly refused to schedule any regular sessions, and then canceled or postponed the few that were scheduled. As a result, only four short meetings (one of which was not a mediation session) took place in a 70-day period, at which they presented no other position than that SJL should agree unilaterally to all of their demands. Similar conduct has occurred with Good Shepherd and All Saints', where Bp. Bennison has requested mediation and then unilaterally canceled it when that was not defined a priori as complete surrender to his demands.
5) Forward in Faith - North America, the nationwide organization of Anglican traditionalists of which Fr. Moyer is president, is not "schismatic" -- indeed, if anything it has bent over backwards (perhaps too much so) to find ways still to remain within ECUSA. Fr. Moyer's supposed deposition has been rejected not only by numerous bishops in the USA, such as Bp. Duncan of Pittsburgh (who has made Fr. Moyer canonically a member of his diocese), but also by bishops abroad, including no less than the recently retired and newly installed Archbishops of Canterbury, George Carey and Rowan Williams -- and Williams is a theological liberal. Furthermore, not only had nothing in the national or diocesan canons "required" Bp. Bennison to depose Fr. Moyer, the deposition was done (as the other bishops above publicly recognized) in clear violation of the canons, which are for deposing a priest who has renounced the communion of ECUSA, not one such as Fr. Moyer who has sought to remain within it. Also, Fr. Moyer did deny the legitimacy of the charges lodged against him as the pretext for his inhibition and subsequent deposition. (Note also Bp. Bennison's patronizing and false pretense to familiarity and friendship in speaking of "David" rather than "Fr. Moyer," which also allows him to avoid having to refer to Fr. Moyer as a priest by title. Remarkably, in court documents filed during the SJL trial in October 2002, Bp. Bennison admitted that Fr. Moyer was both a priest and the rector of Good Shepherd, over a month after Fr. Moyer's putative "deposition.") Likewise, Bp. Bennison's refusal to renew Fr. Rix's license also had no proper canonical or other justification.
6) Contrary to statements made elsewhere by theological revisionists such as Bp. Bennison, heresy and schism are not distinct sins, with tolerance of heresy under the rubrics of "unity" and "diversity" trumping schism as institutional division. Rather, heresy is a form of schism; all schism is a manifestation of either doctrinal heresy, or of pride, judgmentalism, and hardness of heart, by one (sometimes both) sides. Where schism is the visible manifestation and result of heresy, it is the heretics who are schismatic, not the orthodox faithful which Scripture commands to separate from them. The fundamental unity of the church is doctrinal and moral, not institutional, critical though the latter is; the latter is the function and manifestation of the former, and does not and cannot exist without it. (See Point 9B below.)
7) The Church is a corpus mixtum, but again not in the way that Bp. Bennison pretends. We simultaneously are all sinners and saints, with the latter being revealed and shaped out of the former as the new man in Christ supersedes the old man of worldliness in those who surrender themselves unreservedly to Christ. This is not the same thing as defiant justification by unrepentant sinners of sin as not being sin but virtue, which is what Bp. Bennison supports. ("Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! . . . Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!" -- Isaiah 5:20-23.)
8) Ultimately, however, all of the above points are secondary to one single main point -- Bp. Bennison's betrayal of his own office as a bishop. By definition, that office is to preach, practice, and hand down -- unaltered, undiminished, unaugmented, and unimpaired -- the traditional teaching of Christ, as recorded in the Scriptures, preached by the Apostles, and defined by the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils of the undivided patristic Church. By definition, it is absolutely closed to any innovations in fundamental theological and moral doctrines. Instead, Bp. Bennison has openly violated that sacred trust at every turn, even going so far as to claim publicly that "Since the Church wrote the Bible, the Church can rewrite the Bible." He has refused to sign any document or make any public affirmation of belief in traditional Christian doctrine and morals, and openly supports and promotes such anti-Scriptural and anti-patristic practices such as pagan prayer to God as "Mother" rather than "Father," the putative ordination of women bishops and priests, sexual activity outside of marriage, and abortion, and has preached sermons that pervert and even ridicule the plain meaning of Scripture.
The other defining aspect of the episcopal office is pastoral -- the bishop is supposed to care for his clergy and laity in a self-sacrificial manner after the example of Christ and the apostles. Instead, Bp. Bennison has viewed his office in the legalistic terms of a corporate executive or government bureaucrat, whose goal is the possession and exercise of unlimited power for self-aggrandizement. He has acted as a ravening wolf, smiting the shepherds and scattering the sheep. (Cf. Jeremiah 23:1-4, Ezekiel 34:1-31, John 10:1-5, Acts 20:28-31, and Point 9A below.) SJL, Good Shepherd, and All Saints' have all -- in conformity with Scriptural admonitions, patristic church teaching, and Article XXVI of the 39 Articles of the Book of Common Prayer -- refused to receive an episcopal visitation from Bp. Bennison. They do so not because they are Donatists who deny the formal validity of Bp. Bennison's sacramental administrations (note again how Bp. Bennison misrepresents the position of the Donatists as being one merely of objection to a bishop's views, rather than denial of the validity of his orders and sacramental administrations), but because Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition both require faithful orthodox Christians to separate themselves (in charity, not vindictiveness) from an unrepentant heretic -- in the case of clergy, including his teaching and his sacramental acts -- until he is converted from his errors in doctrine and moral conduct.
(Cf. Matthew 7:15 & 10:16-39, Mark 13:22, John 16:1-4, Acts 20:28-31, Romans 16:17-20, I Corinthians 5:1-13 & 10:13-21, II Corinthians 6:14-7:1, Galatians 1:6-10, Ephesians 5:1-13, II Thessalonians 3:6-15, I Timothy 1:5-11 & 6:3-12 & 6:20-21, II Timothy 3:1-4:8, Titus 1:7-16 & 2:7-8 & 3:10-11, II Peter 2:1-3 & 2:17-22, I John 2:18-23 & 4:1-6, II John 7-11, Jude 3-4 & 17-23, Revelation 2:12-29.)
Both Christ and the apostles warned us that in doing so we should be subject to reviling and persecution, and that consequently we should not mourn, but rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for the holy name of Jesus. Sadly, it is clear that our persecutors have a different mind, hold a different religion, and preach and worship a different God, than that set forth in Scripture for the salvation of all, and we pray earnestly for their enlightenment and conversion. (Cf. John 15:18-16:4, Acts 5:41, James 5:16-20, I Peter 3:14-18, I John 3:13.)
9) Finally, here are two pertinent supporting quotations --
A) From a sermon by the saintly 19th c. Anglo-Catholic priest, blessed James DeKoven. The first paragraph describes well the outlook of Bp. Bennison, as opposed to the Scriptural view in the second paragraph. (DeKoven did not envision here the present situation in which church Canons are being willfully framed and interpreted to subvert rather than support
Scripture.) --
"Theoretically the well-trained churchman has a very lofty idea of the Episcopal office -- sometimes an exaggerated notion of it; and yet, while this exists, practically the office is shorn of its real glory. The money-qualified electors choose the Vestry, and the delegates of the Council; the lay delegates have either an actual, or, at any rate, a veto power in the election of a Bishop. It is not surprising that they should feel as if the elected Bishop had simply such powers as may be conferred upon him by the Constitution and Canons of the Church, which they or their pre-decessors have formed, and which at any time may, by due process of law, be altered. Hence, a Bishop's work and duty is whatever the Canons require him to do. He is to ordain, and confirm, and hold visitations. He is to preside at Councils and be the chairman of committees. He is to be the pleasant guest of the chief layman of the parish and advise the clergyman when advice is needed. He is to attend to routine duties without end, and, above all, to be in journeyings often. If he can preach well and talk well, if he is provident and cautious and a good executive officer; if he has personal influence and an untiring physique, if his digestion is unimpaired, his nerves unruffled; if he concentrates himself upon nothing, and diffuses a mild Episcopal perfume over everything, he meets the common theory as to what a bishop ought to be.
"The opposite theory only needs to be stated. He receives the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God. He is bound to be an overseer, to confirm, to ordain, to do all the works I have mentioned. But, above all, he is called to be one upon whose soul the awful burden is laid, to convert men to the obedience of the faith. He must offer the Holy Eucharist; he must preach the Word, he must bind and loose; he must organize; he must, above all things, be a shepherd, a guide, a Father. The Canons of the Church are simply the directions according to which he exercises his office. Wheresoever they do not limit that office, the inherent powers remain; and to convert men to Christ, to be the chief pastor of his Diocese -- this is the Bishop's glory."
B) A pronouncement of the first and second Councils of Constantinople in the time of Archbishop Photius, c. 870-880 A.D. --
"They who separate themselves from communion with their bishop on account of any heresy condemned by the Holy Synods or the Fathers, while he evidently proclaims the heresy publicly, and teaches it with brave front in church -- such persons, in excluding themselves from communion with their so-called bishop before synodical cognizance, not only shall not be subject to canonical censure, but shall even be deemed worthy, by the orthodox, of becoming honor; for they condemn as teachers, not bishops but pseudo-bishops; and they do not cut up the unity of the Church by schism, but hasten to deliver her from schisms and divisions."
Faithfully, James Altena
No comments:
Post a Comment