We are going to reopen the CEC discussions using this thread. Let me go over a few things first. Please read these.

1. David Z and I have full-time jobs; if you don't like the way this forum is operated, start your own We don't have the time to get in debates about our moderation style. We do our best, and thank you for the letters on both sides thanking us and urging us to continue these forums. If it is your goal to stir the pot on here by constantly second-guessing this forum's moderation style, please think of starting your own forum. www.invisionfree.com is a good place to start. Please share your forum's address on here and we will let people know about it. If you have been banned, contact someone on this forum you know and have them post the address here, and we will send people over to check it out. However, we will not allow folks on our forum to bash other forums.

2. New Registrants Will Have to be Approved
If you wish to register, you will have to be approved by an admin. Unless you have been banned, you will be approved. Since a person must be registered to post, and I have to approve registrations, then it means that anonymous, hit-and-run posts will be impossible, making our jobs easier.

3. If you have an issue with the forum, contact us privately
Please continue letting us know about offensive posts, but we don't have time for everyone to argue with our decisions, publically or privately. We are not saying we are above correction, and please email us with helpful suggestions on how to better the forum, or when something happens on the forum you don't understand or upsets you greatly, etc.

If you email us, know that we have read it, considered it, and will act on it if we deem necessary. We won't be perfect and won't please everybody. We do ask for your prayers and understanding. Sadly, If we have to spend a lot of time moderating the CEC threads, they will have to close.

Also Remember, a person's opinion does not get him/her banned, but a person's style can. It is hard to show emotion on a forum like this, but we can only go by what you type. Pro CEC folks and folks who have issues with the CEC can attest to the fact that David Z. and I have been very patient, reluctant to ban, generous in giving second chances, and willing to delete uncharitable posts from *all* sides upon the request of forum members.

If you were suspended, an email should tell you when it will be lifted.

If you were banned, David Z and I will consider opening the ban filter after awhile and let everyone start fresh.

God bless,
David

PS- The old thread has been closed, so if you wish to continue a discussion from there, please edit and paste what you wrote there and bring it here, or bring up the topic here. Thanks!

Okay guys,

I understand your "full" schedule, that's not a problem for me. So now that I've read your message, I'm wondering where all commentary went since I last checked the fourm this morning???

Ya'll have done an admirable job as moderators! God knows, and He may be the only one,.. who fully understands the angst you have been through. I only know the amount of time I spend looking at this forum simply to gain knowledge.

I guess when you committed to the"collar" you knew how dangerous the job was Rocky (s) :rolleyes:


Roy

Thanks David and David for providing this forum. Let's all be charitable.

Ok I think I have it all set so that things will work out. I have turned off pre-moderation since folks arent talking, lol.

To post on any forum you must be registered. I have to approve all registrations (and I will unless a person has been banned).

There is no need for pre-moderation unless something happens, then I will turn pre-moderation back on.

So please post freely.


I believe we were discussing:

Validity of Orders
a "secret sabbatical"
Responses from the PC Meeting


God bless,
David

PLEASE don't discuss validity of orders here. Frankly, I'm about sick of that discussion!
And particularly whether bishops are still under the influence of the occult, etc. Hasn't this horse been whipped to death???

But there are many CEC'ers where I live who want to know what is going on now, since no official announcements (isn't THAT the norm?) have been forthcoming.

Typically the CEC has told Bishops what the "spin" or "truth" is, who then have met in clericus with clergy to pass the info on. That process is occuring right now. It is up to the rectors to tell their congregations, unless they have been "sworn to secrecy" which happens WAY too frequently. Also, if my wife and I are truly "one flesh", (and I trust her and she's not a gossip) how is it "right" to order us to keep secrets from our wives when we are "one"?

The problem with the above information dissemination approach is that by the time the PC tells the story to the Bishops, who tell it in clericus, who then tell it to congregations, everyone has heard a slightly different version of the story. I think the CEC, LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC church who kept pedophilia issues quiet for years, must have better communications and official communications, even if unpleasant, even it it "hurts" the reputation of the CEC.

One of the reasons things have kept so secret over the years is the implied understanding that we were a new denomination and needed to be careful rather than hurt our image in our infancy, thereby impacting growth. Well growth here is nil, and the CEC's story (not an encouraging or complimentary one) is about to go worldwide if David Virtue keeps his recent promise of earlier this week, so we'd better get better official CEC communications beginning NOW.

Good points Sam.

And I agree the orders thing has been beaten to death. I think perusing past discussions will provide all the info on that.

And you make a good point about my own church's refusal to adequately deal with the issue of pedophilia. Even though I became Catholic about the time it was ending, I still, as a loyal Catholic, criticized the way in which it was handled. I do think the media gave some false impressions about priests and pedophilia, but I was definitely upset at my own church's scandal.

The internet makes it so spin machines can't work. Information will get out and get out quickly. And cover up, backtracking, etc, just makes the situation worse. Besides, people are forgiving when leaders repent and make amends, but people get disgusted when their leaders try to appear perfect, do all they can to prevent info from getting out ,and speak badly of individuals who try to get it out.

Also I have no idea what David Virtue has up his sleeve. I think he views the forum and blog occasionally, but his brief post seem to get the facts mixed up a little bit, I think confusing the two Randys in the CEC. We'll see what he has to say I guess,

God bless,
David

Samwise,

I agree with you, the demonic influence issue has indeed been worked long enough. Whatever concerns there may be attached, the point is that that information has been well documented and people must now do what they will do about it.

The issue of the invalidity of the original consecration has yet to sink in, however. Since 75% of the CEC in the US was received, ordained, consecrated, with sacraments sourced in that consecration. It is a resultant issue that has yet to be fully comprehended.

But there is more. Many are asking if the intent (and "intent" is vital) of the 1997 consecration was also tainted and placed in jeopardy. Was the intent of the Brazilians the same as the intent of the CEC leadership? Was that intent genuinely mutual? Was that intent expressed in the intentions for inter-communion and the expressed directives for proper forms that were to be used in all future consecrations and ordination? Was that mutual intent jeopardized by the CEC's failure to stay in communion and failure to continue to use the proper forms in it's rites?

Samwise, some are indeed asking these questions. It may not be a racy or exciting question, but quite important, nonetheless.

Admittedly, Apostolic Succession is simply not that important to everyone. Frankly, for many people, it is not worth the attention given it here on the forum and many people simply could care less.

To some it is almost nothing of consequence, to others it is everything.

Samwise,

Your characterization of how "communication" has typically been done is also very enlightening. From council to council, from bishop to priest, from priest to people until the laity receive an inconsistent version of the report.

Very good, Sam, very good.

Good Morning All

May the God of Peace rule in our hearts today and always.

Thank you once again to the moderators for their tremendous efforts to keep this thread open. I know you guys have taken a lot of grief from all of us.

Will you be posting a "sign" of where this is from the the other? For those that are bookmarking it would be easier. I just happened to "luck" onto here this morning


truth in mercy

removed by author

I posted this question on the last board, but it got swallowed up by the contentiousness of "sniping" Is there any interest in discussing this here? If not, I will leve this as a dead horse has well.

While things are a bit slow.... May I diverge a bit and ask a question probably already discussed here. The archives are extensive, but not easy to search.

Therefore, my question: What has been the general and/or specific reception of CEC clergy into the RC or other churches? In other words, are they received as clergy? Are the regularized, laicized or...? It might go to the point of validity of succession...

This probably represents a new thread (I have no idea how this is determined here) or maybe not of interest to anyone but myself. If the latter is the case, feel free to send me your thoughts/experiences at mbroute66@charter.net.

Thanks

Bulldog,
I just added it thanks to TIM's suggestion :)

This too has been answered, but answers are easy to lose amidst the chatter.

Each case is individual. The RC church is primarily interested in priestly formation of it's candidates. This is more than merely education. Steve Anderson, a former CEC priest now serving an RC pastorate, was received, but placed in a three year seminary program, essentially doing his MDiv again, but more importantly, going through priestly formation.

His is the only case of a former CEC priest successfully being "received" into the RC priesthood to date, while a few more are in the process., to the best of my knowledge.

There will certainly be no "carte blanc" receptions of CEC priests into the RC church. Each case will be taken on it's own merits. This is the way it has been expressed by knowledgable spokesmen on this forum.

Friends,

Bulldog has honestly revisited the isue of intent, which necessarily has to do with validity, but certainly has nothing to do with the demonic, so, may I suggest the demonic discussion be moved to another place.

The universal consensus about the CEC's orders is out there. In all quarters it is agreed that in this case, intent is the issue that most provides the conclusion.

For much time now, prayers have focused on the consensus fidelium in the CEC; that it may emerge as a humble acceptance of the length to which God will go in order to reach His people, and that this journey is far from over.

Homeward

With respect to "intent" and it's impact on holy orders, there are two perspectives to consider. First, the Orthodox tradition has no requirement with respect to "intent", but since neither the original nor the Brazilian consecrations were Orthodox, this view shouldn't impact the ordination. Second, from the Catholic tradition, "intent" is defined to mean the following:

4. INTENTION: The intent of the Laying On of Hands and the prayer within the Eucharistic Liturgy must be to ordain or consecrate the person to Holy Orders. One could conceivably lay hands on someone during the Eucharistic Liturgy for prayer for healing, for blessing, or for some other worthy propose, without the intent to ordain or consecrate. This criterion removes the possibility of someone claiming to be a Bishop or priest simply because he had received the "Laying On of Hands" in the Liturgy. The intent must be to ordain or consecrate and to so state the same in the Ordination or Consecration documents.

After reading the definition, I'm confused why this is even a cause of concern. Everyone involved "intended" it to be an ordination, thus it seems clear that this requirement is met. In my mind, the issue of "intent" is settled.

Okay folks, help me out here.

Are we now saying that the "intent" of the Brazilians is far more important and counteracts the "intent" of the original (first "consecration") from Barker/Spruit?

JPJ

I have it from a reliable source that the Bishops are very upset about this forum. They have gone so far as to warn all clergy that any statements shall be issued to the clergy in a confidential manner. Clergy are being forbidden to copy, reproduce, email, or forward this message. This super secret message is in regard to Adler's "secret sabbatical" (whatever that means). Furthermore, statements to the parishioners will be read Sunday morning from the pulpit. These messages are not to be copied, reproduced, emailed or forwarded in any way shape or form.

Furthermore, the Patriarchs council will be purchasing encryption software to allow for them to communicate among each other and with the clergy. This software prevents forwarding, copying, etc and the message will delete a few moments after being read.

This is despicable. It is further proof that the CEC is getting worse and not better. It is yet another example of poor leadership. I'm certainly glad that St. Paul didn't have disappearing ink.

ev :blink: :blink:

p.s. could someone re-publish +Painter's letter regarding cult activity. I think it goes perfectly with the secret agent man stuff above.

Additionally, are we saying that the spiritual aspect can only be from God in the "intent" of the authentic consecrators (ICAB) and not from the original (or first)consecrators?

And when it is said her on the forum "that was already dealt with", do you mean that teh bishops actually repented (someone please help me out here as I saw no documentation or verified response to confirm this in any previous iteration of this forum) and renounced the origninal "consecration"?


I really, really don't in any way mean to "beat a dead horse" on this issue, but as a Charismatic/Evangelical church (moroeso than Catholic as has been stated here), one would think this WOULD be an important issue. And like I said in an earlier posting, could very well be a causation of the latest crisis.

I heard that "deception is deceiving"? Is this true? Are we all deceived in his issue?

I want the CEC free from the encumbrance of any anchors that may be holding it back. After all, isn't it better/easier/more successful to run the race without having to carry a weight belt? Or is the lack of growth of the CEC (in the US) simply due to wrong approaches to church planting or apathy in the people we are trying to reach?

JPJ

I can attest to the accuracy of Bulldog75's remark.

The CEC does not qualify for the Anglican "Pastoral Provision" and each case is judged on its own merits. Education and Priestly Formation are taken into account, as is the Apostolic Succession of the individual.

Blessings,

The problem here, with Barker, is not intent. It is fundamental validity. Barker had none. None that a Catholic would recognize; none that the Orthodox would recognize; none that an Anglican would recognize.

With no validity, all the intent in the world means very little.

EV,

Show me ANY organization that wants what it discusses among it's leadership to be made public. Whether it's governments, corporations or churches, every organization has a right to be able to communicate among it's leadership in private and they go to great lengths to protect that privacy. What is communicated to the public, and the rank and file of the organization is always measured and deliberate. It's not "despicable", it's common sense and an absolute necessity. At issue is whether or not you trust your bishop who is your representative at the leadership level. If you trust him, then why is this an issue. Most organizations that have leaders spilling secrets on a public forum would fire that person immediately. If you can't be trusted with discretion, you aren't qualified to be a leader.

dbergher

Dear Kenneth and other Bishops:

I have waited until now to respond to this email. My purpose was to calm myself down and to order my thoughts before responding. It would have been very easy to act in frustration, temper, and revulsion. This is only another straw on the proverbial "camels' back". It is, to me, one more illustration of what is plaguing the CEC.I find myself quite distressed today. We have gone around and around on dealing with "issues" and, in my view, have refused to deal with the "core issue", namely that the CEC has become a "personality cult" and the defense of the "patriarch" is to be done at all costs...regardless of how many clergy, churches, and laity, are wounded and compelled to go elsewhere. I realize this single statement will result in angry denouncements and my email box will fill up. So be it.

The fact that the only correspondence that + Ken has received was two emails to "rebuff" him for not following some protocol, due process, or some procedural policy is beynd belief! First, since when do processes, procedures, or protocols take precedence over "hurting people"?! My God, what have we come to in trying to protect one person and his position?! I was "sickened" when I read of this incident and I called my brother just to love on him and Shirley and offer my prayers and help in anyway. Regardless, of what happened it was obvious that he and Shirley were hurting. My offer to help was what I was taught is the expected response of a Christian. Second, I was in a state of unbelief that after 10 days there was no response from +Ken's fellow members of the Patriarch's Council. Why?! (So much for the CEC being built on "relationships"!) 3. Where was "due protocol, due process, and procedures in + Phil Zampino's situation? When did he receive a list of charges in writing? When did he receive a hearing? When did he get to face his accuser or accusers? When was the House of Bishops notified of his impending hearing and of the charges against him? We are told we have to follow the Canons...since when? Our leaders only invoke the Canons when they want something to go their way. Even Abp. Jones said, "they should have been written on toilet paper in explaining how much they were ignored". It does cause one to question what is going on. It gives occasion for doubt and question as to motives and actions. Brothers, this is a mess!

Gentlemen, I wish to share briefly, what I shared with +Sly last summer. >From my years of experience I am convinced that we are dealing with a "cultic" spirit. In seminary I taught the men that the most important gift for the clergy is "discerning of spirits". We have all seen those that seemed so "right" and were, in actual point of fact, so "wrong". Not in what they said but, in the "spirit" behind it. Also, we have all seen those that started "right on" and became "way out". This, to me, is where we are. A few signs of "cultism": 1. Control information and discussion thereby squelching dissent. 2. Preach the same thing repeatedly...indoctrination. 3. Divide the group and isolate individuals...marginalize to minimize credibilty. 4. All money goes "up" and only enough comes "down" to appease the critics. 5. Use and abuse of those that are at various levels of leadership forcing submission without question. Keeps everybody in their place. This is only a few, there are many others...but, these illustrate my point.How does this apply to the CEC?

What follows is from a teaching I did in 1989 entitled, "CHARISMATIC WITCHCRAFT: THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM IN THE CHURCH". The acronym "mind" serves at this time. M-anipulation; I-ntimidation; N-egotiation; and D-omination. Those at the head of "cultic" groups will manipulate, intimidate, and even, negotiate just to maintain their positions and income...read, to dominate! This is a major problem throughout the Charismatic Churches, and is what we in the CEC are facing now. I am not saying that Abp. Adler is a witch only that he is operating in the spirit behind it...check Galatians 5:19-21. It is time to be honest and admit that these terms describe what has been happening in the CEC. The instances are too numerous to list suffice it to say we are all aware of times when one, or more, of these devices have been used to silence all of us and to make us fall in line.

I point this out to address + Ken's letters. This event must focus us on the larger problem...the head of our church is "sick" and "dysfunctional". We, also must, admit we have all failed in our duties as bishops in not confronting these things long ago. We have become like the abused members of the family of an abusive father. We hate what he does...and, yet, cover for him and thus enable him to continue in his warped behavior. When you have an egotistic, defensive neurotic in leadership you have a formula for disaster. And, when we have been manipulated, intimidated, and negotiated into being dominated all in the name of "love" and "covering the weaknesses" of a brother, we have been cowardly and have let down the clergy and people of the CEC. Please note the all inclusive pronouns I am using...I am guilty of not standing up when and as, I should. For this I have repented and do repent to you my Brothers. NEVER AGAIN!

My Brothers, if the grievance of + Ken and Shirley is not addressed immediately we should be ashamed of ourselves! Those that have the authority to do so must call for the convening of the appropriate council to deal with this deplorable situation. To wait until September is to belittle Shirley and to insult + Ken. If it was any of our wives we would be raising hell instead of employing these delaying tactics. I join +Ken in calling for the resignation of Abp. Adler and, I would also add, we need to move the headquarters out of San Clemente. A sabbatical will not suffice! There has been too much lost of confidence, trust, and willingness in dealing with our Brother to place him back in authority. He definitely needs to be restored however, that does not necessarily mean to an "office". We are dealing with a lifestyle of "prophetic over emphasis and abuse" and of a management style that contributes to the confusion and disorder that presently exists. When one "under the guise of hearing the Spirit" couches everything in "hyper spirituality" it is very difficult, if not impossible for them to change.

I appreciate your patience in reading this too long email. It is just unbelievable to me that + Ken cannot get a response to his correspondence and charges...I am appalled by the failure to communicate to a brother that is one of us, our friend! I realize my letter may hurt his situation more than to help it...as I know where I stand in the eyes of some of you...however, to remain silent would be more cowardice on my part...NO MORE, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

Pro Dei Regno,

+ Rick Painter

I have heard the same, from multiple sources.

I think I understand intent. A person must intend to do what the church does when he performs the sacraments. For instance, if a child is playing and baptizes another child in the name of the Trinity, that is not a valid baptism, because the intent was play. If a priest is simply showing another person the words/gestures involved in communion and bread is around, it doesn't become the body and blood of Christ. Intent is actually a safeguard against a superstitious/magical understanding of the sacraments. Am I right here?

Is the objection to the earlier CEC orders an intent issue or about the matter or form? What about the objections to Anglican orders as a whole? Or would ordaining without the understanding that ordination involves offering the sacrifice of the Mass be improper intent?

Maybe David Z or others can fill me in,


David

What specifically about Barker's Anglican ordination was invalid? He also has an ordination from the Brazilian Costas line, is that also invalid? Or was it simply because he used an Anglican ordination rite that it's the Anglican line that's in question?

Yes, but if the communication is intended for the faithful of the CEC, read to the congregations, and is thus public, why the secrecy? Certainly the leadership doesn't expect an announcement to be made and the issue dropped without any discussion. Even the Catholic Church expects responses, after-mass talk, and "minority reports" to their encyclicals/letters. It is expected. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), in the internet age there will be transparency one way or another. I am glad the Catholic Church after years of withholding info is finally understanding this (even if slowly), as are other churches.

David

After it's been announced to the parishes, it's public and no big deal. I guess they simply want to make sure that what they intend to communicate to the parishioners is done by their priests to the congregation in the manner and respect they intend and not announced from an internet forum in which incomplete and out-of-context information is often released along with the various spins and opinions.

Derbergher, have you ever played that game where a person whispers something in the next persons ear, all the way down a line of ppl, and the last one has to say what they heard out loud?

What comes out is never an accurate representation of the initial statement... even over the course of just a few people.

perhaps not ENTIRELY applicable to the method of communication that the CEC has chosen to adopt over the past few years... but good enough.

and what happens when the people come back to their priest wanting to know more? At best, the communication travels back up the chain and then down again... but what usually happens is that their questions are either never answered, or never answered satisfactorally.

The CEC has proven over the course of their existence that their chosen method of communication simply does not work. Their heads are merely stuck in the sand.

In an organization, what REALLY happens? The organization's leaders release a statement that is handed down, yes... but they usually also make their statement directly availible, in public, documented medium, viewable to all it pertains to.

If there were confidential information being transmitted between the clergy and leadership, this software may be a good use of funds... However, what (truely) should be confidential? Certainly not most administrative communication. That should be transparent from the get-go. Come on bro...

Couldn't have said it better Roaring Oasis

Have a great day Tony

RO,
And it seems to me that issuing a statement that cannot be printed out or disseminated on paper will create even more problems like you mention, because people will talk about what they think they heard, and then misinterpretations will arise.

At least with a written, public, response the actual contents of the message are available for all to see, so that if someone takes it out of context, the original, available copy stands as a testament to the truth.

David

dbergher,

Trust is one thing, this type of exaggerated secrecy is another. You are right that the leadership should be able to discuss, debate, etc. in private but this is about the result of those discussions getting to middle management (clergy) and, one would hope, to the people. The very problem of the CEC has been its lack of transparency. If we had had transparency from the beginning, most of the things that we have discussed on the forum would be moot.

Secondly, and most importantly, trust has to be earned. How can you trust a man who discisions you are unaware of, whose actions and the actions of those he obeys are shrouded in secrecy.

Lastly, secrecy of this type, and it is certainly an overreaction to the situation, is the first step in a group becoming a cult. I taught on cults for 10 years and, with few exceptions, this is where is begins to go wrong. When you control what your people know then they have no way to evaluate the merits of what the leadership is doing. I think "despicable" is too nice a term for what is going on here.

Who says it has to be in that model? A written statement that's provided to the clergy for communicating to the parishioners would work as well. Subsequent to the Sunday morning announcements, the written piece can be published on a CEC communications site if appropriate. But the example you used is the perfect reason why the CEC bishops are angry over this forum, which is the "whisper" model in the extreme, reflecting the distortions that you referred to quite well.

You have made my point for me. At issue is trust. After a husband catches his wife having an affair does he simply go on without requiring total accountability. If the marriage is to survive the cheating spouse should expect total disclosure and accountability. In the same way the Bishops should expect to be 100% accountable.

I will give you numerous examples of why we should no longer trust our leadership:

IDA/Howard Scandal
Adler/Shirley Myers Scandal
Fick Fiasco
14 Years and No Common Catechism
Sly/Zampino Betrayal
etc.
etc.
etc.

If this marriage is to survive the Bishops who have allowed these troubles must come 100% clean and open up every aspect of the Church to the Public. If they do not, and it appears they will not (secret communication/encryption software/secret sabbaticals) this marriage will NOT survive.

The mere fact that the Bishops are even considering such "cultic" practices is yet another indication that they are inept at leadership.

ev :blink: :blink:

Another sign of cultism is paranoia about being misconstrued. Look at B16's speech. It is a matter of public record. It is being openly discussed, debated and pondered by me and others.

In regards to CEC communications,I for one, have found more explicit and truthful statements about the CEC that I can personally confirm on this site (and private emails) than ever reached my ears through "official CEC channels".

The written piece...do you thnk it will be published on some public forum. I check the CEC communications site regularly and never see anything transparent there.

As for whispering...this is the result of this "model" of secrecy. I have seen this a hundred times if not more. The more secrecy, the more likely a leak. The more likely too, speculation. Look at the HP scandal.

Ask any damage control expert to explain what full, immediate disclosure (not spin) does for an organization...restores trust. I have worked in "damage control" in a large corporation who was at first afraid to release information about executive cover-ups. Their stock went down fast! When disclosure was finally made, the stockholders eventually had restored confidence.

JPJ

Thanks for that letter. However, the one I was thinking of was the one with the Acronym about cults.

EV :blink: :blink:

debergher,

I agree this would be great if it ever happens. It hasn't to my knowledge in the last 7 years.

You are also assuming that the Bishops are angry because this forum has been spreading rumors. If that were the case then it could have been easily answered by putting a an offical statement of the truth from the office of the Patriarch or ++Sly's office of communications. Have you not heard the deafening silence? It is much more likely that we are hitting all too close to the mark and this is what is making them uncomfortable.

Let me make a brief statement on the nature of the internet.

Internet forums and blogs are, in many ways, like a townhall meeting or lodge meeting, where people can get together and discuss issues and concerns, especially if they feel like they can't get their voices heard elsewhere.

Remember that this forum started in 1/06, and sat virtually unused despite efforts on my part to promote it. Then suddenly this past summer, I asked a question on our group blog "What's going on in the CEC?" wanting to know since I had heard a few things about the CEC diocese I live in. That one blog entry got over 200 comments, roughly 100 times the normal comments on the Per Christum blog, and 1000s of visitors with no promotion on my part. Nobody even linked to it as far as I can tell. The visits are all from people searching for info on google and other sites. Obviously a lot of people had questions and felt in the dark, and found one, count em, one, place to discuss these things openly, and it ended up being on the ancient-future.net site, even if it was accidental.

We moved the discussion here and have had over 200,000 visits since the CEC thread opened in July. This is around 3,000-7,000 visits per day! We have had over 50,000 unique visitors. Up until the CEC discussions we maybe had 1,000 total visits over 6 months here, and maybe 30 unique visitors, and that is stretching it. I had known David Z through various venues and asked him to help moderate here after the thread starting picking up.

My point here is that there are a lot of people who feel like they have been kept in the dark in the CEC. They feel as if they aren't being told important things. Even if this is only a perception, they feel this way. Are forums and blogs (or any public gathering/meeting) the best way to get information? No. Do many people feel like it is the only way to get info at this moment? Yes.

David

Bravo David Bravo,

WOW you said it.... :P :D :lol: B) :rolleyes: :) :unsure: :blink:

He "claims" an ordination from the Brazilian Costa "line". This is a problem -- even for Brazil -- because of the large numbers of persons making the same claim. Many of the groups claiming Brazilian orders can only loosely be called Christian -- and Brazil certainly doesn't claim them.

The best article I've seen on the topic is here:

http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html

With regard to Barker himself . . . his consecrators were Spruit -- and Spruit's wife. Neither of which were/are "Christian" even in a loose sense of the word.

Now, we could have a discussion about "Form" with regard to the Episcopal 1979 BCP -- but that's a different issue.

The essense of my point:

1) We really don't know (and can't know) Barker's Intent.

2) We could discuss Form -- but that is a different discussion.

3) However, without Validity, Form and Intent become meaningless.

I agree David.

Although, what is reported here, is also only a perception of the truth, at times. And, thus, I sympathize with those loyal to the CEC and defending the lack of disclosure. This defense would not be necessary if the leadership were more forthcoming. This (lack of full disclosure), as has been pointed out by more than one person, is a continuing problem and I fear will only get worse.

Thanks for this forum. It is better than complete silence (being in-the-dark).