Recently I posted this over at our Group Blog, Per Christum and the reaction has been overwhelming:

I briefly flirted with the idea of joining the Charismatic Episcopal Church, but quite a few things stood in the way of me joining. One major reason I didn't join was what was happening in the CEC cathedral a friend of mine attended. The bishop suspended the liturgy when the "Spirit moved" and the behavior seemed more charismatic than Catholic. There are other incidents, not to mention that the CEC suffers from many of the same issues as Anglicanism, but I won't go into all of this here. I have a few friends who are active in the church, and I think the CEC does many good things. Thus, I still take an interest in the Charismatic Episcopal Church. It is not my intention to slander the Charismatic Episcopal church, nor do I want to get a comment war going about their weaknesses.

However, it seems that quite a few dioceses have either pulled out or been kicked out of the CEC. One of these is the archdiocese in which I live, the Great Lakes Archdiocese. Apparently Bishop Fick has pulled our whole region out. Bishop Philip Zampino has done the same thing, a man widely respected in the CEC (His son David Zampino recently became Catholic; I know him through the amazon.com friends and favorites pages, where we both have written many book reviews).

Does anybody know what is exactly going on in the CEC?

Let some discussion commence!

ALCON,

I am thankfully done with the list. Please do not take it as an academic or legal diatribe. It is a mere compilation of comments made by seemingly active and inactive ICCEC members who entered comments on the Per Christum site. Unfortunately I have not noted or cited the sources since many, or perhaps, most were anonymous or posted under pseudonyms. However those sites are still available and you may be able to retrieve the postings. There are a few sources outside the Per Christum site whom I would categorize either as primary, secondary and/or tertiary sources. If you wish to get citations of sources and you are unable to find them, I will happily assist.

I am ready to release it to those who request it by email. It is written with the intent to inform and construct not destroy. I think it would be best that these matters are to be taken up with your priest and bishops. Allow much grace as you wish measured back to you when you do confront your leaders. The list may disappoint some of you who are looking for new information or scant revelations of wrongdoing. It wasn't intended to sling mud, at least from what I gathered by you good folks. Allow me to quote G.K. Chesterton who when asked, "What is wrong with the world?" replied simply, "I am!" It is not my intention to instruct you, that is your bishop's job. Let us look deeply and humbly at ourselves. When we have removed the log from our eyes we can remove the splinter from the eye of our spiritual siblings. However I think it is imperative that after we do remove the log (some may say, “blog”), that we see clearly to remove the splinter.

I wouldn't say all our commenting is bad and futile. Contrary, it allowed us to share our hearts under pseudonyms. That is sometimes needed!
However I no longer intend to post in this particular forum on issues related to the ICCEC. For that I will be at the Examining the ICCEC site.

DRH, I am still waiting to hear from you. All my Celtic Evensong friends-wasn't it nice to solve all the world's problems in one evening over coffee? Those were the days!

VR,
Ken Follis

I think you did a marvelous job of summarizing the issues...well done! One other issue that I hear is the ordination of clergy who have not completed seminary, who are fast-tracked through and many of these seem to be family members of other clergy and/or bishops. There seems to be much pain and hurt from clergy about this problem.

To Ken Follis,

Thanks for collecting all the information into one listing. It makes it much clearer to review.

A correction to #5 in your list:

Most (nearly 90%) of the parishes did not return to the CEC.

As to list item #8:

It is not mere speculation. I was told by a bishop that the incident involved the patriarch inappropriately running his fingers through the hair of Shirley Myers which, "made her feel uncomfortable." The allagation was played down as (and wirth a little sarcasm while defending the Patriarch as "touchy-Feely kind of guy) inconsequential and only one witness (Shirley Myers) therefore does not hold any weight until there are at least two witnesses.

This type of behavior is totally unacceptable in a leader of the church (The Roman Scandals to wit) and personally, if it had been my wife, well....

I think it showed strong character on the part of Bp Myers not to have been harsh in response when he was told of it.

Further, Bp Myers letter was sent to the Patriarch's Council where it was ignored - admittedly by a member of the council - as not important enough to deal with until the next regular meeting. For this reason, he sent it to the bishops worldwide.

Ken,
Thanks for posting the excellent summary. Even if only a few folks come over from the blog discussion, this will be in the search engines soon, so it should be helpful to a whole other group of people.

David

Dear All: May I again suggest that Shirley Myers name and details be kept out of this "type' of discussion.

It only violates, it does not help.
Imagine if it was your wife, which way do you turn, how do you help her.
How would your wife feel seeing her name plastered all over the Internet in relation to this type of thing?

How would you keep your wife from feeling that all these problems and pains are related to her?

I promise you, you would not want to be in Bishop Myers shoes right now, and you would not want your wives to be going through all of this.

So I beg of you, lets not put her name up anymore, lets not discuss those details, its enough that it happened, to anyone.

The issues at hand are many, not just the one event, it is just one indication, of many, of the issues we all face.

Lets look for solutions, lets honestly look at information for the purpose of finding our way through this mess correctly, honestly, with ethics and integrity.

If we do not, we may be witnesses of the death of our communion.
This is something I, for one, do not want.
This will either be the end, or, the time when we really get down to the hard work of becoming who we are supposed to be.

Its up to all of us, not just the Bishops, Archbishops and Patriarch.
This is our Communion too, its mine, its yours, its the people in the pews, and they are the ones paying the highest price for all this nonsense.

I for one plan to fight, I will fight for the Gospel, the people I have the care of, I will fight for what is right.

I care; I really do, more than I even thought, for our Communion.

If men are going to destroy it, I intend that they are going to hear from me about it.
I have worked to hard, suffered to much, seen to much, to just lay down and let the Bishops "give away the farm".

Nope, not going to do that.
I am trying to be patient, but not complacent.

The people of this Parrish deserve better than this, and when I have to give them an account, I want to be able to tell them I did my best to help, to make it right, that I tried to be a part of a solution.

We can have a voice, historically, the Priests and the Laity have had a voice, and have changed the decisions of whole councils, and rightfully.

We may be facing the end, but if so, let us be a people that tried our best to keep it from being that way.

Lets us do the things that are right.

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

Fr. Rusty,

I hear your heart and the spirit of what you are saying, and I agree with you.

I'm just frustrated, because I have clergy friends who tell me that they can't make any decisions about how to act/react because no one will give them "hard data" or specifics. When we discuss the issues, if we are vague about events/people/places, we are accused of spreading rumors and gossip. But if we name names, events, places, things, it sounds like we are being unchristian and hurting people, be they innocent or not.

What is the solution? Truth is needed in order to find solutions. Truth and specifics are being demanded by clergy who don't know whether to stay or go, fight for their communion or not because they are being told that nothing is wrong. How do we find the truth...but find it in love?

This is a bit of an exaggeration. Of the seven parishes, two large parishes and a small mission parish have left. This includes the Cathedral community (with six clergy, a professed community, and an order of nuns) plus four other priests. Remaining in the ICCEC are four parishes with a total of thirteen clergy.

Bp Phil has submitted a letter of resignation explaining his reasons which was emailed to all clergy in the Diocese. I'm not sure what you mean by "issued no apology".

For us in the Diocese of Maryland, this is a sad situation being separated from our brethren, and I appreciate the help and prayers of all involved in bringing to light and discussing these issues. With God's grace we can overcome these differences, stand against the Enemy who seeks to divide and destroy, and become a stronger part of Christ's Kingdom.

JTK+

Dear Bridgette: I understand, and, my heart goes out to you.

I think it is enough to know that there is a documented case concerning The Patriarch and one of the Bishops wives.

The other issues however, do not concern just one person or two, but our whole Communion, so they are, in a real way, everyone’s issues.
The other issue, while it does affect the whole communion, was perpetrated on one individual, and we need to protect her from more damage.

Why is all this happening?

The reason seems to be that our highest leadership did not do the things it should, and has not to this date.

In our Diocese, to my knowledge, no one, at all, desires any hurt or damage toward the Patriarch, or any of the Bishops.

The Patriarch has been a great man of God, he was Gods man of the hour, so to speak, to raise up this Communion, and he has a good Ministry History.
No one here that I know of doubts his love of God or the love he has had for this Communion.

To my understanding the man has been through a huge, incredible, hard ordeal, actually, several in close proximity to one another.

In and through these events, there is the possibility that he did not deal with these well, others did not advise him well, did not look after him well, and the result was some pretty aberrant behaviors.

If this is true, the whole counsel failed, and, I stated that to our Bishop as well as the whole clergy council.


It also seems that at the least he needs to take a Sabbatical to heal, at the hardest, to step down from the position of Patriarch.

Now, that issue out of the way:

The reasons for Bishop Fick and Zampino leaving have to do with the overall issues facing our Communion..

No common Catechism, liturgy, the Sacraments, but mostly, general leadership, no accountability, no community, no communication.

These issues can be fixed, if people are willing to be honest and open.

As to leaving or staying:

Why even try to deal with that issue right now?

Lets do what we can do, lets see this through, lets see what can be done, lets see what God is doing in all of this.

Lets ask the Bishops to be accountable; Roman Catholics do it with pretty good results, so can we.

Lets ask that Priests and Deacons be allowed to go to Counsel meetings.
Lets ask that proper Minutes be taken at all Church Counsel meetings.

Lets ask to be heard, let’s tell them this is, after all, our Church too.
Lets work to get this fixed before we throw it out.

Then, if it can't be repaired, we know it is but wood, hay and stubble.
Throw it in the fire and walk away.

I hope this has been of some small help.

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

The Statement "The reasons for Bishop Fick and Zampino leaving have to do with the overall issues facing our Communion.."" Is to be understood as "to the best of my understanding".

The bottom line is that to know their reasons, we need to hear from them.

in HIM,

Fr. Rusty

Fr Rusty,

With all due respect, there was no intention of harm in the specifying the nature of the allegations against the patriarch. Bishops have already told their men the specifics with names and there are a great number of people already aware of the incidents specifics.

Are you in the Diocese of Texas? The bishop has sent an additional letter as has Bp Painter calling for the Patriarch to step down. Not a sabbatical, but to step down. These are very serious charges against leadership and has given the communion a major black eye, if not a broken jaw.

We can paint the picture with wide, undefined swaths all we want, but the image remains crystal clear - (as you have so well stated already) <b>"No common Catechism, liturgy, the Sacraments, but mostly, general leadership, no accountability, no community, no communication."</b>

We can be "cheering for the team" and "defending the Patriarch" all we want and it will not change the fact that our communion may well be a corpse that is simply moving because the nerve endings haven't caught up with the death of the heart and brain.

Do I mean harm to my Patriarch? Of course not!! He is a man that followed the vision and without whom we would not be the CEC! However, now is the time to do the right thing and WE NEED TO CALL FOR IT. This will not simply go away or right itself without our doing something drastic, and without the patriarch doing something. So, as with naming the demons during the excorcism or deliverance, so to we have named the incident. Let the church judge the church now.

I agree that we need to fight for its survival if indeed it can be fixed. But from all appearances, the leadership does not want to relinquish what little power it has left for the good of the communion. Threrefore it will die a hollow husk as men continue to bail out due to continuing unaddressed issues. Perhaps the leadership wants all those that are demanding accountability, catholicity, catechism and such, to leave so that they do not have to be held accountable. Only speculation of course...

Pax

Dear Claymore; Not once sir have I shirked what needs to be done.

However, in all circles, it is wrong to subject a woman who has been violated to further violation without her permission.

I will stand on that sir AND MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR IT.

If we are going to hold those above us accountable for their actions, lets be accountable ourselves.

No one wants things changed and fixed more than I do.

I have asked to speak to the whole House of Bishops, as well as The Patriarchs council.

So, let me be clear, I think you have miss-read my post.

Partner, I’m no lay down guy, my name is up for all to see.
My phone number is 903-245-1622 I am in Tyler Texas, if you can get them to call me or come down here, or tell me where to meet them, I assure you, they will understand that I have no intention of laying down, or running away, from them or any of the issues.

I have no problems stating what the issues are, but I do have a problem with further hurting people who have already been hurt.

It is enough, as I said, that the allegations are openly listed, past that, what possible good does it do to keep naming the woman involved, who, did nothing wrong?
None.
Why cause her further pain, what good reason is there for that?
None!
It is not even allowed in secular situations, and we of the Church should by all rights be more sensitive to these things than the world is, should we not.

Next, as to my issues with the whole upper admin of our communion, as I have said, I believe they have all failed to do their jobs, and I said that openly, looking at my Bishop at our Clergy council.
We did not get here by accident; we got here by not doing what needed to be done to prevent this.
They failed, and guess what, so did we, all of us, the Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
Its just to easy to just blame the Patriarch, and his counsel, or the House of Bishops, and not take any resposibilty ourselves.
I do not believe they stood up, too much co-dependency is my guess, but what about us.
Have you challenged your Bishop, have you asked the hard questions, have we held them accountable, have we held each other accountable?

The actual answer is pretty simple, we have all failed in some manner.
I should have pressed my Bishop harder on the communication issues that I knew, knew, were a bunch of bull, but hey, I didn't, did you?

Get my point, we got into this mess together, hmmm, perhaps we should work together to get out of it.

Do we need results now, you bet.
Do I think there needs to be some changes in leadership, yes I do.

This is my Church too, and I have no intention of just allowing this to continue unchallenged, it may not do any good, but I am going to try.

I would like these issues to be addressed sooner, not later, now, not in Sept. or October.

It has already hurt our little congregation, they feel betrayed, and that sir, well, i am angry.

The issues are the issues, however, I am not willing to say it is ok to hurt a woman further who has done nothing wrong and caused none of this.

If she agreed to have her name out here, fine.

However, as far as I know, she has not, so I will speak against it.

In addition, I will stand against any and all of you over that bit of ethics.

Have a little compassion on her, a little concern for those most affected by all of these issues, the ones who did nothing wrong, the faithful who have become the victims.


We cannot call the Bishops to higher ethical standards and practice none of our own.

Fr. Rusty

Fr Rusty,

Sorry to have hit a nerve brother. It appears you know of what I speak. Let me just say that in my last post I did not refer to the individual in question once.

Knowing now that you are in the diocese where this occurred and from where the letters were sent, perhaps you will fill us in on the latest that is happening there. Has Bp Meyers gotten ANY repsonse from anyone in the Patriarch's council? Has he made plans to press the issue? Did Bp Painter write his letter to take some of the heat from Bp Meyers? What of Bp Hines?

Now to your hot button issue: I merely pointed out to our host the specifics of the issue in Texas - ONE TIME. I did not do it with intent of malice, or intent to impugn, simply to call it what it was, since it was being referred to in a way that seemed to imply it to be some "spacey charge that may not be real". I heard a bishop sarcastically refer to the charge, and name the offended one and he did so with a smirk. I WAS OFFENDED AS WELL FOR HER, and for Bp Meyers. So you have no adversary here. I have only referred to it one time (and that is plenty enough) to clarify for the listing, since it seemed to remain undefined and yet is a very important issue.

I sincerely hope for your sake, and for the sheep in this communion that this all can be corrected, hard as that will be. I however, don't have much faith in it since I have been lied to by first, the letter of the patriarch's council that went out to the church, and second by my bishop as well, though it may be called "spin" in some circles. Frankly I am tired of it. It has been a steady progression in the last few years of centralizing power and culling powerful people around the See in order to insulate from really enjoining a spirit of "band of brothers", and in so doing, has crushed any opposition that may arise, turning it around and placing fault squarely on the opponent, as if it were their fault.

Do I sound angry? You bet! There is NO PLACE for these types of behavior in Christ's one holy, apostolic church! Ten years may be too long for me now to continue to wait, though I am struggling to do so in hope! And yes, I have been examining myself as well.

Hopefully with a COMPLETE and cogent listing here on this site, we can truly address the issues that are tearing this communion apart.

Pax.

Dear Fr. Rusty,

I admire you for wanting to address these issues with your Bishop and the HOB and Patriarch's Counsel. Be cautious, though. Have a good support group behind you. My Bishop refused to accept what was happening in his church and pressed these issues for some time. Guess what? He doesn't work here any more. And he's not the only one. Adler, Sly, Bates and others have circled the wagons and enact vengance upon any who call for them to be accountable for their actions. My Bishop hung in with the CEC for years...he didn't just decide one day that he didn't like what he was seeing and decide to leave for greener pastures. He picked his battles and called for truth and repentence. And for that he was accused of failing to uphold the unity of the Church. Now THAT makes me angry!

I'm glad that you want to bring this into the light. Just be aware that those at the top already know what the issues are. Others, many others, have confronted them and found that they no longer had a place within the CEC. Just be careful. Have your facts straight and put on the full armor of God before you go in.

As an aside, I totally understand your point about the Bishop's wife and, while I am glad that it was brought out into the light since it had been eluded to frequently, I agree that the lady involved should be protected and respected.

Blessings,

Bridgette

I'd like to comment a bit here . . .

The actual principal consecrator of Adler was Timothy Michael Barker of the "International Free Catholic Communion". Barker was himself consecrated by Spriut and Spruit's wife. Barker -- and Spruit before him -- cannot reasonably recognized as bishops in any Christian sense of the word. Their "apostolic succession" derived from an early branch of the Old Catholic movement in England -- which quickly progressed OUT of Old Catholicism into theosophism and the occult. Melton's "Encyclopedia of American Religions" listed Spruit's "Church of Antioch" among the listings for gnostic and occultic bodies.

The CEC was aware of this as early as spring 1994, as it was a matter of discussion at the National Convocation in Kansas City (which I attended). However, the laity -- and, I suspect -- much of the clergy had no idea how serious the problem was.

I discovered the problem during my own research in seminary in 1997 -- and was ordered under obedience not to discuss my research. My wife and myself were at the point of leaving the CEC in November of 1997, when the Brazilian Consecrations happened. I decided -- with the concurrence of the Catholic priest with whom I had been working -- that I needed to stay and see how things panned out.

I was very disappointed at the attitude of some of the bishops who either wanted to minimize the Brazilian Consecrations; pretend that they were nothing more than a "strengthening" (though what that was supposed to mean was never made clear); or who ignored this provisions of the agreement with Brazil in the first place. But that is for another post.

What I'm saying, is that the leadership of the CEC KNEW about the problems for years before acting. The pattern of secrecy which is destroying the denomination is not a new thing.

Fortunately, modern technology gives us the ability to redact previous posts in this forum! May I suggest that you or a moderator edit the posts in question and remove the woman's name to protect her privacy? This is the Internet, after all, and the visibility of this forum is worldwide.

First, I want to say thanks to all for the shift in tone on these forums regarding the Crisis in the ICCEC. The earlier tones seemed to be a bit uncharitable and malicious, albeit concerned.

Second, I made a request on a previous post for specific facts and documentable references. Since that time specific information has been provided to the forums, including the two letters and the summary of issues by Ken Follis.

Third, one of the letters claims to have been sent out by Bp Meyers but his name does not appear on the Clergy signature list. Does anyone know why? or did I just overlook it.

Fourth, what is the theological problem with the Song of Solomon teaching (other than the issues of not following the Lectionary and overemphasis which have already been mentioned and have there own merit)? What is the Kansas City connection?

Fifth, there has been a letter calling for the resignation of the Patriarch. What is the Biblical, theological, Patristic, and Conciliar precedent for it? In Rome, the Pope remains the Pope regardless of whether he is good or evil. This is one of the strengths of Rome. I realize their are Roman arguements against the CEC but lets just assume the CEC is truly part of the catholic faith, then how can we despose the Patriarch by catholic precedent.

Thanks,

Fr Aidan+

My dear brothers and sisters, I have just spent the last four hours in prayer before the Lord our God. It is not unusual for me to do that, and I don't mean to toot my own horn either. The point is this:

On the other forum I posted an article aimed at getting us all to slow down a bit and think about what we are doing...to ourselves and to others who are reading these things being posted. How many of you read that post? Or did you just skip over it in your anger and haste and self-ness?

The one thing that I was reminded of throughout my prayer time this morning was that 'The Battle is the Lords.' It is He who is in control regardless of what we think or believe...and my dear brothers and sisters, if we continue to 'muddy the waters' rather than allow the Lord to accomplish His Will, we will 'get exactly what we deserve...the withdrawal of His approval from 'Our Will'.

I too am wounded...feeling betrayed...questioning again why He brought me out of my solitude into this frenzy of 'unknowing'. But, little by little through union with Him in prayer, my heart is again peaceful because I know without a doubt that He is in control.

I have run away...I have fought the wrong fight (the one not mine to fight) I have lost everything...because I refused to Trust in the Only One who could save me. And not just once...too many times...to my shame and regret...for I rejected in the process so many graces He wanted to pour out for me. (God forgive me)

So now, my brothers and sisters, I am a Voice, crying for Justice.
I am a Voice crying for Mercy. I am a Voice, crying for Peace. He who is Divine Mercy is listening to his children crying out to Him.

All you have to do, my brothers and sisters is join your voice to mine and all the others already crying out to him...and then as we heard in Scripture, Stand Fast and Stand Still and Wait for the Lord.

"For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, Have mercy on us...and on the whole world."

Blessings and Prayers,

Nell

Nell,
I appreciate your sensitivity to the issues affecting the CEC. I also see you are familiar with the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. It is very beautiful and Sister-Saint Faustina was a marveleous servant of God. I am curious, are you Roman Catholic or a former one?
Ken Follis

Ken, I am still Roman Catholic is most senses of the word if one requires a category. I was living as a solitary, when I was sent (by command) to Texas and to a friend to be a voice to help with understanding the Roman position. I resisted but did as the Lord asked. I really did not know what He wanted, but I said yes and 'came back to the world.'

In the process I have been given a family I never really had in my biological family and have been able to learn as well as teach under the direction of a good and faithful servant of the Lord who is also a friend. How fortunate for me to be so richly graced by the One who loves us.

There is more to this story than I can to post on a public forum. But I too have a great love for the CEC and what I originally stood for. A journey, not the destination. I stand by that even if I do not know where my journey is going I do know and trust the One who is the 'tour director.'

Yes, the Chaplet and the Rosary are daily companions and great blessings. I have made and given away many Rosaries and shared the beauty and results of both the chaplet and the rosary with many here in Texas and elsewhere.

Still on the journey...

Nell

Great, Nell! Welcome back from the desert. I really enjoy both as well. Father Bishop Adler taught me the necessity of the Eastern way of the Jesus Prayer. I also learned much from the Protestant teachers early on that, I believe, helped lead me into the CEC and eventually into the Roman Catholic Church. These are the main folks/ teachings that helped me find the inner way: Larry Lea's "Could You Not Tarry One Hour?" Prayer Series, Dick Eastman's One Hour to Change the World, Bill Bright's Breathing Prayer teaching and Kenneth Hagin's teaching on Praying Scripture esp. Eph. 1. What amazed me was the level of devotion and discipline I have seen in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I grew up in the Assemblies of God and thought only Pentecostals could really pray and Charismatics had even greater spirituality- one generally lost by Pentecostals. I then went to attend Hagin's Rhema Bible Training Center where I saw the Charis-maniacs flourish. I noted many heretical practices and teachings- even by Pentecostal standards. However I pressed through to graduate and went on to read the Patristics where I began at RBTC to see Catholic teaching/ practice in Scripture. In fact, after being introduced to the Apostolic Fathers there in Cooper Beatty's class- I began to see how it was the Catholic Church which gave us the Bible. This was certainly impacting to a WORD man. Also, it was in the Holy Spirit Course of Kenneth Copeland's side- kick, Keith Moore, where I shockingly read John 20 and understood, that day, that the Catholics were right about the Sacrament of Penance- Reconciliation with Absolution following Confession. That began the journey...it took a few years for me to see that the Early Church was the Catholic Church of today. BTW I still pray the Jesus Prayer and the others and you might even catch me praying in tongues but don't tell my priest :P

Dear Bridgette and Claymore; Thank you both for your reply's.
To Bridgette, yes, I am trying to be careful, without sacrificing being open, honest, willing and truthful.

It seems so easy, but is not.

I do not want to cause ANYONE more pain.
I just want our Communion to survive, and, to be better for all of this.
Again, this does not have to be the end, it could end up being a wonderful thing, it could be one of the things that draws us closer together and makes us stronger and more unified.

However, as Claymore was alluding to, it will not be so if we just sweep things under the rug, yet again, that’s how we got here.

The problem with sweeping things under the rug is that pretty soon you have a lump in the rug.
People will walk around it, step over it, but at some point the lump gets big enough that someone wants to know what wrong with the floor or the rug, and they pull the rug back, then, there is our embarrassment.
We were not the house keepers we wanted people to think we were.

If we would only deal with the issues, when they come up, in the light, then they would have no power to hurt, cause shame, or destroy.

Now, the rug has been pulled back, we see there are real issues, we have things that need to be dealt with.
So, let’s deal with them, let’s not let them destroy us, or anyone for that matter.
There is, in reality, nothing broken that cannot be fixed, all it takes is the right attitudes.
Proper desires, proper work, proper communications.

All these issues can be healed, the issues can be resolved, and paths for correction on other issues can be plotted and adjusted.

None of this can be fixed overnight, there is no magic wand, however, we also must not put off till the morrow, what should be done today.

It is time to go to work, the hard work of real growth, the work of admission, confession, penance, reconciliation, government, communications, theology, honesty.

The real stuff, its time for men to say this is too important, and too voluble, and their are too many lives at stake to just let this all fall part and do the hard work of dealing with the issues and us all through this.

Anyway, I have said too much again.

Claymore: Thank you for your comments.
No, I do not have the particulars that you ask for, sorry.
It seems we are all in the "waiting mode" to see what happens next.
Very hard on the local Parrish Church.

God bless you all, and my love to you all.
Don't give up!

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

OK, folks. I've been doing a lot of thinking and praying about all of this. Here are my thoughts.

First of all, when my Bishop resigned, my prayer was that the dragon would be painted red (that the truth would be revealed). I believe that God has answered that prayer. This site and the other sites ( http://blog.ancient-future.net/2006/06/wha...-episcopal.html and http://examiningtheiccec.blogspot.com/)are honest, sincere and sometimes blunt accounts of "What's Up With the Charismatic Episcopal Church". The dragon is now red!

Shortly after my Bishop resigned, I spoke with some of the clergy in our diocese, some who had left and some who had not. Several people said to me that they could not make any decisions about staying or leaving the CEC or speaking out at the meeting on the 22nd because they had no facts, no "hard data", to base anything upon. I was a actually quite annoyed with this, since many of these same clergy bad-mouthed my Bishop...THEIR Bishop...because he met with them to give them information on the state of the communion. They indicated that he was saying unkind words about the church and spreading rumors. These are the same guys who now say that they can't make any decisions because they don't have enough information. Come on, guys! You can't have it both ways!!!

Anyway, now that we have the whole truth, or as much as is available, what are we going to do with it? Or more, what are we going to do about it? So, I was thinking...those of you who are parishoners within the CEC, can you meet with your fellow parishoners, discuss the issues, pray about them and then schedule a meeting with your priests to outline the problems and suggest some solutions? Those of you here who are clergy...can you meet with your fellow clergy, share the issues with them, seek the Lord for direction and meet with your Bishops to get some answers to to let him know what you feel should happen? Once the clergy and Bishops know the issues, the facts and the truth, they then have a direct responsibility and an obligation to seek the Lord and seek righteousness, accountability and confession from their leaders.

I think these blogs are an excellent way for us to share the truth but we need to take it a step further and share solutions. Some individuals have asked for accountability from their leaders. This has not gone well for those individuals.

An entire Diocese has written a letter to the Patriarch, standing behind their Bishop, asking for truth, repentence and change, as well as asking the Patriarch to step down. These clergy are standing together, united, and having discussed the situations with their Bishop and having their voices heard and represented by their Bishop, are standing with him. Others within the CEC need to do the same. Retaliation is easy when it's many against one. But when many stand together in truth, righteousness and unity, retaliation is much more difficult. Maybe, just maybe, with prayer and with strength in numbers, the leaders of the CEC who need to come clean, who need to repent and who need to step down in order to bring healing will do so.

So, I'd like to ask those of you here, are you willing to talk to your peers within your church/diocese and share these issues that have been brought to light here? Are you willing to pray with your brothers and sisters in Christ and ask for guidance and direction about how to confront these problems? Are you willing to stand before your priest or your Bishop and call for truth? Do you think that this is the right course of action? I just know that we can all talk on these sites for months and we can air our grievances...and we should...this is a good thing...but without further action, what is the point? I'd like to hear back from you. I'd like to know if you agree with coming together and confronting this as a communion or if you feel that there is a better way.

I will continue praying for God's grace to be with us all.

Blessings!

Bridgette

Dear Fr. Aiden: Perhaps there is some confusion.
To my knowledge, the purpose of the letter from our Diocese was to help the Patriarch and the Communion, not do him harm, not at all.
I do not know the man personally, but have followed him for years, have loved his teachings.
If one studies his teachings well, one can easily see the shifts that have come through since the terrible events in his families life of losing those so dear to him.
But hey, who would not be affected by those events.

But I think that is the point, who looked after him, who cared enough to help him, who did the hard work of saying to him, Hey Father, its time to go on a Retreat, a good long one, to heal, to let the healing, grieving process take place.

I can promise you sir, no one that I know of in our Dioceses wishes anything but the very best for the Patriarch.
He has been a great man of God, he has been well used of God, he has been a wonderful teacher, and he is respected.

That said, one has to admit, something has gone wrong, terribly, and things that should be taken care of have not been.
We can blame the other individual Bishops all we want to and it will not change or fix a thing.

The bottom line is we have all failed our people, you and me as well, as such; we have failed God, all of us, you, me, the Patriarch and the whole House of Bishops.
Our Job, our calling, is our calling, and it comes with a price, it is a responsibility.
We, as Priests, Deacons and The Bishops, will be judged differently than others, we no longer have the right to be just another one of the guys.
We have a Charism within us that is different, that is "uncommon".
We will have to give an account for that, how we have held it, what we did with it.
Paul talks about, if I have any reward, it is you before the Father.

This is the deal, this is the truth.
We will have to give an account for what we do, as those carrying around this Sacrament of Holy Orders, its no small thing, its not just regular politics, its real, its hard, and it should be quite scary to think on.

That said, the Patriarch is not the Pope, but he is our Patriarch, as such, what we do in a situation where our Patriarch may need the help of the Church.
Hmm, the same thing Rome or the East does, they protect the Church.
They say things like, the Pope is on vacation, or away, or any number of things.
But the bottom line is, if he is in a position where he cannot make good value judgments, or, be objective, there are those around him to take the reigns and keep the ship on course until such time as the issue is resolved.

I love the Patriarch, and I am angry at those around him that did not do what needed to be done to help him through the deaths of his children and the results of his fall.

It is not love to do nothing, when something needs to be done.
It is not love to enable someone to stay on a course that is hurting them and those around them, it is called co-dependency and enabling, but it is not the work of love.
The enabler may truly love, but their love is trapped inside their inability to deal with themselves, therefore, it is not expressed and the results can, many times, be disaster.

Hopefully you understand what I am saying.

There is no hatred, dislike, or any of those things coming from our Dioceses as far as I know.

I wish knew the Patriarch personally, and if I did, my prayer is that I would love him enough to tell him, Your Grace, where you are right, your right, but where you are wrong, I love you enough to tell you, your wrong.

Hope this helps guy.

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

I would like to start a petition demanding an open, honest, public meeting/convention where these issues are discussed and broght to light. We simply can no longer allow a few select Bishops to keep us in the dark. Something that the leadership seems to have forgotten is that the laity is a full and equal order to the Episcopate, the Deaconate, and the Priesthood.
The laity must be faithful and demand accountability. We also entered into a covenant when we were confirmed and we have a responsiblity to act. I would like to see a petition from the laity formulated and circulated demanding accountability. After all it is our tithes, our support, our prayers and our order (the laity) that make up the majority of this church. We are the ones, primarialy that have been kept in the dark. Please email me with your input regarding this. I think that with the internet we(the laity) can make a difference. I belive a grass roots movement of the laity is necessary if our communion is to survive! Enough Talk -- action must ensue. I would suggest an all out campaign demanding accountability. Overload the email and snale male box of the patriarch and his council. Every layperson that has concern should flood the Pro-Cathedral with phone calls demanding total accountability.

Please understand that I support my Bishop 100% in his effort to bring things to light. I simply think the laity around the country can make a difference. Not only in supporting our Bishops who are demanding accountabiliy but by making our voice loud and clear!

I would love to hear the thoughts of others regarding this idea.

rhmotors@qwest.net

Tra Hall
Saint Clements CEC - Muleshoe, Texas

ALCON (All Concerned)
I updated my original comment. Please check for inaccuracies and incomplete thoughts.
VR,
Ken Follis

This is unfair. The Patriarch:

- Convened the House of Bishops in February with the sole purpose of fostering communication and reconciliation among the bishops. He allowed Bp Bates to chair the meeting, instead of himself. Supposedly the meeting concluded with all bishops confirming their unity and dedication to the ICCEC.

- Convened an emergency meeting to reassess the situation when Bp Fick and Great Lakes resigned. This is when reports of troubles in the Eastern Province were discussed and acted upon.

- Telephoned and traveled to Great Lakes to reconcile with Bp Fick and his Diocese. Apparently, he had limited success with the clergy.

- Telephoned and traveled to Eastern Province to discuss the situation and reconcile Abp Sly with the remaining clergy.

- Numerous other actions to which I am not privy.

The point is, he has been crisscrossing the country trying to put out fires. If we all calm down a bit and let him catch his breath, then maybe he will have a chance to respond. As it is, it seems to me like he is doing too much damage control to focus on anything else.

Dear Fr. Joel,

There is much on your post that I could comment about, but I don't have time at the moment.

However, the one thing that jumps out at me from what you've just said is this...

If Adler is really that busy running around the country doing damage control, then it stands to reason that there is a lot of damage to control. That, in and of itself, is of great concern. Someone earlier said that there is truth to the old statement, "where there is smoke, there is fire". If things were not terribly wrong within the CEC, there would be no need for damage control, at least not to this degree. Don't you agree that it's fairly problematic when you really stop and think about it?

Please think about this:

When Nero laughed about the damage caused by the fire in Rome, who did he end up blaming for the fire?

Many innocents died as a result.

Perhaps it is the other way around...who is really 'starting the fires?'

Start thinking logically and rationally instead of jumping to hapazard conclusions.

Otherwise some one you least expect may 'get burned.'

Compassion...be compassionate as your Father in Heaven is Compassionate.

Forgive...and ask our Lord to Forgive

Show us your mercy Lord!

The following seems appropriate at this time! (Thanks to a dear friend for forwarding it to me)

Words of encouragement from St Athanasius...to the early Christians of the 3rd century who had refused to accept the Arian heresy and whose church buildings were occupied by ecclesiastical leaders who had failed to uphold the Catholic Faith.

"May God console you! What saddens you is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises ... but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the faith? The true faith obviously. Who has lost and who has won this struggle ... the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...You are the one who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from apostolic tradition ... If a jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us back our churches some day. Thus the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Dear Nell from Texas,

Your words are kind and gentle and I agree with you in theory.

However, this situation is more than "haphazard conclusions" and forgiveness.

I am reminded of the story of Jesus at the well in Samaria. When the woman approached him and they discussed the living water, she asked him for this water so that she would not get thirsty again. He told her to get her husband and come back. She gave Jesus what we call today "spin". Instead of saying, "Well, Jesus, you see, I have really messed up. I've actually...", she said, "I have no husband". Was she really outright lying? Not technically, as she had been married 5 times and was living with someone to whom she was not married. Jesus knew that she was spinning her story. And what did He do? He held her accountable for her sin. He spoke out about the life she was living. He didn't sweep it under the rug or pretend not to know about it. He brought it into the light. Now, the scripture doesn't say that Jesus ever told her that she was forgiven. Of course, I believe that He certainly forgave her...IF she repented (turning from sin).

And so that is some of what we are dealing with in the CEC. We have leaders who absolutely need to be forgiven. But first, they need to held accountable for their sin. It needs to be brought into the light. And I know the hearts of many CEC members and clergy. They would forgive without question...but first there must be the admission of sin and true repentance. This is what Jesus asks of all of us.

What is happening within the CEC is well documented...and is very serious. You've read the posts I presume, so you know the issues. These aren't things to be taken lightly from ANY christian...and those who have been consecrated to be leaders have even higher standards to live up to.

Brigette:

I think you misunderstand: I am part of the CEC and I do know and understand perfectly what is going on and what has happened.

Also, I think you have it backwards: First you forgive...then find solutions.
It isn't up to you to fix things...it is up to God to do His will...not ours not the Leaders, not anyone elses will...God's Will be done.

That is why I urge everyone here and out there too to take a deep breath and in that breath to pray and even to forgive themselves for their own ill will or feelings concerning this and to allow our Lord to heal them too.

Yes, all in authority must be accountable. But so must we. Perhaps we all need to take some time to discover just what our true questions are....rather than run about in flames seek answers. What we write here is read by many...count us up...how many in comparison to the numbers out there reading but for reasons of their own are not speaking...

Brigette, we need to Wait for the Lord...it truly is His Battle...

We need to take time to slow down and be still and Let the Lord Speak.

Otherwise we are no better than those who have been accused.

blessings

nell

Fr Rusty,

Thanks for your response regarding the Patriarch. I realize he is not The Pope but he is our Patriarch and First Father. The Pope is the Patriarch of the West (even though they just recently stopped using that title).

What I asked was, at least what I meant was, what is the Biblical, Patristic, and Conciliar precedent for removing a Pope or Patriarch? I am not aware of any.

Part of my concern in asking this question comes from a different angle than where you are coming from. It is a theological question based on a theological concern regarding the question of a catholic identity problem in the CEC. If we are already having a problem of reversion back to a protestant mentality and worldview in terms of our vision, liturgical and sacramental practices, etc., then my concern is that we a re making just one more protestant error in how we deal with the issues facing our communion and setting up of yet another protestant precedent for removing a Patriarch when there are problems. It reminds me of the current movement in our politics where we vote a man into office then decide we dont like him and try to remove him. Its too easy of a solution for me, at least in this moment.

If we are truly catholic, then let us deal with our problems in a truly catholic manner. Thus, my question. Is there a Biblical, Patristic, Conciliar, and catholic precedent for removing the Patriarch? I am not aware of any. The Patriarch of Rome, good or bad, is still the Patriarch of Rome.

I am honestly trying to understand it; and I have a concern over making yet another protestant error. Maybe its not an error. But I am just as concerned about this as I am about everything else going on in our church. I have been reading and studying. I have made my own outline of every problem, issue, or allegation that I have seen. My list is quite lengthy. Much longer than Ken Follis's list I assure you. So, I assure you I am not taking this lightly but I still remain concerned about the catholic precedent for doing so.

I am concerned for the possible repurcussion for either course of action taken.

So, if you can help me understand from a catholic precedent, if there is one, I would appreciate it. I am honestly just trying to understand it. I agree that things must be done to ensure the health and longevity of our Church but I am not convinced at this point that removing the Patriarch is going to ensure the catholicicty of our Communion, as I have yet to see a catholic precedent for doing so. I fear it is just one more reversion back to a protestant worldview.

Respectfully,

Fr Aidan Hix+

Dear Fr Aidan: Excellent points, and, I too have great concerns about our Catholicity, not only in words, but in actions as well.

However, there is some difference in being Institutionally Roman Catholic and in being Universally Catholic, for instance, The Orthodox are catholic as well, however, they are not Roman Catholic, make sense?

Next: You are correct as far as I understand, A Pope “ generally” cannot be “removed” from Office, however, he may resign his office.

In looking at this one of the things I think we have to understand is that the Petrine office is seen very differently by Rome than by most other communions.

As they see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and as the final head of all the Church under Christ, there really would be no power on earth that could rightfully remove him, only Christ could do that, and, I suppose, they are trusting God completely in that matter.

However, in the past, by general conclave, Popes "have been" removed.
· Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[2]
It is not the norm, But we see that Popes have been removed, others have stepped down.

A Pope may resign, and several have in the past: Cannons 330 through 360 cover this I think.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but my understanding was that our Government was set up according to Acts, in the New Testament and according to the Orthodox model.
My understanding of Consensus Government leaves room for the Patriarch to be the first among equals, but does not allow for him to be the supreame judge in our communion.

And that he too is subject to the decisions of the whole counsel of the Church.
To my understanding this would be the the history of the cousels of the Church, whole House of Bishops, and not just the Patriarchs counsel.

I “think” if you look to the Orthodox model, you will find things a bit different, and much closer to what we were taught of our Government.
Look at the 85 Apostolic Cannons and see if you glean anything there.


Anyway, have to run, hope the info helps, and, I share your concerns, desire the hurt of no-one, just want things to be better, just want things to be right, open, and honest.
I do not expect anyone, anyone to be perfect, and I know there are always going to be issues and situations that are hard, but we need a way to take care of them.

Again I will state, I do not believe this has to be the end of our Communion, I do really, honestly believe that this could be the time that really helps to define us and helps us to move forward.

In HIM,
Fr. Rusty

First of all, many thanks to kenfolis for keeping up this list! It's really helpful to refer back to during the course of our conversations.

Some more clarifications:

Point #3: To the best of my knowledge, Abp Howard was never excommunicated. When the HOB discovered the full magnitude of the financial problems of the IDA, Abp Howard was called to account. He refused. Then, the HOB, recognizing a spiritual problem and trying to avoid the embarassment of an ecclesiastical trial, offered Abp Howard a paid sabbatical and recommended counseling. Instead, he walked out of the meeting and subsequently resigned.

The HOB initiated an audit of what was left of the IDA, and as far as I know it is ongoing and expected to take a couple of years. The IDA kept terrible records, and it was involved in the transfer of funds across numerous borders. The full account may never be known. The HOB could press legal charges to recover the money, but the expense of going to trial would not be worth the amount of money that could be recovered.

Abp Adler himself has not been audited. The audit of the IDA has shown that the ICCEC home office in San Clemente was not involved in the mismanagement of the IDA (which was the main fear, as that would have put the entire communion at legal risk). Abp Adler has owned up to the leadership failures that allowed this mismanagement to occur, and the HOB has been trying to implement a new financial infrastructure that will prevent such problems in the future.

Point #4: According to Abp Adler, Bp Fick's return was largely through his friendship with Abp Adler and the ability of the two men to work out their problems togther. The Foundation Day fund was not mentioned as an issue. Supposedly, though, Bp Fick was threatened with a lawsuit from a parishioner, who had donated some property to the CEC in care of Bp Fick's parish, and the parishioner did not want to see the property leave the CEC. That's the way I heard the story. Can anyone in the Great Lakes clarify?

Hi,

I am simply a layman in the Maryland diocese. Until about 3 weeks ago, I hadn't heard about any of the rumors or problems in the CEC. Then Bishop Zampino resigned and I found out more than I wanted . . . yet, I'm not here to share inside information. Even what little I know of recent events here in the Mid-Atlantic, which would seemingly explain much to many, I've been forbidden to share here, by the Lord, not by clergy. There are things that just don't belong being aired on the internet, and more importantly, I trust the Lord to give wisdom to the Patriarch and the House of Bishops to know how and when to explain things. I know that Archbishop Sly is coming to our parish, Holy Apostles, next week. I hope your bishops will pay similar visits to you to provide you with an opportunity to hear from them what's going on and to ask questions.

I've had two recent prophetic moments that I now understand better. These experiences have given me a peace about what's going on. I'll share them with you in the hope that they may also speak to you.

First, a few months ago during a sermon by Bishop Zampino who was visiting our parish, I saw a vision, something that is unsual for me. I saw a bare tree. No leaves or fruit were on it and the few branches on it were very short and cropped. Even the background behind the tree looked barren. I thought it was dead at first, but then I heard the Lord speak and he said, "Look closer. It's not dead, it's just been pruned to prepare it for it's future." I noticed that it indeed was cut back deliberately and it was very much alive. I thought at the time that the vision was a symbol of our local parish, but the Lord brought it back to my mind as applying to these recent events and the CEC as a whole.

The second moment I wanted to share was simply a prophetic word that the Lord gave me 2 weeks ago during service. Again, at the time, I thought it was for one or more of the congregation, but Father Jim Ball (my rector) took it to apply to the recent events, and I now concur. Here are the key points from that word: "The Peace of the Lord, which you exchange each week is not just a greeting, it is a grace, a work of the Spirit that is exchanged as you bless one another with the Peace of Christ. Take it seriously, for you need His Peace in this hour. His Peace, which surpasses all understanding. His Peace will sustain you and see you through the trials and difficulties ahead. Don't be afraid. Do not fear the future. For if you knew what I had in store for you, you would rejoice greatly. Trust me and receive my Peace."

For those of you asking if the CEC is dying, it is not. Just as with my vision, the tree is being pruned, not cut down. And I don't think the pruning is done yet, but once it is, I look forward to the future of the CEC. God birthed the CEC for a purpose which is still ahead of it. Years from now, those of us who remain will look back on this time as a painful, but necessary time of transition. Until then, I urge patience and much prayer. There is much work ahead for this fledgling Communion, we'll need the unity of the Spirit and the bonds of love to move into the future together. I look forward to the adventure we have in store for us.

God bless you!

David Bowerman
dlbowerman@yahoo.com

Yes -- we are under the direct assault of Satan, who is seeking to divide us and confuse our language. But our leaders are not asleep at the helm: they are fighting back on all fronts and could use our patience, truthfulness, and prayer support.

"Where there is smoke, there is fire" may be a good wake up call to problems in the Communion, but in and of itself it is not justification for schism nor calls for resignation. The only justification would be evidence of gross deliberate mortal sin, or outright ongoing deliberate heresy. I have yet to see evidence of either.

The Patriarch's account of his trip to Rome can be found here and here.

(http://kennethtanner.typepad.com/signsofreconciliation/files/FirstPlenarySession.doc)
(http://kennethtanner.typepad.com/signsofreconciliation/files/SecondPlenarySession.doc)

These are transcripts of Thursday's and Friday's morning informal sessions during the 2004 Convocation in Manila. If you read them thoroughly, you will see that the above statement of Point 11 has next to no correspondence with Abp Adler's actual experience.

Dear Fr. Joel: I guess it is going to depend on what your definitions of heresy and the like are.

What one believes are Mortal sins, so forth and so on.

If, and I say if, we have been ex-communicated from the Brazilian line due to being Covenant breakers, this is very bad business indeed.

As I understand scripture, breaking Covenant is considered a pretty bad deal.

I am not trying to stir up the woodpile, man, I want this fixed as bad as anyone.

However, if I knowingly lead the sheep under my direct care into the lion’s den to be destroyed, I am worse than a lawbreaker, and it would have been better to never have been born.

This is why it is important for all these things to get fixed.
I am telling people this is a good place to be, if it is not, then I am a liar.

There was a time I knew nothing of these issues, so when I said this is a good place to be, it was honest.

Now, what do we tell new people?
Do we tell them to come here, that this is stable, that we are doing well, that our government works well.

You know what my prayer is, my prayer is that after the fall HOB, I can tell people that, I hope to be able to tell everyone, I am so proud of our Bishops and our Communion, we have faced the enemy, we have faced adversity, and we have come up to the task, we have weathered a great storm, and we have a great ship.

That’s what I desire with all my heart.

However, I will not say it if it is not true.

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

Praying for our Bishops, praying for us all.

The meetings that Bishop Zampino held provided no hard facts, just a series of generalizations and innuendos that came across as rather alarmist. This prompted a number of the clergy to initiate their own fact-checking investigations. When the results of their inquiries painted a different picture than the one Bishop Zampino was presenting, they asked for clarification from San Clemente.

There was no "bad-mouthing", at least not in my presence -- just a number of loyal, dedicated men wondering why their Bishop was trying to lead them into schism when there was no "clear and present danger". They saw a problem and took definitive action -- one cannot accuse them of being indecisive.

This is not to say that there are not hurt feelings, confusion, and a bit of emotion remaining that we are all trying to work through. The men of the Diocese are like my brothers, and it is very painful to admit that we are now separated. Fortunately, we are all still close on a personal basis, and there continue to be mutual expressions of affection and friendship between us. I've been blessed to share Eucharist numerous times with two of my separated brethren, and there is no animosity between us.

This is a difficult situation we find ourselves in, Bridgette, but with God's grace we will persevere through it.