Thought this might be helpful
[QUOTE]
List of Allegations Regarding the Current ICCEC Crisis
Including Substantiations and Refutations
Originally complied by Ken Follis
Currently Maintained by RoaringOasis
An opening note from Ken Follis:
So is it over for the ICCEC? This appears to be a chapter closing in my own history. With
all the confusion, I am not sure why it is unraveling. However it seemed to have been "wool
sewed to silk" from the beginning so I am not too surprised just saddened since I know so many
whose careers and faiths are now in jeopardy. My own spiritual history has been tied to the CEC.
Bridgette said it best, “Many people believed very strongly in the original vision of the CEC. Many
left other jobs and other denominations that they had devoted their lives to and sacrificed
everything because they believed so strongly in this vision. These leaders, these men, were a
band of brothers. I remember my Bishop saying with awe how amazing it was to worship behind
the altar with these holy men. To be betrayed by your leaders, your fellow bishops, your
clergy...and by betrayal, I mean mostly, the throwing away of the original foundations, beliefs,
morals, ethics, doctrines, etc. To believe that you were worshiping Jesus in a way that the men
beside you agreed with and then to find them mismanaging money, teaching things contrary to
the doctrine and theology that you came together with, to see drunkenness and sexual
misconduct among those ‘men of God’ is so incredibly sad. And then, when you confront them
with the hope of confession and healing, to be told that you are the one with the problem...well, it
is a big deal. The CEC may be small, and shrinking more every day, but some of the men who
helped to found this church are men of great character... to find that what you felt called to has
morphed into something else entirely different brings great pain. I hope this helps you to
understand the outpouring of grief you see here.” --Ken
Here are what seem to be the charges from the Per Christum blog and elsewhere:
Notes:
- A revision log can be found at the bottom of this document.
(Disclaimer: These appear to be charges of active and inactive clergy and laity in the ICCEC.
However many are, so far, unsubstantiated and speculative at best. The sources were usually
anonymous or were posted under a pseudonym. Both the accused and the accuser will have the
burden of proof for their defense. It is up to each of us to judge the evidence and fulfill the
Biblical mandate of knowing the prophet by his fruit. Additionally, we are to speak the truth in
love, bear the burden of all and judge with great mercy. These are issues that should probably be
discussed with our priests and bishops.)
1. The most serious charge is that there has been so little growth in the ICCEC on a
local, national and international level that God must have removed His blessing
upon the communion. They charge there is no growth because there is no life.
2. A very serious charge is that there is no life because of all illicit and “some” invalid
orders: The actual principal consecrator of Adler was Timothy Michael Barker of the
"International Free Catholic Communion". Barker was himself consecrated by Spruit and
Spruit's wife. Neither Spruit nor Barker can reasonably be recognized as Apostolic or
Christian bishops. Their "apostolic succession" derived from an early branch of the Old
Catholic movement in England but quickly digressed out of Old Catholicism into the
theosophist and the occult. Melton's "Encyclopedia of American Religions" listed Spruit's
"Church of Antioch" among the listings for Gnostic and occult 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. However, it is doubtful that the laity and much of the clergy
had any idea how serious the problem was. Canon Theologian David Zampino
discovered the problem during my own research in seminary in 1997 -- and was ordered
under obedience not to discuss his research. He and his wife were at the point of leaving
the CEC in November of 1997, when the Brazilian Consecrations happened. He decided
-- with the concurrence of a Catholic priest with whom he had been working -- that he
needed to stay and see how things panned out. Former ICCEC Canon Theologian
David Zampino writes, “The 1992 ‘consecration’ of Adler was ‘performed’ by an
individual who was (at the time) a leading occultist/ astrologist in the United States.
(‘Independent Bishops: An International Directory). His consecrator was himself
consecrated by a female occultist. (Melton’s "Encyclopedia of American Religions"). The
persons involved in Adler's consecration were highly suspect, at best. The CEC was well
aware of this fact, as it was a major matter for discussion at the first national convocation
in Kansas City in 1994. When I discovered this research during the summer of 1997, I
was told by my bishop at the time to be silent under ‘holy obedience’. I was at the point of
leaving the CEC in November of 1997 until we received the Brazilian Succession. I will
state categorically, on the basis of my own research and the limited research that the
CEC actually did do prior to the Brazilian Consecration that the Brazilian Consecration
was absolutely necessary. From June of 1992 until November 1997 there was no valid
apostolic succession in the CEC. This means there were no valid ordinations,
consecrations, Eucharist or Confirmations. I was ordained deacon prior to the Brazilian
Consecration yet I recognized my conditional ordination six weeks after the Brazilian
Consecration in order to attest to the validity of my ordination vows and sacraments”
(David Zampino, please forgive my compilation and paraphrase). He continued, “Now,
the CEC faces the very same issue. The Brazilian Succession only works and is valid
when the bishops of the CEC actually keep their promises regarding use of proper form.
This is an issue with which the CEC needs to deal. There is thereby a charge that many
clergy escaped the notice of their bishops. However, in order to be valid, a sacrament
must include proper matter, proper form, and proper intent. ‘Matter’ means the actual
material used for the sacramental rite. For example, the matter used for the sacrament of
Baptism is water. You can't use champagne, fuel oil, or rose petals. The matter for the
sacrament of the Eucharist is wheat bread and grape wine. You can't use Doritos and
Pepsi. The matter for anointing, confirmation, and ordination is oil. You can't use
strawberry jam. This is not being legalistic and pharisaical rather it is following the
prescription of Sacred Scripture and 2000 years of Church Tradition. Proper form means
performing the sacred rite in the proper fashion -- i.e. how such has been received by the
Church. For example, the ‘form’ in baptism requires the words ‘I baptize you in the Name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’. You can't say ‘Creator, Redeemer,
and Sanctifier’. You can't use ‘Jesus Name’ only. Again, this is not legalism -- it is reality,
just as the President, when he is being inaugurated, says the Oath of Office. If he were to
stand up and recite the words of ‘Itsy Bitsy Spider’ the Oath would not be valid. During
the time of the English Reformation, certain theologians (Cranmer, for instance)
deliberately removed from the Rite of Ordination certain prayers which emphasized the
special nature of the priesthood. He did the same with the text of the Eucharistic prayer.
This is why neither Rome NOR the East recognizes the validity of Anglican ordinations or
Eucharist. This is why the Brazilians insisted on correct ‘form’ when they came to
Maryland in 1997 for the consecration service. This was not to be ‘legalistic’ -- rather it
was to make sure that very real deficiencies were remedied. It was also so the ICCEC
could make the claim to truly be part of the Undivided Church. This is why it grieves me
to no end when CEC bishops discard and set at naught what they have been given, and
go back to using rites which are at best, incomplete. Finally, there is the question of
‘intent’. Does the person exercising the Sacrament have the ‘intent’ to ‘do what the
Church has always done’? Does the person ‘intend’ to legitimately baptize? Does the
priest ‘intend’ to confer the Sacrament of the Eucharist? Does the bishop ‘intend’ to
confer Holy Orders in the manner in which the Church has received them? If the ‘intent’ is
proper, there should be no questions about matter and form -- because the correct matter
and form would have been used. Therefore, when the correct matter and form are NOT
used, it is perfectly legitimate to call ‘intent’ into question.” Another ICCEC priest states,
“I was ordained priest by one of the five bishops who were consecrated by the three
Brazilian prelates who came to Maryland for that purpose in 1997. The Rite used was the
Roman Ordinal -- making the proper and appropriate adjustments for the needs of the
CEC. The specific prayers which separate the Roman Ordinal from the Book of Common
Prayer on the nature of the priesthood were included. Note that the Brazilians are not in
communion with Rome -- yet they find that the language of the Roman Ordinal is
necessary and appropriate in order to convey the proper ‘form’ for the Rite. At the time,
the leadership in the CEC recognized its own deficiencies, and took steps to correct
them. This was an act of great humility. The five bishops consecrated by the Brazilians
were then supposed to convey that consecration to their fellows. To the best of my
knowledge, they did so. The bishops were then supposed to convey the Apostolic
Succession to their priests and deacons. Some bishops were very intentional about this,
while others minimized it greatly. This caused some confusion among the priests and
deacons (and some of the laity) as to why the rite had taken place at all. What the CEC
probably should have done at the time was to prepare a denomination-wide statement as
to what had been done, what was being done, what needed to be done, and why. But
that's water under the bridge at this point. However, the Brazilian bishops expected --
and had every right to expect -- that the leadership in the CEC would continue to follow in
the grace of what they had been given. In some dioceses this has been the case. In other
dioceses, this has NOT been the case. I know of one CEC bishop who has reverted back
to the ordination service in the BCP. I know of another CEC bishop who ordered his
archdeacon -- under pain of obedience -- to re-write the service -- taking out all of the
‘blood and guts’ (the sacrifice language relating to the nature of the priesthood). This is
why, in the CEC today; there is a wide range from ‘definitely validly ordained’ to
‘questionable validity’ to ‘doubtful validity’ to ‘definitely NOT validly ordained’.”
3. There is the issue of the CEC being ex-communicated by the Brazilian Apostolic
Catholic Church and what that exactly entails. Many want an explanation on this
and some are wondering if it can be resolved. The ICCEC has supposedly been
excommunicated by the ICAB. Some suspect that it is mostly a territorial dispute brought
about by the reception of the parish in Recife, Brazil. It is reported that the ICAB itself
has been trying to branch out into the US, with limited success, and the ICAN seems to
be their chosen organization and not the ICCEC. Supposedly the ICCEC had an
agreement with Brazil, upon which the Brazilian Consecration was contingent. The
agreement said, essentially, that in CEC ordinations of priests and in CEC consecrations
of bishops, specific ordination rites would be used, in order to perpetuate the authentic
Catholic line of Apostolic Succession. The ICCEC agreed to do so. However, it is
reported that some dioceses in the ICCEC have not kept their promise. This has been a
major part of the problem.
4. Many charge that Adler has jettisoned the CEC from its original mission: “The
original vision of the CEC was so ‘right on’...the convergence of the three streams. How
wonderful to be able to worship in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, have true Bible reading
and sermons that teach biblical principles, all within the framework of Liturgy. However,
over the past several years, the top leaders within the Communion have altered the
vision. The CEC, in many diocese, has reverted back to a Pentecostal church and the
leaders are actually beginning to remove those things which made the church liturgical,
such as vestments, the Creed, the Confession, dialog with other denominations and
many other things that the ICCEC.Org website still maintains as the doctrine of the
church. Part of the problem is that the doctrine is uncertain. No one, from the
Archbishops down, truly knows what the CEC believes. That's not too uncommon for a
new communion, but the CEC has been around since 1992...long enough for there to be
consensus about theology and doctrine. There is also great concern that the leaders
have become involved in the Jesus as Lover teachings that originated out of Kansas City.
And that seems to be all that has been preached for the past three years. That is
problematic. The CEC seems to be imploding. Several bishops were deposed. Several
more have recently resigned. Many parishes have left the communion...and more will
soon follow. The shaking in the church is tremendous right now. And depending which
diocese you are worshiping in, you may not be seeing any of this. Another part of the
problem...there is no consistency in teaching or theology from diocese to diocese. I
believe that many clergy (priest/deacons) in the CEC are Men of God and may not be
aware of all that is transpiring. However, those at the top are very well aware of the
problems going on. I would encourage you to wait to join. Things may settle down and
changes may take place. However, I doubt it seriously. Most of the good men in
leadership have left and those still remaining are taking this communion down a very
strange and rocky path. Just pray for the church and wait to see how things turn out. I
know that, unless the leadership currently in place steps down, I will never be a member
of the CEC again.” (Thanks Bridgette) Another member wrote, “The CEC was originally
supposed to be a 'bridge' community... I feel betrayed. I am still trying to journey to the
truth of the early church, where ever that leads. The local parish I am connected to is still
trying to understand where they go next...Frankly that is the question we would like
answered by House of Bishops. At what point did they decide that money and power was
more important than the journey toward God in the original vision? They have taken all I
have to give and have left me with nothing!”
5. Others have suggested Patriarch Adler may have both sexual and financial
indiscretions for which the HOB is seeking to keep under wraps. It is possibly this
non-disclosure that has so many angry and has divided the house. They want a full
disclosure of all the issues concerning the Howard/ Constantino fiasco, the audit of the
Patriarch and the IDA and to have a full explanation since excommunicating a bishop, the
resigning of other bishops and even more appalling, the calling for the resignation of the
CEC founder by one of the two most senior bishops, Bishop Kenneth Myers, are no small
matters. Bishop Ken has issued an additional letter as has Bishop Painter calling for the
Patriarch to step down- not just to take a sabbatical, but to step down. (For more
information see Singing Claymore's post) It is alleged that Bishop Hines has also asked
for Adler to step aside, whether that means to resign as Patriarch or to take a sabbatical,
it remains unclear. It is also alleged that Adler is addicted to alcohol and/ or pain
medication.
[Partial Refutation] It was initially reported that Bishop Lipka “asked for Adler to step
aside”. The Dean of Bp. Lipka's Cathedral contacted Ken Follis sometime after the initial
allegation was made, to refute the claim, stateing: “Bishop Lipka has not made such a
request in regards to Abp. Adler.”
[Partial Confirmation] “Bishop Costantino told me directly in July of 2005 that it was
believed by him and others that then Bishop Howard had misappropriated and or
embezzled a huge amount of money from the IDA. That he--Costantino--had loaned a
large sum of money to bail Howard out of a prior crisis and Adler had guaranteed the
payment, and that Howard had defaulted and the national church was therefore repaying
the debt to him. That Howard had "hit on" numerous churches within his province for
loans that were not being repaid. He said the Patriarch's Council was going to demand a
forensic audit of the IDA and if Howard refused, he would be deposed and Bp Jones
made Abp of the Southeast Province. (All this came true a few months later.) He also
said that the Patriarch was addicted to controlled substances which he was illegally
obtaining and would be asked to go into rehab and take a sabbatical for a year and Sly
would serve as Interim Primate. [This has not come true, but may explain the Patriarch's
alleged behavior and the actions herein described of other bishops.]” (Verified source,
wishes to remain anonymous.)
6. Others have charged Adler with misguided leadership, improper conduct and
overemphasis on the charismatic stream of the Convergence Movement and his
"Mike Bickle/ IHOP" adaptation for the mission of the CEC in place of the
Convergence Movement. Adler's continued teaching of the Solomon Canticle's
"Jesus as Lover" has contributed to dissent in his local parish. However, one guest
wrote, "I've listened to most of the Patriarch's sermons for the past year or so, and can
unequivocally say that he's preached on lots of topics and different scriptures. Saying that
he's constantly and exclusively preaching on the Song of Solomon is just not true. If
you're interested in truth, perhaps someone could take the time to document how many
sermons he's preached and in how many he mentions the Song of Solomon so you have
facts rather than continually repeat this misnomer."
- Also, In Manila many were upset that Alder supposedly didn't have the other bishops
speak but centered the limelight on himself and sought to downplay the Catholic, liturgical
stream of the CEC by wearing blue jeans and a leather jacket. Some have suggested he
believes that “making visible a void” through vestments no longer applies.
[Refutation] Regarding Apparel: While Archbishop Adler did wear jeans and leather
jacket during the Plenary sessions (casual worship/teaching sessions), both eyewitness
statements and photos of all three evening services confirm that he did indeed wear
vestments for both the homily and the Divine Liturgy. Photos can be found at
Kenneth Tanner's blog and Fr. Jack Lumanog's manila photo album.
7. It is reported, “Perhaps the most tragic indicator of Adler’s delusional thinking is
the following issue which has been confirmed by three sources: Patriarch Adler
has told numerous individuals of a revelation the Lord has given him. Supposedly
God has shown him that his wife, Betty, is going to die and that an ICCEC priest in
his diocese is going to die as well. He has stated that God has supposedly
instructed him to marry the priest’s wife when this occurs. He knows which priest
and he carries a picture of his future wife in his wallet for which he has shown
several individuals. One former ICCEC priest alleges that God has shown Adler
the home he is to buy and live in as well.”
8. Adler is charged with teaching an extreme view of Christian Bridal Mysticism,
plagiarizing and disregarding the Lectionary: Adler has been preaching on Christian
Bridal Mysticism for several years causing some to question his theology and/ or mental
stability. The "Song of Solomon" teaching (which seems to have originated in Kansas
City) has reportedly represented the majority of what has been preached in many areas.
Some have stated that whenever such an unbalance in teaching and preaching occurs,
typically correction is necessary. It appears as an exaggeration of a questionable
teaching. The issue of Adler continually preaching on the Song of Solomon is another
distressing reminder of bishops who claim to be catholic but will not submit to the Sunday
lectionary in their preaching. In the early days of the ICCEC, the Sunday lectionary was
part of the prayer of the church and fostered preaching the whole council of God and not
the agenda of the individual bishop. Bishops and priests who won't submit to this policy
with some occasional exceptions further exemplify an independent ego spirit that
characterizes much of the CEC dilemma. The historic churches pray the prayer of the
church by submitting to the lectionary and not to their own agendas. Furthermore, some
accuse Adler of taking credit for these teachings on the Song of Solomon and even the
Prophesy of the Tsunami comes from Bishop Jones of Selma, Alabama. Although Adler
mentions Jones in his plenary addresses, he takes credit that the words came to him and
hence were "brought forth to the Communion from him."
(http://kennethtanner.typepad.com/signsofreconciliation/files/FirstPlenaryS
ession.doc and
http://kennethtanner.typepad.com/signsofre...es/SecondPlenarySession.doc) Every Sunday, Bishop Jones is reportedly instructed to record his
sermons on the Song of Solomon, (which by the way he has been teaching for almost
four years each Sunday as well) and immediately mail to Adler who then preached them
in San Clemente and to the Communion.
9. The charge of the San Clemente “New Rome” Vision: The Patriarch’s account of his
trip to Rome can be found here and here. These are transcripts of Thursday's and
Friday's morning informal sessions during the 2004 Convocation in Manila.
(http://kennethtanner.typepad.com/signsofreconciliation/files/FirstPlenaryS
ession.doc
http://kennethtanner.typepad.com/signsofre...es/SecondPlenar ySession.doc) It is a vision of Christ, kneeling on the dirty floor of a garden, eternally
praying that men--to whom he'd granted free will--would turn their wills to His Father's.
There was nothing said about keys, nothing that would suggest some granting of
authority. There was the Patriarch’s statement that someone’s speculation, not his own
per se, was there. He said, “Immediately, someone said, ‘I know what’s going to happen.
The mantle of God’s authority is going to pass from Rome to San Clemente, because that
church you’re going to is actually called San Clemente.’ And then there were these
visions the people had of golden scepters being handed and authority passed. There was
just a lot of room to speculate.” Many are requesting Adler to state explicitly if he
himself thinks he received a scepter, keys, authority or a mantle before, during or
after kissing the ground below St Peter’s altar? There are emphatic statements in
Adler’s sermons accusing many at the Vatican with Pharisee-ism. Based on his first
message, his experience there inspired him to begin to downplay the original mandate of
the ICCEC to “make visible a void” through vestments, sacraments and sacramental
items. In his sermon, he states,” It’s very easy to pick up on the spirit over the city of
Rome, especially at the Vatican. This is the city where people are crazy and mad for
power, authority and control...They all kneel and kiss the Pope’s ring and say, ‘Yes, Your
Holiness,’ then they go on and do what they want to do...You can only get so close, and
the tour guides are going through, and the power hungry men were strutting around like
four-star generals, pushing people out of their way because they were so important. ..I
had a sense of an old fisherman (referring to St. Peter). He was so embarrassed that we
were there. He was so embarrassed by what the Church had become. We just sensed
his overwhelming shame. It was so hard for him to see what the Church had become.”
The reported consensus of those who heard him, understand him to say, “Jesus and St
Peter are not happy with the Roman Catholic Church just as Jesus was not pleased with
the Jews in the Temple who had turned His house into a den of thieves.” That house
was replaced in 33 AD and destroyed in 70 AD. Likewise the implication was in some
people’s minds that the Cathedral of Rome was or is to be replaced by the Cathedral of
San Clemente. Thus, the ICCEC would replace the Roman Catholic Church. According
to the words of Adler in Manila, Bishop Lipka (a former Roman Catholic priest who
forsook his vows to the Vatican) is the one who prophesied to Adler to go meet the Lord
face- to- face at St Clemente’s parish in Rome. He was to go to St Peter’s Basilica and
kiss the crypt of St Peter at which time the revelation would be complete. What the full
revelation was is forthcoming apparently. Many in the ICCEC are asking for a full
detailed account of what Alder and the HOB believe in this regard. Lipka told Adler that
he would see more than Moses saw. Some suspect Adler to think of himself as a new
Moses leading Protestant and Catholics into the new spiritual Promise Land; thus why he
fasted 80 days rather than only 40 days as Moses. Some have accused the Patriarch of
becoming increasingly a megalomaniac. One person’s observed, “The Patriarch endured
a difficult time during this period of which he alludes to in his remarks in Manila as well.
But like an earlier poster said everything that he spoke of always centered on ‘I and Me’
and what God had shown him personally. Even in the comments of the ‘white martyrs’ he
speaks only of the losses to him personally, yet there were many in the CEC who also
lost faithful, God fearing and loving family members who would have to be included in
that word as well.” Other speculations and innuendos throughout the ICCEC have been
that Adler had been spiritually given the keys in the basement of St. Peter's. Mike
Davidson is reported to have detailed Adler's vision in Rome indicating there was of a
"transfer of authority" and that somehow San Clemente was the "New Rome". Davidson's
description is understood to be anti-Catholic in the extreme. One person wrote, “Maybe
Davidson misunderstood what Adler said or meant -- but in many places, the
misunderstanding is what is being held up as accurate.” Supposedly Adler has told the
story in radically different ways to different people and congregations. There are
reportedly numerous accounts from reputable sources within the CEC of what Adler was
sharing. This led some to suspect that he was delusional attributing it to his time of
extreme trial with the recent tragic deaths of his stepdaughter, grandson, and unborn
granddaughter in an automobile accident. The Patriarch had not stepped down or taken
a sabbatical during this time of trial and continued to lead the movement. This is a fault
aimed by some at the HOB although he does indeed bear responsibility for what has thus
transpired. There is a report that Adler had suffered a fall in California and suffered head
trauma and a broken arm. Certainly this could have led to delusional thinking. A full
medical and psychological report is requested by some in the ICCEC. Some suspect that
subsequent medications have also attributed to his irrational behavior.
10.Supposedly Bishop Lipka is also reported to have prophesied nearly ten years ago
that the Rock of Rome would split and the Vatican would sit in San Clemente. This
coupled with a reported vision given to Adler and his subsequent interpretation that
somehow Jesus had placed a mantle on Patriarch Adler which would replace the Petrine
See has caused some to question Adler's mental state. Perhaps Lipka's prophesy and
Adler's full disclosure and his own interpretation of the revelations of the vision in print
would bring clarity.
11.There are numerous charges of charismatic and liturgical abuses by clergy and
laity: They also allege that the charismatic gifts are abundantly abused throughout the
communion and that “Giddiness is equated to Godliness." Specifically the Prophetic
ministry has been abused where unchecked prophets speak thinking, “If I have
envisioned it mentally it most certainly is the word of God!” Some have alleged there are
many self-appointed "prophets" in the ICCEC. One former CEC Canon priest stated,
“Certainly the charismatic ‘stream’ was beginning to be given a more prominent place
than the evangelical and certainly more than the liturgical. I believe the liturgical became
easier to dismiss as ‘law-like’ and ‘unyielding’ and at times it found itself in some conflict
with the charismatic in the eyes of the leadership. Understand, I feel there is no conflict
between the two (liturgy and charismatic) and certainly no conflict between all three
(including the evangelical) but let's face it, it is the charismatic that is alleged to bring
‘freedom’ and ‘release’ while the liturgical is easier to be thought of as ‘rigid’ and ‘binding’.
When the CEC, at least in my Diocese, was drifting into what was called the ‘tsunami’ as
well as the overkill teachings on the Song of Solomon it seemed that the Liturgical aspect
of our worship was deemed as ‘in the way’ of what was apparently recognized as a new
move of God. The creed, the Prayers of the People, a full consecration of the Eucharist,
the confession of sin and the absolution became things that were removed or skirted
altogether in the service, while time for personal prophetic words, visions, and one hour
to hour and a half sermons based on ‘The Song of Solomon’ took precedence. This
continued in our Diocese for three years and probably still goes on there today. The
reality was this: all we became in our services were ‘vested charismatic’. I think that is
what you hear in Adler's words in Manila in a roundabout way. The charismatic seemed
more exciting, and let's face it with the walls of the CEC crumbling around him;
excitement would certainly have been viewed as better than form.” Another priest noted,
“Truth is- so much was going on and since so little accountability was required about who
prophesied what, who got and gave what word or vision, when it was given, etc., all the
words and visions ‘just kept on coming’ and no one stepped back and questioned the
validity of all these so called ‘God said’ things, or if they did, like myself and many others,
they were dismissed and labeled as trouble makers, in-grates, disloyal, etc. So many just
shut up and in many cases they left.” One CEC priest [now former] states, “I believe that we
worship an all powerful God who can interrupt His own liturgy and we do not worship
liturgy.” While many agree God could, apparently many in the ICCEC believe that far too
many priests have interpreted their own whims with God’s will. They have reported that
they were distracted from the Christo-centric nature of the liturgy where Christ meets
them as All-sufficient in the Sacrament of Eucharist. They report sensing that, although
the priest stands in persona Christi, some of the ICCEC priests believe that the
Sacrament of the Priesthood is equal or superior to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
12.The Tsunami Prophesy and the ensuing Prophetic frenzy in the ICCEC is assailed
as a contributor to the ICCEC turmoil: In late 2003, Prophet/ Bishop Chuck Jones
prophesied of a Tsunami coming. Patriarch Adler spoke of this in the fall of 2004 at the
Manila Convocation. In Dec. 2004, a Great Tsunami hit South Asia which some believed
was a fulfillment of the prophecy. This event confirmed the ICCEC and Adler and Jones
in the minds of some. Although they both spoke in spiritual terms, a common
understanding among those in the Charismatic, Latter Rain, and Personal Prophesy
movements is this: “First the natural, then the spiritual” (a loose rendering of 1 Cor.
15:46). To some ICCEC members, mainly those from the Charismatic stream, this event
granted credence to the ICCEC and Patriarch Adler. It appears to have catapulted the
ICCEC into a “prophetic frenzy” which had been stirring for some years prior. One
ICCEC priest wrote, “In regard to the ‘tsunami’, I think Bishop Jones was right, a ‘tsunami’
was coming, but it was not the CEC anointing impacting the earth that he and some of
the Bishops had assumed with some degree of arrogance. Rather it is the ‘great storm’
that has now hit the CEC and is blowing it to smithereens.” Another member stated, “I
just finished reading Bishop Adler's address at the 2004 Convocation, and I have come to
some important conclusions. My own bishop has been quoting this tsunami ‘word’ at
length, but I'd never read the original prophecy”. Adler said, “At the end of last year
(2003), Bp. Chuck Jones had a vision of a tidal wave hitting the earth. In his vision, the
Lord said to Him, ‘It is time for a tsunami anointing.’ He said that a tsunami anointing is
like a tsunami wave: it changes the landscape dramatically and permanently, and is
spoken of in the future as an important part of the people’s history--it affects the people
for generations and they are forever associated with this event. People who are not
warned of tsunamis and prepared for one can be destroyed." This person continued, “I
am struck by how right this word is, but not in the way that Adler (or my bishop) thought.
Indeed a tidal wave/storm has hit the CEC, changing the landscape dramatically and
permanently. In fact, it is desiccating it, dispersing people everywhere throughout our
communion.” “It is an important part of the people's history ...’ Indeed it is! We are living
through an amazing, devastating, yet hopeful time in the CEC. I believe that the CEC as
we know it is no more. And those of us who were fortunate enough to have been a part of
its history have been blessed and at the same time disillusioned by it. Waves displace
people. Sometimes they destroy them. Let's not allow ourselves to be destroyed! Our
church may be gone very soon. But if this tidal wave is from the Lord, it must be for our
good. I believe the Lord is calling us all home to Rome... the Catholic Church has the
authority that we so desperately need! It's not a perfect place; it's filled with imperfect
people, as the recent scandals in the Catholic Church will attest. But at least we can
know that it was founded by our own precious Jesus -- "You are PETER, and upon this
rock I will build my church." If we've learned nothing else from all this, I think we at least
can agree that a solid, Christ-ordained authority is what is desperately needed. The fact
is there's no other place that we can put our trust. Bishop Adler said a tsunami "affects
the people for generations and they are forever associated with this event." I for one am
ready to be forever associated with this event. I am choosing to embrace it, and allow
myself to ride this wave to the one place I believe Jesus has set apart for us: The Rock
which stands, firm amidst the waves ...I'm going home.”
13.There is the charge by the SC Diocese that certain of the Patriarch’s behaviors
have directly led to a breakdown of trust in the House of Bishops and the
fragmentation of the unity of the C.E.C.: It is reported that Bishop Painter and Bishop
Ken Myers and his whole diocese have asked for the resignation of Bishop Adler. There
are reasons known only to them while they do state, "We believe that certain of the
Patriarch’s behaviors have directly led to a breakdown of trust in the House of Bishops
and the fragmentation of the unity of the C.E.C.". An entire Diocese has written a letter to
the Patriarch, standing behind their Bishop, asking for truth, repentance 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. Many are asking for a specification of
the nature of the allegations against the Patriarch. Bishops have already told their clergy
men the specifics. “Additionally some lay persons have been made aware of the reported
incident. The bishop has sent an additional letter as has Bp. Painter calling for the
Patriarch to step down and not to take a sabbatical. They reportedly can no longer trust
him. (Their letters have been posted either on this or the Per Christum site)
14.The Bishop’s Council is accused of fundamental dishonesty having lied about not
having received Bishop Ken Myer’s letter requesting the Patriarch to resign: At the
Thursday, June 22nd meeting, the question was asked directly if anyone in leadership
had written a letter calling for the Patriarch to step down. The answer "no" was given.
Such a letter had been written and submitted -- and the Patriarch's Council reportedly
knew this and lied. Additionally, no one has answered one ICCEC member’s questions,
“Was Adler asked at the meeting on the 22nd if anyone had made a formal, written
request for his resignation? If so, what was his answer? “
15.Others accuse the Patriarch of abusing liturgical norms set by the ICCEC. He is
reported to have walked out during Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral, allowing for the
constant disregard for the Sacraments and the altar by allowing the untrained youth of his
congregation to “perform” the liturgy and to often disregard appropriate vestments.
(Some admit it is no big problem except if you are worshiping God).
16.A few have assessed that the IDA fiasco lead to the breakdown of the trust in the
ICCEC. There is a charge that the IDA had been mismanaged by the director prior to
Howard but it was Howard and a four year long allegation against him of a
mismanagement of funds which went uninvestigated which began the downfall of trust.
Bishop Constantino and Bishop Howard quarreled over the money causing much of the
controversy. It appears Bishop Adler and Bishop Howard may have mismanaged funds
that contributed to the controversy. There was a reported cover-up and Bishop Howard
was confronted and left the CEC and now "pastors" The Chapel at Jacksonville. Bishop
Adler is reportedly being audited. During this time many clergy exited the CEC. Last year,
Bishop Constantino passed away. It is reported that Archbishop Howard was never
excommunicated. It was reported by one priest that finally 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
embarrassment 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. He
additionally reports that Abp Adler himself has not been audited. He stated that the audit
of the IDA has shown that the ICCEC home office in San Clemente was not involved in
the mismanagement of the IDA. This was the main fear, as that would have put the
entire communion at legal risk. Abp Adler has reportedly 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.”
However, there is a report that, last September; a forensic audit of the IDA was ordered
by the HOB. At last word, the audit has been canceled and the initial audit report has not
been disclosed to the contributors.
17.There is the charge of an Ecclesiastical Pyramid Scheme: There is a charge that the
ICCEC requirement for clergy, and perhaps laity, to tithe a full 10% is an evangelical
legalistic trapping not supported by the New Testament, the Fathers nor the Eastern
Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Church. Some believe this unwittingly created an
ecclesiastical pyramid scheme when it was conducted in a modern hierarchical structure
like the ICCEC. They allege that ‘Tithing’ was a legalistic injunction of the Old Covenant
meant for the Jews to keep the very costly temple sacrifices coming. Regardless how
some believe, others have objected to being subjected to a practice that no church in the
East or West has traditionally held to in 2000 years of its existence.
[Control issues abound--at Resurrection in Asheville, NC, fellow clergy must submit all
issues of changing jobs, refinancing their homes, etc. to the rector's council, which then
becomes a type of "open confession" by virtual necessity to reveal the facts necessary to
decide such issues. Refusal leads to discipline and charges of rebellion. No clergy can
take a sabbatical or just retire in the SEP, or step aside for a season, or engage in any
significant unapproved ministry, without being accused of vow breaking, rebellion, and
incurring possible discipline. This writer has personally witnessed such events. ]
18.Many, for years, have charged that the ICCEC is too top- heavy and unbalanced:
One alleged that the ICCEC was free and loose with titles, ordinations, and ecclesiastical
rank. They believe it smacks of sophomoric presumption. It seems as though 80% of the
CEC are ordained.
19.One other issue reportedly 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.
20.There is a concern that there no mandatory psychological evaluations for all
clergy: Besides not having years of training and the benefit of an intimate knowledge by
their ordaining presbytery, some bishops and clergy are not required to undergo
psychological evaluations as required with most denominations. These tests may save
folks much of the heartache that is being experienced now.
21.There is the charge that the clergy have a severe lack of seminary education. One
priest noted, “In the Roman Church, even deacons require a 4-year seminary course,
with direct oversight by the diocesan bishop clergy. Those who do have a legitimate
academic background have, in many cases, been isolated, mocked, and blackballed.”
Some have begun to believe the CEC only exists to promote the egos and "dreams-of-
priesthood" of its clergy.
22.There have been many who expressed concern over the years for a lack of unity in
doctrine and purpose. The vagueness of the CEC mission, the lack of clarity on what
are the dogmas, doctrines and acceptable kerygma and then the failure to maintain the
ancient rubrics of the Divine Liturgy have all contributed to the unraveling.
23.Some may assess the reason for Bishops Fick, Moates, Miles, Smith, Howard,
Painter and Zampino leaving is to do with the overall issues facing the ICCEC:
there is no common catechism, liturgy or Sacraments, but mostly, from the general
leadership, there is no accountability, community, nor communication.
24.One ICCEC priest stated that the problem of the CEC is that it is not a part of the
Magisterium and has none of its own.
25.Many charged that there is no accountability of Bishops: A charter member of the
ICCEC wrote, “Part of the CEC problem is that the bishops have minimal accountability in
all areas. There are no vestries or any way to buffer their power. I have seen the abuse of
this power. Clergy are being ordained at the whim of a bishop with no theological training.
Family members are placed in prominent positions without regard to qualifications. The
list goes on and on. The CEC needs to clean up its act. The bishops need to become
humble and accountable and then maybe this movement can remain a witness to the
Gospel.” Many are asking for genuine accountability of the leaders--especially Bishops,
Priests and Deacons taking into account that we are all vulnerable to deception and
"falling" and it is genuine accountability, among other things, that keeps this in check.
This includes openness, honesty, transparency, integrity. They argue there is not a
workable “Checks and Balances”: The ICCEC has no way of balancing any abuse of
power and some have levied a charge of "unbridled power" against the bishops
contrasting that a Roman Catholic bishop does not have the ability to ordain who he will
without working within the process. They charge that an ICCEC bishop, in many ways,
has less "checks and balances" than a bishop in any other church and that is why,
despite its short tenure, it has become subject to so much corruption. There are charges
of nepotism against many clergy across the ICCEC. Some are concerned with the many
sons serving directly under their fathers and others charge Bishop Bates, bishop of the
Diocese of the Northeast, specifically, having placed his wife in a paid prominent position
in his church and his son in law in a prominent staff position. They charge that the
situation in the northeast is symptomatic of the problem of a church that has bishops who
have complete power. The facts are that Bishop Bates has placed family members
including his wife in key positions in the diocese. This is called nepotism and is
universally regarded as an unethical practice. It is reported that the Bates has the power
to ordain whoever he wants whenever he wants and make seminary obligations optional.
The fact is that no other reputable church or denomination has this type of despotic
episcopacy. The fact is this type of church government will inevitably lead to abuse of
power with the privileged family and friends enjoying the benefits of the bishop’s power.
There will always be those on the inside and those on the outside. To recapitulate,
Bishop Bates, has chosen a good man for dean yet is theologically untrained and
incompetent and is about to ordain another allowing him to entirely skip any seminary
training. He places his family in important diocesan positions while others who have
completed their seminary program go unnoticed. They charge that there is so much
power invested in the bishop’s office that it is inevitable that nepotism arise, and
ordinations for some with having to complete seminary will occur. Historical
denominations have learned the danger of placing family members in prominent
positions. They have forbid it in order to prevent the obvious accusations of coffer
stocking and nepotism. One of Bishop Bate’s priest responded, “I serve the Bishop unto
to the Lord, a biblical injunction, and try not to judge and weigh his imperfections in my
decisions to do so. I know who I aim to please. The Bishop is a man, and I am a servant
of the Lord. I take my vows very seriously. I memorized them; I didn't read them when I
was ordained. I have been at the Bishop's church for about 13 years. I have seen a lot. I
finished seminary and testing - which took over nine years for me. I am still bi-vocational.
I am not on staff nor do I get paid. I get no benefits, of money or honor, only the privilege
to serve. I am not seeking a position, though I always desire to serve the Lord more, and
want fulfillment just like everybody else. I was bypassed for ordination many times. I
have not been hired, even though there has been potentiality for it. I am not holding my
breath. I have a job and I do not despise the life of the common man. I have seen trained
men who had seminary credentials from outside the CEC come into positions and be
ordained, ahead of myself and others. I've also seen them fail, or leave, or be disciplined
for unfaithfulness and misconduct. I've seen the Bishop make mistakes and admit them.
He has been generous, gracious and merciful to a fault. He has been accused and he
has been audited, and the congregation has stayed with him and found no fault. I'm sure
there were those who did not ‘approve’ of my being ordained. I've had the tendency to
judge and disrespect others as well for which I've had to repent.” Another ICCEC member
writes,” The bishop’s councils as well as his rector’s councils consist of those he has
hand picked. Of course they are going to approve his choices. Do you think he would
appoint anyone to these positions that would represent a challenge? That is precisely the
problem! There is no way to balance the bishops ability to ordain whoever he wants
(seminary or no seminary) and hire whoever he wants, family members or otherwise.
This is what leads to corruption and many of the current problems in this church. This
problem is only exacerbated by those (‘Yes’ men) who continue to show unconditional
loyalty without challenging this system that has led to this corruption.”
26. Others have voiced concern over ICCEC supporting contraception when the
Church throughout history has spoken emphatically against it.
27.Some charged that the high rate of divorces among clergy and laity has
scandalized the church: Apparently there are many divorces represented at all levels
of leadership and the laity in the ICCEC.
28.Some charged that the ICCEC was scandalized by sanctioning and parading high
profile divorcees Malcolm Smith and Randall Terry: Bishop Malcolm Smith divorced a
second time and was remarried in the ICCEC and was "demoted" to acting as a priest
only. He later left the ICCEC and is operating a retreat center (CHS) in Bandera, Texas.
One person wrote, “In researching the history of the CEC in recent weeks I learned that
Malcolm Smith had also resigned. I have admired him for years, even back when I was in
ECUSA, and was so comforted to know that he was in the CEC when I joined. Now I am
disappointed to hear that he left, apparently some time ago. I don't mean to dredge up
the past, nor do I wish to detract from the current issues at hand, but I'm beginning to see
a pattern here and wondered if anyone could give me this piece of the puzzle.” One
former CEC member answered, “Former bishop Malcolm Smith, popularly known for his
early Charismatic Renewal ministry, introduced me to the CEC 12 years ago. It was a
glorious moment to me for which I will forever be grateful. However he was removed from
the episcopacy when he stated he wanted to remarry a third time after his second
divorce. The CEC House of Bishops discerned he could remarry in the CEC, remain a
communicant, perform sacerdotal ministry as a priest in the CEC but would have to stop
functioning as an Auxiliary Bishop (whatever that meant, he was likely unsure himself). In
the end, he left the CEC and has a small following here in Texas where he holds retreats
featuring pop psychological pep talks while wearing vestments. It seems this is the route
the CEC, as a whole, took. Malcolm Smith should rejoin the CEC. He'd be right at home
for what it has become.” Randall Terry reportedly divorced his wife of 19 years against
her wishes, was disciplined by his congregation for several inappropriate relationships
and is reported to have misled donors. He remarried just months later and was received
into the ICCEC. He is now Roman Catholic. For some outside the ICCEC, their
reception indicated a serious lack of spiritual fortitude on behalf of the ICCEC and some
suspected their popularity had something to do with a blatant disregard for the Sacrament
of Marriage.
29.Some have charged that some clergy have become hirelings and not shepherds:
They charge that they are not living up to their responsibility of protecting the flock: The
bishops are responsible for protection of the flock. They are chiefly responsible for
spiritual fatherhood over their clergy. This has broken down in the CEC. The bishops
have made it a point to surround themselves only with those that have something to offer
them, be it wealth, or a large church, an established ministry or some other specific
benefit that would give that bishop more power. They charge that some do not provide
for their clergy. They have obviously offered something to the men who are their clergy in
reward for their fealty, and those men, due to their need to find identity through their
ordination, have indeed remained in "obedience" regardless of the abuse that then
ensues. The current crisis is evidence of that "closed" circle mentality that was so much a
part of ECUSA and many other denominations. It is called "the struggle for power" plain
and simple. All the while the men serving under them - not in the inner circle - continue to
suffer. Reportedly several clergy who have been or are near bankruptcy due to various
predicaments mainly outside their control, have been largely ignored by their bishop, so
that the bishop does not have to invest any of his funds in something that carries no
guarantee of return to the bishop. This happens while men in lower orders scramble to
dig into their funds (some of which are meager at best) to help out a brother whom the
bishop has - by his inaction - relegated to unimportance. This is not only wrong, it is un-
Christian. Why some of the clergy stay is unfathomable since they receive nothing other
than recognition from their bishop (if the above criteria is met), or to strive toward
recognition. This is also why the CEC in North America is not growing, but losing
congregations and people. The head of the CEC is the chief instigator of these policies
and has set his men up for this crisis to occur. When you and you bishops live in million
dollar houses with expensive automobiles and furnishings; with the fine cigars and scotch
and your men are struggling to build churches and work for the kingdom with little or no
help from the diocesan, it is bound to start to crumble. The demons have a field day with
this type of abuse of power - going right to the top. It is an example of the church simply
acting like corporate America.
30.Some charged that some clergy have become immoral: It is reported that some
clergy in the CEC have acted in ways that draw great question about their morals, values,
ethics, and theology and belief systems. It is alleged that some who have taken vows
have broken those vows in a variety of ways with alcohol abuse, sexual improprieties,
financial illegalities and other ungodly behaviors.
31.Many charged that the events of the Manila Int'l CEC Convocation of 2004 signaled
the demise of the Communion: Some stated they viewed many drunken priests and
deacons which is a certain violation of Paul's criterion for the presbuteros/ episcopos/
diakonos. An eight year member of the ICCEC stated,” I attended the Convocation in
Manila. I witnessed drunken clergy, a complete disregard for the liturgy and the altar and
other things that made me ashamed at our leadership.” Another attendee wrote, “I
witnessed several drunken clergy and youth pastors who acted very inappropriately on
account of their drunkenness. There were intoxicated youth, and, although this did disturb
me, it did not bother me as much as the inappropriate behavior of the clergy. We were at
a church convocation ...seeing these things in the Philippines just confused me more and
angered me!” One person even charged Adler with drunkenness at the Convocation.
32. It is reported that some bishops have undeservedly slandered, blacklisted and
lambasted clergy who have exited for other communions.
[\QUOTE]