I am aware of a meeting that four priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have had with Bishop Kevin Vann of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth on June 16, 2008. After a year of studying various agreed statements that have come out of ecumenical dialogues between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on the national and international level, these clergy expressed an interest in having a dialogue on the local level and asked my permission to make an appointment to talk with Bishop Vann. The stated goal of these official Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues (which have been going on for over 40 years) has been full, visible unity between the two communions.
The priests who participated in this meeting with Bishop Vann have my trust and pastoral support. However, in their written and verbal reports, they have spoken only on their own behalf and out of their own concerns and perspective. They have not claimed to act or speak, nor have they been authorized to do so, either on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or on my own behalf as their Bishop.
Their discussion with Bishop Vann has no bearing upon matters coming before our Diocesan Convention in November, where a second vote will be taken on constitutional changes concerning our relationship with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. There is no proposal under consideration, either publicly or privately, for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to become part of the Roman Catholic Church. Our only plan of action remains as it has been for the past year, as affirmed by our Diocesan Convention in November 2007. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth intends to realign with an orthodox Province as a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By God’s grace, we will continue to work and pray for the unity of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
August 12, 2008
Thanks for posting this. I had a lot of questions after reading the previous related article.
Thanks be to God!!! I am greatly relieved to read this, even though I had serious doubts that the Dio. of Ft. Worth would contemplate going to Rome.
This is mad fun. Watch what happens when people get *too* ecumenical for the tastes of Katherine Schori; friendly is OK if it’s two fellas or two gals, but not *thaaaaat*. We have to be certain that Unity means polite talks about anything but God. If it leads to sacramental unity, the only unity that is real, it’s the new perversion. It’s a throwback to normal marriage, normal theology. To a Pre-Henry VIII & Elizabeth I Paradigm. Bishop Iker is soon to be called Null & Void.
Translation: you’ll know what I was dealt when I show it to you, Kate. Not before.
It seems like the Bishop does not want to say to which Province FW will fly. Does anyone know why?
#5 Because we don’t know for sure, yet. That has to be decided at Diocesan Convention. At last year’s convention, we passed a resolution requesting that a committee investigate the invitation from ++Venables to join them in the Southern Cone, and all the implications of doing so, etc. We will most likely be going to the Southern Cone, but until it’s formally decided, we can’t say it’s a done deal. +Iker is very careful about choosing his words.
“The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth intends to realign with an orthodox Province as a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion.”
Is this statement not enough to get Bp Iker a date for inhibition and deposition very soon, like tomorrow?
But doesn’t this development reveal the delicate dance some reasserters have to master? As the reactions to GAFCON show, there’s an orthodox Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism that is uneasy about the visibility and assertiveness of the evangelicals. Meanwhile, Bishop Iker, separating from TEC, has to be concerned that many of his parishioners will reason out that it is Rome they need to join with, not some ad hoc/emergency/overseas grouping of orthodox Anglicanism.
And if enough folks come to that conclusion, why do they need Bishop Iker at all? There’s a perfectly good RC bishop in Fort Worth named Kevin Vann.
#7 +Iker and this diocese are fully expecting an email from Kate & Beers at any time announcing his presentment. I think they will be dealing with +Duncan at the September HOB meeting, and I don’t know that they can get +Iker added on….although, they don’t seem to care anything about following the rules except when in their favor.
If Bishop Iker wants to leave TEC, why does he (or anyone) worry about presentment, inhibition or deposition? If he wants to leave : OK, but don’t get upset when TEC wants to state this formally.
No. 7: Strictly speaking, I don’t think so. In that statement, he’s not saying that he is leading the move, or even supportive of it. It could honestly be read as an innocent prediction of the likely actions of the DioFtWorth Convention, whose actions he does not control…remember our much-vaunted tri-partite polity of laity, deacons/presbyters, and bishops? I think the rule of “innocent construction” from defamation law would apply here…if a statement can be given a plausible innocent constrution, it must be given that construction.
Re: #8 “…why do they need Bishop Iker at all?”
The answer is that part of being Anglo-Catholic means living in submission to one’s bishop. It would be a denial of the very catholicity that Anglo-Catholics so seek to champion to act as if the authority of one’s bishop were functionally immaterial. For unlike the liberal Protestantism of many in TEC and the evangelical Protestantism of most in the Global South, the Anglo-Catholic knows that one’s personal convictions/practices are only justifiable to the extent in which they find support/continuity within the historic-global Church, the connection thereto being established fundamentally by one’s relationship to one’s bishop. In short, the [i] truly [/i] catholic Anglo-Catholics of Ft. Worth won’t be going anywhere without +Iker’s consent. To do otherwise would be to engage in radical self-contradiction.
RE: “Meanwhile, Bishop Iker, separating from TEC, has to be concerned that many of his parishioners will reason out that it is Rome they need to join with, not some ad hoc/emergency/overseas grouping of orthodox Anglicanism.”
Actually, if one reads the correspondence it is quite clear that the clergy of the diocese understand that the laity [i]are not ready at all to convert.[/i]