User talk:Solanusc

Edits to the CEC article
It is my view that facts, statements, allegations, and opinions about Carlos Duarte Costa, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, Timothy Michael Barker, and the International Free Catholic Communion more properly belong with their own articles rather than on the CEC. I have trouble calling them NPOV here, and would rather they were in the articles to which they actually refer.

To draw a bit of a parallel, It could certainly be said the George Washington and the rest of the U.S. Founding Fathers were traitors to their country from the British Crown's point of view, (and indeed the British Cylopedia still said the same as late as the 1960's), but I would not consider that to be NPOV.

Is anybody here? Are you ignoring me? Have I offended you in some way? --Hald 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

--- Just want to be accurate and factual, no spin. The facts, just the facts. I'm not offended. Solanusc

---

- There are a great number of facts that are not in this article. The thing I'm questioning is the relevance to them. As well, any issue with the Spruit line has been corrected by the Costa line. --Hald 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

-

Perhaps, then, there should be an article on how the Costa line would correct the original line of Apostolic Succession. Even if Costa would correct the line, the origins of the first line should be noted for accuracy sake. What is wrong with full disclosure?

-

I am not arguing against full disclosure, I'm arguing that the validity of the Spruit line would more properly be discussed in it's own article. That way any other lines that trace back through that line can also be pointed to that article rather than being duplicated in multiple articles. Write an article dicussing Spruit, and the issues that may arise with lines propigating from it, and then all the others can link back to it. --Hald 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

By not presenting all the information, and the origin of the apostolic line of succession is contained in just a few words, it gives a quick explaination of its origin. There is no reason not to mention it unless one wishes to hide the facts.

It appears that those who wish to remove Gnosticism and Theosophy from the the Barker line of apostolic succession are ashamed of it. I would think you'd wish everyone to know of your origin. Solanusc

Our orgin is neither Gnostic nor Theosophitic. We do not (and never did) agree with or subscribe to Gnosticism or Theosophy. As I understand it the main problem with the line was one of certifiability rather than theology. Placing the comments regarding Gnostiscism and Theosophy in the article would IMHO mislead others into thinking that the CEC is in fact Gnostic and/or Theosophitic. That is not an accurate actual fact. --Hald 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

-

I did not say the CEC subscribes to Theosophy or Gnostocism, however the fact is that it is in your line of apostolic succession. That is my point. To not mention this could mislead some to incorrectly understand your origin. Certifyability of the apostolic line is not the issue I'm addressing. Solanusc

-

What I am stating is that mentioning Gnosticism and Theosophy in the actual article would be more misleading than omitting it by leading some to incorrectly understand the theology of the CEC. The theology of the original consecrators doesn't seem relevant to the origin of the CEC except to show that the founders of the CEC didn't have a solid concept of how to go about receiving a valid line of Apostolic Succession at the time of the founding of the CEC. --Hald 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

From CECFAN: I completely agree with Hald. The original intent of the CEC was not to become a gnostic or theosophic institution. However, the impression one gets from reading your edits is that the CEC's intent was to do just that. That is the furthest thing from the truth.

The CEC went into that relationship in good faith. Any problems with the Spruit lines were not fully disclosed to the CEC at that time. The church leadership promptly sought resolution once they realized that there may have been some problems.

The problems that many of us have with your use of the words "gnostic and theosophic" is that they are unnecessarily inflammatory in this context. They are completely misleading without proper explanation. This article is about the ICCEC and not Spruit, therefore there is not enough room to explain it all. It is better to lay out the fact that the original lines came from Barker with a reference to another article discussing any problems, perceived or real, with Spruit and Barker. Any reader who is interested in that part of the story can read can easily go read the Spruit article for more information. This is not an attempt to hide facts, but to keep the article honest and on subject.

____________________________________________________

You do not properly understand apostolic succession. As with all Holy Orders, the status of the one passing along the ordination does not invalidate or make impure the succession itself. Here's a quote from the Catholic Apostolic National Church of Brazil's website about all sacraments: "We affirm that the unworthiness of a minister of a Sacrament does not invalidate the Sacrament, but, rather, that a Sacrament performed with the proper matter and form, and with the intention of the Church to make such action a Sacrament, remains valid, whether or not the minister is worthy to administer that Sacrament." Just because Barker had theosophy or gnosticism in his background does not mean he passed that along - that would be inconsistent with the nature of sacraments. For example, when one of the modern Catholic bishops who were gay and participating in covering up the pedophile scandals, a sin as great as can be committed in my opinion, when that very same bishop consecrates a new priest, that priest has indeed received valid orders and has not received a gay or pedophile mantel as well. It just doesn't work that way. If you knew anything about the history of the Catholic Church, if I were to use your theory, there wouldn't be ANY living successor to the apostles - period. The history of the bishops and popes of periods during the Dark Ages was so dark and unChristlike it boggles the mind. But as the Catholic Church would tell you, sin in the life of the priest or bishop has NO IMPACT on the Order being passed on. Thus apostolic sucession is able to continue. The same is true with respect to beliefs - the consecrating bishop can believe in Gnostic principals and yet it does not impact the orders nor does it pass down any sort of belief syste to the receptcient. Thus Barker's beliefs are not relevant to the CEC crisis at all. This is a red herring that's being perpetuated on the blog, but there's nothing substantive about it.

Maryland CEC ____________________________________________________

That is exactly my point. Labeling the Spruit/Barker lines as gnostic and theosophic is misleading because that was not the INTENT of the ordination. The intent was to pass on valid lines, not gnosticism. CECFAN

_______________________________________________________

Sorry, CECFan. We cross posted. I was saying that to Solausc, not you. We're in agreement.

Maryland CEC

--

My, my, there was no intent here to strike a nerve, but it seems as if I have. That was never my intention. What is there about simply identifying the origin of apostolic succession that is so difficult or wrong? I'm beginning to wonder if your many protestations are an attempt to cover up something you don't want mentioned. If you do not want to be identified with Gnosticism and Theosophy in your apostolic succession line, why was it accepted in the first place? I find it very hard to believe that a grown man receiving consecration as a bishop would not have known about the organization it came from. To simply state the fact of what occured should be welcomed, not berated. Solanusc

-

Here is what I am saying. A line of Apostolic Succession is valid or it is not. It is well documented or it is not. Theologically there is no such thing as a Gnostic line of Apostolic Succession or a Theosophical line of Apostolic Succession. I allege that that is indeed exactly what occurred ("that a grown man receiving consecration as a bishop not having know about the organization it came from.") In the beginning of the CEC, the founders had yet to come into a better understanding of apostolic succession, and the validity and documentability thereof.

In my view having the words Gnostic and Theosophy placed so prominently on the main CEC article is much more misleading to the reader than leaving them off. I maintain that the theology of the consecrators is irrelevant regarding the validity of the line. Indeed the cuisine preferences of the consecrators is equally relevant.

P.S. I hope you don't think that I am berating you by my continued and persistent remarks on this talk page. --Hald 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

- I agree wholeheartedly with Hald. The point is that, both theologically & historically, there is no such thing as a "gnostic" or "theosophic" line of apostolic succession. That is a theological impossibility because neither is Christian. Thus, there cannot be a line of apostolic succession. Your statement is seriously flawed because it is factually wrong and ignores well-established theological and historical teaching.

In reference to your grown man reference, there are many grown men and women who enter into the sacrament of holy matrimony without having received full disclosure of who the partner really is. Sometimes, one partner wakes up only to discover that his or her partner is not the person that they said they were. That is simply the point here. The CEC entered into the relationship in good faith, trusting that everything was as it was presented to us. We found out later that there were some potential problems. That happens everyday in business, marriage, and many other relationships. To persist in labeling the lines of succession erroueously is simply wrong. CECFAN.

--

Solanusc, Do you believe the fact that Timothy Michael Barker is Gnostic and Theosophist is one of key points of the CEC article? That is what placing the item in the lead paragraphs of the article in fact indicates. I strongly disagree with that assertion if in fact you do make it. --Hald 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The founders of the CEC (I'm one of them) were Pentecostals and Charismatics with no personal history or experience of apostolic bodies before the movement that literally swept our church into existence. None of us knew of--had no reason to suspect--Timothy Barker's theological errors or excesses. He was represented to us by persons we trusted in the early years of our "journey" as a reputable Old Catholic bishop. I think the point others have tried to make is not to deny Barker's ties to theosophy or gnosticism or even divergent doctrines on sexual practice, but to make explicit that the CEC has never tolerated these errors and immediately distanced itself from Barker when his predilictions were revealed to us. The langauge you seem to insist upon (in the opening paragraphs of an article on the CEC) will lead the casual reader to assume that the CEC is a church that at worse agrees with or at best tolerates theosophic or gnostic beliefs and practices, which is not true and is not a fair first impression.

We are diametrically opposed to such things. Is there a way to make your point about Barker the man (further down in the article, perhaps) that also seeks justice and mercy for what I assume are we, your brothers and sisters in Christ?

I can live with "excommunicated" for Costa, even though the word oversimplifies a complicated history and man.

It seems, given your close interest in the opening paragraphs of this article on our communion, that you tell us a little about yourself and why this is so important to you.

Peace and blessings, Kenneth Tanner

-

Kenneth,

According to the information here on Wikipedia, the CEC began in 1992 with the original consecration by Barker, then in 1997 there was consecration by the Brazilian church. What does the consecration of your bishop in 1997 by the Brazilian church have to do with the original consecration he received by Barker in 1992? My concern was to simply state, for explanation sake and with brevity, the origin and/or belief of the consecrator. I do not see what the ‘hidden truth’ about Barker you mentioned at the time of the original consecration, has to do with who he was or was not, and why a two word explanation of him, Theosophic and Gnostic, should not be mentioned? Those two words are not an editorial, just a simple statement of fact to make this article more easily understood.

I am still scratching my head, however, over your explanation that an adult man who was consecrated a bishop, not a janitor or used car salesman, to have charge of perhaps thousands of human souls to lead them to God, would not know what was going on at that time and would take the word of some other person. It’s also puzzling that after realizing he may have made a mistake, it took him five years to either realize it and/or attempt to do something about it. Also, what must the rationale be for fixing a problem by turning to a church whose apostolic succession came via an excommunicated Roman Catholic Bishop, after his own church felt the need to disassociate from him? Is this better than Theosophy or Gnosticism from which the CEC now wishes to distance itself? Does this fix what was considered a problem? I'm trying to understand.

When I stated in the Wiki article that Costa was schismatic and/or excommunicated, it was no more than stating what occurred. Nothing more. No spin. Had there not been such a strong response at my original interest in and attempt at accuracy, I wouldn’t have the questions I now have about what seems, to me at least, a need to rewrite history.

In your comments you toss a stone at Gnosticism and Theosophy by calling them errors. Calling them errors is your interpretation based on your judgment and does not seem to be a charitable remark that should be be used either in, or in reference to them, in an encyclopedic article.

My ‘close interest’ has to do with being factual with no spin or editorial comment. Shouldn’t that be applauded? No hard feelings here, just the opposite. Many blessings to you and yours. Solanusc

- From CECFAN,

Your logic is faulty. Using the word "schismatic" is biased because it reflects only the Roman Catholic side of the story on Costa. It does not reflect Costa's side. Therefore, it slants the article away from NPOV. The fact that terms like that are unneccessarily inflammatory makes using it even more inappropriate. Doing this, contrary to your statement above, is known as spin.

The use of gnostic and theosophic as references in relation to the CEC are equally as biased. The effect of your using them is that it attempts to inaccurately paint the CEC as being somehow non-Christian, which is false. Also, in the context of an article such as this, they are very inflammatory, because they are used in a way that is neither accurate or fair.

Simply stating that gnosticism and theosophy are not Christian is not uncharitable. It is an unemotional and unbiased statement of fact. It is equally as valid as stating that Islam is not Christian or that red is not green. We are not making a value judgement, just making a statement of fact. Trying to use language to label the CEC as somehow being gnostic or theosophic is simply wrong. That is why we are asking you to write your own articles on Spruit/Barker and Costa and provide links in this article. This will keep down the confusion, allow those interested to get the information, and lessen the spin. CECFAN

---

Solanusa--

The use of the terms "theosophical" and "gnostic" with respect to Bishop Barker are, so far as I am aware, accurate. However, to describe Barker with these loaded terms in the opening lines of an article on the CEC unduly prejudices the reader, who will presume incorrectly that the CEC welcomed (when--YES--we were quite unaware of) Barker's beliefs and practices. If the CEC were a communion that embraced (or embraces) such things--which it has never done, we are quite the opposite--we ought not be concerned to own the terms. But the facts do not support our being labeled by those terms, indirectly or by inference. There IS a negative and underserved inference that your upfront labels for Barker affect on the CEC. And that is why the use of these terms is partial and unfair in the opening lines of this definition.

I am sorry that you cannot take me at my word as to our lack of knowledge about Barker. Please notice that I did not excuse us for this lack of knowledge. We were Pentecostals and Charismatics, largely ignorant of the troubles and confusions within Old Catholicism, much less the multi-layered history of conflict we'd stumbled upon in attempting to embrace the ancient faith and practice of the Undivided Church. In those early years, we ASSUMED everyone who called himself "Catholic" energetically held the same orthodoxy and orthopraxy we read about in the fathers. Should we have done our homework better? You bet. Were we naive? Yes, indeed. Was it wrong to be this ignorant and naive? Yes, it was. Is there an excuse? No.

In the early years, we were growing so rapidly that few took the time to examine our apostolic lines. When this started to happen, mostly by the energy and research of young seminarians and clergy who brought it to the attention of senior clergy, many of whose hands and minds were inundated with the vast evangelical mission that was occuring among us across the globe, it took TIME--yes, years--to acknowledge the problems, much less plot a solution. Have you ever had diffilculty admitting an error or correcting a problem in your life? Did it take some time? Try this on an organizational scale in a rapidly-reproducing, multi-national church. We are only just BEGINNING to make necessary course corrections for the Communion. I'm surprised we faced this one (of our AS) as early as we did. Thank God we did. We'd almost certainly be deserving of your indirect labels had we not. If you want to make a judgment about the strength of our corporate intellect and organization by these events alone, be my guest. Here we would fail, I think, any test you prepared. There is a larger history of good judgment and accomplishment, but you are not likely interested in that.

Obviously we disagree on whether there is an equivalancy between Barker and Costa, which seems absurd on its face to me, whatever Costa's short-lived troubles with the Vatican.

No one is asking you to agree to a re-write of history. The term "breakaway" for Costa is just as accurate as "schismatic" without making a value judgment and without then inferrinng that value judgment on the CEC. Should every church--Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist--be so labeled by inference within the opening lines of their Wiki definitions even though traditionalist Roman Catholics might technically label these denominations as such? Also, is this charitable, even by inference?

I DID include the informational background on Barker later in the article, where it is less likely to prejudice the casual or under-informed reader.

I'm not trying to spin anything. I am unafraid of the facts, but once one has posited Barker's beliefs and orientation one must also in the same breath/sentence--to be fair and accurate--immediately deny that the CEC is also rightly labeled by such adjectives.

I think we can come to some mutual understanding. I do applaud any effort to keep this article fact-based.

I assume you are a Roman Catholic layman? Without revealing your actual identity, perhaps you could tell us about yourself in general.

Peace, Kenneth+