Communion of Convergence Churches

[Wigglesworth]

Thanks to one of the STR posters, today is the first time I heard of the Communion of Convergence Churches (http://www.thecccusa.com/).

They have quite a story. On the site, I noticed that Mike Warnke is one of their bishops. I listened to one of his comedy tapes years ago.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[AngCath]

I had never heard of this communion until today.
any members who can tell us more?

[PadreEgan]

hmm... I hate to be the skeptic....but, after reading their beliefs , etc. they seem to be another paper church.

Now before anyone rips me apart for saying that...if people are series about a 'non-roman' sacramental and apostolic church, why not join one of the already 200 plus 'denominations' that already exist for that reason. What people need to do is join the PNCC, bring their parish, people and clergy into the Church and then we might have something substantial to rival Rome.

I don't see this happening though. I don't want to sound conceited (everyone thinks their church is where the Spirit is) but, the PNCC has long been the established Old Catholic Church in this country. Why don't those who want to be Old Catholic priests go to the PNCC seminary? It does not cost much compared to most seminaries, and at least you will get a Church that has property, a history, a future and a not too shabby clergy pension and benefits package! lol!

[RestoreTheRiver]

First of all, I fully understand your commitment to your own communion, and will say nothing to gainsay it. That is not our way.

As to being a "paper church", we have 3,000 congergations in 41 nations. Not 3,000 people. 3,000 churches.

However, it is not at all our vision to "rival Rome." Our vision is that the three great "streams" of the church, the sacramental, evangelical and charismatic streams", separated by human sin, be brought together by the Holy Spirit again into one great river of God. Our vision is the restoration of the faith, worship and life of the early, undivided Church in our time, and in the cultures of today.

Our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, prayed that "they all may be one", and this is, of course, of vital importance to us. We are in open and consistent dialogue with all those who share this pilgrimage with us, including the Old Catholics.

More on our history, beliefs, and life may be found at thecccusa.com and at ceecusa.org.

May I suggest that, in the future, you investigate first,; and, (if possible) meet people, before passing judgement on another communion? Of course, the best way to truly know each other would be to worship together...if such could be arranged.

In any event, we make no claim whatsoever to be the whole of the church, or even "the best expression" of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church today. We are humbled and enthused (in both senses of the word) to be a part of her, and continue to learn from, and rejoice with, all others who are on the same path.

May God grant you the humility and wisdom to say with our Orthodox brethern, "we know where the church is. We cannot say where the church is not."

Father Michael

[AngCath]

thanks fr. michael for your post

[AngCath]

i am happy to see that the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral is an important document to the CCC.

[Polycarp1]

For the record, Padre, and you'll be better able to access the pertinent information than I am, I recall hearing a few years back that the PNCC had parted ways with the See of Utrecht, I think at their own choice, over the recognition of ordained women in the Old Catholic Churches. I am not bringing that up to provoke argument, but to note that the split did occur and briefly mention my understanding of why.

Like many another schism, it's a case of good men on both sides following their conscience in two humanly irreconcilable directions. I consider that sad but understandable.

[PadreEgan]

RestoreTheRiver,

Let me first apologize for any remarks that may have seen unkind. But I am very cautious of new churches in the United states, mainly because of the number of those unfit for ordination often tend to start their own churches with no real hope of ever becoming anything but a handful of poorly prepared and trained clergy having mass in their parents basement. I hope that the Convergence Church can become something substantial and perhaps bring some of those 'paper churches' to an understanding of the need for a organized structure.

Plycarp1,
Yes the PNCC did leave the Union of Utrecht over the ordination of women and the blessing of same sex unions.

[karen freeinchristman]

Very interesting!

[AngCath]

very interesting, indeed

[Polycarp1]

Very interesting!

http://home.granderiver.net/~capnjim/misc/ArteJohnsonVerrrryInteresting.jpg

Karen's comment reminded me irresistibly of Arte Johnson! ;)

[karen freeinchristman]

^_^

[RestoreTheRiver]

PadreEgan,

We have just enjoyed an exchange of PM's. Let me state for the forum that I am pleased to reach a better understanding with you, and to continue our dialogue. I am sure that I have much to learn from all of my fellow pilgrims in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Michael

[Wigglesworth]

A distinction I note among "Old Catholic" bishops is the degree to which they seek unity with the rest of the bishops of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

I like the fact that members of the PNCC are welcome to receive Holy Communion from RC priests. That came as a result of a continuing dialogue between bishops of the two jurisdictions. This would not have happened if the RC church saw the PNCC as having no "credibility", so to speak. This credibility, I think, is necessary to unity.

It's interesting that many of the people who began the Convergence Movement chose to be received into the Orthodox church. Those people sought credibility and unity. That is not to say that they did not also see Orthodoxy as the only true church, which is often the biggest point for Orthodox converts.

The "paper churches" mentioned by PadreEgan seek no legitimate recognition from Orthodoxy or Rome, so credibility is of little interest to them. They believe that, if their bishops have a paper chart establishing a line of consecrations back to someone who was consecrated in Orthodoxy or Rome, they have all the credibility they need. That kind of credibility, however, does not lead to unity in the church.

Vibrant ministry led by the Holy Spirit can happen in a Baptist or Pentecostal church as well as in an Orthodox or Catholic one. If that is the final goal, there is no need for unity. The final goal should be ministry in unity. The Holy Spirit would be very pleased with that.

:crossrc:

[AngCath]

PadreEgan,

We have just enjoyed an exchange of PM's. Let me state for the forum that I am pleased to reach a better understanding with you, and to continue our dialogue. I am sure that I have much to learn from all of my fellow pilgrims in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Michael
good to hear that such a dialogue has taken place

[RestoreTheRiver]

Wigglesworth,

I lived the history of which you speak. I was a priest in the Evangelical Orthodox Church for several years. Peter Gillquist, Jon Braun, Gordan Walker, and others were men I know as bishops, and as friends. Most of that communion did indeed join the Eastern Orthodox Church, in two waves, the first wave joining the Antiochian Archdiocese, and the second wave joining the Orthodox Church in America. The second wave included the parish I pastored at the time.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is a wonderful home; and is, in my opinion, closer to the early, undivided church on every point of issue which she has with Rome. I remain an eastern/celtic christian to this day.

I had actually had prior opportunity to join the Eastern Orthodox, and, with all love for them and for orthodoxy, did not do so. My reasons are not at all a careless rejection of unity, which is of vital importance to me.

As important as unity is to us all, there are reasons why all of this on this forum are not Roman Catholics, with all love and respect for that church. Why my reasons for not joining the Eastern Orthodox are not at all the same, I did have reasons, and have continued to follow the path that God has for me.

Again, I have every love and respect for every communion of the Church Catholic, and do not in any way say this as an indictment of the EO, or of the RC.

I do appreciate your observations, and concerns.

Michael

[JasonV]

What people need to do is join the PNCC, bring their parish, people and clergy into the Church and then we might have something substantial to rival Rome.

Nobody is ever going to "rival Rome". Even if you lump all of Eastern Orthodoxy together (which is silly because they're about as unified as American Christianity), they still pale in comparison to Rome.

So this [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]in' match is pointless.

I don't see this happening though. I don't want to sound conceited (everyone thinks their church is where the Spirit is) but, the PNCC has long been the established Old Catholic Church in this country. Why don't those who want to be Old Catholic priests go to the PNCC seminary? It does not cost much compared to most seminaries, and at least you will get a Church that has property, a history, a future and a not too shabby clergy pension and benefits package! lol!

I could make the same argument for the LCCI. We're a mere twelve years younger than the PNCC, and more doctrinally open than even our Anglican hosts here at STR. Sure, there's maybe 70,000 Liberal Catholics on the planet, but I'd be happy to make an argument why we should not "follow a multitude to do evil".

I think the world needs the likes of the CCC (and your PNCC), and there is no need for her to unite with anyone.

Pax!

Clc. Jason

[Wigglesworth]

The Eastern Orthodox Church is a wonderful home; and is, in my opinion, closer to the early, undivided church on every point of issue which she has with Rome. I remain an eastern/celtic christian to this day.

I study with great interest the Orthodox church, because I am impressed that doctrines and disciplines of the early church are preserved in her. The lack of administrative unity within the Orthodox church and the EO position on the Bishop of Rome are troubling to me.

I had actually had prior opportunity to join the Eastern Orthodox, and, with all love for them and for orthodoxy, did not do so. My reasons are not at all a careless rejection of unity, which is of vital importance to me.

As important as unity is to us all, there are reasons why all of this on this forum are not Roman Catholics, with all love and respect for that church. Why my reasons for not joining the Eastern Orthodox are not at all the same, I did have reasons, and have continued to follow the path that God has for me.

I agree that there are reasons to unite with a bishop who is not within the jurisdiction of Rome or one of the canonical Orthodox churches, in spite of such a choice being inconsistent with the greater unity. After all, I am a member of the PNCC.

The unpleasant situation of the church today is that a Great Schism developed over time due to problems in both the East and in the West. Those problems continue to pose obstructions to unity in the church. Those problems are why some of us choose to live in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church outside the jurisdiction of the Apostolic Sees.

While I desire unity in the church, I have determined to leave the job of practically working it out to our bishops. It is their responsibility, and the grace bestowed during their consecrations has empowered them to effect it.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[RestoreTheRiver]

Wigglesworth,

I am in agreement with you on every point except the Bishop of Rome, where, once again, I believe the EO view to be consistent with the early, undivided church, before the modern, developed papacy.

I'd like to hear more about your position on the papacy. Is it not the case that the doctrine of papal infalibility was a major reason for the initial formation of the PNCC?

Please be assurred that I am asking a question in order to learn, and to continue the excellent dialogue that seems to be developing here; not in any way to criticize your position.

Michael

[SirTimothy]

I remain unconvinced by the Orthodox view that the Bp. of Rome should theoretically be the first-among-equals. I don't think it stands up to close scriptural scrutiny which has no such concept of first-among-equals...

[IowaLutheran]

I don't have a problem with the concept that Peter was a leader of the apostles. The problem with Roman Catholic ecclesiology is their position that somehow that pre-eminent position translated into universal jurisdiction over the church for his successors. If that were true, then the Bishop of Antioch, also a successor of Peter, would also have universal jurisdiction.

[AngCath]

If that were true, then the Bishop of Antioch, also a successor of Peter, would also have universal jurisdiction

something I'm sure the Antiochian Orthodox are all too aware of.

[SirTimothy]

I don't have a problem with the concept that Peter was a leader of the apostles.

Me neither. I merely fail to comprehend how a successor (who was not even selected by Peter but by other men) can have Peter's 'authority' as one of the leaders of the Apostles.

The problem with Roman Catholic ecclesiology is their position that somehow that pre-eminent position translated into universal jurisdiction over the church for his successors. If that were true, then the Bishop of Antioch, also a successor of Peter, would also have universal jurisdiction.

Right. And Jerusalem, which presumably at Pentecost had 12 bishops...

[IowaLutheran]

And Jerusalem, which presumably at Pentecost had 12 bishops...

Exactly. Also, at the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts, Peter had a say, but it was James who made the final ruling.

[Adammi]

I don't have a problem with the concept that Peter was a leader of the apostles. The problem with Roman Catholic ecclesiology is their position that somehow that pre-eminent position translated into universal jurisdiction over the church for his successors. If that were true, then the Bishop of Antioch, also a successor of Peter, would also have universal jurisdiction.
*Adammi is not speaking for himself, but on the absence of any Roman Catholics in this convo...*

The RCC views Peter's bishopric of Antioch the same way that they view John Paul II's bishopric in Poland. It wasn't just Peter, it was Rome itself as well.

[RestoreTheRiver]

I suppose it's natural for any good discussion to drift, and this one is not exception. Since this conversation seems to be focused on different views of the Bishop of Rome now, perhaps we should start another thread for that pupose.

Michael

[Wigglesworth]

Wigglesworth,

I am in agreement with you on every point except the Bishop of Rome, where, once again, I believe the EO view to be consistent with the early, undivided church, before the modern, developed papacy.

I'd like to hear more about your position on the papacy. Is it not the case that the doctrine of papal infalibility was a major reason for the initial formation of the PNCC?

Please be assurred that I am asking a question in order to learn, and to continue the excellent dialogue that seems to be developing here; not in any way to criticize your position.

Michael

My response about the papacy can be found in this new thread: Peter the Prime Minister (http://christianforums.com/t7188295-peter-the-prime-minister.html)

My response about the formation of the PNCC can be found in this new thread: Formation of the PNCC (http://christianforums.com/t7188188-formation-of-the-pncc.html)

For discussions about the Convergence Movement, please carry on.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[DarkNLovely]

*subscribing*

The curch I am currently considering is in this group!

[RestoreTheRiver]

*subscribing*

The curch I am currently considering is in this group!
I'm a priest in the CCC, Diocese of St. Patrick. If you'd like more information, or perhaps an additional perspective on questions you may have, please feel free to PM me.

Michael

[DarkNLovely]

I'm a priest in the CCC, Diocese of St. Patrick. If you'd like more information, or perhaps an additional perspective on questions you may have, please feel free to PM me.

Michael
Hehe! I have LOADS of questions I am sure I will bombard you with! lol! I am feeling really good about this church! I have not been Baptized so I don't think I can recive Communion, correct? Also, does this group belive in transubstantiation<<<I don't think I spelled that right! lol!

I'm a little nervous because I have never experienced liturgy. Do you have bow before the alter or kiss the priest hand or anything?

[RestoreTheRiver]

Hehe! I have LOADS of questions I am sure I will bombard you with! lol! I am feeling really good about this church! I have not been Baptized so I don't think I can recive Communion, correct? Also, does this group belive in transubstantiation<<<I don't think I spelled that right! lol!

I'm a little nervous because I have never experienced liturgy. Do you have bow before the alter or kiss the priest hand or anything?
It is correct that one needs to be baptized before receiving communion.

Bowing before the altar, and other physical acts of worship are not "required." Physical worship is, of course, biblical. (I'll be pleased to supply references. This is just a quick repsonse.) Bowing, kneeling, lifting the hands, singing, prostrating oneself before the Lord...all these physical acts, and more, are part of scriptural worship.

As C. S. Lewis said, we are physical creatures, and so, what we do with our bodies impacts our spirits. I like to think of it as worshipping God with my whole being.

But, this is something that is best done from the heart, not by rote, and certaintly not by "requirement."

I do not know of a CCC church where one would kiss the priest's hand. If there is such a practice in a parish of which I am unaware, it would not be required.

We believe Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, because He said so. When we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus Christ Himself, in a mystery.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is, for most of us, an attempt to overdefine this mystery.

You're asking excellent questions. Please feel free to continue asking, whether by post, or pm.

Michael

[DarkNLovely]

It is correct that one needs to be baptized before receiving communion.

Bowing before the altar, and other physical acts of worship are not "required." Physical worship is, of course, biblical. (I'll be pleased to supply references. This is just a quick repsonse.) Bowing, kneeling, lifting the hands, singing, prostrating oneself before the Lord...all these physical acts, and more, are part of scriptural worship.

As C. S. Lewis said, we are physical creatures, and so, what we do with our bodies impacts our spirits. I like to think of it as worshipping God with my whole being.

But, this is something that is best done from the heart, not by rote, and certaintly not by "requirement."

I do not know of a CCC church where one would kiss the priest's hand. If there is such a practice in a parish of which I am unaware, it would not be required.

We believe Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, because He said so. When we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus Christ Himself, in a mystery.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is, for most of us, an attempt to overdefine this mystery.

You're asking excellent questions. Please feel free to continue asking, whether by post, or pm.

Michael


Thanks SOOOOOOOOOO MUCH, RTR!

It all sounds great. The issue of transubstantiation is a bigge for me as I'm not sure I belive it. :sorry: I have read all the argments for it and it just doesen't seem to click for some reason so I struggle with this, but it certainly won't top me from going and learning more.

How about the petitioning and intersession of the Saints? I was told here a while ago that is optional for most Anglicans. Do you have to?

What is the realationship like between the CCC and ECUSA and Canteberry? How do you see them and so on?

Do ladies cover their heads in Church?

What about female ordination? I personally don't really have a particular stance on that really. It wouldn't turn me away if it wasn't allowed or if it was. I'm not really offended by Churches that don't allow it. It's strange to me that a woman would even consider it. The idea of being even the slightest bit responsible for so many spiritually SCARES me, so I have tons of respect for priests, pastors and the like.

I have never been to a liturgy. Isthere certain ettiquette or way to behave? What's it like?

How many packs of pickeled peppers did Peter Piper pick?:D :sorry:

Ok! I'll give you time to answer! Lol!

[RestoreTheRiver]

We are all part of one church, gathered around the throne of God. When we worship, "heaven has descended, and we have ascended." The saints in heaven are alive in Christ, and we are all worshipping together. We may ask these living saints to pray for us, just as we would ask one another.

Our relationship to ECUSA is twofold. That is, we cannot support, and have no offical dialogue with, the national leadership of ECUSA which has departed from the orthodox faith and practice of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Given that, we know that there are many faithful parishes, and even dioceses, in ECUSA, which have chosen to maintain the "church within a church" path. We embrace these people within ECUSA as our brothers and sisters, while giving no credibility to the hetrodox actions of the national leadership.

We are not a recognized Anglican communion. Therefore, we have no offical relationship with Canterbury. Given that, we have much common cause with faithful Anglicans throughout the world. Our sister communion, the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, has a close relationship with several Anglican communions that have departed from ECUSA; and we join them in prayer for, and dialogue with, our Anglican brothers and sisters.

Women are not required to wear head coverings. To the best of my knowledge, it is not a common practice among us.

Many of our dioceses do ordain women.

"Liturgy" means "the work of the people." It's what we all do together to worship God. A good liturgy is deeply biblical. In addition to the four scripture readings, the words of the liturgy are full of scripture. And, the whole action of the liturgy is our participation in God's plan of salvation for us, His people.

In CCC churches, this includes charismatic worship and praise. This, too, is a corporate action of worship and adoration. One might say that the worship and praise time is "entering His courts with praise", and the Eucharist is "coming before the Throne of God."

I'll be pleased to expand on these answers, and to continue to answer your questions.

Peace be with you,

Michael

[RestoreTheRiver]

DarknLovely,

I see that I neglected to answer your question about Peter Piper. It remains a mystery to me.

Michael

[DarkNLovely]

Thanks so ubber much RTR!:clap: :thumbsup: :pink: I'm sure I will get more and more questions as I progresss. I will be atending hopefully with thin the next few weeks. I wanna call get directions as well as some more questions! I'll let you know how it goes!

I cover my head in daily life which is why I was asking that other quesion. I actully have been to a congregation (not Anglican) that was actually not to keen on the practice. But oh well! :pink:

That Peter Piper questions has troubled man kind ages! We may never know!:scratch:

[AngCath]

I cover my head in daily life which is why I was asking that other quesion. I actully have been to a congregation (not Anglican) that was actually not to keen on the practice. But oh well! :pink:

My wife sometimes keeps her head covered, especially for the more solemn days on the kalendar. But yes, a rare practice for Episcopalians.

[RestoreTheRiver]

DNL,

There is surely no reason you can't cover your head in a CCC church, if that is your practice. You'll find that you're free to dress as you wish.

I also want to clarify our relationship with ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion. We did not split off from ECUSA. Some of their scattered sheep have come our way, and, as I said above, we are friendly with many ECUSA individuals, parishes, and even dioceses that are maintaining the "faithful church within a church" stance; because we have much in common with them. Given all of that, I want to make it clear that the CCC didn't split off from ECUSA.

Also, we are not an Anglican church. Once again, we enjoy dialogue and friendship with many Anglican churches, because of the many similiarties, and because of our desire for unity.

If you need any assistance getting directions and an introduction, please let me know. I assume that you know someone there in your local area. But, if this is not the case, I'll be happy to assist you in making connections.

Michael

[AngCath]

which liturgy does CCC use?
is it available for a glance online?

[RestoreTheRiver]

My wife sometimes keeps her head covered, especially for the more solemn days on the kalendar. But yes, a rare practice for Episcopalians.
There is no single answer to this question, as each parish may select their own liturgy, with approval of their bishop. Many of our parishes do use the Book of Common Prayer. Others are eastern rite, while still others have developed their own liturgies...often reflecting the Celtic Church.

In every case, our liturgies glorify God, and stand in the faith and tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I appreciate your question, as I believe, with the Orthodox, that "the law of prayer is the law of belief."

Michael