Bishop Iker denies that there's such a thing as an Episcopal Church

[UPDATED]  Judging by his diocesan convention address, Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Fort Worth has an interesting perspective on his station in life: He seems to believe that, as bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth, he is the head of an independent denomination that can do as it pleases. (Recall that he still refuses to ordain women as priests and places severe restrictions on their serving in 'his' diocese.)

The good bishop concedes that yes, Episcopal dioceses do periodically meet in something called General Convention. But he must think General Convention is strictly a voluntary, social-type gathering that has an advisory role only, because he seems to reject the idea that GC has any real authority over what dioceses do:

... I must object to the claim that the Presiding Bishop has any canonical authority in this Diocese or any legitimate power over the leadership of this Diocese.  She has no authority to bring Fort Worth into line with the mandates of a so-called “national Church.” There is no such thing as “the national Church.” We are a confederation of Dioceses, related to each other by our participation in General Convention.

From the earliest days of the beginnings of the Episcopal Church in this country, including the formation of dioceses and eventually the creation of the General Convention itself, there has been a strong mistrust of centralized authority that is deeply rooted in our history as Episcopalians. We do not have an Archbishop in this Church, who has authority over other Bishops and their Dioceses. Instead, we have a Presiding Bishop, with very limited canonical responsibilities, mainly administrative in nature.

We must object to the tendency in recent years in this Church to create some sort of central bureaucracy at the top that holds power and authority over the various Dioceses of this Church.  We do not have a Curia that dictates policy and dogma in this Church.  We do not have a Presiding Bishop with papal authority over us, nor do we believe in the infallibility of any Bishop or any council or, indeed, of any General Convention.

If I may be so bold to speak on your behalf, dear friends: the leadership of this Diocese does not need to be brought into line with the mandates of some mythical “national Church.”

(Emphasis and extra paragraphing added; hat tip: TitusOneNine.)

[UPDATE] So there's never been a "national" Episcopal Church after all, huh? Then we've been going to a lot of time and expense for no reason. For example:

• Fort Worth didn't need to go to the trouble of seeking consent of General Convention to become a diocese in the first place. And it needn't have included a provision in its constitution, unqualifiedly acceding to TEC's constitution and canons.

• Fort Worth shouldn't have bothered seeking anyone else's consent to ordain Mr. Iker as bishop; election by their diocesan convention was all they needed to do. And the diocese's various bishops and standing committees needn't have bothered consenting to other dioceses' election of their own bishops over the past 25 years.

• Fort Worth's clergy — including +Iker — should have refused to profess those portions of their ordination vows that refer to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the non-existent Episcopal Church. [It just occurred to me that secessionist Fort Worth clergy should, in conscience, first resign their orders in the Episcopal Church, because secession indisputably violates those "discipline" portions of their ordination vows.]

• The drafters of Article VII of TEC's constitution, which allows General Convention to group dioceses into provinces, needn't have bothered including a carve-out that "no Diocese shall be included in a Province without its own consent," because obviously that goes without saying.

I'm sure others will come up with additional examples.

They went to all that trouble for nothing, it seems.

Someone needs to explain to +Iker & Co. the doctrine of estoppel. I'm sure TEC's lawyers will do so. And maybe in due course a Texas judge will do so as well.

Incidentally, check out +Iker's all-purple regalia, including a zuchetto, no less — a yarmulke-like skull cap  — of the kind Roman Catholic bishops wear. (Cardinals wear scarlet zuchettos, and the pope, a white one.) I can't remember ever seeing an Episcopal bishop wear a zuchetto, of any color.

I feel sorry for progressive and moderate Episcopalians in Fort Worth, who deserve better. If the non-existent national church would get off its duff and depose Bishop Iker, maybe they'd have a shot at getting someone better.

Comments

[bls]

"Incidentally, check out +Iker's all-purple regalia, including a zuchetto, no less — a yarmulke-like skull cap — of the kind Roman Catholic bishops wear. (Cardinals wear scarlet zuchettos, and the pope, a white one.) I can't remember ever seeing an Episcopal bishop wear a zuchetto, of any color."

OMG. So to speak.

[Ed Fordyce]

Bishop Stanton, Diocese of Dallas, wore a red zuchetto during his visit yesterday to our parish. The difference between a zuchetto and a yarmulke may have escaped many in the congregation.

[Tobias]

The zuchetto is not really all that unusual. It tends to be a "high-church" sort of thing. I've seen one on the head of at least one Bishop of New York. In Anglo-Catholic circles, even priests wear a black zuchetto. (The origin is actually monastic -- it was used to cover the tonsure. As being "tonsured" was anciently one of the first steps in ordination, it became customary even for "secular" clergy to wear a zuchetto.

[Tobias]

The zuchetto is not really all that unusual. It tends to be a "high-church" sort of thing. I've seen one on the head of at least one Bishop of New York. In Anglo-Catholic circles, even priests wear a black zuchetto. (The origin is actually monastic -- it was used to cover the tonsure. As being "tonsured" was anciently one of the first steps in ordination, it became customary even for "secular" clergy to wear a zuchetto.

[David H.]

Tobias said, "The zuchetto is not really all that unusual. It tends to be a "high-church" sort of thing."

Heh. Interesting juxtaposition there with Ed's report of Bp. Stanton. High Church regalia combined with a Christian Right, Anglo-Baptist ecclesiology ;)

[Sander]

The zuchetto -- while not the norm -- is very common among Anglo-Catholic bishops within TEC, far more of whom fall on the progressive side of the aisle than on Bishop Iker's side. Frank Griswold always wore a zuchetto as Bishop of Chicago (along with the Roman choir dress of 'short rochet' and mozetta instead of the Anglican 'long rochet' and chimere). As PB, he varied his usage depending on the setting.

In Chicago, Bishop Persell has eliminated Roman choir dress, as did Bishop Sisk in New York (where it was standard through most every bishop of the 20th Century up to Bishop Grein). The Roman style still holds in Long Island, however, and -- with some modifications -- in Michigan (where I have never seen +Wendell Gibbs sans zuchetto). Needless to say, it also remains standard in the dioceses traditionally referred to as the 'beretta belt': Fond du Lac, Au Claire, Milwaukee, and Quincy.

While it is normal -- and technically correct -- for bishops who wear the zuchetto to also wear Roman choir dress (as opposed to the normal Anglican style), some are attached enough to the use of the zuchetto that they even wear it when required to wear Anglican-style dress. At the investiture of the Presiding Bishop last year, for example, there were lots and lots of zuchettos on the heads of bishops wearing long rochets with chimeres.

As a final note, there are also places in the wider Anglican Communion where Roman choir dress is basically standard for bishops. This includes the Province of Southern Africa (though it is a diverse province in terms of liturical praxis) and the Province of Central Africa, the Province of Tanzania (where the diocese of Zanzibar has long been a shrine of Anglo-Catholicism), and many of the Provinces of Latin America, where assimilation with Rome has been strong.

(One final word on Bishop Iker's dress in this photo. In strictly proper usage -- a usage Bishop Griswold always observed as PB and as bishop of Chicago -- the purple zuchetto should only be worn with a purple cassock if the cassock is topped by a rochet or surplice in the course of a liturgical function. Otherwise, the bishop should wear a black cassock with purple piping and sash, along with the purple zuchetto. The use of the purple cassock outside of a liturgical function is a purely Anglican usage, and thus should not strictly be combine with the Roman zuchetto).

[APL]

Surely the Anglican Church faces more pressing issues than the colour of the Bishop's Soutane or whether he chooses to wear the zuchetto and fascia???? Lets get the doctrine right first. Lets get the authority in order etc etc....