EMBRACING DIVERSITY AND TRANSCENDING TRIBALISM: THE NEIGHBOUR-OLOGICAL THEOLOGY OF KOSUKE KOYAMA

EMBRACING DIVERSITY AND TRANSCENDING TRIBALISM: THE NEIGHBOROLOGICAL THEOLOGY OF KOSUKE KOYAMA 

(By the Rev. Dr. Winfred B. Vergara (Presented at the 2nd Asia-America Theological Exchange Forum, held last February 2013 at Trinity University of Asia, Quezon City, Philippines. Unedited.)

Is there a theology that can embrace all forms of diversity and transcend theological contexts? Is there a theology that can help heal Christian divisions and transcend our ecclesial boundaries towards building an open koinonia (fellowship/sharing) for greater mission of shalom (wholeness) in Christ? Is there a theology that can help enable believers of God to cross boundaries of culture, religion, politics and religions and embrace diversity towards a harmonious world community?

This paper discusses the “neighborological theology” of the late Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama in the context of diversities and pluralities and how Asian and American Christians can work together in the Christian mission of reconciliation. According to the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer, “the mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.” This paper will look into Koyama’s theology as a starting point in the search for a missionary and theological road towards the restoration of all of God’s people to unity with God and each other in Christ.

Who is Kosuke Koyama and what is the meaning of his ‘neighborological theology?’

Koyama, the “small mountain”

 Kosuke Koyama (“small mountain” in Niponggo), was born in Tokyo, Japan on December 10, 1929 in the era of the (Emperor) Meiji Restoration (1868-1912). This revived imperial era, which followed the Tokugawa Shoganate regime (1603-1867), resulted in the rise of Japan into a world military power, an era when imperial authority was purposely and ruthlessly used for political ends. It was a period in Japan when ”what was considered important was not the needs of an individual but the needs of the empire, a period when life’s purpose was to serve the Emperor’s wars of expansionism and the feverish desire for supremacy in Asia and beyond.” (Vergara, 1985)

This “idolatrous emperor worship,” according to Koyama had led Japan to inflict untold sufferings to its neighbor countries in Asia, ignited the War in the Pacific during World War II (1940-44) and eventually ended in Japan being brought to its knees by the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the pre-WW II experience of Japan was a “culture of subservience to the emperor,” its post-WW II experience was a “forced obedience” to American democracy. As a condition of surrender to the Allied Forces (Great Britain, the United States and Russia), Japan was persuaded to submit to the new Constitution of Japan in 1946, drafted by the United States. The new Japanese Constitution, a direct opposite of that of the Meiji Empire, prohibited Japan from maintaining armed forces in land, air and sea and “renounced war” as a means of settling international disputes.

Koyama said he felt “like lodging a complaint to Almighty God” as the Japanese government agreed to the new Constitution in that moment of weakness. He also found himself into a “turmoil of self-identity: the old authoritarian Koyama and the new democratic Koyama.”

               

 I belong to both the old Japan and the new Japan. I lived my first 16 years under                            the Imperial Constitution promulgated in 1889. The following 26 years, I have lived                    under the present post-war Constitution of Japan. (Koyama, Pilgrim or Tourist, 1974, 26)

As a youth, Koyama’s conversion to Christianity followed a near-death experience from the bombing in Tokyo which set him on a spiritual quest. He found Christ (or Christ found him) at Do Shin Kwai Church in Nagano, Japan. When after the War he was able to return to school, he entered Tokyo Theological Seminary and was ordained as minister of the United Church of Christ. In 1952, he went to the United States, where he studied at Drew University and Princeton Theological Seminary and married an American journalist, Lois Eleanor Rozendaal. He then returned to Asia to serve as missionary in Thailand (where he wrote his celebrated book, Waterbuffalo Theology); became Dean of Southeast Asia Graduate School of Theology in Singapore; professor at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand; and a well-known Asian theologian and ecumenist. 

Having written so many books while in Asia, Koyama went back in 1979, to the United States to become professor of Ecumenism and World Christianity at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, contributing much to Asia-America theological thinking. After a few years of retirement, he died at a hospital in Springfield, Massachusetts in March 25, 2009. His wife, Lois, also died on April 13, 2011. They are survived by two sons, a daughter and five grandchildren.

Theology in Context

 I belabor to narrate the life story of Kosuke Koyama to illustrate that theology can only be done in context. Theology cannot exist in vacuum. As Jesuit theologian, Lambino said, “The theologian is ontologically prior to theology; theological systems arise because theologians do theology.” (Lambino, Towards the Doing of Theology in Philippine Context, 1970.3)

The context of Koyama’s understanding of “neighborology” was the world of diversity in his life experience, theological study and pastoral ministry. In Japan, he was a student of Kanzo Kitamori whose book, The Theology of the Pain of God, was considered the “earliest attempt to interpret theology in the context of Japanese religious experience.” Kitamori used Itami, the “pain of God” to describe the suffering of the Japanese people after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In the United States, Koyama’s theological studies centered on the works of St. Augustine and Martin Luther. As bishop of Hippo in North Africa (354-430 CE), Augustine theologized about “sin and grace.” In “Augustinian” theology, which became a common guide in both Catholic and Protestant churches, human beings are unable to save themselves because of their fallen nature. While his theology was derived from careful reading of Paul’s letter to the Romans (esp. Romans and Galatians), Augustine’s theological sensitivity was nurtured by his own personal experience of grace from his youthful immorality. This context had so sharpened his conviction so that when Pelagius, a monk from the British Isles, began a heretical teaching that human works can gain salvation, Augustine readily responded with his theology of “original sin and unmerited grace.” (Cohen, Handbook of Christian Theology, 1958, 23)

Martin Luther (1483-1546), the father of German Reformation, followed Augustine’s theology and used it in the task of liberating Christians from the obscurantism of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16^th century. Luther’s theologia crucis (theology of the cross) expounded in the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518. He asserted that God is known only in the suffering Christ.  His exposition of the doctrines of “sola fide” (by faith alone) and “sola scriptura” (by scriptures alone) were a prophetic voice against the prevailing doctrines of “papal infallibility,” “religious indulgences,” and other aberrations of Catholicism. Like St. Paul and St. Augustine, Luther believed that we are justified by faith, not by works; and we are saved to eternal life, only by the grace of God.

Koyama was not only influenced by the Holy Bible and by Christian theologians but also by his neighbors in Thailand: “students with their bicycle, Thai farmers with their waterbuffalos and Buddhist monks with their lamps.” (Koyama, In the Land of Mendicant Monks and Waterbuffalos. 1965, 23). He was also influenced by his colleagues in the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) and the World Council of Churches (WCC) and by the Black and Latin American theologians. He had engaged in “dialogue with people of other faiths, cultures and ideologies” and in the process enriched and deepened his theology.                                                                                                                       All theologies are very humble attempts to say something about God, because God                        

 has first spoken to us…When God comes to him, the theologian finds himself saying                             what the young Jeremiah said, “Ah Lord God. Behold, I do not know how to speak,                           for I am only a youth…In theology, we do not know how to speak.”                                                 (Koyama, Pilgrim or Tourist, 99)

What is Neighborological Theology?

The “theology of neighborology” begins with God as man’s neighbor in Creation. Even in man’s fallen history, God comes with a sense of love and respect. When Adam and Eve hid themselves in shame and guilt, God came and asked, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). When Cain tried to cover up his murderous act, God came and said, “Where is your brother?” (Genesis 4:9). 

Koyama said that the whole Bible is a commentary to God’s “neighborological” questions. God’s “Where are you?” and “Where is your brother/sister?” mirror the entire history of individuals and nations. They tell of God’s “holy search” for the lost and fallen humanity, a search filled with compassion, concern and respect---and of the “pain of God.” God is the neighbor of man.

The reality of God as neighbor was fully revealed in Jesus Christ who came from an “unfamiliar” (sinless) history into a “familiar” (sinful, fallen) history and bridged the chasm by his death, in order to inaugurate a new relationship of “neighborology.” Like the Father who asked “where are you?” and “where is your brother?” Jesus came to ask, “Who do people say that I am” and “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:13). 

Christ introduced this neighborological relationship at all cost. Crucified between two thieves (Mark 15:27, 32), one reviling his messiah-ship and the other pleading for his paradise, Jesus established neighborological relations to the two. In Christ, we find the reality of God-in-Christ as neighbor who loves us, unconditionally. God is love, and the essence of God is his being a loving neighbor to man.

                

 Our neighbors in Asia (the Buddhists, Hindus, ancestral worshippers, ‘free thinkers’)                       are not interested in our Christology but in our neighborology. This means that our   neighbors are ready to hear the message of Christ, if we put it in neighborological language; though they would reject Christ if we present Him in our Christological language. (Koyama, Waterbuffalo Theology, 43)

Following God who is neighbor to us, we should be neighbor to one another. As God has approached fallen man with love, concern and respect, we should likewise approach people with love, concern and respect. Such love, concern and respect to neighbors include appreciation of people’s history, culture, traditions, aspirations and moral strivings:                                                                                                                                                     Some years ago, I met a missionary couple from the West. They had just arrived                                   in Bangkok but immediately expressed the view that Thai Buddhism is a “manifestation                        of demons.” How simplistic! Thirty million people in the Buddhistic tradition of over                           700 years were brushed aside in a second. The remark betrayed super-arrogance                            and super-ignorance. They further said that China with its 800 million (now 2 billion, FV.2013)           who are all atheists and therefore unsaved, is an enemy of the gospel. This unfortunate                        display of arrogance and ignorance comes from an inability to appreciate the complexity                   of living man in living history. (Koyama, Three-Mile an Hour God, 52)

 

Koyama lamented that Christianity in Asia for the last 500 years has not really listened to the people but ignored them. It has ignored the people in Asia because it sees Asian history from the perspective of self-assertiveness. By so doing, it has ignored God who approaches people as neighbors.

Three Transcendental Movements of Neighborological Theology

Theology must approach neighbors seriously. A theologian is not a tourist but a pilgrim. A tourist rushes to take a good photo shoot but a pilgrim walks. A theologian walks slowly because God walks slowly, approximately “three-mile-an-hour.” It is a slow speed because it is an inner, spiritual speed---the speed of love.

Theologizing is a slow process, which involves community. There are three movements of transcendence in Asia-America neighborology. They are neither the linear historicism of the West nor the cyclical nature of Asia but "both and"--an ascending-spiral movement of history-nature. The three transcendental, transformational movements are:

1. From the crusading mind to the crucified mind

Christianity has not gained much headway in Asia for the last 500 years because Christians “crusaded” against Asians. Colonial Catholicism has come with the cross and the sword. Imperial Protestantism has come with gun power. Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism have come with “evangelistic crusades.” Western civilization has presented the cross as an individualistic, self-righteous, Pharisaic and militaristic symbol. One American Protestant (“born again”) denomination had this to say about their 1975 Mission statement: “To initiate a mission and evangelism offensive in Asia.” To who is the offensive directed? To the heathens? When did evangelism, the proclamation of the gospel of the Prince of Peace, become a cheap military campaign? Is Jesus Christ “nailed on a tree” (Galatians 3:13) or is He in Pentagon?” 

Koyama said that theology comes not from the crusading mind but from the crucified mind. The gospel of the cross can be interpreted in many ways but its central thrust is that God-in-Christ achieved victory by accepting defeat. The theology of the cross presents itself into these paradigmatic truths:

1. Crucified, yet Christ is sovereign of all (the King);
2. Crucified, yet Christ comforts all (the Priest);
3. Crucified, yet Christ frees all (the Prophet).

The kingly, priestly and prophetic ministries of Jesus derived from the crucified mind and not from the crusading mind. The crusading mind is not a product of Christ but of Christianity, and Christianity is not necessarily identical with Christ. 

It is not the crusading mind but the crucified mind that is or will be risen. The crusading mind, in order to be risen, must repent and be illuminated by the crucified mind. It is in that moment of repentance and humility, not in aggression and arrogance that we can see Jesus standing at the center and saying, “Lo, I am with you to the close of the age” (Matthew 28:20). As the crusading mind repents, it will begin to see its “neighbors” bearing the nailed marks of Christ.

2. From Tribal God to Universal God

Neighborological theology extends itself to the interdependence of peoples and the building of a world community. Because religion is closely intertwined with culture, it is important that our faith understanding must move from the tribal god to the universal God. The tribal god divides humanity but the universal God unites humanity. The world is full of tribal or parochial gods and therefore is full of militarism, fascism, colonialism, racism, sexism, and all kinds of isms. In understanding tribal gods, Koyama illustrated three tribalistic theologies: the “Western Movie theology;” the “God follows Success theology;” and the “Fabricated Holiness theology.” 

       

Western Movie theology divides people into good guys and bad guys, “cowboys and Indians,” white bidas (heroes) and colored contrabidas (villains). It is also characteristic of American rugged individualism. The “God Follows Success” identifies success in business, religion, politics and power as heavenly mandates. The popular American prosperity gospel identifies being rich as being blessed and being poor as being cursed. The Fabricated Holiness theology derives itself from Israel who trusted in the “deceptive words” of “we are the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord” (Jeremiah 7:4). 

The emperor worship of Japan gloried on the idolatrous golden calf of national and racial exceptionalism. Koyama maintained that Japan lost the War to the Americans not because the former’s technology was less inferior than the latter’s but because the imperial era people of Japan believed that they were superior and exceptional.

It may be true that if Japan had more technologically advanced war machines it could have won the war. But I am saying that it was not military inferiority that destroyed Japan. Rather, it was exceptionalism, a parochial sense of self-aggrandizement – I call it the center complex – that caused its defeat. It was surely an inflated self-esteem, exceptionalism that made it plunge into war.   "God, I thank you that I am not like other people.” (Note the Pharisee praying)

The biblical God would not feel at home with the tribal gods and would be critical of His people when they dance around the golden calves of their tribal gods. Koyama’s “theology of the universal God” points to the need for a Christian behavior that derives itself in “walking humbly with God,” instead of using God in the attitude of “fabricated holiness.” 

In an interesting interpretation, Koyama described Elijah’s encounter with the prophets of Baal as an illustration of the overzealous exceptionalism. At his triumph at the contest in Mount Carmel, Elijah ordered all the prophets of Baal to be executed. The highly successful and exceptional prophet of Yahweh commanded the Israelites, “let no one of them escape,” and in the process massacred almost 1,000 prophets of Baal (the Canaanite god of fertility). Later, hiding in the cave, Elijah expected God to congratulate him with applause and patting on the back. But God was not in the earthquake, nor the wind nor the fire but in the still small voice, “Why are you here, Elijah?” It was the same voice that was heard calling, “Adam, where are you?” Or “Cain, where is thy brother?” Could it be that in our overzealousness, we arrogate unto ourselves the power that belongs to God alone? 

Elijah’s overzealousness and “let no one escape” paradigm cannot and should not be a model to today’s world of diversity. If we harbor exceptionalism, we will be tempted to usurp God’s power. There is a difference between saying, “I do not like you” and “I tell you that God does not like you.” The former is straight-forward while the latter is twisted, neurotic and sinister. Professor Bainton writes, “War is more humane when God is left out of it”. The prophet Micah said, “He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8)

 “Western Movie Theology”, “God Follows Success Theology” and “Fabricated Holiness Theology” must be replaced with ”Walking Humbly with God” theology. 

3.From Puritanical Exclusion to Prophetic Accommodation                                                      Reinhold Niebuhr, in his celebrated book, Christ and Culture, described five views on culture, namely: Christ Against Culture; Christ of Culture; Christ Above Culture; Christ and Culture in Paradox; and Christ, the Transformer of Culture (Niebuhr,). In another way of saying, there are five kinds of Christians: the exclusive, the cultural, the synthesist, the dualist and the conversionist.  Niebuhr further expounded:                                                                                                                                                      For the exclusive Christian, history is the rising church/Christian culture and a                                dying pagan civilization; for the cultural Christian, it is the Spirit’s encounter with                         nature; for the synthesist, it is a period of preparation under law, reason, gospel                                  and church for an ultimate communion with God; for the dualist, it is the time of                      struggle between faith and unbelief, between the giving of promise and fulfillment;                           for the conversionist, it is God’s mighty deeds and man’s responses. (Niebuhr)

I hasten to say that Koyama’s theology is a gift-mix of cultural and synthetic Christianity. Koyama as a cultural-synthesist believes that culture has “whatever is good, whatever is lovely, whatever is worthy, and whatever is excellent” (Philippians 4). Missionaries from one country do not bring Christ to another country for Christ is already there, but rather should look at cultures as “fingers of God pointing to Christ.” There is no pure and exclusive history but most histories are interpreted histories. The straight line historicism of Western Christianity and the Nature Cycle of Asian cultures must engage in dialogue to create the “ascending spiral image of history-nature.” The Aristotelian pepper and the Buddhist Salt must be sprinkled together to make a great Christian salad bowl. 

Koyama maintained that the Western Christian evangelism has not gained much headway in Asia because the majority of evangelists have not approached the important fact that the “womb itself is round.” In the context of Buddhist Thailand, for instance, Christian contextualization will mean the “Hebraization of the Buddhist Life.” In Hebraic history, God sits enthroned above the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon’s Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. as well as in the overthrow of this Babylonian Empire by the Persian Cyrus in 539 B.C. The same God who is active and “hot” in the linear history of Israel is also the same God who gives the Thai people with regular monsoon rains in order that they can hear the regular “uung-aang” of the frogs, the humming of the mosquitoes and enable them to watch their slumbering waterbuffalos. 

This Thai cyclical view of nature should be accommodated into the linear historicism of salvation history. This is not syncretism for we are not inventing a new religion from the mixture of Christianity and Buddhism. Rather, we are making Christianity understandable to the people that come from another cultural mindset by baptizing key concepts that are central to their understanding of life and human existence.

At least three Buddhist key concepts are central to prophetic accommodation: Dukha, Annica, and Annata. Dukha (du=bad; Kha=empty) is appropriated to the Christian understanding that “without God, we can do nothing.” Dukha or man’s emptying of desires to achieve nirvana (fulfillment, enlightenment) should be understood not only as man’s experience of himself (Buddha) but also of God’s experience of man (Israel).

Annica, which is Buddha’s analysis of existence as impermanent, is appropriated to relate to Israel’s experience of idolatrous rebellion and apostasy to the unchanging and permanent God, their continued “limping in two opinions” and continued breaking of God’s covenant.

Annata, (or self-extinction), which is Buddha’s answer to the problems of human suffering and existential groaning, is appropriated to an ontological-existential understanding of human relations with the divine: ”When man rejects covenantal faithfulness (Adam, Israel), man moves towards destruction and elimination of himself.

When Dukha, Annica and Annata are placed as marks of human existence in the light of God’s covenant with Israel, then these Buddhist terms are “historicized.” The insights of Buddha encounter the message of Israel and a new relationship is formed. The “special bringing” (prophetic accommodation) of Buddhist thoughts would illuminate our understanding of God who engages Himself in history, in contrast to the arahant, who detaches himself in history.  The God who had “seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt” (Exodus) is also the same God who gives meaning to the people who live in cyclical history---including the arahant (the Buddha, the disciple, the enlightened) of Thailand. 

Hebraization is injecting the covenant concept into the Thai indigenous and religious context. Hebraization is therefore, “covenantization.” The primary purpose is to bring the historical experience of the covenant life of this “fewest of all people” (Israel) to the rest of the peoples of the world---from Mount Sinai to Mount Fuji or from Mount Rushmore to Mount Pinatubo, etc…

To Koyama, this dialogue between “history” and “nature” in the context of Buddhist Thailand (and Asia) and the resultant “ascending spiral view of history-nature” would be an authentic contextualization that will be meaningful to the people of Thailand, Asia, and America. 

Application of Neighborological Theology in Today’s World

If theology precedes ethics or if belief precedes action, how do we apply Koyama’s “neighborological theology” in the context of our times in the 21^st century? How are we to account of the faith once delivered to us but now, in the midst of a broken world yearning for community in the midst of divisions and conflicts? Unity has always been a problem in the community of faith. Conflicts and disunity continue to fester between and among Christians, between and among denominations, between and among communions and oftentimes adversely affecting our Christian witness. 

The groaning for Christian unity was expressed by Bishop Mortimer Arias of Bolivia in 1975 during the 5^th Assembly of the Council of Churches held in Nairobi, Kenya when he said, “If we cannot be one in sharing a cup of coffee or sharing a cup of tea, how can we truly be one in sharing the Body and Blood of Christ?”How can we become agents of healing and reconciliation in the midst of a broken world? 

It is interesting to note that shortly after her installation as the first woman Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and primate in the Anglican Communion, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori underscored theology as a task of community building. In an interview in August 27, 2009 Jefferts Schori criticized American individualism as a “great Western heresy.” She remarked that individualism, or the understanding that the interest and independence of the individual trumped the interests of others, as well the principle of interdependence” is basically unbiblical and unchristian.” She further said:

The spiritual journey, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is about holy living in community. When Jesus was asked to summarize the Torah, he said, "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself." That means our task is to be in relationship with God and with our neighbors. If salvation is understood only as "getting right with God" without considering "getting right with (all) our neighbors," then we've got a heresy (an unorthodox belief) on our hands. Salvation cannot be complete, in an eternal and eschatological sense, until the whole of creation is restored to right relationship. That is what we mean when we proclaim in the catechism that "the mission of the church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ" and that the Christian hope is to "live with confidence in newness and fullness of life and to await the coming of Christ in glory and the completion of God's purpose for the world." We anticipate the restoration of all creation to right relationship, and we proclaim that Jesus' life, death and resurrection made that possible in a new way.

Philosopher Joseph Troeltsch said, “Christianity cannot be defined; it can only be described. It is always under way.” Christianity is best described as relationships. Our basic reason for being is to be in relationship with God and with our neighbors. The theology of Christianity is basically and primarily a theology of relationship. And the place to begin is in the community of faith, the church. In other words, judgment begins in the household of God. Before we can prophesy to the world, we need to prophesy to the church. And the area in the church, we begin is in our theology, in our “God talk.” 

I am of the opinion that as Christians who confess Jesus as Lord, we cannot be effective in our witness to a broken world unless we ourselves are healed of our divisions and fragmentations. But I am not talking about uniformity in liturgy, doctrines or ecclesiology. I am talking about embracing our diversity and transcending our theological boundaries in favor of choosing the essence of relationship and fulfilling the mission of human liberation and community. We are having this Forum in the Philippines, the country with 7,107 islands (during high tide) and it would be an illusion (a Maya in Buddhist context) to think that these islands can be uniform in size and topography and the islands people can be the same in their dialects and accents. In the same manner, our Christian churches and denominations have become islands of their own, having diverse principles and philosophies and theologies and expressions of faith. 

It will be an illusion to think that all Christians and even all Anglicans can all be one, in the sense of uniformity but we can transcend the boundaries of our “faith understanding” by learning from the context in which our neighbors operate from.  By learning the context of our neighbors in the faith, we will be able to extend the boundaries of our own theological circle, which Kosuke Koyama called our “particular orbit theology.” 

Someone has described that the current doctrinal division in the Anglican Communion, especially with regards to the issue of sexuality, is basically the division of Anglicans into two camps: those who believe that "God has spoken and we must obey"; versus those who believe that "God is still speaking and we must listen."  As an incorrigible Anglican or "Episcopayan" (Episcopal Aglipayan; Aglipayan, Church is the other name for Iglesia Filipina Independiente. Gregorio Aglipay of the Philippines is often compared to Martin Luther of Germany), I am not an “either or” but “both and” person. I believe we must both obey the essence of Christianity as relationship and also listen to the movement of God in our own history. Christ has many things said and done that if they are all written there is no book that can contain them. In his words to the apostles prior to his death and resurrection, Jesus said that there are still many things that he wanted to say but at that time, they could not bear them. 

Benjamin Reist, a student of Troeltsch and Alfred North Whitehead, believed that the nature of God’s revelation is neither static nor progressive but processive. Revelation is always in process. He cited Troeltsch in relation to Koyama’s neighborological theology, saying  “Christianity, being historic, unfolds, develops, proceeds, and it does so by means of creativity that always bears the marks of the contexts within which it comes into play.”

What God has done in Christ has been done once and for all. But this does not yield, nor does it demand a once-for-all-statement of the meaning of that act, good in all times and places, in all circumstances, in all epoch. To borrow one of Alfred North Whitehead’s great phrases, we always seem to be caught in the trap of “misplaced concreteness” (Whitehead 1925, 55). We focus on the finished conclusions rather than on the continuum whence they spring from and which they serve. (Reist 22-23). We need not deny our context in order to grasp what was forged in another.  Simply transplanting theological systems from one frame of reference to another does not work. It never yields new clarities; it at least generates cultural imperialism. This is why the entire missionary enterprise has always gone vulnerable to assault in the name of the cultures contorted.  We must understand that if the essence of Christianity is stated in a once-for-all terms, cultural imperialism is the inexorable result of the proclamation of the gospel.

2. Prophecy to the Church and the World

The second application from Koyama’s theology is how we can be prophetic to the very church or nation that we represent. One of the recent phrases that have become a byword during United States elections for presidency was the phrase “American exceptionalism.” Proponents of American exceptionalism argue that the United States is exceptional in that it was founded on a set of republication ideals, rather than on a common heritage, ethnicity, or ruling elite. In the formulation of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, America is a nation "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." In this view, America is inextricably connected with liberty and equality. This is an exceptional proposition.

This interpretation of American exceptionalism is championed by former speaker of the House of Congress, Newt Gingrich. In a 2011 film, A City Upon a Hill and book, A Nation Like No Other, Gingrich argues the claim to "exceptionalism" is "built on the unique belief that our rights do not come from the government, but from God, giving honor and responsibility to the individual – not the state."

As an American citizen, I have seen many evidences that the United States it is blessed country and has indeed been very exceptional in its cultures, compared with many other nations. But it makes me uneasy when politicians, televangelists and even clergy and theologians taut it repeatedly, because it echoes the Israelites national idolatry centered on “we are the chosen people, we are the chosen people, we are the chosen people” or “we are the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.” 

American exceptionalism or the illusion of it has bred the doctrines of the “white man’s burden” and the “manifest destiny.” When we are very certain of our being exceptional, we are tempted to convert others without listening to them. We develop, according to Koyama, the “teacher-complex.”

 

In Exodus 32:9-10, the Lord said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them” [Exod. 32: 9-10]. Koyama remarked: “This is remarkable! God is criticizing God’s own people! This God is radically different from the war gods of Japan. The war gods of Japan were never known to criticize their own people. In fact, the foundation of the war-time state ideology was that the Japanese gods do not find fault with the Japanese people but busily condemn people of other nations. The gods rubber-stamped whatever the Japanese militarist government wanted to do. "May we send our imperial army to China?" The gods responded quickly, "Yes." May we annex Korea to Japan? The gods replied immediately, "Go ahead!" “May we invade the Philippines?” Sure! For the 50 years preceding 1945, Japan was quite a religious nation!”

The God revealed to us in Christ and revealed repeatedly in and in process, is not a partial god who thinks Hie people were exceptional. The God revealed in Christ is impartial in God’s judgment (Rom. 2:10).  If God were partial, God would treat everyone with geometrical sameness. The impartiality of God can be applied to all people of all nations. "I have seen the Americans (or Filipinos, Germans, Japanese, Indonesians, Filipinos, Singaporeans, etc.) and behold, they are a stiff-necked people." The saying may also be applied to religions. This universal God of the Bible would say, "I have seen Christians (or Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims, etc.)  and behold, they are a stiff-necked people." 

America, Asia, the whole humanity can benefit from studying the "failures" of Israel. Through Israel’s failures -- stiff-neckedness -- -we can come to know the reality of human history and the nature of the universal God. When a people are stiff-necked, what should God do with them? "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. This is an astounding development in the narrative of the golden calf. God’s sincerity is completely free from bias and prejudice. It is awe-inspiringly universal. When God repents, God reveals something of the mystery of our salvation. God becomes vulnerable because of God’s intense love for humanity. The challenge for Asia-America theologians is how to make the prophesy clear enough so we will understand God’s ultimate will.

3. Embracing Diversity is the Alternative to Violence

The thesis of diversity is this: "If there would only be one religion in the world, we will build another Tower of Babel; if there are only two religions, half of the world will survive and the other half will perish; but if there are more religions in the world, everyone will have a choice." 

The whole world is involved in the contextualization of theology, trying to make sense of what God is doing in our midst. In the midst of the vast complexities that are Asia, Africa, the Americas, similar ferments of theological creativity are at hand. 

Black theology has developed in term of the focus of oppression caught in the struggle against racism. Latin American liberation paved the way to the emergence of what we now know as women’s liberation; and gay (LGBTQ) liberation. The whole world and the whole Church are yearning for diversity. The South Indian Dalit theology and the Korea Minjung theology, all were bred in the context of extreme oppression. The Filipino Makibaka theology is a theology of struggle, trying to make sense of the historical construction, deconstruction and restoration of its place in the Christian milieu.We must understand that the God of Abraham and Sarah, the God of Israel, the God of Japan, America, Philippines and all the worlds is the God of contexts. Let us struggle to obey and listen to God’s continuing movement in our history. 

Ben Reist, who also happens to be my professor at San Francisco Theological Seminary (1986), continued,

God’s self-disclosure is processive, not progressive, in character. The issue is not simply the continuing unfolding of the implications of God’s self-disclosure but the moving presence of the Ultimate One’s own becoming. And it has to do with the nature of the God who knows us; in Jesus Christ…The revelation of the relating God is a processive in character. We have always been summoned beyond the frontiers of yesterday’s certainties, for the God who inspired those risks has new risks to run, evoking the response of the faithful to His presence which is always new. We are known by, and therefore know, this intimacy. We therefore know, and know that we know, that we must always be willing to think thoughts that have never been thought before in order that the gospel may be heard by all. (Reist, 97)

When we know God in process and know God’s intimacy, then we will,  notwithstanding our differences and diversity, chose inclusion and embrace and not exclusion and violence.

The Rev. Dr. Winfred B. Vergara is missioner for Asiamerica Ministries in the Episcopal Church and priest-in-charge of St. James Episcopal Parish in Elmhurst, Queens, New York, considered the “most diverse village in the world.”

AN ECUMENICAL THEOLOGY OF THE IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE (IFI) IN HISTORY

AN ECUMENICAL THEOLOGY OF THE IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE (IFI) IN HISTORY: A JOURNEY IN SEARCH FOR TRUTH, ORIGINS AND AFFIRMATION OF A EUCHARISTIC VISION 

(A paper presented by the Rev. Dr. Eleuterio J. Revollido to the Second Asia-America Theological Exchange Forum, February 4-6, 2013, Mandell Hall, Trinity University of Asia, Quezon City)

It is a great privilege and honor for me to represent the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) to the 2^nd Asia-America Theological Exchange Forum and be the first presenter to this important gathering of theologians, church leaders and ecumenical partners.  The formulation of my topic to this forum went into various transformations as I was thinking of a presentation not merely to fit into the theme formulated by the organizers but something that could propagate or probably ignite more interest for scholars to study further the history and theology of the IFI.

During the last ten years there has been favorable interest among Roman Catholics, Old Catholics and IFI theologians to write scholarly books, dissertations and articles[1] regarding the IFI and its prominent leaders like Supreme Bishop Gregorio Aglipay and Isabelo de los Reyes, Sr. What is interesting in these academic research studies are the new found titles to accolade their already historic roles in Philippine Church history. Books written in the 20^th century had already taught us that Isabelo de los Reyes, Sr. or popularly known as Don Belong, is the Father of Philippine Folklore and Father of Unionism in the Philippines. The more recent research works added to his honor the titles being the First Asian Liturgist and the Forerunner of Filipino Theology.

Just the same with Bishop Aglipay who received recognition from historians and remembered as a zealous Catholic priest with heroic roles as the Military Vicar General during the Revolution against Spain, the leader of Katipunan in Victoria, Tarlac, the lone clergy representative in the Malolos Congress, and a Guerilla Padre who fought valiantly against American imperialism. [2] His gallant contributions stated above drew the interest of many historians to focus on his nationalist character who championed the cause of religious and political independence of the country although others went beyond and argued that he was not only a priest and a nationalist but a prophet as well. [3] Like Don Belong, Aglipay was ensured in history being the First Supreme Bishop of the IFI, the first church leader in Philippine history to run for presidency in the 1935 Commonwealth election, and interestingly could be considered the Forerunner of Ecumenical Dialogue in the Philippines, a new found title that this paper would attempt to explore in connection to its ecumenical theology. 

It has been an accepted fact through the lens of various historians that there are two key historical determinants that have shaped the more than 100 years of IFI’s life and ministry - its nationalism and ecumenism. The intention of this paper is to deal with the latter by briefly presenting the IFI in Philippine history and its ecumenical journey, present Aglipay as the Forerunner of Ecumenical dialogue in the Philippines whose examples were successfully followed by his predecessors specifically Supreme Bishop IV, Isabelo L. de los Reyes, Jr. and Supreme Bishop IX, Alberto B. Ramento. It will be through the ministry exemplified by these three Supreme Bishops that this paper will try to capture and characterize an IFI ecumenical theology based on the following outline: Aglipay  Searching for Truth: Ecumenism of dialogue, openness and the importance of people; De los Reyes Rooting the Origins: Ecumenism means returning back to sources and healing the wounds; Ramento Affirming the Eucharistic Vision of Food, Sharing, Serving and Sacrifice.[4]

II. The IFI in Philippine History and Ecumenism in the world

It was argued that there is no other church one can think of whose beginnings can be traced in the context of a struggle for national independence, and its eventual proclamation was pioneered by nationalist lay people belonging to the organized radical labor union except the Iglesia Filipina Independiente. This church was not founded by somebody who claimed vision from God, prominent scholars or a self-proclaimed prophet but by the workers belonging to the Union Obrera Democratica (UOD) who at the outset of the 20^th century were fighting for freedom and rights as Filipino Christians and laborers under the American colonial government. [5]

This colorful yet controversial genesis of the IFI whose birth was part and parcel of the struggle for political and religious emancipation in the Philippines has always been an object of scrutiny in Philippine history. Because of this, it is very often, if not always, a tendency to center the discussion about this church only from a historical point of view. This important yet sometimes romanticized historical inclination in a way weakens its very foundation and claims.

It is a challenge to the IFI to work further in the transmission of its belief and the sharing of its faith journey and clarify that it is not a mere creation of a labor movement affiliated with the radical political party at the beginning of the 20^th century but a true branch of the Catholic Church founded in Christ Jesus. It shall be Philippine, Independent and above all, a Church. Its more than one hundred years of mission and ministry in the Philippines and overseas and its wide ecumenical partnership today are proofs in support of this claim, i.e., a church blessed by God and a gift offered to the Filipinos. [6]

            The Iglesia Filipina Independiente as an “assembly which God has called out to be His people,” [7] clearly defines itself in the 1977 Constitution and Canons as:

“a congregation of new men, educated in and liberated by the teachings of Christ, dedicated to the worship of God in spirit and in truth, nourished and sustained in the Eucharist and commissioned to preach God’s love to the world” [8]

The theological exposition of this definition was made by the Supreme Council of Bishops (SCB) in 1998 by pointing out the basic IFI beliefs, principles and the context of its mission. The summary of it can be made by focusing on five important areas: 1. The commitment of  being a new Filipino Christian Pro Deo et Patria and its beginnings embracing the revolutionary aspirations of the people for political independence and religious reformation; 2. The basis of IFI teachings is Christ revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Like Christ who preached the Good News of salvation to the poor, the IFI on its part must follow what her master exemplified and do it in solidarity with the unprivileged; 3. Our worship of God in Spirit and in truth is not limited in praising Him but must be seen also in service to the least of our brethren; 4. that the IFI is nourished and sustained in the Eucharist, a precious moment to receive His Body and Blood, a venue to remember not only the saving acts of God in Christ but to commit oneself in His Body  ready to be broken for the sake of others; and 5. a servant Church for and in the world, independent but catholic, Filipino but global and ecumenical.[9]

It was a historical fact that the birth of the IFI caused further disunity in the already divided Church. Achutegui and Bernad in their book Religious Revolution in the Philippines described the alarming figure of early converts to the IFI saying “That 1,500,000 persons should leave the Catholic Church overnight and join an anti-Catholic movement was a religious upheaval of the first magnitude and must have been caused by forces which no responsible historian could afford to minimize.” 10 Bishop Aglipay himself was conscious of the imminent divisive outcome of his decision to lead the IFI by saying:

“If I waited a year before sanctioning the schism, it was because of painful division that would be made in the bosom of our people and our families; and only after I was convinced that there was no other remedy did I embrace it with a soul most grieved.” 11

Amidst the occurrence of a schism, history also tells us that various attempts were made by the IFI leadership in concretizing the biblical teaching, “that all may be one” (Jn. 17:21) from small to large - scale attempts of cooperation that were carried out in different levels and degrees. Some examples could be traced as early as 1901 about the dialogue between Aglipay and the American Protestant missionaries that the author will further elaborate later on, and his personal contact with Bishop Charles Brent of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA (PECUSA) the following year. Dialogue was also established through letters between Bishop Eduard Herzog of the Old Catholic Church of Switzerland (OCCS) and Aglipay in 1903, and the 1904 initial communication between Aglipay and the Papal Legate Giovanni Baptista Guidi which was unfortunately aborted due to the death of the latter. The larger - scale ecumenical endeavor with overwhelming effects until today could be attributed to the approval of the IFI’s 1947 Declaration of Faith and Articles of Religion (DFAR) and the bestowal of Apostolic Succession by the PECUSA that brought back the IFI into the mainline Catholic doctrine and practice.12 It was through the DFAR that this Church opened the door for further dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church by giving a specific section towards this direction entitled, “Attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church.”

The 1947 DFAR also focuses towards cooperation with other Churches. It coincided and perfectly served with the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948 when it states:

“Opportunity is to be sought for closer cooperation with other branches of the Catholic Church, and cordial relations maintained with all who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.” 13

This principle of unity brought the IFI to become an active member of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1958, the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) and a founding member of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) in 1963. At present, the IFI is in Concordat of Full Communion 14 not just with the Provinces of the Episcopal/Anglican Churches in the world in which the latest was with the Anglican Church of Melanesia in 2011 but also with the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht signed in 1965 and the Lutheran Church of Sweden in 1995. The IFI also establishes mutual cooperation and unity agreement with Reformed Churches like the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) and the Protestant Churches in the Netherlands. Since 1960’s the IFI has been in constant contact and cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church in different levels and activities like the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, dialogue on baptism, discussions and common actions on issues of peace, justice and integrity of creation. In reality this ecumenical journey did not only open the IFI into communion with the wider Christian bodies but the above encounter and experiences were also instrumental in shaping the ecumenical theology of this church.

III. An IFI Ecumenical Theology as Characterized in the Ministry of Supreme Bishops

    Aglipay, De los Reyes, Jr. and Ramento

Consciousness of faith and the necessity to reflect and communicate it for the edification of the community of believers originate theology. Believing that division is not a new phenomenon in the church (1 Cor. 1:10-17) put more in urgency the desire to attain unity as the constant and one of the primary reasons for any theology to explore and address.  On the other hand, church unity is also imperiled by theology itself, specifically imposing theologies and traditions not a result of shared beliefs of a persistently striving community who witness together as exemplified by the early ecumenical councils but by denominational or personal and individual convictions. 15

It is from the above framework that the IFI ecumenical theology takes its approach by presupposing that every belief and tradition in the church has something valuable to contribute even if we cannot yet discern what it is. It is looking for what is best in traditions not its own, not to defeat them but to respect and learn from them. It seeks a charitable spirit which "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things" (1 Cor. 13: 7). It is a theology that listens in order to earn its right to speak as it searches for truth, roots its origins, and affirms a Eucharistic vision until it reach the unforeseen convergence of unity.

This attempt to describe the IFI ecumenical theology leads us to the discussion of its contexts as seen in the ministry and ecumenical encounters of the three Supreme Bishops namely, Gregorio L. Aglipay (1902-1940), Isabelo L.de los Reyes, Jr., (1946-1971), and Alberto B. Ramento (1993-1999) that characterized their brand of ecumenism.

A.    Aglipay Searching for Truth: The Ecumenism of Dialogue, Openness and Giving Importance to People

If ecumenical theology emphasizes respect, the art of listening and learning from others it would simply imply the attitude of humility and the preparedness to receive guidance into all truth by the Spirit of truth (John 16:13). It is from this perspective that we can find the ecumenism of Bishop Aglipay as he led the IFI in search for truth and devotedly expressed it into three areas of ministry: Dialogue, Openness and Giving Importance to People

1.      The Historic “Ecumenical Dialogue” with the Protestant Missionaries in 1901

It is being acknowledged that ecumenical theology is very much a theology of dialogue. It is in itself a method to search for truth that requires preparation in the encounter with the intent of knowing each other and be able to discuss commonalities and differences in a friendly atmosphere.  A dialogue is an opportunity to convey a genuine communication and to understand the others story and history to reach a certain point of cooperation.

It is in the above spirit of ecumenical dialogue, even though this term could be very much foreign in the context of 1901, but it was realized through the initiative of the then Father Gregorio Aglipay interestingly, even before the formal proclamation of the IFI. It was this historic event where Aglipay could be called the forerunner of ecumenical dialogue in the Philippines after he made an initiative to have a formal discourse with the American Protestant missionaries. It happened barely six months after he left his camp in Ilocos Norte as a guerilla padre and surrendered to the Americans in May 190116 after learning the capture of President Aguinaldo by the American forces in Palanan, Isabela few months earlier.

This historic dialogue was recorded by the Rev. Stuntz, a Methodist missionary and one of the participants. His record narrates the following events:

“In November of 1901 he (Aglipay) sought a private conference with several Protestant ministers to discuss the religious situation in the Philippines, outline his own plans and seek some kind of cooperation if union of effort proved impracticable. He took the initiative. It was his first contact with the Protestants whom he had always denounced as the off scourging of the earth. The fact that he visited us was an indication of his intellectual hospitality…

He pictured the popular hatred of the friars as we had seen it. He pointed out the systematic ill-treatment of the native clergy by the foreign friar and the unrest which this caused in the entire native community. He showed us proofs of the passionate fervor of all Filipinos for their own islands. He then told us that he proposed to lead in the establishment of an Independent Catholic Church in the Philippines and that he wished us to make common cause with him…

We pointed out to him the impossibility of any attempt to unite with a movement which did not make the Scriptures the rule and guide in doctrine and life, and urged him to study the situation more carefully and throw strength into the Protestant movement. If he could not do that we all represented the certainty of failure if only a program of negation were entered upon, and secured a promise that he would carefully consider the question of the endorsement of the Word of God, marriage of the clergy and the abolition of Mariolatry.” 17

            Few years after this historic event, a Protestant pastor gave his critical comments to the imposing attitudes showed by the American missionaries by enumerating the valuable lessons learned from that failed dialogue. He wrote: “1. Their Evangelical faith was not “missions” to Evangelical leadership but immersed in the individualistic process and mainly interested in personal salvation. Aglipay was leading a people’s movement while the evangelicals who wanted to lead Aglipay were establishing gathered churches; 2. Each American church was reproducing its denominational pattern rather than creating a free Biblical Philippine Church; 3. There was a maximum degree of mutual suspicion between Filipinos and Americans. Seeing Filipinos as ultra-nationalists and ex-insurrectos and Americans as imperialists and cruel as seen in the excesses of the American soldiers. This was aggravated by two different languages (Spanish and English) that created additional misunderstanding; 4. The Protestant leaders failed to appreciate that IFI was substantially an Asian revolt against European domination. It was nationalistic tinged with religious fervor but lacking in Biblical conviction. They are supposed to guide, not as superiors but as friendly equals.” 18

The historic meeting with the Protestants was a seed planted by Aglipay. It was watered by the next generation of IFI leaders who emulated Aglipay’s ecumenical spirit of dialogue with the belief that God will give growth to their ecumenical journey.

2.      Openness with the Roman and Old Catholic Churches amidst confrontation

Doing ecumenical theology should be marked by good communication for the lack of it means the end of any relationships. Though humility and honesty are implied in such a task but openness is a core component in the pursuit of genuine dialogue. This is where the art of listening is so important and the ability to respond with opened mind and heart is an imperative. There were two instances in the ministry of Supreme Bishop Aglipay where openness in communication was found central in the search for truth.  

The first one was the letter of invitation he received from the Papal Legate Giovanni Baptista Guidi in 1904 to attend the planned Synod of Manila that he responded in a very candid way. This event was of great importance because it was the first official attempt to commence a dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the IFI two years after the latter breached from the Vatican.

            The Papal Legate Giovanni Baptista Guidi arrived in Manila in the middle of the tension between the newly-proclaimed IFI and the Roman Catholic Church. He brought with him the controversial document Que Mari Sinico, Pope Leo XIII’s constitution addressed to the Philippines dated September 17, 1902. Surprisingly, this papal constitution avoided the central issues at bar, namely, the appointment of Filipino bishops for Philippine dioceses; the Filipinization of the parishes; and the expulsion of the Spanish friars. 19 This pope’s solution created great disappointment even from the ranks of Filipino clergy within the Roman Catholic Church. As expected, a strong opposition came from the IFI looking at this papal constitution as completely unacceptable.

But in spite of the atmosphere of accusation and counter-accusations between the IFI and the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines, the personality and character of Archbishop Guidi stood high during these trying times. The Manila Cablenews described him as a man “qualified to deal with the complicated situation in the Philippines. He had settled similar complications in Brazil, where the church was forcibly divorced from the state and much of its property confiscated by the revolutionists.” 20

Archbishop Guidi approached the Philippine Church’s problem in a dialogical way as seen in his decision to convoke the Provincial Synod of Manila on August 7, 1904 and to formally invite Bishop Aglipay for possible reconciliation. Though surprised by the invitation, Bishop Aglipay took it seriously and after consulting other bishops he favorably responded to the invitation with an open and straightforward letter saying:

            Most Reverend Brother: We have read carefully and with conciliatory disposition your invitation to the forthcoming Council extended to the Bishops, priests and faithful of the  Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Filipina Independiente, and, taking into account that it omits the usual fulminations and menacing programs contained in previous Episcopal documents and fixing our attention solely on your expressed desire for reconciliation…we have agreed to write your Reverence this letter and ask the following questions.

            1.  Would your Reverence accept as a basic requirement for reconciliation a discussion in the Council of the motives (which have driven us) to the painful separation (from the Roman Church), in order to discover means or formulas for mutual agreement?

            2. What persons would be acceptable to your Reverence to represent our Independent Church? We intend to send to the Council as Delegates-Extraordinary several priests ordained by our aforementioned Church and laymen headed by a Bishop. In the event that these persons are acceptable, we would like to ask the nature of their participation: that is, will they have active voice and voting power?

            We invite your Reverence to reflect on the fact that, once separated from Rome, it is incompatible with our dignity, with prudence, and even with sound reason for us to make a previous submission without ascertaining beforehand whether the most serious motives which compelled us to separation are truly acceptable or not.” 21

            On June 26, 1904, two of Bishop Aglipay’s messengers personally handed over the above letter to the Papal Legate’s house. It was during this very time when they heard of the lamentable news that Archbishop Guidi had just died. Again as a good communicator Bishop Aglipay took this opportunity to write to Pope Pius X and attached his letter to Guidi expressing his respectful condolences and repeating his request for a conciliatory answer.22 Bishop Aglipay received no reply and the great opportunity died with Archbishop Guidi. The Provincial Synod previously scheduled on August 7, 1904 was postponed and was convoked anew in 1907. It was called in a completely different atmosphere from reconciliation to condemnation declaring the IFI as the “new ‘Synagogue’ of the Anti-Christ” and condemned the IFI “not merely as schismatic, but apostates and heretics.”23

            The other ecumenical encounter by Bishop Aglipay that showed openness was the correspondence he made with Bishop Eduard Herzog of the Old Catholic of Switzerland. Bishop Herzog learned about the IFI in 1903 through an international newspaper where he immediately conveyed his interest by writing Bishop Aglipay and informing him about the Old Catholic Church (OCC) in Europe. He was instrumental in the initial negotiation between the IFI and the OCC Episcopal Conference in 1904 on the possibility of the bestowal of Apostolic Succession to IFI bishops where they gladly said, “If the bishops of your Church should hitherto not have received the Catholic consecration, we would address to you the urgent entreaty to be mindful of supplying this want.”24

            Bishop Aglipay failed to attend the invitation made by the OCC bishops because there were more pressing issues in the country specifically the needed resolution in the organization and structures of the new church. He sustained his communication and showed his openness to Bishop Herzog and even dedicated to him the IFI Catechesis of 1912 that contained his brand of liberal Christianity. He received criticism from Bishop Herzog regarding the Unitarian leanings of the Catechesis that Bishop Aglipay frankly responded saying, “If you want a quite and useful discussion, you show our mistakes… then we will modify without pride our teachings, as Cicero said, “It is of anyone to do mistakes, but it is only stupid the one that remain in the mistake knowing it.… I have opened my heart to you, my dear brother, and I assure you that the previous words are said within the most friendly trust.” 25

            Few decades later, the frank and honest communication between Bishop Aglipay and Bishop Herzog served as a seed planted for future cultivation that realized its fruits in the Concordat signing in 1965 under Supreme Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr.

3.      Ecumenism is Giving Importance to People

Ecumenism for some people is somewhat associated with meetings of church leaders or statements, agreements and declarations that they themselves do not hear or even see its existence. In reality, ecumenism is not paper or paper works but more concerned on people than with paper. Giving great importance to people was one primary characteristic of Bishop Aglipay. When asked if he was the founder of the IFI he said with humility and conviction that,

“The Philippine Independent Church was founded by the people of our country.  It  was a  product of  their  initiative,  a  product of their desire for  liberty,  religiously,  politically  and socially.  I was only one of the instruments of its expression.” 26

Doing ecumenism for Bishop Aglipay was also very much in giving importance to people. In 1904, Aglipay wrote to the bishops of the then, Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA of America (PECUSA) a letter that pertains to cooperation and possible bestowal of Apostolic Succession with the assistance from the Episcopal Bishop in the Philippines, Charles Henry Brent. The letter of Bishop Aglipay says,

“I have the honor to convey to the Venerable Assembly of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the homage of our affectionate confraternity in God, and imploring aid of your prayers that our Heavenly Father may guide our newly born and humble National Church through the paths of His divine will, by the light of the Holy Spirit, which we trust to obtain through the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, by earnestly preaching His evangelical lessons of saintliness, love, moral and social redemption.” 27

It is interesting to note that his letter towards church cooperation contains an interest not merely about agreements that would be written in papers but collaboration towards “moral and social redemption” of people.  His consistent attitude in giving importance to people even of other races could be seen also in his practice of ecumenism. It happened in 1938 when Bishop Aglipay sat side by side with a Roman Catholic Archbishop at the Ateneo Auditorium. This gathering was called purposely to protest the religious persecutions in Germany. It was the first experience of Aglipay as a Supreme Bishop to enter a Catholic institution or to have spoken from the same platform along with a Roman Catholic bishop since the revolution against Spain. 28 It was truly manifested in his action that ecumenism concerns the liberation of people.

B.     De los Reyes, Jr. Rooting the Origins and Healing the Wounds

1.      Ecumenism is Rooting the Origins of Christianity

The IFI was born in 1902 with a doctrinal position along the lines of what popularly known as the Bacarra formula, i.e. faith in Peter…but not in his diplomacy or his politics or his despotism.” 29 It is professing the Catholic faith and tradition but not in communion with Rome in terms of church discipline that seen by the founders of this church as oppressive for the Filipinos. 30 But from 1910s onwards Supreme Bishop Aglipay along with Isabelo de los Reyes, Sr. started changing the doctrinal stand of this church in line with liberal Christianity associated with Unitarianism. 31 Alarmed by the denial of the divinity of Christ and the “reform” of the Mass as simply a “brotherly meal”, Bishop Servando Castro, a contemporary of Bishop Aglipay, led the call for the return to Catholicity. He made his opposition in public saying that the people who were faithful to the church should be opposed to the new doctrine. It was the death of Bishop Aglipay in1940 that paved the way the process of returning to the original doctrine of the IFI. 32

One of the fundamental elements of ecumenical theology is the dimension that it should be rooted in the origins of Christianity. It has to look back to the inspiration that can only be found in the scriptures, the early fathers and the whole history of the church. This ecumenism of rooting the origins of faith and the return to the original belief and tradition of the IFI was the greatest contribution that Supreme Bishop Isabelo L. de los Reyes, Jr. had given to the IFI.

He was instrumental in the approval of the 1947 Declaration of Faith and Articles of Religion (DFAR) and the new Constitution and Canons of the IFI, with “both reorientation to traditional Christianity with specific accent of faith of the early church, and to its mediation through Anglican channels.” 33 These two fundamental documents paved the way for the PECUSA to bestow the gift of Apostolic Succession to three IFI bishops led by de los Reyes in 1948.

The return of the IFI to historic Christianity resulted into partnership with the Episcopal Church in theological education specifically the training of priests at St. Andrew’s Theological Seminary, the membership of IFI to the World Council of Churches in 1958, the signing of Concordat relations with the PECUSA in 1961 and with other Anglican Provinces afterwards, Concordat of Full Communion with the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht in 1965 and became one of the founding members of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines in 1963 where Supreme Bishop de los Reyes, Jr. himself was elected as its first president.

            The seeds of cooperation that Supreme Bishop Aglipay planted during the early part of his ministry with the Episcopal Church and the Old Catholic Church are now bearing fruits in fifties and hundreds after the IFI returns to its origin through Supreme Bishop de los Reyes, Jr.

2.      Ecumenism is “healing the wounds”

The bitter opponent of the IFI since its inception was the Roman Catholic Church who in 1907 condemned this church as a “synagogue of anti-Christ and accused its clergy of being pseudo-priests and bishops. They used their resources to publish books with the intent of maligning this church and deploying good number of religious orders throughout the country to put the IFI on its knees. 34 For many years the IFI was not just harassed but isolated not only because of its Unitarian doctrinal beliefs during the time of Bishop Aglipay but even secluded from the companionship of other churches.

If ecumenism is about the movement of Christians with the objective of restoring unity among churches, then, ecumenism is a medicine to heal the wounds of decades of division. This description was very much true in the experiences of the IFI during the leadership of Supreme Bishop de los Reyes, Jr. in which ecumenism led the “IFI in the world” not merely by signing agreements but meeting and praying with the wider Christian churches. We find the Supreme Bishop during the opening of the Second Vatican Council asking the IFI to pray for Pope John XXIII35 and in few years seeing him with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul 36 or with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

            Before we have the offending books from the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned to pin down the IFI but now we have their theologians defending the ecclesiology of this church and proving that Aglipay was not only a priest or nationalist but a hero and a prophet.  New Roman Catholic authors also explored further the life of Don Belong and proved his achievement being the First Asian Liturgist and the Forerunner of Filipino Theology. With this experience that started by the ecumenical spirit of Supreme Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. shows us another reality that ecumenism truly heals wound.

C.     Ramento Affirming the Eucharistic Vision

The Eucharist is one of the vivid and challenging symbols of the ecumenical movement. It was a description of the event transpired “on the night when He was betrayed, He took bread and broke it.” (1 Cor. 11:23). It is the image of a broken Christ that serves as an inspiration for the churches to be a sacrament in healing the broken world. The Eucharist depicts different but reciprocal symbols. Eucharist also mediates and constructs a Eucharistic vision of a Christian world. It is an experience of food, sharing, service and sacrifice that mediate the vision about the Kingdom where abundance, joy, peace and justice reign. It is the vision to be struggled for and to be pursued by all of us.

            In 2002, the IFI commemorated its centenary in a Eucharistic celebration with the churches coming from the Anglican/Episcopal, Reformed, Old Catholic, Lutheran and Evangelical traditions in attendance of more than one hundred thousand people at the Quirino Grandstand, Manila. This celebration was a success not just in the level of personal acquaintances of leaders and faithful as ecumenical partners but produced a document dubbed, the Manila Communiqué 37 calling for justice and peace amid globalization and an initial discussion for a theological forum among concordat churches.

            The theological forum started in 2006 a month after the martyrdom of Bishop Alberto Ramento and ended in 2008. The forum was initiated by the Archbishop of the Old Catholic Church, Joris Vercammen and participated by The Episcopal Church, Church of Sweden and the IFI. It produced two books, Globalization and Catholicity: Ecumenical Conversations on God’s Abundance and the People’s Need (2010) and Catholicity in Times of Globalization,38  both dedicated to Bishop Ramento. What is interesting about these books was the discussion on the Eucharistic Vision that served as a converging theme in the later part of the forum being inspired by the theology of the martyred bishop and the other three IFI priests namely, Jeremias Aquino, Narciso Pico and William Tadena who also laid their lives for the sake of the people.

It was through their examples that we can argue that ecumenism should contribute to bringing about change of heart for people to grow and radically change the face of Christianity and in the process also help changing the face of the earth by striving for social justice. The affirmation of the Eucharistic vision of Food, Sharing, Serving and Sacrifice exemplified by Bishop Ramento and other IFI martyrs attested this vision. 39

1.      Eucharist is about Food.

Father William Tadena (1968-2005) an IFI priest was ambushed and brutally killed on March 13, 2005 after celebrating a morning Eucharist in his mission station at Guevarra, La Paz, Tarlac. A few months earlier, in December 2004, he had asked his people to share the joy of Christmas by giving food to the exploited and hungry workers of Hacienda Luisita who at that time just experienced the massacre of some of their members. This violent situation neither intimidated Father Tadena nor dissuaded his conviction that food must be shared. He collected more than ten sacks of rice from his parishioners, the majority of whom were peasants, and offered it to the tables of the oppressed people who were struggling for land, labor, food and freedom. This act of love and compassion cost him his life and joined the more than a thousand social activists who have been victims of extrajudicial killings under the Arroyo regime.

What can we learn from Father Tadena? It is clear that those who struggle and are “dedicated to the worship of God in spirit and in truth” while living lives of hope and meaning often see the connections among worship, food, and God’s concern for those who hunger, whether for bread or justice. It is obvious that hunger brings into focus our human dependence on other human beings. We do not live by bread alone, but we must begin with bread - or rice. The very gesture of sharing bread does more than alleviate starvation; it gives company, dialogue, companionship, solidarity, hope. It gives communion.

Eucharist is about food for the first Eucharistic celebration derived from a meal. We can see here the intention of Jesus to remain present with his community under the form of bread and wine representing his body and blood. Jesus concern for the poor is always related with the question of bread for the hungry and it is unfortunate that many Christians cannot see the connection between daily bread and God’s salvation. Economy and Eucharist are linked and bound together in the believing community.

Father Tadena was buried on March 29, 2005. At his funeral, Bishop Alberto Ramento, his beloved bishop, shared in his homily the vision of his martyred priest:

“A gunshot was made hitting his neck, piercing his brain, to vanish his understanding and sense of being. A bullet penetrated his heart to eradicate, to kill his innermost desire hidden inside it. Another bullet shattered his neck aimed at destroying his voice, denying his capacity to preach the vision and belief of a priest whose only sin was to proclaim what he felt. What was the vision that our brother, our priest, and our pastor William proclaimed? It was the vision of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente. It is the vision of the Aglipayanos that was given to us by our forebears who offered their lives and shed their blood so that we can freely preach the vision, that vision on how to become a true Christian.

Anyone who does not serve his or her neighbor, especially the poor, anyone who denies support to the deprived, the needy, the oppressed, those who are thirsty, the political prisoners, is not a true Christian. A Church who worships God but fails to serve her country and people performs false worship, because a life of a person, his or her words and deeds in every minute of his or her life is his or her true worship…”

Bishop Alberto Ramento carried out what he preached, a life of true worship in words and deeds, by following the sacrifice of his priest, the multitudes of martyrs before them, and Jesus himself, who exemplified it to everyone.

2.      Eucharist is Sharing

Supreme Bishop Alberto B. Ramento, D.D. (1936-2006) was known to us as the ninth Obispo Maximo of the IFI, a peace advocate, human- rights defender, and bishop of the poor peasants and workers. He was the chairperson of the Supreme Council of Bishops and the Bishop of Tarlac when he was brutally murdered in his humble convent in Tarlac City on October 3, 2006. In 2000, he started a feeding program for street children called “Lingap-Batang Lansangan” (Care for Street Children), to share whatever blessings he had from his diocese and friends. When the bodies of the slain farm workers in the infamous Hacienda Luisita massacre on November 16, 2004, had nowhere to be laid because of the fear that engulfed the community,  Bishop Ramento courageously shared his church and convent for the bodies of these abused people. When union leaders of Tarlac have no place to plan to strengthen their ranks, Bishop Ramento shared his humble home. His principles and militant actions enraged those who profited from the sweat and blood of the toiling masses.

What was Bishop Ramento’s motivation in doing all this? His eucharistic vision explains his reasons. In his July 1998 address at the Lambeth Conference, on the theme Partnership and Mission between the Anglican Communion and the IFI, he said:

The Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist explicitly demonstrates the Christian view of cooperation and solidarity. First, in the Offertory, as St. Paul stated in his letter to the Romans, “we offer ourselves as a perfect and living sacrifice”. This is giving self to another self, the love that God requires us to practice, the love that has no price tag and does not count the cost. Secondly, in the Breaking of the Bread, Christ said, ‘This is my body broken for you”, so we must be broken too. This means that we break our desires and greed for power, our appetite for wealth that leads to over-accumulation of wealth. And finally, the Communion. In the Offertory, everyone gives according to ability. In the Holy Communion, everyone receives according to his or her need. The feeding of the five thousand illustrates that without greed, everybody can have a just share of the blessing of prosperity.”

Eucharist is sharing. The simple, central action of Eucharist is sharing of food – not only eating but sharing. The sharing and communing that take place around the table of the Lord when we celebrate the Eucharist symbolizes the sharing and communing that should take place in the world around us. To share and commune with Christ in the Eucharist but not to share and commune with our brothers and sisters in the world would be a contradiction.

In Solomon Islands, where I ministered for five years as a lecturer in an Anglican theological college, I experienced how the people love feasting, with food in abundance. I do not remember having seen a beggar in the streets of Honiara or a person starving to death in the village. The people are rich, not because they save their riches for themselves, as we do by putting our money in a bank, but because they always share. For in wider sharing and communing, the creation of a new world or a better structured society becomes possible.

The acts and eucharistic vision of Bishop Ramento project a Christian world in which an element of sharing within unity is performed. We can be guided by a vivid description in Acts 2: 42-47 of this kind of world, where the faithful listened to the word, broke bread, and shared their goods. Eucharist is one symbol consistent with other symbols, that is, to share the word – the word broken to be shared with others - to break the bread so that it may be shared with others. The breaking of bread leads to the breaking of one’s possessions, the sharing of goods. This is the world being mediated by the Eucharist and if that is the world that the Eucharist mediates, then every person who enters that world through the Eucharist should also be understood as a person who shares. This is the power of the Eucharist that many Christians have domesticated into a set of cute rituals – losing its power.

3.      Eucharist is Serving

Father Jeremias Aquino (1949-1981) was a political prisoner during the Marcos dictatorial regime. He was a graduate of St. Andrew’s Theological Seminary, which had a strong social commitment to Christian activism during the Martial Law period. He died a mysterious death in a car accident that many believed to be a planned execution. During his incarceration in 1979, his thoughts and prayers flowed:

“Where is the altar of sacrifice today, O Lord? Is it on the ornate and expensive marbles where Sunday alms are poured or on the low tables of workers and peasants; Who only eat once or twice a day? Where do you want me to celebrate?”

“Since you sent me out into the world where else could I celebrate? Since you sent me out to peasant’s huts, where else could I celebrate?... Since you sent me to prison, where else could I celebrate?... Lord, thank you for counting me among your living manifestations; At this time when few can read your signs and interpret them in concrete ways. Lord, I now begin to understand why you ordained me a priest forever. Thank you, Lord.”

Traditionally, the reception of Eucharist was a private matter between the believer and God. During communion, a piece of bread is held before our eyes, and we hear the words, Body of Christ proclaimed to us. And we answer, often without thinking, “Amen”. But what is the Body of Christ? It is the church, the people of God – all the people of God especially the poor, the outcast, the hungry, and those who struggle for freedom and human dignity.

It means then, that breaking of bread is a call to action. It is service not just with those who can pour money in the alms basket on Sunday, as Father Jerry Aquino complained, but service and presence at the lowly table of peasants, workers, prisoners and urban poor. In 1 Cor. 11:17-22, Paul expressed shocked at the lack of solidarity, the scandalous division of the Corinthian people. Some of them ate and drank to their own satisfaction, while others, maybe the poor members of the community, went hungry. “Each one eats his own food” (1 Cor. 11:12). No care and concern was shown for other members of the community, the poor ones, the weaker ones. It is like the world that we live in – the world of globalization, where materialism, competition and individualism thrive rather than respect to people’s dignity, cooperation and community.

This reality of globalization leads us to the understanding that Eucharist has an ethical demand. This ethical demand mirrors the demands of Christian life, of Jesus’ values and work in the world. It is action with and for those who suffer, for it is the concrete expression of the compassionate life and final criterion of being a Christian.

4.      Eucharist is Sacrifice 

Father Narciso Pico (1949 - 1991) the “Parish Priest of our Lady of Antipolo, Pontevedra, Negros Occidental was shot dead by two unidentified armed men some ten meters away from his church on January 10, 1991. He was an active supporter of the organized sugar workers in his province. Father Tadena was ambushed in 2005 and Bishop Ramento was mercilessly stabbed to death in 2006. There is one thing in common to the fate of these servants of God, they offered their lives as a sacrifice for the oppressed people.

In the last homily delivered by Bishop Ramento as the incumbent Obispo Maximo in the Eucharistic celebration on May 8, 1999, he reflected on transformation:

“The challenge is to transform the society into a new heaven and new earth. We, Aglipayans, the congregation of new men and women… are in a position to lead towards transformation. Are we willing to make steps forward and be counted, remembering that doing so would mean carrying our cross? Jesus said, “take up your cross and follow me”. .. To carry ones cross means denying ourselves to the luxury of life we now enjoy. It means fighting for justice even when we ourselves would be treated unjustly. It means to take the risk of being accused as communist because we sided with the oppressed; because we recognize Jesus in the least of our brethren.”

Carrying ones cross and sacrificing is truly difficult. But removing the sacrificial part in the life of Christ or omitting it from the Eucharist is no longer Christ and not the Eucharist at all, because the Eucharist is sacrifice. Behind the meal lies the reality of the sacrifice of Christ and the church. In the Eucharist, the church enters into this total self-giving of Christ. But we must be cautious, because merely to go through the motions of the Eucharist without serious and complete dedication of our lives would be hypocrisy. (See 1 Cor. 11: 27-28). The ritual of Eucharist, of thanksgiving for what God has done for us in the person of Jesus, is not just repeating his words and gestures: it is living his life, sharing his compassion, dying with him, and worshiping his God as he did, in service and humble obedience.

Again, in “Worship in the IFI” an address delivered in one of the sessions at the July 1998 Lambeth Conference, Supreme Bishop Ramento said:

“The post communion prayer…says in part, ‘may we now be pieces of bread, broken, ready to be distributed to all people.’ Here, the worshippers are commissioned to be the priest and the sacrifice to be living sacraments of the people. Worshippers are sent out as bread, broken, which means that the struggle with the oppressed and unjustly treated even to the point of being oppressed and suffer injustice, is laudable worship.”

The Eucharist truly symbolizes our ecumenical journey of breaking ourselves to become food for many, bread to be shared for others, and body to serve the least of our brethren as a living sacrifice. It is another description to understand an IFI ecumenical theology.

IV. Conclusion

We characterized and described an IFI ecumenical theology as searching for truth through dialogue, openness and by giving importance to people; it is rooting the origins and healing the wounds of division; and affirming the Eucharistic vision of food, sharing, serving and sacrifice. Historical or theological exposition is an important aspect in any forum like this but the real challenge to the churches today including the IFI is not much in defining but in doing ecumenical theology. Ecumenism and the ecumenical movement have been with us for more than a century already, though much have been achieved but much have to be done in today’s era of globalization. The challenge in doing ecumenical theology is an imperative that must be met-in integrity, generosity, faithfulness and inspired by the great high-priestly prayer of Jesus to his Father, "that they maybe one, as we are one" (Jn. 17: 22). May this theological forum serve its purpose to widen the path for others to walk side by side in attaining the visible unity of churches and societies toward a new heaven and a new earth. Thank you very much.

---

[1] Father Ambrocio Manaligod, a former SVD priest wrote three books entitled, Aglipay: Hero or Villain(1977), The Ecclesiality of the Philippine Independent Church (1988)and the unpublished, Aglipay: Priest, Prophet, Nationalist. Aside from the books written by William Henry Scott about Isabelo Delos Reyes, Sr. or Don Belong there was an extensive presentation of his biography written by a De La Salle professor, entitled, Sukimatem. These were added by two more Roman Catholic theologians, Msgr. Moises Andrade on his book Karapatang Sumamba bilang Pilipino (2002), portraying him as the first Asian liturgist, and the scholarly article of Dr. F. Demeterio III in Philippiniana Sacra (Dec. 2012), portraying him as the Forerunner of Filipino Theology. The latest was the book written by an Old Catholic theologian, Peter-Ben Smit, Old Catholic and Philippine Independent Ecclesiologies in History: The Catholic Church in Every Place, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011. There are also doctoral dissertations from Rev. Drs. E. J. Revollido and Noel Dacuycuy on the IFI.

[2] See William Henry Scott, Aglipay Before Aglipayanism, Quezon City: National Priest Organization, 1987.

[3] Scott has an article about Aglipay as a Prophet but the unpublished book of Manaligod has more extensive presentation about it.

[4] The author formulated the sub-titles with the help of the discussion presented by Gideon Goosen, Bringing Churches Together: A Popular Introduction to Ecumenism, Geneva: WCC Publication, 2001.

[5] The Union Obrera Democratica was the first labor union in the Philippines established on February 2, 1902 headed by Isabelo de los Reyes, Sr. See William Henry Scott, Union Obrera Democratica, Quezon City: New Day Publisher, 1992.

  [6]NB: The earliest theological formulation about the IFI as a Church could be found in the 1903 Doctrine and Constitutional Rules. It says, “Our Church is Catholic, or Universal, because it considers all men without distinction children of God, and it bears the designation “Philippine Independent” to identify this association of free men who, within the said universality, admit servility to no one.” It also defines the IFI as, “the congregation of those Filipino Catholics who desire to render worship to God in accordance with the principles of the Doctrine set forth in Part One; and it is governed by a Supreme Bishop, bishops, ecclesiastical governors, parish priests, and the other offices which the Roman Church has, though with the great difference that ours loyally practices the democracy which Jesus so often preached.” (see William Henry Scott trans. Doctrine and Constitutional Rules of the Philippine Independent Church in Apolonio M. Ranche, ed., Doctrine and Constitutional Rules Important Documents, Various Articles and Chronology of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, 1996.” TMs (photocopy). Special Collections, Aglipay Central Theological Seminary Library, Urdaneta City.) Also see Peter-Ben Smit, Old Catholic and Philippine Independent Ecclesiologies in History: The Catholic Church in Every Place, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011.

[7] IFI Statement on Church Mission, 1976.

 [8] IFI, 1977 Constitution and Canons,  35.

 [9] IFI, Our Heritage Our Response, Vol. 2, pp. 1-5. This theological paper was first delivered by the Most Rev. Tomas A. Millamena, D.D. when he was still the General Secretary of the IFI, entitled “Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the IFI as a Church”. It was approved by the Supreme Council of Bishops in its regular meeting on May 8-9, 1998, and adopted it as an official theological statement of the IFI.

  10 Achutegui and Bernad, Religious Revolution in the Philippines, vol.1, Manila: Ateneo de Manila, 1960,  226-7. NB: This book will be presented later as AB-RRP.

  11 AB-RRP, vol. 4, 204. This translation comes from William Henry Scott in Apolonio M. Ranche, ed., Doctrine and Constitutional Rules and Important Documents, Various Articles and Chronology of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, 1996,” TMs (photocopy), p.  52, Special Collections, Aglipay Central Theological Seminary Library, Urdaneta City.

12 Manaligod in the Ecclesiality of the PIC defended the validity of the consecration of Bishop Pedro Brillantes in October 1902 saying “the IFI from its very origin up to this writing…continued and continues to have validly ordained priests…see discussion on 86-115.

13 IFI, 1977 Constitution and Canons, 13.

14  NB: Concordat of Full Communion is a formal agreement between two equal and independent religious groups establishing the basis of union based on the Catholicity of each Church. The integral part of this catholicity is the validity of the ordination and consecrations of its clergy.

15 Nicholas Lossky, et.al. eds. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva: WCC Publication, 1991, 986-7.

16 Even the Jesuit historian John Schumacher, despite his aversion for Aglipay, is forced to admit that “Aglipay himself was of course a guerilla leader of undoubted ability and courage. For almost a year and a half he carried on guerilla warfare in Ilocos Norte, particularly in the area between Badoc and Batac, but ranging even to Loaog at times. All evidence indicates that he was the soul of the resistance. So serious did the situation become for the Americans that in late August 1900 the American Commander was proposing such drastic measures as declaring the entire male population of the area rebels and treating them accordingly. Earlier, his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Howze had reported to headquarters: ‘From a very careful investigation in every direction, I find the causes for the outburst to be: first, the fanatical influence Padre Aglipay has over the average man in this province; Aglipay poses and is known as the Filipino government . . . The greatest number has risen against us because of the fanatical influence Aglipay has over them”. John N. Schumacher, Revolutionary Clergy: The Filipino Clergy and the Nationalist Movement, 1850-1903, Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1992, 35.

17 Francis Wise, History of the Philippine Independent Church; quoted in Whittemore, Struggle for Freedom, 98.

18 Whittemore, ,Struggle for Freedom,  99-100.

19 AB-RRP, Vol. IV, pp. 281-282.

20 The Manila Cablenews, February 1905, 7.

21 AB- RRP, Vol. 4, 216-218.

22 Ibid., 219-220.

23 Acta et Decreta Concilii Provincialis Manilani I in Urbe Manila Celebrati Ann Domini MDCCCVII (Rome: Vatican Polyglot, 1910), p. 30.quoted in Reginald D. Cruz, “To Preserve the Faith: The Arrival of the Third Wave of Catholic Missionaries within the Church-State Relations of the Insular Government (1900-1915)”, in MST Review 3, no. 1 (1999), 43.

24 The Old Catholic Episcopal Conference, Switzerland, to Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, Manila, LS,  , September 1904, transcript in the IFI Archives, St. Andrew’s Theological Seminary, Quezon City.

25 Aglipay to Herzog, October 30, 1912, trans. Martin Hugo Cordova Quero.

26 Herald Week Magazine, September 27, 1933 quoted in William Henry Scott, Aglipay Before Aglipayanism, Quezon City: National Priest Organization, 1987,  40-1.

27 Norman S. Binsted, “The Iglesia Filipina Independiente” in Ranche, ed,, Doctrine and Constitutional Rules and Important Documents, 56-7. Also see AB-RRP, Vol. 1, 389-390. They opined that Episcopal consecration was not mentioned, but that was in Aglipay’s mind as seen in the notation above his letter asking Brent to bring Old Catholics, Anglicans and Episcopalians “for the bestowal of apostolic succession upon our episcopate.”

28 James Allen, The Radical Left on the Eve of War, 58.

29 On October 1, 1902, Pedro Brillantes took possession of St. James Church in Bacarra, Ilocos Norte as his cathedral and announced himself as bishop of Ilocos Norte. He was consecrated in Bacarra by twenty four of his priests on October 1, 1902, and justified his act saying: “Without being either dependent or independent, I am merely Filipino, Catholic, Apostolic and Divine, and for this reason I shall be consecrated ritu divino et apostolico, I shall recognize the Pope if he recognizes me and gives up his diplomacy and his politics which are so oppressive to the Filipinos. If he turns away from his errors, I shall absolve him.” AB-RRP, vol. 1, 194. It was on this same occasion that the so-called Bacarra Formula was formulated by the Ilocano clergy subscribing their “faith in Peter…but not in his diplomacy or his politics or his despotism” and swore to “guard inviolate the Faith, the teaching of Tradition, the contents of Sacred Scripture, the Sacraments, the Liturgy, the veneration of the Saints and especially of the ever Blessed Virgin Mary.” LIFIrc, I, p. 3 (October 26, 1903) quoted in AB-RRP, vol. 2, 10-11.

30 See Peter-Ben Smit, Old Catholic and Philippine Independent Ecclesiologies in History: The Catholic Church in Every Place, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011, 150-161.

31 Ibid., 233-265.

32 Peter-Ben Smit, Old Catholic and Philippine Independent Ecclesiologies in History, 265-275.

33 Ibid.,271.

34 It was commented that the 13 non-Spanish religious communities that arrived in the Philippines within a span of only eleven years could be hinted to engage in a crusade-sorts- to save Catholicism. The religious communities were: Sisters of St. Paul de Chartes, 1904; Redemptorists, 1906; Mill Hill Missionaries, 1906; Benedictine Sisters of Tutzing, 1906; Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (CICM), 1907; Missionaries of the Sacred Heart (MSC), 1908; Society of the Divine Word (SVD), 1909; Missionary Canonesses of St. Augustine (later to be known as ICM Sisters), 1910; De La Salle Brothers, 1911; Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, 1912; Religious of the Good Shepherd (RGS), 1912; Sister-Servants of the Holy Spirit (SSpS), 1912; and, Oblates of St. Joseph, 1915. In Reginald D. Cruz, “To Preserve the Faith: The Arrival of the Third Wave of Catholic Missionaries Within the Church-State Relations of the Insular Government (1900-1915), in MST Review 3, no. 1 (1999), 22-3.

35 TCR, October 1962, 3.

36 IFI Ecumenical Commission, The Iglesia Filipina Independiente in the World (Manila: IFI, 1966), 20.

37 This document was signed by the representatives from the Episcopal Church, Old Catholic Church, Church of Sweden, Episcopal Church in the Philippines, Anglican Church of Melanesia, Anglican Church of Australia, Church of North India on August 2, 2002.

38 This book authored by Rev. Drs. Franz Segbers and Peter-Ben Smit was independently published by the Old Catholic Church in honor of Bishop Alberto Ramento. Its publication was in a way connected to the discussion made in the theological forum of the concordat churches.

39 This portion on the Eucharistic Vision was the shorter version of the paper delivered by the author to the 3^rd Theological Forum on Globalization and Catholicity. See Marsha L. Dutton and Emily Stuckey, eds. Globalization and Catholicity: Ecumenical Conversations on God’s Abundance and the People’s Need, Bern: Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 2010, 187-196.