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 2nd 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 20th 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 20th 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 20th
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.
[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.
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 3rd
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment