tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-219083932024-02-21T10:09:35.784+11:00Year of GraceThe story of my journey into the Catholic Church.<br>
<br>
This is a "retro-blog". Over three years from 2006 to 2009, I posted entries from the diary that I kept between Easter 2000 and Easter 2001, which documented the day by day "real-time" account of the path I walked that lead me from being a Lutheran pastor to a Catholic layman.<br>Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-22784991286318577802010-06-10T13:21:00.002+10:002010-06-10T13:31:06.066+10:00Begin Reading Here!<br /><br />1. Like any blog, the newer posts always come up first, with the older posts at the end of the archive.<br />
<br />
2. To get this diary in proper chronological order, you therefore have to read it "backwards". <br />
<br />
3. To make this easier, click on this link to my <i>very first diary entry</i>:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://yearofgrace.blogspot.com/2006/03/sunday-23rd-april-2000-easter-day.html"><span style="color: #4c1130; font-size: large;"><strong>Sunday 23rd April, 2000 – Easter Day</strong></span></a> </div><br />
4. When you finish reading this very first post, and you want to continue on to the next diary entry in chronological order, click the link at the bottom of the page that says: <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #7f6000; font-size: large;"><strong>"Newer Post"</strong></span> </div><br />
5. In this way you will get the story in the order that it happened! I hope this makes reading my "Year of Grace" diary easier!<br />
<br />
6. Of course, you are most welcome to dive into the Archives at any point in the left hand column. Just note that the dates refer to the date that I posted the diary entry, not to the date of the original diary entry itself. That is in the title of each posting.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-21005405179076523002009-08-30T08:47:00.001+10:002009-08-30T09:11:13.249+10:00Post Post-Script: The Aftermath and the Confirmation<strong>Tuesday, 17th June, 2003</strong><br /><br />Well, I am home at last. I have crossed the Jordan and arrived in the promised land—the land that, like Moses, I had until now only been able to see, but not enter. And I have tasted the milk and honey that flows from this land—the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.<br /><br />It has been a long wait. At the beginning, I never had any assurance that I would be able to enter full communicant membership of the Church. But what I hoped and prayed for has finally come to pass, and all the faith that I put in God and in his Church has been vindicated. <br /><br />Yesterday, at a Mass celebrated at the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour in Ringwood at 7:00pm, I was received by Father Anthony Fisher into the full communion of the Catholic Church. I had been to confession earlier in the day, to Fr Paul Grant at St Mary Star of the Sea in West Melbourne, and during the mass I received Confirmation and the Eucharist. Peter Holmes was my sponsor.<br /><br />To tell the truth, I was feeling so unwell, I almost asked for a fourth sacrament: anointing of the sick!!!<br /><br />The mass was attended by a goodly number of both Catholics and Lutherans. Still there is the thought with which I opened this journal: <blockquote>You may think how lonely I am. ‘Obliviscere populum tuum et domum patris tui,’ has been in my ears for the last twelve hours. I realise more that we are leaving Littlemore, and it is like going on the open sea. </blockquote><br /><br />I have now crossed that open sea. The two intervening years between this entry and the last has given me time to travel. I have come to know the land at which I have arrived, and it has become my home in the meantime. There is still loneliness, though. Other than Cathy and the girls, not one member of my family (or Cathy’s) was present at my reception. It rubbed in the fact that this was something I was doing on my own. In time though, and already now, new relationships will grow.<br /><br />But I need to fill in a lot of gaps. The last two years have contained ups and downs. We are still living in the unit to which we moved two years ago on 18th May. We attempted to buy a home, but our loan fell through the first time, and prices have soared in the meantime. The girls are growing up — Maddy will be five in October, and Mia will turn three at the same time. We have been looking at the local Catholic schools, and Maddy will go to one or the other next year. Mia has become an imp.<br /><br />I worked for five terms at Thomas Mitchell Primary School, and to tell the truth, it was the best working environment and the most challenging work I have ever done. My efforts there were appreciated, and I got along with the staff famously. Sadly, I had to give it up, because I received another offer that I couldn’t refuse: the position of Executive Officer of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Melbourne Archdiocese. In July last year, I began work in my office in the Cardinal Knox Centre adjacent to St Patrick’s Cathedral three day’s a week. <br /><br />I have continued to work at Our Lady’s as music director. This job has been cut down to one day a week—mainly because the parish budget couldn’t afford any more and the primary school didn’t like the direction I was taking the children’s singing, but it continues to be a very fulfilling part of my life. Many of those who attended the mass last night were members of the music teams. Work there has kept me in touch with parish life from the grass roots point of view. Fr Greg has been a real friend and pastor. I regularly have lunch with him when I am there at work. <br /><br />I have attended mass regularly—whenever I was rostered to provide music, which was three weekends out of four a month. The other Sunday, I would go with Cathy and the girls to St Paul’s. About once a month, they would come to mass with me at Our Lady’s. Of course, I was always aware that once I was received, I would be under the obligation to attend Mass every Sunday, but I will continue to worship with the girls whenever I can.<br /><br />I adopted all sorts of odd customs to handle the fact that I couldn’t commune. At every mass, I would beat my breast three times while saying “Lord, I am not worthy; but only say the word and I shall be healed.” I would sometimes go up for a blessing, arms crossed, but less often towards the end. At the 1pm mass at the Cathedral during the week, I would sit in my self-designated “penitents corner”, behind the glass panel under the organ in the south wing. At the elevation, the words “The days are surely coming, saith the Lord” would be my spiritual communion. I never lost hope that those days would come soon.<br /><br />I looked every night in the letter box as I came home, waiting for news from the tribunal. In fact, my news came relatively early. On 29th October 2001, I received notice that my annulment application had passed the “first instance” hearing, and was going on to the second. On the 13th of December 2001, Father Kerin of the Tribunal wrote to me that my first marriage had been annulled on the grounds of “grave lack of discretion of judgement”. Until this time I had held off asking Cathy to act to get her own marriage investigated, as I felt that there was no reason to put her to this trouble if my own first marriage was not declared null and void. <br /><br />At some stage during 2001 we received the sudden and unexpected news that Rome had revised its judgement of the validity of Mormon baptism in the negative. Because Cathy's first husband had only ever been baptised as a Mormon, this opened up once again the possibility of Cathy receiving a dissolution rather than a annulment. So in February of 2002, Cathy began the process preparing for a dissolution application. Thankfully, her first husband was fully cooperative in this investigation. Just before Christmas 2002, we came home to find a letter from the tribunal in the letter box. Eagerly we opened it only to find that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had looked at Cathy’s file and decided there was not enough information on which to make a decision. So in January, we had to find two more witnesses who both agreed to be interviewed with regard to the case, and the case was resubmitted. Then the wait resumed.<br /><br />This final time, from February on, became very difficult for me. I knew that the case was close to conclusion, but I had no way of knowing whether the file was being dealt with immediately, or whether it had gone to the bottom of the pile on the Vatican shelves again. Lent began, and so, in faith and hope, I began to prepare myself for a possible reception at Easter.<br /><br /><strong>[continued 20th June 2003]</strong><br /><br />This meant preparing for first confession. I had been given permission via Anthony Fisher (presumably from the Archbishop) to begin going to confession around September last year (2002), and had long been intending to make a retreat and my first confession in connection with it. For whatever reason — whether because I just couldn’t make the time, or for the simple reason of attachment to sin — I didn’t make the retreat, and put off my confession. But with the arrival of Lent I realised that now was the time to bite the bullet and begin preparation in earnest. Another reason why I perhaps postponed my first confession is that I had not found a confessor. I had toyed with the idea of going out to Tarrawarra Abbey overnight and then using one of the monks for my confessor the next day (it seemed “safe” having a confessor who was locked away). Eventually though I found my confessor under my nose. <br /><br />Father Paul Grant, of Opus Dei, came out regularly to help Father Pritchard with the confessions of school children, and stayed on for lunch afterwards. After several lunches together, I realised that here was a priest who was likely to be straight down the line and no nonsense, and also who was not a part of my social or work circle, nor a diocesan priest. I asked him and he was happy to take on the role (he said he would consult with Anthony first) and we set a date of Monday in Holy Week, the 14th of April.<br /><br />I prepared for confession by reading through the moral theology section of the Catechism twice. The second time I wrote down my failings accordingly, onto a computer document which I saved on a passworded file. It ended up being many pages long. I worked on it, and edited it, trying to be as complete and as truthful as possible. Cathy was a little sceptical about the length that I was going to. During this time, she talked to Fraser about the whole business of confession, and he gave her several books on the topic, which in fact I found very helpful myself.<br /><br />Lent was a struggle in many ways. In general, I learnt new strategies for dealing with sin, and I discovered that the most useful weapon in fighting sin was will-power. It won’t do it all on its own, but without it, there can never be any success in battle.<br /><br />On the day after Palm Sunday (the second anniversary of the last day I served as a Lutheran Pastor), I fronted up at St Mary’s presbytery. Father Grant showed me into the front room, where he began by asking me to tell him a little about myself. After an hour of talking, we began the confession. I read from my written confession (which I later shredded). We were still at it at 12:30pm when I had to hurriedly bring my confession to a close because Father had to say Mass. I have since learnt that in confession, St Jose Maria Esciva’s advice is good: be contrite, complete and concise. Also, one should not leave one’s major sins till last. <br /><br />In any case, Father Grant had to say mass at 12:30pm so we had to stop. He absolved me and imposed upon me a penance which was very pastoral and very appropriate. Since it was Holy Week, he suggested that I should consciously offer up to God everything I did for the rest of the week. The beauty of this penance is that it is impossible to allow oneself to slip back into mortal sin, when one knows that the sacrament depends upon the faithful fulfilment of such a penance. <br /><br />I attended Mass afterwards, and then drove back to the office at the Cardinal Knox Centre. As I was driving back, I was overwhelmed by the fact that I was now “cleaner” than I had ever been since the day of my baptism. I had told Father Grant things that I thought I would never tell another living soul, things that I thought I would carry to the grave with me, and now they had all be dealt with. It was as a “newborn babe” that I went into the rest of the week. <br /><br />Easter was, of course, a busy time. I cantored for Maundy Thursday, directed a small choir for the Vigil, and cantored again on Easter Sunday. But all this passed without any news from the Tribunal. Then, several weeks later, just before Pentecost, I received an email at work from Fr Fisher enquiring as to whether I heard anything about the dissolution. No, I replied; I was just patiently waiting. He then suggested that we should enquire directly of the Tribunal. I replied “What good would it do?”. He replied, “Take my hint and ask.”<br /><br />So I told Cathy to follow it up. She rang one Monday, but of course, this was Fr Kerin’s day off. In the mean time, I attended the graduation Mass at the Thomas Carr Centre for Catholic Adult Education Melbourne (CAEM). Afterwards, I took a few minutes with Anthony. He looked at me with his knowing smile, and said, “So, how are you?”. I replied non-committally. He asked if we had heard from the tribunal, and again I replied “Not yet”. Then he said, without “telling me anything”, “How long would you need to prepare for a reception?” The implication was that there was something in the pipeline and he knew about it and he wanted me to find out for myself. <br /><br />So, as soon as I arrived home, I asked Cathy to follow it up once more. This time, she sent an email enquiry. Within a day we had received a reply:<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Cathy,<br />I think I have good news but I am a little confused because I have received a memo dated 3 May 2003 sent by Fax to the Archbishop which says the rescript for the case was granted on 14 April 2003 but we have still not received the document here in Melbourne. I have been holdng off contacting you because I felt that its arrival is imminent, but so far it has not turned up here. Yet we have this document faxed to the Archbishop that tells us of its existence. The thing is, there may be one or two conditions or instructions attached to the notification of it so until we see the actual rescript I can't predict what it will say. Sorry I cannot be an more definite about it than that.<br /><br />Fr Tony Kerin</blockquote><br /><br />It didn’t take much to realise that this "fax" was what prompted Anthony to think something would be in the offing soon. I interpreted "rescript...granted" to mean the application for dissolution of Cathy's former marriage has been granted. I had no way of knowing what sort of "conditions" or "instructions" could be attached to such a rescript. <br /><br />I must say that I felt a little disquieted by this news. The 14th of April was the day of my first confession, and had I had this news then, I would probably have applied to the Archbishop to be received at Easter, which would have been the third anniversary of my interior conversion and the second of my external conversion.<br /><br />As it was, I wondered why in these days of electronic communication something could not have been done immediately to obtain a copy of the documentation in all its detail. If the Archbishop could be informed by fax that the rescript had been granted, why could they not fax a copy of the document through as well?<br /><br />I told Anthony that it was all getting to be a bit much for me, and begged him to hurry the process along in any way that he could. I was almost on the verge of writing to the Archbishop and imploring some action on behalf of my poor benighted soul. Despite the fact that I had endured two years for this result, still, every day seemed to tax my faith just that little more. Anthony advised me to sit tight and wait. He would do all he could do. <br /><br />Some days passed. The Queen’s birthday long weekend came and we went down to Philip Island for the first time since last October. I had a strong sense that I had returned once again to the scene at which so many decisions had been made, and I wondered if this were in some sense a portent of the things soon to come.<br /><br />Sure enough, on Friday 14th of June (two months after the documentation was said to have been dispatched to us “in the usual manner”) Anthony rang me from his car phone on the way to work to say that he had a fax in his hands that would allow the whole thing to go ahead. Within half an hour I was in his office, holding a three page fax from Fr Gus Di Noia, the Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The second two pages were a copy of the Dissolution (in Latin). The first page stated that in answer to Anthony’s enquiries, the Undersecretary could confirm that the dissolution had been granted on the 11th of April and that papers we now had were a true copy of the document. The conditions were all straight forward and normal fine print.<br /><br />Then began a frenzy of trying to find a date on which I could be received. Anthony was to go away in a week’s time, Peter Holmes (whom I had asked to be my sponsor) would then be away for two weeks after that, after which Father Pritchard would have the Guild of St Stephen conference, after which I would have the National Ecumenical Conference. The writing on the wall seemed to say (as Pritchard reminded me that our Lord said to Judas) “What you must do, do quickly!” So we set the date for Monday 16th of June at 7pm. Some could not be present that night—sadly and most notably, Denis Stanley and Helen Granowski—never-the-less, we went ahead with our plans.<br /><br />The next few days were hectic, as I worked on invitations, service orders, the retrospective validation of our marriage, cooking cakes and buying drinks for the party. When Monday came, I was exhausted. I had not been well for about a week and a half, having caught a virus that was affecting my hearing and general energy level.<br /><br /><strong>[21st June 2003]</strong><br /><br />I had arranged to meet Father Grant for confession at 4pm at St Mary’s. I arrived half an hour early and said both the Joyful Mysteries and the Mysteries of Light in the church before crossing to the presbytery. Again, we met in the front room (where it was quite warm). After a short chat and catch up, we began the sacrament. This time it was quite a short period, only about 20 minutes all told. We talked further and then, after completing my penance in the church, I went straight to Our Lady’s. Cathy had given me leave not to return home, so that I would be spared being a part of the hectic rush to get to the church. I had coffee with Fr Pritchard and then went into the church at about 6pm, just as Paul Taylor arrived to practice on the organ. John Nowakowski came with his violin, and before long Melissa had arrived as well. <br /><br />The guests began arriving at about 6:45pm. I was a little surprised by those who came. Many parishioners of Our Lady’s, which was gratifying; and several work colleagues. Also, Pastors [A.], [D.] and [P.], and the Senior Pastor from St Paul's. A goodly number from our Lutheran small group, and another family from St Paul's as well made up the Lutheran contingent. Father Anthony was running late, arriving at 7:05pm, but Cathy and the girls only arrived at 7:10. <br /><br />Then mass got going. We sat in the front pew, where Maddy and Jonny Westhorpe had fun trying to catch the clouds of incense (it was “mass with smoke”). I had the “white garment” on my shoulders — in reality, just a short white tassled stole that looked a bit like a Jewish prayer shawl! Father had also prepared a candle for me. Peter Holmes read the readings and acted as my sponsor. David Ducket read the intercessions. Melissa Batalla and Edmund Lobo cantored, and Paul and John played a Berthier arrangement of the Veni Creator Spiritus after the Homily. Fr Anthony preached well — it was a bit of a tight rope walk, I reckon, given that there were Lutherans in the congregation as well as Catholics.<br /><br />When the time came for me to be received, the whole congregation joined in the profession of faith in the words of the Nicene Creed. I then made the following personal profession: <br /><br /><blockquote>“I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”</blockquote><br /><br />This was followed by an act of reception:<br /><br /><blockquote>David, the Lord receives you into the Catholic Church.<br />His loving kindness has led you here,<br />so that in the unity of the Holy Spirit<br />you may have full communion with us <br />in the faith that you have professed in the presence of his family.</blockquote><br /><br />I then knelt to receive the sacrament of confirmation. Fr Anthony laid his hands on my head and said:<br /><br /><blockquote>All-powerful god, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,<br />by water and the Holy Spirit<br />you freed your son from sin and gave him new life.<br />Send your Holy Spirit upon him to be his helper and guide.<br />Give him the spirit of wisdom and understanding,<br />the spirit of right judgement and courage,<br />the spirit of knowledge and reverence.<br />Fill him with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence.<br />We ask this through Christ our Lord.<br />Amen.</blockquote><br /><br />Following this, Peter placed his right hand on my shoulder as Anthony dipped his thumb in the chrism and made the sign of the cross on my forehead. As he did this, he used my confirmation name and said:<br /><br /><blockquote>Joseph-Michael, be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.</blockquote><br /><br />And so I was made a Catholic. All that remained was for me to receive the crowing joy of communion. When the time came for this, I was so distracted trying to remember to genuflect, say amen, close my eyes and stick out my tongue, that before I knew it I had consumed the host, and was being offered the chalice. Again, I did not have time to think about what I was doing. I can clearly remember being a little surprised to see something floating in the chalice - and then I remembered the ceremony of co-mingling.<br /><br />It was strange going through an action that I had been awaiting for so very long. After returning to the pew, Cathy and I took one girl each in our arms, and took them up for a blessing. I think Mia ended going up twice — as she went up again with a friend.<br /><br />I can remember feeling as I watched my Catholic brothers and sisters communing: this is now my family. And since then, I have begun to think of the Lutheran Church as my “Church-in-law”. <br /><br />There was good singing at the Mass. We sang “Tell out my Soul” at the beginning, “In you is gladness” at the Offertory, and “The day you gave us” at the close. The readings were from Jeremiah 31, Ephesians 4 and John 6. At the end of his homily, Father Anthony pointed out that the second reading contained the motto that John Henry Newman took as Cardinal: “Always speaking the truth in love”, and commended the same motto to me. At the end of Mass, Anthony acknowledged that the occasion was one of joy for me and for many others that night, but also an occasion for grief for some. He said, however, that anything that brought us (Catholics and Lutherans) closer together was a “good thing”. Kate Cleary commented later when she heard about the mass that “it was probably the most authentically ecumenical thing to have happened in Melbourne all year.”<br /><br />After Mass it was all smiles on my part. Except when [D.] came out, he gave me a hug and said “Bye bye.” I thought at first that he was “farewelling” me as a member of the Lutheran Church, but then he explained that he had to be going home because of the kids. Afterwards though, I reflected that he may have meant me to take it both ways, as Cathy said he left with a tear in his eyes. So I rang up the next day, and we have made a time to get together next Tuesday. He admitted then that he was pretty cut up about it all.<br /><br />Many stayed on for the supper in the presbytery, including many members of the choir and music team and other parishioners. The crowd thinned out noticeably after a couple of hours, but a small group stayed on and chatted until about 10:30pm. The girls were still awake at this stage and well into their “fifth wind”, as Cathy put it.<br /><br />Since Monday night, I attended mass every day until today. Tuesday, I went to the lunch time mass in the Cathedral. Wednesday to the 8am mass also in the Cathedral. Thursday I communed at Our Lady’s, and again on Friday. Today, due to the Lutheran gathering, I was unable to do so, but I am looking forward to tomorrow morning which will be the first time that I will be communing at a Sunday Parish mass. Appropriately, it is the festival of the Body and Blood of Christ.<br /><br />So, for now, that is the end of the story. There are sure to be other “trials and tribulations” still to come. In fact, Anthony explicitly warned me in his homily that this would be so. But this trial has been faced and over come. I began this diary three years ago. It was at least three and a half years ago that I began once again to contemplate conversion to the Catholic Church. It has been a lesson of patience and trust. It has been a hard time, and a time of blessing. Now, the past is behind me. I have crossed the Jordan but I have not yet settled in the land. My Grandparents wedding text applies to me now too—the words of Joshua as he declared his service for the Lord at the edge of the Jordan. “Hitherto hath the Lord helped me. So for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-69159082338031799782009-08-29T18:32:00.003+10:002009-08-29T18:35:20.437+10:00Post Script and Official Letters of ResignationI began this journal by talking about Newmans' quotation of God's words to Abraham: "Leave your father's home and your country and go to a place where I will show you."<br /><br />Have I arrived at that place? I think the answer is yes and no, much as it was for Abraham himself. Abraham arrived at the promised land but never had any permanent abode there. He was a wandering Aramean. Maybe it will not be me, or my children, or even my children's children who finally find a permanent abode in the Catholic Church. I might be a wanderer in the Church, a wayfarer for the rest of my life, just as Abraham was. Yet I have glimpsed the promised, I have seen the land, I have benefited from its fruits, and I will never leave there.<br /><br />+++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />7th May 2001<br /><br />President, LCA--Victoria District<br /><br />Dear Pastor,<br /><br />Please accept my resignation from the public ministry and membership of the Lutheran Church of Australia, effective from the receipt of this letter.<br /><br />I am endeavouring to sell my car so that I may be able to repay my LLL car loan in full as soon as possible.<br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br /><br />David Schütz<br /><br />++++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />7th May 2001<br /><br />President, Lutheran Church of Australia<br /><br />Dear Pastor,<br /><br />It is with regret and sadness that I forward to you a copy of a letter that I have today posted to the president of the Victorian District. I understand it to be correct procedure to send the resignation to the district president. He is and has been fully aware over the last year of the events that have led to this decision, but I wish to fill you in a little more personally.<br /><br />In my early years at the seminary, some 15 years ago, I underwent (what I have come to call) my first “catholic conversion”. At that time, I became convinced that it was essential for me not only to be a Christian, but to hold and practice the “true catholic faith”, without which I could not be saved (as the Athanasian Creed reminds us).<br /><br />Although at first this conversion manifested itself in a strong desire to join the Catholic Church, I came to believe that I could fulfill my obligation to the catholic faith by being an “evangelical catholic” in the Lutheran Church. I also decided that the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” of the Nicene Creed was an article of faith rather than a visible society upon earth. <br /><br />With greater or lesser success, I lived by this creed until last year. The intervening decade had seen two great changes within the LCA: the introduction of Church Growth theology and methodologies, and the movement for the ordination of women. The former has undermined the liturgical life of the church, and the latter has eventually come to pose a real threat to the doctrine and authority structures of the LCA. These issues were enough to make me re-examine my thoughts on catholicity. Two pastors especially challenged my ecclesiology, and I found that it just did not stand up. The way in which the Augsburg Accord was (or, more to the point, was not) received by the Lutheran Church also made an impression. With regard to women’s ordination, by Easter 2000 I had serious questions about a church in which it was possible to repudiate former binding doctrine and replace it with an entirely new teaching and practice on the basis of a Synodical vote.<br /><br />I wish to make it clear that I asked these questions “as a Lutheran pastor”, and not as one already consciously converted to Rome. But as I re-read all the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue material from both the local and US dialogues, I found myself agreeing more and more with the Catholics than the Lutherans. Before long, I began to suspect that I was, in reality, a Catholic, and that my Lutheranism was in fact nothing other than an inherited context. <br /><br />After the Tanunda Synod last year, I began to actively explore the Catholic faith by seeking direct dialogue with Catholic priests. Despite his own claims to the contrary, I did not do this without the District President's knowledge. Doubts about the Lutheran confession of faith grew--and concerns about the supposed “errors” of the Catholic church dwindled. I found myself asking the question “Why am I not a Catholic?” rather than “Why should I be a Catholic?”. <br /><br />Yet it was not until I received the call to Hope Valley in January, that I realised that I was unable to accept this call, and, conversely, that I was unable to reaffirm my call to the Knox parish. My only alternative was to resign, and I took this step immeadiately. To do anything else would have been to place my integrity in question. <br /><br />Still, some have questioned my integrity. Although I have resigned my parish, it is clear that some believe that I am being duplicitous (or trying to “have a bet both ways”) by holding on to my identity as a Lutheran pastor while actively exploring becoming a Roman Catholic. I will not have my integrity questioned, especially on the basis of lack of information or mis-information. Nor can I accept the stricture of the Victorian District Church Council banning me from giving an account of my catholic faith to any member of the LCA (including, one presumes, my own immeadiate family).<br /><br />Therefore, I am tendering my resignation. There is grief at this decision, to be sure. I have benifited so much from my life-long fellowship in the LCA and within the pastorate. I have regarded many pastors as friends, not just as colleagues in the ministry. I hope that where there has been friendship, my decision will not alter these relationships. At the same time, I wish you and all the pastors of the LCA every blessing for the future as you minister to one another and to the flocks in your care.<br /><br />Some have asked whether it is my intention to seek ordination as a priest in the Catholic church. Let me simply say that this is a very distant (if not non-existant) possibility, and that I would rather just take one step at a time. My marital situation (divorced and remarried to a divorcee) makes even full communicant membership in the Roman Church impossible without two annulments. However, I have been graciously welcomed into the parish of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Ringwood, where I am employed as their liturgical music coordinator, and I have placed myself under the pastoral direction of the parish priest, Fr Gregory Pritchard, who has acted very pastorally toward me in this time. I am living as much as a Catholic as possible now, and I pray for the day when I may be received into full communion with the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome.<br /><br />I give you my thanks for your ministry as President, and I pray for the future of the LCA.<br /><br />“Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” (Eph 3:20,21)<br /><br />Yours in Christ, <br /><br />David SchützSchützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-36719931204722063332009-08-29T18:09:00.003+10:002009-08-29T18:31:55.269+10:00Tuesday, 24th April, 2001: I start my new life... and the letter of resignation I wrote to the Pastors ConferenceJust heading off to my second day of work at Thomas Mitchel Primary School in Endeavour Hills. I had my first day yesterday, and I must say it was an enjoyable event. A good atmosphere to work with. There were times when I thought "Good Lord, how am I going to be able to manage this?", but I don't think that there is anything that is actually beyond me, it is a challenging job, it is an interesting job working with interesting people doing interesting things. Probably exactly what I need. I had forgotten how much I enjoyed being a librarian, almost unbelievably how much, an experience I have never had before. I once dreamed I would have this experience with the Seminary library. I enjoy the thought "This is my Library", "I am librarian of this library". It is a scarry thought in some ways, but in other ways, as I said to Cathy when I got home, it is a huge ego boost. I just love being able to say to people "Hi! I'm David Schütz, I'm the librarian." I don't think the workload will be too taxing, and I will be able to come home without bringing any work home with me. I feel very good about it. Probably famous last words, it is only the second day after one day's experience there after all, but time flew yesterday and I barely noticed it. It was that good.<br /><br />Tomorrow is Anzac Day, and Fr Greg has me cantoring for the Anzac Day mass, and this Sunday coming will be the first time that I cantor for the Sunday Masses at Our Lady's. <br /><br />So really, things are turning out fairly well. I know that both of these jobs, my music coordinator job is going to be reviewed in October and there is not an endless pit of money there to pay me forever, and my Thomas Mitchell job is only a contract until the 21st of December, so by Christmas I might not have either of them, but both of them will set me in a good place to be by the time I get there. This is invaluable experience I am receiving in the library in Thomas Mitchell. <br /><br />And on the other hand, this job at Our Lady's has given me a place in the Catholic Church even before I ever suspected I have a place in the Catholic Church. And that's a really wonderful thing, and I think that has led me to the position where I can say "I am Catholic, I am no longer a Lutheran". <br /><br />Today the Pastors Retreat begins out at Sacred Heart. I won't be there. Peter won't be there. We will never be there again. I've written a letter to the Pastor's Conference. It will be interesting to see whether it gets read. "I bet they won't read this letter at the conference" [Sung to Monty Python tune about singing "this song" on the radio] , but I hope it will, and a number of people know that I HAVE written it, so I will know if it is not read. <br /><br />----------------<br /><br /><em>[The text of this letter is given here, although it was not in my original journal:]</em><br /><br /><blockquote>To the Pastors of the Lutheran Church of Australia--Victoria District (including Tasmania) assembled at Sacred Heart, Croydon:<br /><br />I am writing to give you my greetings as you meet together. I am very sorry that I am not able to join you in this retreat, but it would be inappropriate, under the circumstances, for me to do so. <br /><br />I am also writing say goodbye, and to briefly give my reasons for leaving your fellowship. Many things will no doubt be said about me, but I feel that some last word from me to you is required. Good manners, let alone the debt of love to brothers with whom I have shared so much for so long, would require me to do something by way of saying “farewell”.<br /><br />In my early years at the seminary, some 15 years ago, I underwent (what I have come to call) my first “catholic conversion”. At that time, I became convinced that it was essential for me not only to be a Christian, but to hold and practice the “true catholic faith”, without which I could not be saved (as the Athanasian Creed reminds us).<br /><br />Although at first this conversion manifested itself in a strong desire to join the Catholic Church, I came to believe that I could fulfill my obligation to the catholic faith by being an “evangelical catholic” in the Lutheran Church. I also decided that the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” of the Nicene Creed was an article of faith rather than a visible society upon earth. <br /><br />With greater or lesser success, I lived by this creed until last year. The intervening decade had seen two great changes within the LCA: the introduction of Church Growth theology and methodologies, and the movement for the ordination of women. The former undermined the liturgical life of the church, and the latter eventually posed (and continues to pose) a real threat to the doctrine and authority structures of the LCA. These issues were enough to make me re-examine my thoughts on catholicity. Two pastors especially challenged my ecclesiology, and I found that it just did not stand up. The way in which the Augsburg Accord was (or, more to the point, was not) received by the Lutheran Church also made an impression. With regard to women’s ordination, by Easter 2000 I had serious questions about a church in which it was possible to repudiate former binding doctrine and replace it with an entirely new teaching and practice on the basis of a Synodical vote.<br /><br />I wish to make it clear that I asked these questions “as a Lutheran pastor”--what else was I? But as I re-read all the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue material from both the local and US dialogues, I found myself agreeing more and more with the Catholics than the Lutherans. Before long, I began to suspect that I was, in reality, a Catholic, and that my Lutheranism was in fact nothing other than an inherited context. <br /><br />After the Tanunda Synod last year, I began to actively explore the Catholic faith by seeking direct dialogue with Catholic priests, in particular Fr Anthony Fisher (who spoke to this conference last year). I did not do this without Dr Stolz’s knowledge. Doubts about the Lutheran confession of faith grew--and concerns about the supposed “errors” of the Catholic church dwindled. Yet it was not until I received the call to Hope Valley in January, that I realised that I was unable to accept this call, and, conversely, that I was unable to reaffirm my call to the Knox parish. My only alternative was to resign, and I took this step immeadiately. To do anything else would have been to place my integrity in question. <br /><br />Still, some have questioned my integrity. Although I have resigned my parish, it is clear that some believe that I am being duplicitous (or trying to “have a bet both ways”) by holding on to my identity as a Lutheran pastor while actively exploring becoming a Roman Catholic. I will not have my integrity questioned, especially on the basis of lack of information or mis-information. Nor can I accept the stricture of the DCC banning me from giving an account of my catholic faith to any member of the LCA (including, one presumes, my own immeadiate family). Therefore, I have determined that I will tender my resignation from the ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and membership in the LCA to the District Church Council at its next sitting, to be effective from the end of June this year.<br /><br />There is grief at this decision, to be sure. I have benifited so much from our fellowship together. I have regarded many of you as friends, not just as colleagues in the ministry. I hope that where there has been friendship, my decision will not alter these relationships. At the same time, I wish you all well for the future as you minister to one another and to the flocks in your care.<br /><br />Some have asked whether it is my intention to seek ordination as a priest in the Catholic church. Let me simply say that this is a very distant (if not non-existant) possibility, and that I would rather just take one step at a time. I have been graciously welcomed into the parish of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Ringwood as their new liturgical music coordinator, and I have placed myself under the pastoral direction of the parish priest, Fr Gregory Pritchard. And so it is my earnest desire to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome at the earliest possible opportunity.<br /><br />“Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” (Eph 3:20,21)<br /><br />David Schütz</blockquote><br /><br /><em>[As it turned out, this letter was not read out to the Conference in the end. It was blocked by the District President at the planning committee stage on two grounds: 1) that it was effectively a letter of resignation, and that the proper process of resignation is an official letter to him, and 2) that the gathering was a spiritual retreat and not a gathering of the Pastors Conference.]</em><br /><br />-----------------<br /><br />Last night Cathy and I and the kids went around to [A.]'s home. [D.] and his family were there and the another pastor and his family as well, and so we ate drank and talked late into the night. It became one of those "giving a testimony of the faith in which you believe" situations for me. They honed in on the usual things: you know, Mary, her immaculate conception, her assumption, purgatory, the usual things, these are the things that are really beyond them. They look at me and wonder how the hell he could believe such stupid nonsense. They don't see how it fits in the wider faith, and the categories in which they think of it, no wonder they reject it, because the categories are all wrong. <br /><br />[D.] at one point said: "Aw, look, this will change for you, you change all the time, I mean you never stick at the one thing", and they were making the same accusations about Peter as well. But Cathy piped up, and said: "No, I think that is unfair. You can see quite clearly that this has been a development for them, and they have taken as much as they can when they can." And in the same sense, I made it clear to them that my true conversion to the Catholic Church took place 15 years ago. And everything since then has been more or less consistent. <br /><br />[D.] cited times when I had more or less supported women's ordination, and yet I think I had to be there before I could get here. I had to go through a phase of that, and yet it's interesting, we've just completed the second National Music in Worship conference this weekend, because at the last National Music conference, I remember bailing up my Seminary mentor and saying to him: I don't understand your argument against women being ordained. You have the responsibility of making your arguments clear so to everybody so that they can understand you." And he replied: "No, I don't have that responsibility. My own responsibility is to witness to the truth. I am not in charge of making other people believe one thing or another." But I can remember bailing him up and saying that I really don't understand what he was on about. And yet the thing is that from that point (what? Three years ago now?) I can clearly remember now coming back and nutting it out in my head. "How is this so? Why would God not have women be pastors?" And following through the whole doctrine of ministry, the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine that the Father sent the Son and that the Son sends his apostles in the power of the Holy Spirit, and this authorisation that takes place there, and the succession of authorization that takes place there. I can see precisely now my growing arguments and that paper I wrote on why women cannot be pastors, was all preliminary to my acceptance of the authority of the Catholic Church. Without any of that I couldn't have then built upon this. It is a little bit like the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception. It couldn’t have been phrased in those terms until the doctrine of original sin had been worked out. <br /><br />So I think there is enough in my writings to show that since those early years in the seminary when I first came under the influence of Catholic theology, that since those times right through to my vicarage years and my conflicts there, even through the years when I flirted a little with liberalism, and at that time the monastic ideal was strong, its always been that strong Catholic undercurrent. I don't think anybody looking at it objectively could really honestly say to me that this is not a consistant path for me. Of course, there will always be people who attack ones integrity. It is amazing how many say: "It won't last, etc. etc.". But where do you go from Rome? If you lose faith in Rome, you lose faith in Christ! No I can't see it.<br /><br />The LCA had, as I mentioned, its National Music in Worship Conference at St Paul's Lutheran Church. I went along with Father Greg and two other cantors from Our Lady's. And that was good, for I was for the first time being Catholic in the presence of my Lutheran brothers and sisters. It was actually at the Easter Vigil Saturday week ago that I realised that I can no longer identify myself with being Lutheran. I must now say that I am a Catholic. Even if I am not received into the communion of the Church, that's who I am, that the Church I must be identified with.<br /><br />Now, there are a lot of people, and they said it again last night, who would say, "But you decided to become Catholic ages ago, and you have been doing something you don't believe in since then." Yes, it is far too easy to discount the process, to think that these things should be instantaneous. On this level, I think my Spiritual Director has been better than any, where he has been able to say "Take it easy, take time." You know the amazing thing is that they criticize Peter Holmes for doing what they said that I should have done, namely the moment he realised he couldn't do it any more, he stopped, even though people had little warning. People have had ample warning of what I have done. I've been so open about it that they have questioned my integrity. It's all a bit funny. <br /><br />Cathy just finished reading the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/There-Stood-Here-Stand-Rediscover/dp/0759613206" target="_blank">"There We Stood"</a> book last night. And she said that it has really helped to understand what I am doing. She is interested in reading a book that compares Lutheran and Catholic theology so that she can see it written out. She enjoyed reading the stories. The stories told her more than it would have been in a dogmatic book. She also said that it had helped her understand my reasons for not taking communion any more. I don't know what she meant by that. We need to talk more about that. <br /><br />Anyway the fact of the matter is that we are now here. It is the Tuesday of the octave after Easter, and I am precisely at the time of the year where I was one year ago, and yet the cycle has moved on. And I am now, within 12 months - and I can hardly believe that this is the case - within twelve months of making that decision at Cowes - at the other end of that journey. It has been a "Year of Grace". <br /><br />I am, and God willing, I always will be, a Catholic. <br /><br />Solo Dei Gloria. Amen.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-17669908144144765852009-08-29T18:06:00.003+10:002009-08-29T18:08:23.401+10:00Tuesday, 17th April, 2001: I finally decide to act and resign from the Lutheran MinistryIt must be a good place for making decisions down here. We are about to leave from Cowes, just packing up at the moment, thought I'd add this note. Today I made the decision that I will write a letter to the Pastor's conference that is meeting next week to tell them that I am giving notice of my resignation as of the end of June from the ministry entirely. <br /><br />I think it is important for my integrity, and because now I am in a different position from what I was three months ago when I tendered my resignation from the parish. Especially now that I have a new spiritual home, and I have a new pastor. <br /><br />I want to be identified as being a Catholic, I've got a place to go to. I won't be returning to the Lutheran Church, not a hope of it. Certainly not as a Lutehran pastor (they wouldn't have me, I don't think!). This letter I'm going to write to the Pastors Conference will bypass the Distrit President and will give me the chance to defend my integrity to them, explain why I am doing this, express my grief and my sadness, and that I don't have to go through his filter.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-83728632171386482152009-08-29T17:48:00.002+10:002009-08-29T18:05:23.937+10:00Monday 16th April, 2001: Communion for the last time as a LutheranI am, of today, officially unemployed. Thankfully it is only for a week and then I start on my other jobs. I've just completed my first Easter in perhaps 14 or 15 years (I can't remember when I first took an Easter Vigil service out at St Marks at Underdale, but it was either 1986 or 1987) and I have just completed my first Easter since then without taking any services whatsoever. Mind you, yesterday, after getting back after drinks after the Vigil at Father Pritchard's parish in Ringwood, I got to sleep at about two in the morning. Then we woke up at quarter past four with Mia wide awake, so we stayed up and went to the 6:30am dawn service at St Paul's. Fraser was preaching. <br /><br />I communed this morning for the last time as a Lutheran. At the door coming out, I said to [P.], who had communed me with the chalice, "You will commune me again. This is a prophecy. One way or another it will happen." I think I would describe it a little more as a prayer. Or a hope.<br /><br />So after hot-cross buns we went home and packed, and got down here to the family's holiday house at Cowes on Philip Island at about two o'clock. And so the wheel comes full circle. <a href="http://yearofgrace.blogspot.com/2006/03/sunday-23rd-april-2000-easter-day.html" target="_blank">This is where I was a year ago</a>. This journal has come full circle too. For it was here that <a href="http://yearofgrace.blogspot.com/2006/03/friday-5th-may-2000.html" target="_blank">I made the fateful decision one year ago</a> which has now been fulfilled. Funny how the patterns work out. <br /><br />I am now no longer a communicant member of the Lutheran Church, and now I am seriously considering resigning from the ministry very soon. I think that will be a hard decision. I feel I belong to Our Lady's at Ringwood but to let go of the fact that I have been ordained aand the signficance of that even if it was only a Lutheran ordination that's going to be hard. I have to work it through. If I can make some decision within the next week (and I will talk to Cathy and others about it), then I will tender my resignation not to the District President but to the Pastors conference. I think it makes very little sense any more to hold my place on the Role of Pastors. <br /><br />I would have liked to have gone to Mass today, and tomorrow morning, but there is no mass on Monday or Tuesday down here at Cowes. It's only on Wednesday and Fridays so that is unfortuneatly out of the quesiton. I did try to talk to my mother-in-law last night, and explain that I am no longer receiving communion in the Lutheran Church, and she reacted just the same as every other Lutheran has reacted: "How can you cut yourself of from Holy Communion?", with little understanding not only of the contradiction to my own integrity and my own profession of faith if I was proporting to be a Catholic and still receiving communion in the Lutheran Church. If it didn't do damage to others in the church, it would at least do damage to me. <br /><br />My mother-in-law said "I think you're leaving God out of the equation." I don't think I am. I think I am quite seriously believing that God is in the equation. And whether I commune or not is not my decision. I don't take something by my own right. I don't claim the right to do that. <br /><br />I think the right place for me to receive communion will be at the altar at Our Lady's, a Catholic altar if that becomes possible. If it never becomes possible I live with that. It is hard to explain to a Lutheran the grace of being in the presence of the true Eucharist, the true mass. I am not yet at a point where I am able to say that Lutherans do not have the real presence (despite the fact that they believe and confess it). Maybe one day I will think that, I don't think I do though, not at the moment. I have to develop my theology a little bit more, still at this point I know that to be in the presence of the Eucharist at Our Lady's even when I cannot commune is quite a different expereince from receiving communion in the Lutheran Church. <br /><br />Strangely, I felt less sad about communing for the last time in the Lutheran Church than I did celebrating the Eucharist for the last time in the Lutheran Church. What is sad is that I can't celebrate and receive that with Cathy. That really is a great sadness for me, and I actually pray that one day it will be possible, that we will again receive communion together. One day. But if there is division in our own marriage which reflects the division that is actually within the Bride of Christ itself, my prayer now, my ecumenical work now is as much for the reunion of the Christians in the One Church.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-11473123213220767112009-08-29T14:37:00.003+10:002009-08-30T14:20:03.096+10:00Friday 13th April, 2001: Good FridayThis is now Good Friday, Friday the 13th of April, and I have just got back from the ceremonies at the St Dominic's in Riversdale Road in Camberwell, at the priory where Fr Anthony lives and works. <br /><br />A wonderful liturgy. Anthony was an assistant along with his prior and the man I take to be their provincial who celebrated today. It was a great ceremony, went for an hour and a half, much longer than I thought it would, 3:00-4:30, the sermon given by the celebrant was wonderful. One of the images he used was that of a moth, or three moths, talking to an old moth about what love was and what it meant, and he used the image of a candle and the three moths are asking the old moth what the candle was, and the old moth says, "go and find out". And the first moth flies off and gets close to the flame and flies around it, but the heat is too much and it repels him and he comes back. And tells them of his experiences. And the old moth says, "Yes, well you have experienced something of the candle but you don't know the whole of it. You only have a small experience of it." Then the second moth heads off and gets a bit closer close enough to singe the hairs on his back and on his wings, and then goes back and tells them of his experiences. And the old Moth says "Yes, well you know something by your experience fo the nature of the candle, but you still don't know its true essence and what it really is. " And finally the third young moth flys off, flies around and gets very close, and closer and closer and feels the heat singing his back and his wings, and then in one mighty swoop trhows himself at the flame. And from the distance the Old Moth, speaking to the two young moths sees for a moment the candle light flicker and then flare up as the moth is burned. And the Old Moth says to the younger moth "He knows what the candle is, what love is, but he will never actually be able to return and speak to us of it."<br /><br />The priest didn't go on to say what it meant, but there is a lot there to meditate on. Espeically how Christ threw himself totally into death, totally into love for us. Secondly, how we are called, And actually I should say, returned to speak to us of it, but the priest didn't elaborate on that fact. And then indicated that this too is how we are to experience love, by completely imolating ourselves on it, and then only will we know its true essence.<br /><br />Following that there was the adoration of the cross, the corss brought in in procession, veiled up, and then slowly unveiled with the three "Behold the wood of the Cross: O come let us worship." And then something that I hadn't experienced before, which was each of the priests and one of their assistants, so that there was four of them, held a crucifix, and the congregation went up as for communion and reverenced the cross, by either touching it, kneeling, or, as most did, by actually kissing the feet of the cross, and that was quite a moving experience doing that as well. <br /><br />Then finally at communion time, I went forward, and Anthony was luckily on my side, so I went to Anthony and asked for his blessing, and rather than putting the wafer, the host, that he was holding back into the ciborium and using his hand just to bless me, he actually used the wafer, holding onto the wafer, the host, he held it up to my forehed and used the hand holding the host to bless me, saying "May the body of Christ bless you and keep you". I don't remember all the words that he said, but it was a true blessing and it really touched me that he used the host itself to bless me. It was almost, <em>almost</em> as good as being able to receive communion itself.<br /><br />There was a father sitting in front of me, four children, a boy who must have been no more than six or seven and two girls and then another boy about two. And that father on his own coped with those children marvellously for the whole hour and a half. They were getting a bit restless toward the end, but that was wonderful to see that actually, I think my book was taken by one of the girls during the sermon and he had collected them and put them back on the shelf, So that when I went to look for the book it wasn't there anymore, and I had to go and get it again, but that was just a small incident.<br /><br />This morning it was good to be able to worship with Cathy, and Madeline, and Mia…<br /><br />I think it is time to back track a little bit. Cathy and I went to the communion service at St Paul's on Palm Sunday evening. This was after the concert down at Our Saviour's. The concert included not only some good classics by Handel and Brahms and others but also a threnody on Good Friday, which was just beautiful and then some interesting other little bits, especially Arthur Sullivan's "The long day closes" which was quite apposite to me, ending my ministry, and finishing off with "The Holy City" by Stephen Adams, with everyone joining in the chorus "Jerusalem, Jerusalem" which weas just wonderful. <br /><br />Then we went to the evening service at St Paul's at six O'clock and I went to communion with Cathy, and there was a passion play by Karen Dymke with music by Susan Westhorp. Very good, very moving. Home to accept a visit from Father Greg, came around and stayed until about 11:30, we talked about all sort of things, the conversation however eventually got to the point where we were dragging out various hymn books and saying "Do you know this song", "do you know this music?", and varying bits and pieces. At one stage I asked about the good Friday liturgy and the music for that, and I asked "do you sing the reproaches" and he answered "Well, we haven't and we're not this year, but I have a feeling we are going to next year", refering to me, of course.<br /><br />Monday and Tuesday I took off fairly well, Wednesday I worked on getting things to do with the congregations in order, membership lists and those sort of things. Tuesday I went into the Chrism mass at 11:30 at the Cathedral and then spent some time knocking about in the book shops, St Francis bookshop. At the Chrism mass, I saw in the procession: Anthony (but he didn't see me), Fr Greg was being MC, so I saw him, and caught his eye at one point, as with Denis Stanley on his way out, just a nod and a smile, but of course the priests were all busy afterwards, so I didn't get to speak to them then. <br /><br />Wednesday I did a whole lot of work getting stuff together about the congregations. Thursday, I spent the day packing up stuff down at Our Saviour's. Its half finished, I've got a lot of work there still packing books up and bringing them home. But I have brought some home already, and they are littered around my office here. Then I did my last devotion at Knoxville Hostel, which was my very last pastoral act of all, now I have finished. Interestingly that day I got the minutes of the latest District Church Council meeting, which in some ways are as interesting as David's pastoral letter that he sent out to all pastors and congregations, minus a few, such a me and Peter, and in that I saw the resolution regarding us. I will just read out from the minutes:<blockquote>Pastor David Schütz requests a leave of absence. Resolved: to recommend to GCC that Pastor Schütz be granted leave of absence for twelve months, with the proviso that a) he not engage in any preaching or teaching in the LCA and b) that he does not seek to influence others in the LCA with his Roman Catholic views during such leave of absense.</blockquote>Then there is a note saying that Pastor Schütz's resignation from the Knox/Frankston/Casey Parish is effective from the 9th of April, 2001. Then it's got:<blockquote>Pastor Peter Holmes: Resignation<br />Resolved: that the resignation of Pastor Peter Holmes from the Doncaster Parish and from the ministry of the LCA to be effective no later than the 30th of April 2001 be accepted with regret and that the church president be informed.</blockquote>And next:<blockquote><br />Pastor [P.}: Situation is different from that of both Pastors Schütz and Holmes. Resolved that the papers of Pastors Schütz, Holmes and [P.] and the responses of their respective pastor counsellors and the seven questions that have been asked (I wonder what that is? Because, of course, they both proposed one and I proposed ten!) be refered to the CTICR for further consideration and response. The president of the district reported that he has arranged for Pastor [P.] to attend Luther Seminary for two or three weeks for further discussion and study with faculty members. The president also reported that a pastoral statement has been prepared and it will be emailed or mailed to all pastors in the district today. It is addressed to pastors and congregations and is for sharing with the laity.</blockquote><br />Now the interesting thing here is that I have agreed to the first clause about not engaging in any preaching or teaching in the LCA, in fact, not engaging in any pastoral functions, I also agreed not to attend any pastoral conferences. <br /><br />But the second thing about not seeking to influence others in the LCA with Roman Catholic views during such leave of absense, this is completely new to me, and in fact makes me stop and wonder what on earth are they talking about. <br /><br />Does this mean my wife and my children - who remain members of the Lutheran Church? Does it mean people who are my friends, such as Pastors [A.] and [D.] and others who want to know what's going on, and what I'm thinking and what my ideas and beliefs are? Really, I ask you. <br /><br />Maybe it means that I can't any longer participate in any of the chat lists on the internet, or maybe I can't dialogue with Pastor [N.] as I was recently with regard to Chemnitz's list of the Fathers in the Examen. Again, I ask you. <br /><br />But secondly, "with his Roman Catholic views". What do they mean by that? What is a "Roman Catholic view"? This is an interesting question. For instance, the Trinity, is that a Roman Catholic view? The Real presence, is that a Roman Catholic view? Good Lord. <br /><br />I know what they mean, but what a crazy thing to say. They certainly didn't ask me whether I would agree to such a proviso. So, its this sort of stuff that makes me think…<br /><br />And on the other hand, the real irony here with "he does not seek to influence others with his Roman Catholic views during his absense" you can contrast that to where it says "Pastor [P.]: situation is different to that of Pastors Schütz and Holmes" Well! Have they got the wrong bloke or what? I mean there would have been no Schütz or Holmes situation if there was no [P.] in the first place to raise the questions. Well, okay, we would have got there eventually on our own, but the point being that [P.] was actually very much the catalyst in all this, as Anthony Fisher put it: "ushering us in, but not going through the door himself." Now [P.] has been very prudent, of course, he's very much continued always to be submissive to the District President's "guidance", and so the District President can't see what is happening for [P.] under his very nose. <br /><br />I was thinking to myself today as [P.] was leading the liturgy, it wouldn't be unlike him, when and if he makes the decision, to go without any warning at all, not even the slightest.<br /><br />And then there is that Pastoral Statement addressed to "all pastors and congregations", the one that didn't go to my congregations, didn't go to me, or Peter Holmes, and which contains false information about us. <br /><br />Actually I just noticed that there were only twelve months leave granted in those district office minutes, and not the two years that I reauested. It is probably immaterial, given the fact that I will probably be resigning from the ministry long before that.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-36673364276772579412009-08-29T11:14:00.002+10:002009-08-29T11:25:00.810+10:00Sunday, 8th April, 2001: Palm Sunday - My Farewell Sermon<em>FINAL SERMON, Palm Sunday Year C<br />Our Saviour’s, Knox; St Peter’s Frankston. 8th April 2001<br />Text: Luke 23:35-38 and John 18:33-38</em><br /><br />You may have wondered why on crucifixes the letters “INRI” are often written on the bit at the top. <br /><br />The reasons for this is that these four letters are the first letters of the four latin words “Iesus Nazerenus, Rex Iudiorum”, or, in English, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”.<br /><br />When the Romans crucified someone they wrote the crime with which they were accused on a noticeboard and nailed it to the top of the cross for everyone to see. <br /><br />So, when Luke tells us that the inscription nailed above the cross of Jesus read: “This is the King of the Jews”, he is telling us that Jesus was condemned to death because he claimed to be the King of the Jews.<br /><br />Jesus was a king. When the crowds welcomed him into the capital city of Jerusalem, the city of King David, they hailed him as “the king who comes in the name of the Lord”.<br /><br />Just five days later, they handed their King over to the Romans to be crucified. <br />But according to the Gospel of John, the crucifixion was not so much seen as Jesus’ defeat, as his enthronement as the true “King of the Jews”.<br /><br />Earlier in the story, we are told that he was crowned by the Roman soldiers. Yet what a strange coronation this was: Not a crown of laurel leaves--like the emperor in Rome wore, but a crown of thorns.<br /><br />Not a throne of ivory--like the throne of the emperor in Rome, but a throne of wood and nails.<br /><br />The Hebrew word “Messiah” and the greek word “Christ”, both mean “the anointed one”. Jesus was anointed as King when he was baptised in the river Jordon. He was crowned by Roman soldiers, and enthroned as King on the cross.<br /><br />How little the passers-by understood all this. <br /><br />They shouted out: “If you are the Messiah of God, his chosen one, come down from the cross!”<br /><br />And the Roman soldiers said: “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” <br /><br />How little they understood that this was the very purpose for which Christ came into the world: to be enthroned as King upon the wood of the cross.<br /><br />This was his “hour”. This was his “triumph”. This--his suffering and death--was his “glory”. <br /><br />This is why Jesus was born, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. This is why he came into the world--for us men and for our salvation. <br /><br />John’s gospel--from which we will hear on Good Friday--gives us a greater insight into what it means to say that Jesus was “King of the Jews”.<br /><br />There we read:<blockquote>33 Then Pilate summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?” 35 Pilate replied, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked him, “What is truth?”</blockquote><br /><br />In this short conversation with Pontius Pilate we learn so much about what it means to say that Jesus is “King of the Jews”.<br /><br />He says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” He says, that it is not “from here”. Then where is it from?<br /><br />Jesus’ Kingship and his Kingdom does not come from earth, from the authority of human beings and nations. It comes from God, as he said after his resurrection: “All Authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”.<br /><br />Given by whom? Not by Pilate or by Caesar or even by the Jews themselves, but by God and by God alone. <br /><br />Because his kingdom is “not of this world”, Jesus says that his followers “do not fight to keep him from being handed over to the Jews.”<br /><br />His followers understand that his crucifixion was not the defeat of God’s plan for his King, but the completion and triumph of all his work. <br /><br />It is upon the cross that Christ says “It is finished”.<br /><br />So if Jesus’ followers do not fight to keep him from being crucified, what do his followers do?<br /><br />Jesus says: “They listen to my voice.”<br /><br />The followers of the Crucified King listen to the voice of their King, and they do what he tells them. <br /><br />And what he tells them is “The Truth”. <br /><br />All he ever said and did was to reveal the “Truth” to the world. In fact, he was “The Truth”, as he once said “I am the way, the Truth, and the life”.<br /><br />And so Jesus says: “Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”<br /><br />He is the King of God’s Kingdom of Truth. He has God’s authority to command all who seek the Truth. All who seek the Truth belong to his Kingdom.<br /><br />So his followers listen to him. If we cast our minds back, we will recall the day of his transfiguration,when, instead of two criminals either side of him, Moses and Elijah stood talking to him, and when God said: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him.”<br /><br />As the followers of the Crucified King, we are given one command: “Listen to the Truth.” <br /><br />Listen to him speaking from his throne, from the throne of the cross. Listen to him,<br />and obey him, for he is your King. <br /><br />St Paul tells us that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth": that is, that they come to know Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Furthermore, Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and all individuals, so that this Truth may reach to the ends of the earth: For it is the duty of every man, woman and child to listen to the Truth, and to do everything in their power <br />to conform their whole lives to the Truth in so far as they have come to know it.<br /><br />Today we admit four young people to first communion. To you, Emily, Melinda, Alex, and Jessica, I say: / Today we confirm three young people in their faith. To you, Simon, Lindsay and Melissa, I say:<br /><br />In a short while I will ask you to make a statement of your faith.<br /><br />Three times I will ask the question “Do you believe”, and three times you will answer: “Yes, I do”. <br /><br />To say that you “believe” means two things: first, you believe the person you are saying you believe in. You believe in the Father, you believe in the Son, you believe in the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />But secondly you are saying that you believe the truth that these persons have revealed to us. <br /><br />And in saying that you believe this Truth, you say that you will live by this Truth.<br /><br />It is the same for all of us, who Sunday after Sunday, year after year, have stood in this church and confessed the Creed together. <br /><br />Everytime we have said together “We believe in one God...” we have committed ourselves again and again to living a life that is in total conformity with the Truth we have confessed. <br /><br />Because Truth is not an inconsequential thing.<br /><br />If we have come to know that such and such is true, then we are obligated by our very conscience to live according to it. <br /><br />We cannot do as Pilate did, when he asked Jesus “What is Truth?” <br /><br />He asked the question, but he did not wait to listen to the answer.<br /><br />Was he even interested in the answer?<br /><br />I cannot help but feel that Pilate was a bit skeptical about the hope that anything here on earth could be called “True”.<br /><br />In fact, Pilate could be the patron saint of our post-modern age, an age that believes in “relative” truth, an age that says: “What is true for you isn’t true for me.” <br /><br />My friends, if my ministry here has helped you to realise anything, I pray that it has helped you to realise the danger of that attitude toward the Truth.<br /><br />Sunday after Sunday I have stood in this pulpit and proclaimed the Truth to you.<br />I have not proclaimed “A truth”. <br /><br />I have proclaimed “the Truth”, the one who said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, apart from me, you cannot come to the Father.”<br /><br />When Jesus said: “Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice”, he faced Pilate with the inescapable fact that there is only one Truth, and that the Truth matters. <br /><br />My friends, it matters how you live your lives. It matters that you listen to the voice of your King. It matters that you listen to the Truth. And it matters that you do everything in your life to conform to the Truth.<br /><br />For Christ has said to us: “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”<br /><br />Do not fear the Truth. If you run from it, if you turn away from it because you fear its consequences, you will never know the freedom that Christ promises you.<br /><br />About 15 years ago, I wrote five words in my journal. Five words which have changed the direction of my life. These five words are simply: “Follow truth where it leads”.<br />Follow the truth, even if it means that you have to sacrifice your career, your home, your friends, your family connections, your status, your income, your fringe benefits, and everything else that belongs to your current way of life, if that is the price that the Truth asks of you.<br /><br />Yet it promises so much more. For the one who said “I am the Truth”, also said: “I am the Way” and “I am the Life”. <br /><br />Our King, Jesus, died for the sake of the Truth. He died because he had come to bear witness to the Truth. He died so that by listening to the Truth and by following the Truth we might find the way to our heavenly Father, to salvation, and to eternal Life.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-46302208340080958322009-08-29T11:07:00.005+10:002009-08-29T11:37:08.320+10:00Sunday 8th of April, 2001. Palm Sunday - I Exercise the Lutheran Ministry for the Last Time<em>(From an audio tape recording, 10:40am) </em><br /><br />I have just left our Saviour’s at Knoxfield where I had first communions and I am rushing down to St Peter’s at Frankston for my last service there. I’ve got confirmations there this morning.<br /><br />Well, I must say that I got through that service without a great deal of emotion until during the last hymn. Maddy came running up to me at the chair and, as I picked her up, I turned to see Cathy with Mia, and I saw that Cathy was crying, and well, that did it for me too. I think it was particularly sad for her. It was a very different path to that which we thought we were taking when we were married four years ago. <br /><br />Pastor D.B. came with his wife - that was very kind of him. And of course a lot of guests for the first communion as well, but also interestingly, a woman who told me she is a practicing Roman Catholic. She had come to communion for a blessing (she didn’t take communion, as a good Catholic should not have, of course) and then at the door she said quietly to me “You’ve made the right choice”. Well, I’m glad. I believe I have. That’s what I need now, some positive reinforcement from my Catholic brothers and sisters, to help me on the next leg of the journey. <br /><br />A grandfather of one of the first-communicant's , from Cathy's parish, said at the door that he had enjoyed the sermon and that if I ever become a preacher in the Catholic Church that they will get a “good man”. One of the elders said she wanted a copy of the sermon. <br /><br />There’s not a lot else to say at the moment. I am just running late for my last service. It is a unique feeling at this moment and it just has to sink in a little bit. <br /><br />You know, eight and half years ago, or a period spaning ten years, almost a decade, this ministry has gone on, and now it’s the end, and I took off for the last time the stoles that my first wife made for me when I was ordained. Hung 'em up. Maybe at some stage I will have a chance to wear them again. I have no idea. If I ever do, it will be absolutely just by the grace of God. Just entirely by the grace of God. Any way, enough for now. "Gotta run", as they say.<br /><br />I should just say that the service was packed, but that's probably got more to do with the fact that there were a lot of visitors there for first communions and everything else. But it certainly was good to go out on a full service. <br /><br /><em>[later that same morning on the way back from Frankston.]</em><br /><br />Well there it is, that's that, I've just completed the Eucharist at St Peter's, now I'm on my way home. I stopped to have coffee with the Tiptons, just shortly. There were a lot of people there again for the confirmations, far more visitors than members. It made it hard again shaking hands at the door. I was crying my eyes out after having said goodbye to a group of parishioners, and then I would have to be smiles and welcomes for the visitors who was next in line.<br /><br />How did I feel? I don't know. I wasn't really conscious of the fact that I was doing this for the last time. I wasn't really conscious of that while I was at the altar or in the pulpit. I think was conscious of it when I was doing the consecration, and realising that I would never again be saying those words over the bread and wine. <br /><br />The question that was uppermost in my mind at the moment - the ultimate question is: Is this the last time that I will be doing this? Will I never return to ministry? I think I can confidently say at this time that I will never return to ministry in the Lutheran Church. With caution. I mean, "never say never" people say, but I would have to change a lot I think for that to be possible, because I know the Lutheran Church (the Lutheran Church of Australia, at least) will never change to the point that I can really be satisfied with it from the point of view of the theological questions I have been asking of Lutheranism up till now. A leopard can't change its spots, and this one isn't about to. And I think that is the point that I am simply feeling right now. <br /><br />Now, I can change my thoughts, my ideas, my beliefs. That has happened before, and yet even this, I mean my real conversion, as I keep on saying to people, took place in '86 and '87, there back when we were messing about with "the ecumenical society" at the Seminary. Through people like Fr John Fleming and attendance at Good Shepherd church. That converted me to the catholic faith there and then, and it simply was a matter of some remaining questions. Now that didn't change, but I was presented with a new thing, and that new thing I instantly recognised as true. <br /><br />I don't think that I could now, knowing the lie of the land, find myself convinced otherwise. It would take a new thing, something completely new. Otherwise it has just been a long, long working out of this whole business of whether or not I can be both Catholic and Lutheran at the same time. And I think the answer to that is as plain as anything to anybody. <br /><br />How do I feel? I don't feel frightened. I feel fairly confident about the coming future. Cathy keeps on saying that I keep on going on about the financial challenges - I know that I am not going to have the income that I currently do have, that we're going to be a little worse off than we are now, not by much, but by some. And Cathy says, Why do you keep on saying that? You're going to be doing what you enjoy." <br /><br />But I guess that as I compare, my quality of living has been important. But I'm looking forward to the challenge of the school job, I'm looking forward to the challenge of the job at Ringwood. I'm not looking forward to packing up and finalising everything here. Because I would really like a fortnight's holiday now, but I'm not going to get it. I'm going to have a lot of things that still need to be done to undo, to completely untie all the knots, or tie up all the knots or all the loose ends, in the parishes before Easter, and after Easter, I'm going to be fairly focused on moving into my new positions. So I don't think I'm going to have much time to reflect on all this. <br /><br />I'm going home now. Cathy is at her parent's place with the kids for lunch. There is an Organ and Choral concert at Our Saviour's at 2:30 which is in just an hour's time. I wasn't going to go, but I am finding myself thinking now that I will. That maybe just to sit and listen some music might be exactly what my soul needs at this point in time. Father Greg is coming around tonight at about 8:30pm. We've got the Passion play thingy at St Pauls at 6:30 which we will all go to and we'll come home and Greg will be there to meet us and I will have a chat with him.<br /><br />Yeah, anyway, that's it for the moment. We'll see how and where things go to from here.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-51017000864825044142009-08-29T10:45:00.004+10:002009-08-29T11:06:46.846+10:00Friday 6th April, 2001: In Which I Gain Employment and the District President Writes a Public LetterThe phone rang as I was just arriving home today.<blockquote>“Hullo David, this is John, the principal at Thomas Mitchell Primary School. David, we'd like to offer you the librarian's position.”</blockquote><br />Straight away I said "I'll take it” - I didn’t have to hesitate on this one bit. <br /><br />Not until this moment have I realized that I made the right decision not to take the call to Adelaide. All of the fear of the last three months has gone. There is a certain fear lying ahead with this job - I mean it is one thing to say that you can do a job, and it is another thing to actually do it, but, oh my, <i>what</i> a job -I mean this will offer me the opportunity to actually become a <i>librarian</i> - not just a cataloguer. A real, proper librarian at last. When I stop and think about the time all those years back, when the principal of Luther Seminary first suggested to me that they would pay to train me for the position of Librarian at Luther, I had no idea where it would lead. It has led to this. <br /><br />This is wonderful, this is beautiful, this is literally a God-send, and I thank God and I thank the intercession of our Lady and of all the saints for this. It is a grace, an undeserved grace. I had already given up on this position because I didn’t get a phone call yesterday, and I thought well, they’d offer the job yesterday and let the one who didn't get the job know today. And when I got the phone call even now, I was expecting that he was going to say “Sorry, but we’ve offered the job to the other person, but thanks for your application anyway,” but then he said “We’d like to offer you the job.”. <br /><br />So, I go in at 9:40am on Monday the 23rd, and we take it from there. And that will be very interesting week, given that I start the music coordinator's job at Our Lady’s in Ringwood that same week. Unfortunately, this also means that I’ve now got to tell the Worship Resources folk that I will now be off their project after all the work they did to get me back onto it. <br /><br />This afternoon we were at Pete and Susie’s for what will have been the last "Pastor’s and Wives" meeting. The group will still meet of course, although we will probably have to call it something else. We can’t keep calling it "Pastor’s and Wives" when several of us are no longer pastors. Someone suggested “People Getting Together With Their Children And Partners To Eat Around Food”, which I think is probably an accurate name for it! <br /><br />Another issue tha has just raised itself, and this was only just mentioned as I was leaving from our meeting. They mentioned a letter that has been sent to all pastors and congregations of the Victorian District except Peter and I. But Peter found a copy - it came from the District President, and this is what it said:<br /><br /><blockquote>Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age according to the plans of our God and Father to whom be glory for ever and ever amen.<br /><br />Some events have happened in our District in recent months that perhaps are causing confusion and may be causing you to lose our trust in the gospel and in those who are called to proclaim it. Maybe some of you are also tempted to lose your trust in the Lutheran church of Australia and in those who are called to be leaders of the church. Four pastors of our district have resigned in recent times: Marco Vervoost has resigned has pastor of Melton in order to join an Anglican Catholic church as a lay person and to pursue a vocation outside the public office of the ministry. David Schütz has resigned from the pastorate of the Knox, Frankston, Casey parish and is seeking employment in his other vocation as a librarian. He is seeking leave of absense from the public office of the ministry while he tests his vocation within the LCA and his confessional position in regard to the Roman Catholic Church. Peter Holmes has resigned as pastor in Doncaster-Ivanhoe in order to join the Roman Catholic church as a lay person and to pursue a vocation outside the public office of the ministry. [N] has resigned as pastor of Hobart and has been granted 12 months leave of absense in order to test his vocation within the public office of the ministry. There is no relationship between the first three resignations and the fourth resignation. <br /><br />The first three resignations have been triggered in part by the events that the last General Pastor’s Conference and General Synod. They, along with many others, were disappointed and even shocked that the Pastors Conference declined to advise the Synod on the doctrinal matter of the ordination of women. This disappontment and shock was accentuated by the fact that the Synod went ahead without that advice and debated and then voted on this doctrinal matter. The authority of the divinely instituted teaching office of the church was called into question and, some would say, even rejected. Bound up with this issue are other questions: the authority and interpretation of scripture, the authority of synod, the relationship between the public office of the ministry and the ministry of the people of God. These issues are not just Victorian District issues, there are other pastors in other districts who share these concerns. That these issues should surface in this district should not surprise us: whenever and wherever the church tries to maintain a confessional positon, there will be those who will push to the left or to the right that position. Given that the issues are concerns for the whole church, I have taken steps to ensure that the Church, through the appropriate channels, will be engaged in the discussion and in providing the necessary response. Marco Vervoost gave no opportunity to dialogue with him on these questions. I was simply presented with his resignation. David Schütz and Peter Holmes did raise the issues with me and with various public forums within the LCA. They also took their issues outside of the LCA and engaged in dialogue with the Roman Catholic church without my knowledge. A third pastor, [P.], appraised me of his concerns and kept me fully informed of his considerations and sought my comment on any steps he was considering. I appointed pastoral advisors to each of these men. I also took the step of calling a summit so as to enable these men to present their concerns to a select group of persons, and to hear their responses. <br /><br />Sadly, it became clear on this day that David Schütz and Peter Holmes had made their minds up. Discussions are continuing with [P.], and I am confident about their outcome. I rejoice in the progress already made. These issues are testing our resources to the limit. We have three vacant parishes to serve with word and sacrament, we have deep theological questions to answer, and we have to try and address the variety of pastoral concerns that have emerged. In the midst of such upheavals, it is naturally for people to want to lay the blame somewhere: the church, the seminary, the president, the pastors, Some of you are feeling the testing of your faith severely, some of you are angry, some of you feel sad or disappointed, and some of you are feeling disillusioned. Some of you may even feel that the only possible response is to dump the church and to give up on God. I plead with you, my brothers and sisters, do not be bewitched by your emotions or your reason. Hold firm to the faith which has been given to you in your baptism, and which has been affirmed and attested to in Holy Scripture. Hang onto the cross with which you have been marked forever. These present trials are those which the saints of every time and every place have endured as our Lord himself says....etc.<br /><br />President<br />Victorian District (including Tasmania)</blockquote>Just to correct one thing in the letter above, which is otherwise accurate. The District President knew full well that we were "dialoguing" with flesh and blood Catholics (in particular, with Fr Anthony Fisher and Fr Greg Pritchard) at the time - because we told him. He was prone to selective memory on these points.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-18127816434103058082009-08-29T10:43:00.003+10:002009-08-29T10:45:40.511+10:00Tuesday, 3rd April, 2001: In Which God ProvidesA good day, I had a good interview today for the librarian position down at Thomas Mitchell Primary School in Endeavour Hills. They are going to be interviewing someone else tomorrow, and they should know by Friday to whom they will offer the job. <br /><br />If I get that job that means taht I will be starting on April the 24th, which will be good because that means that everything will be starting at the same time. Cathy has also been to visit Centrelink, and we got the surprising news just a moment ago that not only will we be getting around $220 a fortnight for the two girls, but we will be backdated payments to the tune of $4,300! Which is staggering! And will really help us along, I can assure you. <br /><br />The father of the bride from Saturday’s wedding also dropped around and deposited $140 with me so we are certainly being looked after at this point at time. God is very very good indeed, and sometimes I wonder why I don’t trust him more.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-15021729567705883882009-01-28T23:21:00.003+11:002009-01-28T23:51:27.953+11:00Monday 2nd of April, 2001<em>The following is a transcript of a tape recording I made while travelling in my car. At this time (fifth week of Lent) things were getting busy and I couldn't keep up with my written diary.</em><br /><br />It's 6pm and I am on my way to my parents-in-law. The children are there already, Cathy has been at work. Haven’t had the most productive day, I must say that I am feeling rather low at this point. I had a phone call from Peter [Holmes] earlier on today, saying that he was feeling pretty down, but was getting over that as well.<br /><br />He’d been visiting South Australia for a family wedding, and there had had dinner with the Flemings, and then back again, they had had a rather tumultuous visit to Sue’s family, father and mother, things are not 100% well there, a bit of tension, challenging him as to why he has resigned and not simply taken leave.<br /><br />Spent a long time today writing a reply to [a fellow pastor] on a Kurt Marquart article on the issue of Papal Infaliibility.<br /><br />Tomorrow I have an appointment for a [job] interveiw. I put in three job applications last Thursday, one to Vision Australia as their coordinator of volunteers, one to Monash University for document delivery officer hoping to get a job share position, and one to Thomas Mitchell Primary School. They are advertising for a 22.5 hour school librarian’s job, a non teaching position, so the only prerequisite they had was that the applicant was a qualified librarian. So, I popped them in on Thursday.<br /><br />Actually it was thanks to [a parishioner] that I even knew about the latter one because she rang up and left a message on the phone on Wednesday that she had found this in her local paper, it wasn’t a vacancy that I had found. So, I thought "Awh, what the heck", and I got them to fax through a job description for me, and then I sent off my application. The very next day, Friday, I get a phone call from the principal saying “come in for an interview on Tuesday afternoon”. So that’s all happening tomorrow. I’m not getting my hopes up like I did last time [I had an interview for a position as librarian of a branch of a local public library], I’m not banking one hundred percent on this. I’m glad that I’ve got another interview. I’d be glad to see what comes of it. It would mean that I would be in complete charge of the library there, and one or two technicians who work there as well, so it would be step into library management, even though at a very very low and basic level. It would still be a step ahead of where I have been. It would be nice to get it. 22.5 hours is three days a week which would sit fairly well with my work at our Lady’s. It won’t be a big salary--$10,000 from Our Lady’s and $21 or 22,000 from the this job, but it will put food on the plate, it will pay for rent, Cathy’s also going to Centrelink tomorrow for an interview there, and hopefully with her increased Family Tax benefit [Government payment for families with children] I think that will make a difference to our income over the next period or so, that will be some money extra, even if it is only about $100 a week or so-- that is about $5000 extra, I think, a not inconsiderable amount of money.<br /><br />We’ve been looking around at houses, setting our sights at around the $160-$180 per week mark max, I don’t think we will be able to afford much more than that, but there aren’t a lot of three-bedroom houses around for that sort of money. Still, as I say, the parish has allowed us to stay in the manse until the end of June. I imagine that if I were to get this job at Thomas Mitchell, that would mean that I would be starting at the begining of 2nd Term, straight after Easter. Of course, it would be embarrasing if that happened, because then I would have to ring up John Kleinig and tell him that after all this hoo-hah that has gone on about the worship resources that I'm not going to be able to do it for them after all, but that was always the original agreement, and if they have changed their minds now, if they hadn’t gone and changed their minds on me we wouldn’t have had to make any fuss. Anyway, we will just have to wait and see what comes of that.<br /><br />I went to mass last Saturday [at Ringwood], but I didn’t stop to talk to Greg afterward, just in and out. It turned into quite a big day then. Coming home, I still had to get the service order and sermon done for Sunday, then we took the girls swimming, back home we got ready for the wedding, which I did up at Martin Luther Homes, probably my last wedding, and then we came home and went off straight down to Packenham where we had the Casey farewell. I did my last service at Casey yesterday. It wasn’t a highly emotional event for me, but I think that at the end when [one member] got up to say thank you for all the work I had done, that I got close to tears then...<br /><br />But--oh, I am getting tired of this, I really am, I want it to end, I want the responsibility for it to end. This week of course, first communions at Knox and confirmations at Frankston, service in both places for Palm Sunday, a big event, but afterwards it will be finished, and I will be able to say “Here endeth the lesson.”<br /><br />Yeah. I think I am looking forward to the time afterwards.<br /><br />I’m glad, I’m really glad that I’ve got the job at Our Lady’s. It will be chance to settle a bit. And if I don’t get the job at Thomas Mitchell, well, I’ve still got the Worship Resources stuff to go on with. So a little window of opportunity. And [the head elder at Frankston] spoke to me again after church at Frankston on Sunday and re-iterated that any time I needed work just to let him know and they would make some space for me [at his factory], which is really great.<br /><br />So I’m not worried about it a lot. I rang Dad on Sunday night just to let him know where things were at. Mum has not been 100 percent well following her operation down in Adeliade. There’s no need to worry at this point. <br /><br />I am a bit worried about the anullment thing. Am I worried? Is that right, or not? I rang the Tribunal on Thursday or Friday just to check up on where things are at--apparently, [a couple of my witnesses] have not done their interview yet. They’ve got an appointment after Easter to do that at Ballarat, and I just asked for an estimate of how much longer it might be, and they said, well, usually another six to eight months after the information has been collected. I have to go back in for another interview. I tell you. Patience!<br /><br />[Fr] Anthony [Fisher] asked me the other day when I was seeing him how I would feel about seeing Peter received into the fellowship of the church and knowing that I couldn’t be, and I said simply: “I will rejoice for him." And I will. I really will. It would be silly of me to feel jealous and to wish that that was me, because its not me, I am in a very different situation. One thing that all the priests are saying is that in this process they are dealing with me as an individual--that I have my own individual sitation before God, before the church, and its not like anybody else's, everybody has their own unique situation and the uniqueness of my situation is that I have been ordained in a non-Catholic communion and converted to Rome, but I was married before, and I have remarried and I have children by my second marriage. <br /><br />It is very difffernt situation from Peter’s. Peter’s different from me. He has been on a road of conversion all his life, from the Brethren into Pentacostalism into Evangelicalism and Lutheranism, and finally into the Roman Catholic church. They’re probably in a bit more of a financial difficulty than I am. Why should I want their situation? My own has enough riches. <br /><br />How thankful I am for the skills that I have which mean that I will have a meaningful role in this parish working closely with a good and competent pastor, who could even be a good friend over time--well, who has been a good friend, at least in so far as a friend is one who stands by another.<br /><br />So I guess that sums up where we are at at the moment. Anthony sent through a book today to Cathy (she wasn’t home to open it, but I could see what it was through the envelope and recognised it as a book I had seen before) called “So you are married to a Catholic?”: a humourous book explaining the Catholic faith to a non-catholic partner. Actually I had gone into Church Supplies just last Monday where I had seen the book before, hoping to purchase a copy of the book for Cathy, but I couldn’t find it, and now Anthony has gone and bought it for her--I think that is good. <br /><br />While I was at Church Supplies, I bought a small rosary for Maddy, and a couple of saints cards and pictures of Jesus’ life, to put into a little box of things for Maddy to keep her amused when she is at Mass. I also bought myself a little rosary ring--a “combat rosary”, so-called because it was designed to be taken by soldiers into combat. It is a ring with ten knobs around it and little crucifix at the top. I keep it in my pocket, and it is possible to use it to praying the car or in bed--Cathy has no idea what I am doing, I don’t think she would approve very much. It is very portable. I am tryng to get into praying the rosary a bit more. Trying to do it properly. What I would like to get a hold of is a picture book with nice representations of each of the mysteries, because I am always forgetting what the sorrowful mysteries are (I can remember the joyful and glorious ones). <br /><br />It is strange to think when I am praying the Hail Mary, that I am actually talking to Mary. I need to talk to Father Anthony a bit more about this, whether prayer to the saints is mediate or intermediate, direct or indirect. It is a strange notion--strangely comforting at times too.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-73019675827819837762008-12-15T22:59:00.006+11:002008-12-15T23:37:27.425+11:00Wednesday, 28th March, 2001: In which George is translated, I am removed from and returned to my project, and receive a letterA very great deal has happened in the last week and a half. Not the least has been the news of the last 48 hours--the “promotion” and “translation” of Archbishop George Pell to the seat of Sydney. Quite a shock for everyone to be sure! More about this later.<br /><br />On the evening of Tuesday 20th of March, Fr John Fleming was in town. So we had a very pleasant get-together at P’s place. Peter and I came along, and Fr Greg [Pritchard] brought Fr John, and a couple of bottles of red wine. It was a real “bloke’s” night with a wonderful blend of good company, food, wine and conversation. The next day, Greg rang me to say that it had been a long time since he had enjoyed a evening “among priests” so much.<br /><br />On Friday, Cathy and [baby] Mia headed off for two nights down at Philip Island with the “college mob” girls--minus children. Maddy and I looked forward to a “Daddy and Maddy” weekend. On Monday 19th, I had completed all the Worship Resources work for the next and final package. I was just beginning to think ahead to the revision that was necessary, when, on Friday night after putting Maddy to bed, I received a phone call from my seminary professor/mentor [chair of the LCA Worship Commission at the time]. We had a wonderfully long chat, I was really enjoying it. Then Maddy began to stir, and I said to him that I had to go to attend to her. He then said that there was something he had rung to say (luckily Maddy settled again on her own). Apparently I was [taken] off the revision [project]. The Victorian President had told him to make sure that I was removed from any further work on the resources, because of the problem of “perceptions” that may attach to the project. <br /><br />This bit of news hit me in stomach like a cannon ball. The President had actually gone out of his way to remove from me the final few months work on the resources that was required to complete the project that I had begun four years ago. Worse still, he was knowingly depriving me of the source of income that would enable us a living in the first few months after my resignation came into play. <br /><br />The fact is that any “perceptions” that small minded people may form against the project because of my involvement would already have been formed and attached to the work long ago, since my finger prints are all over it, and I am still the same person I was last week. Short of a public announcement that I was off the case, most people would simply assume that I was still continuing, so where was the benefit? <br /><br />I pointed all this out to my mentor, plus the fact that I was financially dependant upon this work, and that I was the only one who could really do it. Truth be told, I broke down in tears over the phone. I could tell that he did not want to be the messenger of this information. Moreover he said that it was not a <em>fait accompli</em>, as he still had to speak to the General President. I implored him to beg the General President on my behalf to let me continue. He said that the GP was to be out of office until the beginning of this week, so I would have to wait.<br /><br />I was furious when I hung up. But a phone call from Peter Holmes calmed me down a little. I rang and told Cathy of the development. Then I went to bed. <br /><br />The next two days were full for Maddy and I. 9:15am Mass Saturday morning at Our Lady’s, followed by Martin Luther Homes Easter Fete where Herta gave Maddy some biscuits and a chocolate egg, and Maddy bought a white easter rabbit soft-toy. Then on to a “Dorothy and Friends” concert at Knox Shopping Centre, and the Library. Then off to swimming at Ringwood. Back to Martin Luther Homes for some lunch and afternoon tea, and then home for Maddy to go to bed. Then in the evening we went to the Vigil Mass at Our Lady’s, where Maddy (and I) were delighted to see Isaak and Matilda with Suzie and Peter Holmes. After Mass, we stayed on for coffee with Fr Greg. <br /><br />Next morning, Maddy came to the Eucharist with me down to Knox (a member of the congregation looked after Maddy during the service), then I bundled Maddy off to the 11am Mass at Our Lady’s. What a trooper! Four Masses in one weekend! But I wanted to see all the different musical usages at Our Lady’s. We had a small snack with Fr Greg, then bought some fish and potato gems for lunch. Maddy slept in the afternoon while I watched a movie. Cathy and Mia arrived home just in time for me to head off to address a combined Anglican and Uniting Church group on Lutheran doctrine of baptism. I was very good at this event and did not once mention my conversion!<br /><br />Monday morning, I received this letter from the General President:<blockquote>Dear David, <br /><br />So often we take for granted the extra service our folk provide.<br /><br />Please be assured [that] the fine and valuable work you have done in contributing to the worship life of our church as you have drafted our Worship Resources, has not gone unnoticed nor unappreciated.<br /><br />So much research, and so much original work has been a special contribution on your part, and it is acknowledged as such.<br /><br />God has been good. You have excelled. The church has benefited.<br /><br />The Lord bless you and your family as your continue to seek to do his wil.<br /><br />To God be the glory.</blockquote><br />This letter was written on the 21st of March--two days before my call from my seminary professor/mentor on Friday. The positive tone was confirmed by another phone call from the latter to say that the General President had reversed the decision to remove me from the revision project. My relief is enormous. I wrote to to the General President:<br /><blockquote>Thank you for your kind and gracious words with regard to the work that I have done for the Worship Resources. I told [my Seminary mentor] this evening that I have felt greatly privileged to be involved in the liturgical work of the church over the last fifteen years. I regard the advances that we have made in that time to be monumental--fifty years in fifteen, small steps for a Commission, giant steps for a church. In that time, I have been able to contribute with original research and drafts for both the Church Rites and the Rites and REsources for Pastoral Care--two publications that will continue, God willing, to enrich the LCA for years to come. <br /><br />But I must confess to having a special affection for the LWR project. Even though it has been a project of the Church, through its commission, I have nevertheless regarded it as "my baby", since the very first pilot attempts back in 1995. I am therefore immensely grateful to you for approving my continued role in the final stage of the project. Although I have resigned as project manager--which position [my seminary mentor] now holds--yet I have been working over the last three years with a view to completing a final revision. It would have been a great shame to end my association with the project so close to the finishing line. <br /><br />But above and beyond that, as I am only a few weeks off beginning my "leave of absence", and do not yet have full time work, I am dependant upon this work to provide for my family. I am therefore greatly relieved to know that I can continue to earn a living in this way, while I continue to seek full time work. <br /><br />Although [the Victorian President] has asked me to resign fully from the ministry of the LCA, I have not yet done so. I am not fully aware of my reasons--suffice it to say I am not ready to take this step. I wish to assure you that I will abide by the conditions that he has set upon me--I will not function in any way as a Lutheran pastor during this period, nor will I attend pastor's conferences or other gatherings of pastors. <br /><br />I have been offered a small position, with a small stipend, working as Liturgical Music Coordinator for Our Lady's Catholic Church in Ringwood. This is a special kindness shown by the parish priest there. However, let me assure you that I have not been, nor will be (in the forseeable future) received into the Catholic Church. I do not receive (nor will receive in the forseeable future) any of the Catholic sacraments. <br /><br />This position does allow me, however, to consider the issue that is before in a real, practical context. <br /><br />I continue to pray for you, your ministry, the LCA, and all the pastors. I pray that good will may continue to exist between us. <br /><br />Yours in Christ, <br /><br />David Schütz</blockquote><br /><br />With the same post that the General President's letter came, came a critical letter from the son of a deceased but dear pastor of the Lutheran Church who was once a close associate of Fr Fleming. This man was also now a pastor of the Lutheran Church, having graduated some years after me. The letter accused Peter Holmes and I of bailing out of the Lutheran Church over the issue of the ordination of women.<br /><br />Peter had recieved a similar letter and responded by phoning the sender, and correcting a number of misunderstandings. For a start, that the issue was far broader than women’s ordination, and secondly that it was far more a conversion to the Roman Church than a bailing out of the Lutheran ministry.<br /><br />I responded in this fashion:<br /><blockquote>Dear J, <br /> <br />I understand that Peter has already spoken to you on the phone, and cleared up a number of points. So I will make my letter brief. <br />Thank you for your forthright comments. I regard nothing as worse than people who hide their true thoughts at times like these. <br /><br />However, you will have realised by now that the issues are far broader than the ordination of women. I had made my own mind up to investigate entering communion with Rome at least three months before last year's Synod. <br /><br />The major issue for me was that the Lutheran Church was going to decide a matter of interpretation of scripture--with regard to an issue of ecumenical significance--by a vote. Which ever way this vote went, I had to question a number of things: <br /><br />a) the authority of the Synod of the LCA to overturn a doctrine that was affirmed as "binding on all Christendom" by the 1966 Theses of Agreement, <br /><br />b) who in the LCA has authority to make such decisions, and <br /><br />c) how is the authority of Christ incarnated in the LCA today? <br /><br />In the end, I discovered that I was (and had been for almost 15 years) more truly Catholic than Lutheran. My attempts to live as an evangelical catholic have failed. If I want to be truly Catholic, I must be Roman. <br /><br />Mind you, this is not the "easy" path for me. Both myself and Cathy have been married previously. If I ever wish to be received into the Catholic Church (ie. ever wish to receive the sacraments of reconciliation, confirmation or Eucharist) it will be necessary for both Cathy and I to receive annulments. This is far from a foregone conclusion that our applications will be granted. I could indeed spend all the rest of my life as a penitent and catechumen in the church. <br /><br />Secondly, I, and not my wife or family, am considering joining Rome. <br /><br />Finally, it has meant that I have lost all my ambitions for advancement in the little pond of the LCA. It has meant that I am losing house, income, health insurance, car, and just about every other material benefit. <br /><br />Why am I doing this? Because I believe that once we come to recognise something in our hearts as true, we are bound in conscience to follow where it leads, and to conform our whole lives to it. This is a matter of conversion and repentance. <br /><br />In the end, any other road that I would have taken would have been the cowardly road. I had the best job ever offered to me when I was called to be the second pastor at Hope Valley in SA. I wanted that job desparately. It would have fulfilled all my dreams. But it would have meant that I would have continued to live a lie. <br /><br />For my own integrity, I resigned my parish, although as you have noted, I have not yet resigned fully from the Roll of Pastors. <br /><br />My District President has requested that I do so, but I have refused. However, in accordance with his instruction, I will not attend pastor's conferences or act in any way as a pastor of the Lutheran Church during my period of "leave". <br /><br />In fact this "leave" is a bit of a legal fiction, as I have probably already "left". <br /><br />Please also note that I have realised that the Lutheran Church will never be the Roman Church, and I do not want to make the Roman Church like the Lutheran Church. <br /><br />All the best for your continued ministry in the LCA. <br /><br />David Schütz <br /><br />P.S. John Fleming visited us recently, and we all drank a toast to the memory of your dear father. The man who is preparing us for entry into the church is Anthony Fisher, who was also a one time protege of your <em>pater</em>, and who has a very "catholic" understanding of Lutheranism as a result.</blockquote><br /><br />And in the middle of all this, Fr Greg called with the news of Pell’s elevation! What a night!!<br /><br />Today was a big “catholic” day for me. This morning, Peter and I began the first of what will probably be a new pattern for us: meeting at Our Lady’s for 11:15am Mass, then talking with Fr Greg for an hour or so, and followed this with lunch over in the food court in Eastland Shopping Centre. <br /><br />Over lunch we discussed the relationships that had formed during our conversions--with eachother, with P, with Anthony, and with Greg. Fr Greg has been both a good pastor and a good friend during this time.<br /><br />I also visited Fr Anthony at the Priory today. He seemed a little tired today--but that could be his sadness at the decision regarding George. I found that I feel a very strong bond of brotherly love for that man. This is perhaps not surprising--he has a warm personality, and he has been there for me in one of the most emotionally turbulent periods of my life. <br /><br />We talked a little about where things stand at the moment, and then we began to discuss Paul VI’s Credo. We focused on discussion of grace, and of the place of Mary in the faith, particularly the historicity of the Assumption. <br /><br />Then it was back to Knox church for the last First Communion class.<br /><br />Tonight I attended my first Music Team meeting at the Presbytery at Our Lady’s. It was an interesting experience. I was quite struck by the fact that I was entering a new pastoral situation that would need to tap into every bit of my experience over the last decade. <br /><br />It felt very similar to the initial meetings with folk down here at Our Saviour’s seven years ago. The organist could very well be [one of my old ladies] in a new manifestation! Still, I am also very glad that I have this opportunity to find my way into the church through a parish in which I have a meaningful contribution to make.<br /><br />So there it all is. Cathy and Mia are at home again and we all ate breakfast at the table together. Maybe life is looking up afterall!Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-4552859626937412042008-09-16T01:00:00.005+10:002008-09-16T01:28:58.938+10:00Recalling the Summit held on March 9th, 2001Things are a bit out of order here - you will note that I have posted "March 19th, 2001" below, but in reviewing my conversion journal, I discovered (to my amazement) that I actually had no account of the Summit meeting that was held at St Paul's Lutheran Church in Box Hill on March 9th, 2001. All I have written in my journal is that the Summit took place, and after that, Cathy and I (and P.? I can't remember - I don't think so) went around to Pete and Susie's place where we had dinner with Fr Pritchard and Fr Anthony.<br /><br />The Summit consisted of 18 specially invited pastors meeting with the three of us and the president. We each presented our concerns (which had to be outlined on a single sheet of A4 paper), and then the three appointed respondents responded. There wasn't a lot of time for discussion, and neither Peter nor I felt that our concerns were in anyway answered. <br /><br />The president then closed the day by getting us all to sing "A mighty Fortress" together. I vividly recall feeling like I had been ambushed with that one... I commented in an email to someone "No-one expects the Lutheran Inquisition"!<br /><br />I did find this summary of events in an old email written by Peter the next day:<blockquote>There were 18 or so present in the end and emotions and reactions of the day moved through much frustration, misunderstanding, anger, hurt, sorrow, laughter, some tears, and yet a strong current of empathy and understanding from small number of brothers who, while still disagreeing, finally saw the extent to which the issue impacts on us and our ministry.<br /><br />Some who came and genuinely tried to understand could not, but seemed committed to further attempts to understand. Others have come to realised what it was all about and now see the full extent of the pressures and strain on ministry. For all its pain the day achieved this important goal. I don't believe any of the three of us went to convince or convert our brothers, we simply sought to be understood. But, because they relate to the whole church, the questions challenged us all.</blockquote>That seems to me to be a fairly accurate description.<br /><br />Any way, here is the paper I presented on the day. You will notice themes that are still with me here in 2008, although somewhat resolved!<br /><br />You can <a href="http://veritasvosliberabit70.blogspot.com/2007/04/diet-of-box-hill-part-i.html" target="_blank">read Peter's paper here</a>, and <a href="http://veritasvosliberabit70.blogspot.com/2007/04/diet-of-box-hill-part-iii.html" target="_blank">the response to it</a>. <br /><br />Here is my paper:<br /><br /><blockquote><strong>TEN KEY QUESITONS THAT HAVE LED ME TO WHERE I AM TODAY.<br /><br />David Schütz for the Summit at St Paul’s, Box Hill on 9th March, 2001</strong><br /><br />1) In ecumenical theology, two ecclesiologies are possible: 1) The true Church of Christ on earth is a visible reality which is manifested and recognised by certain “marks” and is to be identified with a particular denomination to the extent that it preserves these “marks” in their fullness/purity; or 2) the true Church of Christ is an invisible reality that consists of the spiritual communion of true believers who are known only to God, and who may be found in any denomination, or indeed, even beyond the bounds of organised Christianity. I do not believe the second option to be valid: the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is incarnate (he is not “the invisible man”). It is my understanding that historically the Lutheran Church (and even more specifically, the LCA) has held the former definition, and has regarded itself to be the true church because it alone has perfectly preserved the true Word and Sacraments. For this reason, we have been wary of entering into communion other churches, because of a perceived lack of purity in the preservation of these marks. If so, is the Lutheran Church not claiming to be the one holy catholic church, and, if so, how is this claim to be justified?<br /><br />2) The Lutheran Church holds that the true church is present wherever the Word and Sacraments (the liturgy of the church) are celebrated. If the church does not have an organic reality apart from the event of the celebration of the liturgy, what happens when it abandons on a large scale the very liturgy that is supposed to bring it into existence?<br /><br />3) What is the locus of Christ’s authority in the Lutheran Church? Who can claim to be the “you” in Luke 10:16 today and on what grounds? How is this authority validated, ie. communicated incarnationally from Christ himself? Whether authority is claimed by the presidents, the pastors conferance, the synod, the local congregation, the confessions, the Theses of Agreement or the theologians of the church, on what grounds would we regard such authority to be validated?<br /><br />4) When the LCA came into existence, the first Synod adopted a doctrinal position that said the ordination of men only was “binding upon all Christendom”. 35 years later, the same institution held a vote which potentially could have overthrown this “binding” practice. Apart from the question as to whether the truth can be determined by a vote, did this action not invalidate the authority of Synod itself? For while making doctrinal pronouncements which are binding for the LCA, it does not consider these statements to be binding upon itself for its future confession of faith. Hence no doctrine, currently considered “binding” by the church, can be safe from revision or rejection by the Synod in the future. <br /><br />5) I do not believe the Lutheran Church will ever reach agreement on the doctrine of the ministry, since there is an inherant ambiguity in the Lutheran tradition on the matter of whether the authority of the ministry comes from ‘above’ or ‘below’ (popularly refered to as a ‘high’ and ‘low’ view of the ministry). Greg Lockwood’s paper at our last Pastors Conference demonstrated the difficulty in trying to resolve this ambiguity. Is there any way of resolving these tensions without ultimately chosing either between a fully catholic understanding of orders or congregationalism?<br /><br />6) The LCA regards the external validation of the call by the church to be essential to the ordained ministry, for it is by this external validation that authority to exercise the ministry is confered from those who already have it (understanding that one cannot exercise the office without the authority to do so, and that only those who have the authority can confer it upon others). Although the Augsburg Confession recognises the authority of the episcopate (CA 28), the 16th Century saw a radical break in the continuity of the orders when the bishops of the church did not validate Lutheran ordinations. How then can we consider the ministry of the Lutheran Church to be validly authorised?<br /><br />7) The historic episcopate and episcopal succession has, since the very beginning of the church, been regarded as essential to the church, since by this succession a tangible continuity of authority has been maintained with the apostles who were first commissioned by Christ. The LCA does not have bishops and cannot create an episcopate simply by giving them authority ‘from below’ since such authority must be given by Christ (ie. ‘from above’). Is it not therefore clear that we lack one of the essential marks of the church, and that this ‘lack’ cannot be repaired?<br /><br />8) Some Lutheran theologians and pastors have claimed that the Lutheran Church is an “evangelical catholic” church. On what grounds can the Lutheran Church of Australia claim to be “catholic”? Is it even possible to reach a clear agreement on what it means to be “catholic” if communion with the bishop of Rome is not included in that definition?<br /><br />9) Sasse: “Gentlmen, if there were no Lutheran Church, where would you go? You would go back to Rome. But why go back to Rome? Is it not full of evils? Yes, but they have preserved the sacraments.” Given the priority of the Roman Catholic Church (ie. it was there first--we broke away from it, not vice versa, despite the old “Luther never wanted to start a new church” line), Lutherans are guilty of committing the sin of schism by continuing to separate themselves from the Roman communion. The evil of schism may be justified if it is undertaken in order to avoid a greater evil, eg. heresy or apostacy. Yet it is evident from the bi-lateral dialogues and agreed statements, and from Rome’s own official documents, that the Roman church has remained faithful to the catholic faith, when many other churches, Lutheran churches included, have apostasised. Rome has not only remained faithful in the face of contemporary attacks upon the ordained ministry, the inerrancy of scripture and the sanctity of life and marriage from liberalism and feminism, it has recently proven its orthodoxy in such documents as the Joint Declaration on Justification and the declaration Dominus Jesus. Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?<br /><br />10) “Only the unity of the Church’s faith and her authority, which is binding on each member, assures us that we are not following human opinions and adhering to self-made party groupings but that we belong to the Lord and are obeying him.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion. How does a Lutheran answer this statement?</blockquote>And here is the response to my paper from Pastor PK:<br /><br /><blockquote><strong>A Response to: ‘Ten Key Questions That Have Led Me To Where I Am Today’. for the Summit on March 9, 2001</strong><br /><br /><em>Introduction.</em><br /><br />This paper has raised some important issues for discussion. Interestingly, I believe that most of them are well covered and answered by the <em>Theses of Agreement </em>(TA). Here, too, we find the scriptural and confessional references that enable us to grapple with the ten key questions.<br /><br />1) TA-V demonstrates that we do not hold to the first ecclesiology mentiond in the paper: ‘The Church, essentially or properly so called, the One Holy Christian Church, the Una Sancta, the Church Universal, is the people of God (1 Peter 2:9), the communion or congregation of saints, which Christ has called, enlightened and gathered through the Holy Spirit by the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments, which he has thus created to be his Spiritual Body’ V.1. Many scriptural references follow. No denomination can claim exclusive title to the one, holy and catholic church. The LCA has never made this claim of exclusivity. The RCC, however, makes this claim in ‘Dominus Jesus’ when it says that ‘the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church’. Non catholic churches ‘derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church’ (para. 16). It admits that ‘the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church’ (para. 17). But then it says that if they have not ‘preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery’, they ‘are not Churches in the proper sense’ (para. 17). Although the TA use the term ‘invisible’ to describe the true church, it also uses the term ‘hidden’, a much better description. The body of Christ is known only to Christ, who himself is hidden from our eyes, albeit ‘revealed’ in word and sacraments. The LCA has been wary of entering into communion with other churches not because it believes it is the only true church, but because it believes that true unity is centered in the pure preaching of the gospel and the right institution of the sacraments (CA 7).<br /><br />2) The Sacraments and liturgy are not synonymous. Nor is the reality of the church based on the historic liturgy. The liturgy does not bring the church into existence; that is the task of the word and Sacraments (Eph 2, R 10:14-15; Titus 3). Scripture does not restrict the church to one historic liturgy; it simply gives us a skeletal sketch of the liturgy (Cf Col 3). The early church did not have the ecumenical creeds, for example. David, however, rightly warns the church not to abandon the historic liturgy.<br /><br />3) Cf TA V.11; CRCR Statement: ‘Gospel and Scripture’. The locus of Christ’s authority is the word (Jn 8:31-32). Christ gave his keys to the church. The church also receives from Christ pastors who exercise Christ’s authority of the keys in the church. No one in the church claims authority; authority is a gift of the risen Christ to his church through his word. For Lutherans the word is interpreted by the great consensus of pastors, theologians and laity and given to us in the confessions, which always remain for us the ‘norma normata’. Tradition is also an important feature of this interpretation (cf my concluding remarks). LCA Synods do not create doctrine, they give assent to scriptural doctrine that comes to them through the confessions.<br /><br />4)I agree that the church has no right to change its doctrinal foundation. At the same time, it is not tradition which leads the church to deny the ordination of women, but Scripture. Sadly, no doctrine is safe from falsification as the NT shows (Mt 7:15f.; Gal 1-3; 2 Peter 2; the Corinthian church etc.). But how does Paul correct errors? Through the word!<br /><br />5) TA VI.1: ‘The NT ministry is the office instituted by Christ for the public administration of the means of grace....’ Many passages from Scripture are then adduced. That is the agreement reached and confessed by the LCA. I do not know of anyone who disagrees with this statement. The authority of the minister is always from above, from Christ through his word.<br /><br />6) CF TA VI. 7-8. ‘The Lord calls individuals into the office of the ministry through the Christian congregations, Acts 13:1-4, and the Christian congregation, either alone or together with other congregations, or through properly appointed representatives, calls qualified persons (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9; 2 Tim 2:24-25; Acts 1:24) into the office of the ministry publicly to exercise the functions of this office. The minister of the Word is thus called by the Lord through his Church, and by the Church as through human agency and authority, but in obedience to the command of the Lord’ (TA VI.7).<br /><br />It is Christ through his church who validates the ministry of the Lutheran Church. Our ministry is valid because we are calling candidates into the ministry by the command of Christ. There seems to be the implication in this question that unless the church has the hierarchical episcopate one cannot have a properly authorised ministry. CA 28 recognises the divine authority of the episcopate but only insofar as it gains its authority from the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. When it exercises secular power, its authority is seen as ‘de iure humano’. The Lutheran Church of the 16th century did not see the break in the continuity of the orders as ‘radical’; the confessions do not even discuss the subject! The confessions do operate with the concept of a succession of ordained ministers (SA 111.20 and Tr 72), as well as a succession of apostolic teaching. Holding faithfully to the apostolic teaching is the true apostolic succession.<br /><br />7) The Lutheran Church does not see the historic episcopate as being of the esse of the church. For this reason it cannot be an essential mark of the church . The historic episcopate cannot be traced to the ‘very beginning of the church’. The NT makes no distinction between bishops and elders. Their nomenclature is used interchangeably. It is with Ignatius that the bishop begins to take precedence over the elder and is seen to be especially important for truth and unity; but even here it is too early to speak of the historic episcopate. The historic episcopate does not guarantee orthodoxy. Many bishops have taught false doctrines. The essential marks of the church are the word and sacraments. Why should the LCA want to create an episcopate in the historical succession? Does the imposition of hands by a bishop give a pastor greater authority than God’s word?<br /><br />8) Cf TA V.1. The LCA is catholic because it proclaims the gospel and rightly administers the sacraments, which are the essence of the catholic church, the una sancta. The LCA’s catholicism is therefore in no way contingent upon communion with the bishop of Rome.<br /><br />9) The RCC was not ‘there first’. That honour belongs to the Orthodox Church. Even so, priority does not depend on being first. It depends on the word and sacraments. The Lutheran Church has always claimed to be a continuation of the true church of<br />Christ. Luther did not want to start a new church, but he was excommunicated. Was that a sin of schism? Schism is not always evil; not if it means separating oneself from apostasy or heresy (R 16:17). Rome has remained faithful to many doctrines. But it has departed from other articles of the catholic faith. Many doctrines have been developed over the last 2000 years which find no foundation in Scripture — the assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences etc. And what are we to make of celibacy? Despite JDDJ Rome still adheres to Trent and its anathemas of justification by faith alone. It is noteworthy that justification by faith alone is not confessed by the RCC in JDDJ. ‘Dominus Jesus’ does not verify Rome’s orthodoxy. Whilst it properly says that salvation is through Christ alone, it is inclusivistic, i.e. it allows for people without faith in Christ to be saved. Inclusivism is also taught by Vatican II. ‘They also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience’ (Vatican II; cf ‘Dominus Jesus, para. 8, 20-22). In other words one can receive the grace of God apart from the gospel and Scripture. This concept that one can be an ‘anonymous Christian’ is ludicrous. It is explicitly rejected by Scripture; it is certainly not implicit in Scripture. Here the teaching office of the RCC is opposed to Scripture. That is the inevitable result of rejecting ‘sola Scriptura’. Inclusivism shows clearly why Rome could not confess justification by faith alone in JDDJ — it would have breached Roman Catholic doctrine. ‘Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?’ As long as Rome disallows justification by faith alone the answer, sadly, is ‘Yes!’<br /><br />10) The unity of the church’s faith Ratzinger speaks of is a myth in the RCC. There is a wide spectrum of theology taught in that church by its members. All of us here today know that the grossest heresies can be found in the church. Not that the Lutheran Church is pure in this respect as has been rightly said. Furthermore, a unity of faith is of no value unless that faith is grounded in Scripture. A church can be united in teaching false doctrine and following human opinions! eg those churches which ordain women; no obedience of Christ here. But unity of faith in Jesus is a product of the church proclaiming the gospel and administering the sacraments according to Christ’s institution. Unity is a gift of God (Eph 4). As for the church’s authority, where does that come from? Does it not come from Christ as mediated to the church through the Scriptures?</blockquote>Peter gives his final assessment of <a href="http://veritasvosliberabit70.blogspot.com/2007/04/fallout.html" target="_blank">the whole Summit event here</a>.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-43913944285115553732008-09-16T00:31:00.005+10:002008-09-16T00:59:35.555+10:00Monday, 19th March, 2001: In which I turn 34, have a final interview with the President, check out mass at my new parish, and receive lettersThey say a week in politics is a long time--well, so is a week in a conversion story. Much has happened, and I have to run my mind over the last week again.<br /><br />I happily celebrated my birthday on Monday. Cathy had arranged a number of “surprise” events, including lunch at her parents with a number of friends and dinner at a restaurant with the Spikes and Brooks (minus children). Unfortunately, I was feeling very “off” by the evening and did not have the opportunity to chin-wag over red wine late into the night as I would have liked.<br /><br />Tuesday brought a summons into the President's office, so I made the appointment for Wednesday after meeting with P. and Peter and waited to see what would happen.<br /><br />On Wednesday, we gathered together as usual, and I found that on Tuesday Peter had also answered a summons. Peter said that the President had basically accused him of trying to be a “David Schutz” clone, and was recommending that he have no more contact with me. He was not supposed even to be at our meeting this morning--a fact that instantly had P. thinking that we had better call an end to the meeting here and now. Peter reassured him that there was nothing to fear, because he had drafted his letter of resignation. He read it out to us. It made clear that he intended to resign from both his parish and the LCA ministry forthwith. <br /><br />So, forewarned is forearmed, and I went to see the President immediately afterwards. He said he had heard a number of reports that he wanted to check up on. <br /><br />Firstly he had heard that I “had been catechised”. I said that he knew that I was seeing Anthony Fisher for this express purpose since I had told him of it at the very beginning. <br /><br />Then he moved onto the subject of when I would be ceasing my ministry, and I got in first and told him that I would be ending on Palm Sunday. He welcomed this decision. <br /><br />Then he said that as far as he could tell there was no point in continuing the “process” from his end, because as far as he could see I had already “converted”. I said this was true to an extent. There was nothing that would deter me from my decision that I have made, nor from the answers that I had found to my questions, but that I was happy to continue discussion with the pastor whom he had assigned to me to clarify the issues for the LCA. <br /><br />Continuing on his conviction that I had already “converted”, he then asked me to resign completely from the ministry of the LCA. I told him I was not going to do so voluntarily, but he was welcome to bring charges against me and begin the process of having me removed from the roll if that was what he wanted. He indicated that he was not willing to do this. I assured him that the Summit would be the last time I would be meeting with the Pastors of the district as a pastor, that I would not be attending Pastor’s Conference in April, and that I would in no way function or act as a pastor of the church while I was on leave of absence. With this he had to be satisfied. <br /><br />I closed by saying that I was sorry if this reflected poorly upon him among his fellow presidents. He indicated that he was a little uncomfortable about it.<br /><br />So that was that. I do not expect to have another interview with him on this matter.<br /><br />Thursday morning I finally received two letters in the post telling me that the Mt Scopus and Montrose applications had both been unsuccessful. This was disappointing, but I had already accepted the fact (I would have heard earlier otherwise), and so it simply “put me out of my misery”, as they say.<br /><br />That afternoon I met with Fr Greg Pritchard to pick up some forms that needed to be filled out for the Music Coordinator position. I think I will really enjoy this work. We talked about a number of issues, and I think we will see eye to eye on most things, or I will learn to adapt my tastes to fit his and the parishes. I resolved to attend at least one or two main Sunday or Vigil masses between now and when I take up office, so that I have some practical feel for the situation.<br /><br />Friday night I received a phone call from Peter. He had taken his letter of resignation into the President, and was announcing his decision on Sunday. I must say news of this shook me a little. It shouldn’t have, since I was fully forewarned, yet I had just been feeling a bit sorry for myself and for my uncertain future that the thought that Peter and Susie and their children were going to have to bear it also was a little too much for me. <br /><br />On Saturday I spoke to A., who said that his wife had been the receptionist in the president's office who received Peter’s “envelope” and suspected its nature. A. said that he had actually asked the President whether he was taking the whole business “personally”, and he had indicated that he was.<br /><br />I was too late getting Maddy ready for Mass Saturday morning (Mia was starting swimming at 12:30pm so we were going to the pool later than normal), and so I decided to go to the vigil mass on Saturday night. Fr Paul was celebrating, but I really wanted to see what happened music wise. The congregation was about 60% capacity, mostly elderly, which surprised me as I thought the Saturday evening would be more “young people” orientated. The songs and the mass settings were not the easiest to sing. I knew the Psalm setting and the offering song (“Be with me Lord, when I am in trouble”--a favourite), but the rest was certainly not the most tuneful material. <br /><br />They had sung entrance song, kyrie, psalm, verse, offering song, sanctus, lamb of God, communion song and recessional. Some of the overhead screens were only hand written and not easy to see on the other side of the church where I sat down at first. I shifted to the other side just to see the screen better. We will have to do something about that. One organist, one cantor, and an overhead projector assistant. <br /><br />But the liturgy was done well. Paul is a rather odd preacher, but he can do a very reverent liturgy. There were crucifer, torch bearers, book bearers etc. and all the servers did their jobs competently and confidently. I found myself rather surprised at how surprised I was when I felt the strong need to receive holy communion. Somehow this was different from what I had been doing every Sunday morning for the last nine years. And I wanted desperately to be a part of it. <br /><br />Yesterday I did my last “three service Sunday + confirmation lesson + BBQ”, only I felt too tired to go to the BBQ at Casey, and in the end it was wet and cold and only one family came along prepared for it. They had been up in Bendigo, where it was bright and sunny, and were not aware of the weather down here. We had a good service at Casey, but they were sad to realise it was “second to last”. I tried ringing Peter but he was “incommunicado”.<br /><br />Today I had contact from all three priests, Fr John Fleming (by phone this evening to see how we were all getting along), Fr Greg Pritchard (by mail to confirm my appointment), and Fr Anthony Fisher with the following email.<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear David,<br /><br />Herewith a document that might be useful for us to go through when next we meet. Any questions you have about any of it, please scribble them down.<br /><br />I will be speaking with the Archbishop further about your situation his week and wonder if you could email me a summary of our financial needs, both in terms of what and when (as far as ou can predict it), esp re job, house, car, loans...<br /><br />God bless David.<br /><br />Anthony OP</blockquote><br /><br />The attachment was Paul IV’s “Credo”, and my reply to this email was as follows:<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Anthony,<br /><br />Thank you for the document. I wonder if we can meet this Friday morning (eg. 10am?) at the Priory to discuss it? I would be happy to move along these lines of directed reading. I am still reading through the Catechism, and have come across only one place that I would like clarification, and that is on the relationship of original sin and concupiscence (as adressed in para. 406).<br /><br />Would you have an evening free in the first week in April to come to dinner? Thursday is out, but any other evening should be fine.<br /><br />Thank you for your concern regarding our financial needs. As I see it, the situation is as follows:<br /><br />Job:<br /><br />I will celebrate my last service as a Lutehran paster on Palm Sunday. Greg Pritchard has kindly offered me "two days a week" at $10,000 a year (inc. work cover and super) at Our Lady's in Ringwood as "Music Coordinator". I may be able to pick up one or two hours a week extra at the parish school. As I see it, I would need an extra $20,000+ to bring the household into fiscal solvency. In the short term, I have some work (at $20 an hour) doing the final revision of the Lutheran Worship Resources. I may be able to string this out for a month or two at the most. Then there remains the offer of factory work from my parishioner at Frankston. But this would be a last resort for me. Last time I talked to him, he thought he could find some stuff for me to do in the office. I have considered asking you about the possibility we once touched upon of perhaps a scholarship to study in your institute. Some study at this time may not be a bad thing--enabling me time for reflection and intellectual processing--but I would require financial support. I am still hopeful of finding part-time library work. It was unfortunate that nothing came of the two library positions I was interviewed for a fortnight ago, but I am sure something else will come up. I have a couple of applications in at the moment, and I know that a position will come up at my previous place of employment in Footscray in a week or two, which they have encouraged me to apply for. At the same time, if something were to come up at the Archdiocese, I would consider that too. I noticed that there have been advertisements in the paper for a part-time administrative secretary for a project in one of the Archdiocesan offices, and have even wondered if I might not have the skills for a position like that. As you can see, I am thinking of all possibilities!<br /><br />Cathy has her two day a week job at St Paul's Lutheran Church at Box Hill. At the moment she is struggling to care for Maddy and Mia at the same time, and probably would not be coping if I was not taking things easier in the parish and making more time for them. She is thinking of taking a week or two off before I finish just to get Mia into a routine and feeding properly.<br /><br />We have been kindly allowed to stay in the manse rent-free until the end of the financial year--but that will not leave very long for us to find new accommodation, and I hope to have a job by then to pay rent, bond, shifting costs etc. We will require a house with at least three bedrooms. Our current accommodation has four: Maddy has her own room, Mia sleeps with us, and we use the other two bedrooms as studies for each other (full of stuff!).<br /><br />We own two cars and a motorbike. Cathy's Subaru station wagon and my bike are fully paid for, but I owe $9,160.73 on my Diahatsu Pyzar. Currently, as a pastor of the LCA, this loan is financed by the Lutheran Layperson's league at 4.5% interest per annum and a repayment schedule of $320 per month. As I have officially taken "leave of absence" rather than resigning from the Roll of Pastors entirely this arrangement will continue for the present. I have suggested to Cathy selling my car and using my bike for transport. In my estimation, after selling my car and paying off the outstanding loan, we would come out about $3000 ahead. But Cathy is less than keen on this idea, as it would severely restrict my ability to care for the children while she is at work or otherwise using her car. Of course, the bike could go, but bike riding is both a hobby and a social outlet for me which I would greatly miss. Still, I am not sure if we will be able to keep up the loan payments, plus the registration and servicing of all three vehicles. We may have to make a few tough decisions if we don't get the financial security we require.<br /><br />On top of that, there are many day to day running costs that the parish have been paying for us. Of chief concern to me is our health insurance. Our health insurance is with Australian Unity, and we have a fairly high level of cover to cover maternity needs. Although we are not at the moment planning another child, changes in our method of family planning will have to allow for this eventuality! Each quarter we pay about $630 to this fund. <br /><br />Other than this, we have no loans or financial commitments. At the same time we have no savings! We have always sailed pretty close to the edge financially. So that is our financial and accommodation and job situation. Naturally, I would be very grateful if there is anyway that the Archdiocese could help.<br /><br />I have attached a new version of my resume, in case anyone wants it. Also, would it be possible to reclaim the two documents that I sent in with you to the Archbishop last time--the volume of Lutheran Worship Resources and the Bibliography?<br /><br />I find that Peter's resignation has shaken me more than I expected, given that I knew it was going to happen. Knowing the anxiety that I am facing with the end of financial security for my family, I feel for him and Susie as they face the future. At the same time, I rejoice that they will be able to be received into the Church forthwith, and look forward to celebrating that day with them. I attended the vigil mass at Our Lady's last Saturday, and was surprisingly (?or should that be 'surprisingly surprisingly'?) struck by the intensity of my desire to be able to receive communion in the Church. I try to reassure people that I will be able to bear my time "in limbo" as I wait for the annulments to be granted, but sometimes I am 'all talk'.<br /><br />David Schütz</blockquote><br /><br />At the same time, I received the President's latest ‘Pastor to Pastor’ newsletter.<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Brothers,<br /><br />First of all, sincere thanks to all of you who spent time in prayer for those of us who attended the Summit on Friday the 9th. <br /><br />Secondly, I want to say thanks to David Schutz, Peter Holmes and P. for the focused way that they presented their questions. Few of us who were there could not have been moved by the intensity with which these questions were troubling our brothers.<br /><br />Thirdly, I want also to publicly express my appreciation to Pastors PK, GW and DB for their responses prepared at short notice. These helped to give further focus to the issues. <br /><br />At the end of the day I indicated that I would need some time to consider where we go from here. To that end I had asked three teams of three people to prepare some focused issues for further study. It also had become clear to me that whatever processes were now to be followed they should be tailored for each of the brethren separately. On Tuesday I met with Peter Holmes and on Wednesday with David Schutz and on Friday with P. to a) get their impressions of the usefulness of the day and b) to test my proposals. <br /><br />The meeting with David established two matters 1) there was little point continuing the discussion in any formalised way. David needed to be freed to pursue his journey. 2) In order to do that David had already come to a decision to actualize his resignation from the pastorate of Knox, Frankston and Casey at the conclusion of services on the 8th April - a month earlier than intended. I do want to make it clear that David has not resigned from the LCA. He is seeking Leave of Absence and that will be processed via DCC to GCC. He will not however participate in pastors conferences etc. He does not yet have any formal work. I commend him, Cathy and the children to you for your prayers.<br /><br />The meeting with Peter also established that their was little value to be had in pursuing further formal discussions with him. On Thursday Peter put a letter on my desk which in part says: <br /><br />"I must ask you to accept this letter as my resignation from the position of pastor of the Doncaster/Ivanhoe Lutheran Parish and from the office of public ministry in the Lutheran Church of Australia. .....I cannot continue to lead and teach people in the way of their salvation when I can no longer believe in that which must be taught according to the Lutheran Doctrinal statements. ...So for the sake of my family's souls, and also of my own, we must obey the call of our Lord, and return to His Church. ....I hope that those who seek to form opinions on the reasons and motivation for my resignation will do so in mind of the deep grief it causes myself and wife, and that they will take into account the integrity of deciding not taking a vow that I can no longer uphold in good conscience."<br /><br />I spent three hours with Peter and Susan on Thursday night exploring the above decision of Peter and the implications of it. It is now quite clear that we have no option to allow Peter and Susan and family to take the journey that they have chosen. Peter announced his decision to his congregations yesterday. Peter and Susan and his people are now dealing with the trauma of all of this. I urge your prayers for them. <br /><br />Peter and the leaders of Doncaster/Ivanhoe are negotiating a terminus for this ministry in consultation with me. It will probably be in about 6 weeks time. I will meet with Peter again tomorrow and test again his decision and the implications of it. <br /><br />My discussions with P. made it very clear that much is to be gained in continuing the discussions. I will be appointing a small group of pastors to engage in this process. I am also exploring the possibility that P. might spend some time at the Seminary to engage the faculty in a discussion of the questions. I urge your prayers for him, his wife and their family. <br /><br />I am seeking the endorsement of DCC to my proposal to have the questions of these men placed on the Agenda of CTICR and to that end to furnish their papers and the responses to CTICR for further study and response. It has become very clear to me that these are not just Victorian questions. I have been appraised of another 10 men in other Districts who are asking the same sorts of questions. <br /><br />What are the questions? In short hand they have to do with ecclessiology, magesterium, and sola scriptura. <br /><br />May I also ask for your prayers for the people of the parishes of Knox and Doncaster. </blockquote><br /><br />I talked to both P. and Peter today. Peter said they had a very busy day yesterday with a lot of shocked reaction from people who thought this was a sudden decision rather than one carefully worked through. Thankfully, Fr Greg Pritchard has been there to support them, and Alison Fleming sent through a bunch of flowers and a hamper for Susie on Saturday. They have set Easter as the end of their ministry in the LCA and Pentecost as the day they will be received as a family into the Catholic Church. I was very pleased to hear that they will be received at Our Lady’s--so I joked that I would get to chose the music for the occasion. Peter immediately said “Not ‘A mighty fortress’!” I might give him “In thee is gladness”, however... Seriously, it will be wonderful to be worshipping together as part of the same community. Peter said that Anthony is chasing up the same issues that he is chasing for me, so that is good. <br /><br />P. is aware that we can no longer meet together at his office on Wednesdays. He must not be seen to be fraternising with us, as we are now clearly “persona non grata” in the church. However, he has asked if we could not go around to visit him tomorrow night! He is looking forward to his trip to Adelaide, something which he had been planning to do in his holidays anyway. <br /><br />So that is how things stand at the moment. And I notice that I have finally gone over one hundred pages with this journal! It seems remarkable to me that I have been recording these thoughts for almost a year now. But in many ways, I did not expect things to go so quickly. It amazes me that once something is said or admitted to oneself, it is like one domino being pushed over and an unstoppable chain reaction is set in place. I hope it doesn’t stall before it reaches its conclusion.<br /><br />Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-35489137571257680432008-08-30T22:18:00.008+10:002008-08-30T23:04:23.042+10:00Sunday, 11th March, 2001: On the Eve of my 35th Birthday, I make a personal committment to the Church's Authority and receive job prospectsThe story above <em>[ie. below, for blog readers!]</em> must be completed now, but just to say at the beginning that this has been a hell of a week. Cathy woke me about 8:30 on Monday morning (I don’t usually sleep in that long, but I think the day before had wiped me!) to say that Eastern Regional Libraries were on the phone and wanted to make a time for an interview about the Branch Coordinator’s position at Montrose. We set the time for Wednesday at 1pm. Later that day, I received another phone call, this time from Mt Scopus College (a local Jewish school), about the Library Technician’s position there. We made an appointment for an interview on Tuesday at 12:30pm. <br /><br />Then, in the post that day, I received two letters: one from Pastor DB and one from my District President.<br /><br />The President's letter was a surprise. It was very short, but simply said:<br /><br /><blockquote>“David, I am deeply disappointed in your bad mouthing of me. I have reports from two different events where this has happened in recent times. You are not helping anyone by such behaviour least of all yourself and ultimately you hurt our Lord. You might also find some more useful time in getting your email accessible.”</blockquote><br /><br />I was very surprised at this, and I immeadiately rang him (something he ought to have done for me when he heard such reports) to query him on it. The two occassions, he said, were at Zone Pastor’s meeting and at the <em>Pastors and Wives </em>get together last Friday. This I find remarkable--because first of all, others who were at the Zone meeting have no idea what he was talking about (unless they took the fact that I expressed disappointment with his revelation of my situation in the <em>Pastor to Pastor </em>newsletter as “bad mouthing” him), and secondly because the only people who were at the <em>Pastors and Wives</em> gathering that day were myself, Peter and Susie Holmes, and our hosts (A. and his wife), and P.'s wife. All of whom I would trust with my confidence and my life!<br /><br />Yet the President's letter (actually a copy of an email he attempted to send me) has the time on the top “4:03pm Friday 2nd March”, which was less than two hours after this meeting. Who the source of this information was still remains a mystery. In any case, the whole episode was enough to make me feel like I was being “pushed” out of the LCA. Things were becoming decidedly unpleasant.<br /><br />Pastor DB's letter was also disturbing.<br /><br /><blockquote>In the wee small hours of Saturday morning at Vermont South,<br /><br />Dear David,<br /><br />I cannot let our ‘phone call be the last contact we had before next Friday. I humbly ask your forgiveness for speaking to you in anger, for judging your motives and actions presumptously, and for any hurt at all that I caused. There are many reasons why I spoke as I did. But, I’m not going to even try and excuse my behaviour. I simply beg your forgiveness.<br /><br />David, I want to try and explain to you the depths of my reaction and feelings over you leaving our Church. You will remember that I was one of those who vigorously stood up for you in our final year at Seminary. We stood up as your classmates beside you and publically supported you against what we all regarded as unfair treatment following your vicarage. I did so because I believe that it was right, and because of my genuine affection for you.<br /><br />I have defended you against those who have derided you and ridiculed you as a ‘liturgical purist’ and against the charge of being ‘too Catholic’. But much more than all this, what you said last Tuesday at Box Hill <em>[regarding my marriage and inability to receive communion until an annulment is granted] </em>has haunted my mind and my heart in the deepest possible way.<br /><br />David, I cannot begin for one moment to appreciate what it must be like for you to face the rest of your life knowing that there will be no place for you at the Lord’s Table. The thought is too terrible. As I try to understand what you said, and what it means, it grips my heart like death.<br /><br />As I search the Scriptures, I cannot see Christ in the scenario that you spoke about and which you are prepared to enter into. For the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), there was a place at the Lord’s Table. For the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8), there is a place at the Lord’s Table. For St Peter who on three occasions publicaly committed apostacy (John 18), there is a place at the Lord’s Table. For St Paul who perseucted the church and murdered St Stephen (Acts 7), there is a place at the Lord’s Table.<br /><br />But for David Schütz who married in faith and good conscience, who divorced in shame and repentance, and who married again in faith, good conscience and repentance, there is no place at the Lord’s Table in Rome. As I read the Universal catechism there is no way that your first marriage can be seen as invalid. From that, I cannot image David Schütz without the Blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood, “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of all your sins.”<br /><br />If this is the teaching of Christ’s true Church, through His supreme vicar on earth, then the Pharisees need no longer be scandalised, and they need no longer ask, “Why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners?” (Matthew 9), because plainly he doesn’t.<br /><br />I fear that this burden will be greater than you can bear. I fear also for Cathy and you and your most beloved children. I share the same pastoral concern as the Universal Catechism:<br /><br />"<strong>1634 </strong>Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise."<br /><br />David, please accept this letter, with all its faults, as a testament of the love that I hold for you as a dear brother in Christ. I don’t know what else to say. I am at a loss and I am very sad. We will perhaps share a most unlikely bond--we will both be prevented from sharing the Lord’s Table in Rome.<br /><br />May our heavenly Father bless you, may Christ our Saviour be with you, may the Holy Spirit’s fellowship keep you from all danger. Amen.<br /><br />Your brother in Christ,<br /><br />DB+</blockquote><br /><br />I showed these letter to Cathy. She said that she agreed with it. This was my response to DB:<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear DB, <br /><br />I can get to you, even if you can't get through to me. Both you and District President appear to be having trouble getting through to my email, but I think it is a problem with the LCA's server, not mine, since I am receiving other people's emails. <br /><br />First, may I begin by saying thank you for your letter. It has clearly shown for me the depth of your pastoral concern and love. I am honoured by this. <br /><br />Secondly, yesterday's encounter was the work of God... <em>[Here follows the story I related in the last entry on this blog]</em>...<br /><br />Finally, with regard to the issue of my marriage and communion. <br /><br />I do not want to sound too certain or dogmatic on this point, because I am not. I am trying to work it through on so many planes--theological, spiritual and emotional--that I am far from thinking clearly on this. Emails can sound cold and hard sometimes, so I want you to realise that what I am writing now cuts very deep to the core. Furthermore the issue is complicated by the fact that it is actually two issues that coincide: a) the issue of communion, and b) the issue of divorce and remarriage. <br /><br />Catholic practice and teaching here (and I mean not just Roman, but the whole history of the church) has acknowledged that there are situations when a person should not come to the sacrament, and when those in charge of administering the sacrament have the duty to advise someone that they would not receive it to their good if they did. These situations are usually to do with both faith and repentance for sin. In the latter case, a person who is committing a sin, but is not repentant of it, would be advised not to come to the sacrament. <br /><br />With respect to divorce and remarriage, the unanimous teaching of the church has always been (according to the teaching of Christ) that anyone who does remarry after a divorce is entering a relationship that could be adulterous relationship. Now the Catholic church is doing its damnedest to uphold this witness--even if they probably could handle things better pastorally. I think it is fair to say that the Lutheran Church has capitulated to society on this one, in the name of being "forgiving" it has actually become permissive. Again, that is not a pastoral solution. <br /><br />You are right when you describe the way things happened for me. I married in faith and good conscience, I divorced in shame and repentance, and I married again in faith, good conscience and repentance. The latter was only possible because at the time I fully believed that, having been forgiven for the sin of divorce, I was free in the sight of God and the Church to remarry. For this reason, I have been advised that my current marriage, though irregular, could not be viewed by the Catholic Church as a "grave" sin (ie. on the same level as adultery) because it was entered into with the understanding that I was free to remarry. <br /><br />Yet in fact, I may not have been free to remarry (the jury is literally still out on that one). Here is where the LCA has got it wrong in the way it deals with divorce. We have given the impression that when a person repents for the breakdown of their marriage, and receives absolution, that that marriage is effectively dissolved, and the repentant and absolved sinner is free to remarry. But that is not the case, is it? That person still has a living spouse, and to enter into a new marriage would put one into a permanent situation of bigamy in the eyes of God. How can one who is living in a bigamous relationship (with whatever good intentions) be admitted to the sacrament? To compare it to another, perhaps more serious case: If a man were committing adultery, and his pastor knew about it, that pastor could not admit that man to communion until he had both repented of and abandoned the adulterous relationship. <br /><br />Let's look at the situations you cited in your letter. The woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery were both expected to "go and sin no more". (Whether they were ever invited to the Lord's table is another matter of which we know nothing). Two people who were at the Lord's table, Peter and Paul, both repented of their sin, and were received with forgiveness. Even the tax collectors and publicans were called to repentance, and forgiveness given so that they could live a new way of life. But there cannot be absolution without the intention to put the repentance into practice by living a new and holy life. <br /><br />Now, my marriage is, at least by current judgement, irregular. It is technically bigamous (I cannot bring myself to call it adulterous, although Christ's words would seem to indicate that). However, I am bound to Cathy by vows of love and faithfulness, which, as our wedding text said, I will never let leave me. I am bound in justice and righteousness to Cathy and to my children with whom God has blessed our marriage. I once intended to witness to the evil of divorce by remaining celibate for the rest of my life. Thank God that I did not keep to that resolve! O happy sin (as the hymn says) that led me to being a husband to the woman I love and a father to two beautiful daughters. <br /><br />But now I fully intend to witness to the stand of the Church against the evil of divorce by living with the consequences of this decision and in due submission to the authority of God's word and church on this matter. The cost is great--as you say, I may never be able to receive the grace of God at the table of the Lord (at least until both our previous marriages are annulled, or death changes the equation one way or another). But I am not cut off from grace. I am baptised, I believe, and so I will be saved. I do not believe that I could be saved if, having recognised what I believe to be true in my deepest conscience, I went against it because I could not submit myself to it. <br /><br />And here is an important point. You challenge the authority of Rome because you believe it misuses the office of the keys. Or to put it another way, because you do not agree with the way in which Rome exercises discipline, you are questioning whether it has the right to exercise such discipline. This does not follow. One must first investigate whether Rome's claim to authority is valid--did Christ give his authority to Peter and his successors to bind and loose or not? Evidently, I am convinced that he did. Having acknowledged this authority on the grounds of scripture and tradition, how could I then turn around and deny it by my refusal to submit to its teachings and discipline? What value authority, if I can choose to submit to it only when it gives me what I want? <br /><br />This whole business is about lawful authority under Christ. I do not need someone to stroke my soul and tell me it is all alright if it isn't all alright. Can you disolve my first marriage? Can you tell me, with full authority, that my current marriage is regular and right in the sight of God? Or can you even tell me the opposite? You have declared my first marriage valid, how then can you declare my current marriage valid? What are you trying to say? That my first marriage has been disolved by an act of the state? Can it do that? after what Christ said about "let no-one separate"? <br /><br />My only hope is to fully submit myself to Christ's Lordship and authority on the matter, and to do this, I must seek out those who exercise this authority. If they judge me to be free to remarry, I will accept their judgement. If they judge me not to have been free to enter into a new marriage relationship, I will accept their judgement on this too. I will never sever my marriage with Cathy--what? shall we sin all the more that grace may abound even more?--but I will live to the full the covenant of marriage with her that I should have lived with my first wife, and I will live a life of prayer and faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And I will go to every mass knowing that in this mass the body and blood of Christ is indeed being offered for my sin whether I commune or not. <br /><br />There is probably so much here that you would say is not "rightly dividing law and gospel". But things are not always as black and white as "law" and "gospel". I am a broken, sinful human being, who never the less is justified through faith in Christ in baptism, and I live by the mercy of God. I do not demand that he change his law for me. It is enough to know that Christ has died for me, and that I will sit at God's table in eternity when I will be free from all brokenness, and all the grey stains of sin.<br /> <br />In the meantime, I trust that God is leading me, and that only if I turn back in fear from the race that is set before me will I fail to receive the promised reward. <br /><br />David Schütz</blockquote><br /><br />This exchange of letters became an opportunity for Cathy and I to frankly discuss our marriage, our previous marriages, the question of how we were going to raise the children, and the matter of communion. There is much more to discuss yet, but we touched on several topics: <br /><br />1) I reiterated that I was committed to my marriage to her. If the Tribunal decides that my first marriage was valid, then I will not regard myself any less married to Cathy, I will simply recognise that our marriage cannot be regarded as a sacramental marriage. <br /><br />2) I will not continue to commune in the Lutheran church, even while I am awaiting a decision from the tribunal. Cathy was a bit taken aback by this. I think she thought that I would freely commune with her at St Paul's and that she would be able to receive communion with me in the Catholic Church. I tried to explain about "validity" of the sacrament, and how this was dependant upon the validity of the ordination of the celebrant. <br /><br />3) I will not begrudge her or the church if the annulment is not granted, and I will live as a non-communing Catholic. I will regard God as having given me an inestimable blessing in Cathy and my children for which I will be ever thankful, even if I cannot have the privilege of receiving communion <br /><br />4) It is natural that I should want to share my faith with my children, and so have them grow up with a love for the Catholic church. At the same time, I want them to grow up knowing the best from the Lutheran tradition also. I do not now want to set in concrete any promises such as "we will bring them up Catholic/Lutheran", because I believe that Cathy needs time to get to know the Catholic Church also. There is prejudice there that is not her fault, and she wants to learn more about this "new" faith of mine. Her feelings with regard to how the children are raised may change. For now, she is just struggling to come to terms with the fact that I include the Hail Mary with the Our Father and the Creed when I pray with Maddy.<br /><br />On Tuesday, I wrote this letter to Fr <em>[now Bishop] </em>Anthony Fisher.<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Anthony, <br /><br />This has been quite a week. I have my interview with Eastern Regional Libraries tomorrow (Wednesday), but today I also was interviewed for a position at Mt Scopus College in their primary school library. <br /><br />Just before the interview, I went into St Scholastica's across the road, and lit a candle and prayed before the image of our Lady. I believe the interview went well, but I have heard nothing yet. <br /><br />However, Fr Greg Pritchard surprised me by phoning to offer me the position of Music Coordinator for his parish (2 days a week, $10,000) as soon as I wanted it! I would have liked to have said "yes" straight away, but it will depend on what happens. Both these jobs I am being interviewed for are 3.5 to 4 days a week, so that would leave me time to take up Greg's proposal. <br /><br />Please pray for me--a lot! It seems as if things could be falling into place for me just as I am feeling a little pressure from the LCA to leave. The Summit is this Friday too. Hopefully by Friday I will know the outcome of the interviews. It could be a day for celebration on Friday night! (not trying to count my chickens before they hatch). <br /><br />Cathy and I have just had a long heart to heart about the nature of our former marriages and our committment to our current marriage in the light of the changing scene. This was a very constructive discussion. We are still trying to finalise a time when you can come for dinner. <br /><br />God bless. See you soon. <br /><br />David Schütz</blockquote><br /><br />Yesterday, I took Maddy to Mass at Our Lady’s (Ringwood - Fr Pritchard's parish) before going to her swimming lesson. Fr Paul was saying Mass, and Maddy was very good for a change. <br /><br />Afterward, Fr Greg came to the playground where I was playing with Maddy. He was returning the summit papers that I had left behind at the Holmes’ last night. <br /><br />We fell to talking about the Music Coordinator position, and he showed me the organ and the music collection. I realised that I really could do this, and moreover that I wanted to do it. He asked me if a May 1st starting date would be alright, and I said I thought it would be. <br /><br />At that stage, I don’t think that I had really realised what I was doing, but during Maddy’s swim time, I realised that what I had decided to do was to take the job regardless, and seek part time work to fill in the rest of the time. I felt that this job would be important for three reasons:<br /><br />1) It was the sort thing I was gifted at and enjoyed doing<br /><br />2) It would give me a good background for future employment in a liturgical field in the Archdiocese<br /><br />3) It would give me a meaningful place in a Catholic parish community<br /><br />The more I thought about it, I realised that I didn’t want to do Holy Week at Knox/Frankston/Casey. Not only did I not have the physical energy for it, but emotionally I didn’t want to do it. I began to think more about Palm Sunday as a possible “last service” day, and taking Holy Week as a holiday. As I think about it now, I would like to make Easter the last time that I celebrate that feast as a Lutheran. I would like to receive communion one last time with Cathy, and then start anew the next week. <br /><br />When I got home and went through the paper to look at what was on offer, and I realised that I didn’t really want to apply for any of the jobs there. I began what was a very up and down day for me--from being depressed about the fact that I may not have gotten either of the jobs that I had been interviewed for, to being excited at the fact that I had finally made the decision to pack it in, and set a date for it.<br /><br />When Cathy came home, I suggested to her my idea, and told her that I had definitely decided to do the job at Our Lady’s. She was concerned that I was swapping one “every Sunday” job for another, so I rang Greg to clarify with him the expectations. Greg said that he envisaged 2 weekends in four being the usual, depending on the roster, of which I was in charge. So that settled that. I decided to let the school component of the job rest for a while, but I need to follow that up soon with the principal.<br /><br />This morning I went to church at Our Saviour's to discover that they had begun thinking in terms of Palm Sunday as being the last service also, and had begun making other arrangements for Holy Week and Easter. They have decided now that I was able to confirm this to have a farewell BBQ, inviting Frankston and Casey people also, the night before, on the 7th of April. <br /><br />But the really pleasant surprise is that have offered the Manse to us rent-free until the end of the financial year. They intend to sell it, to pay off some of their debt on the church. The district is also cutting $60k from the debt (basically the interest of the last 10 years), as long as the congregation continues with its pay-back scheme to which it has committed itself. So everything is turning out fine there as well. The rent-free offer will be worth about two or three thousand dollars to Cathy and I and give us a chance to save up for the shift. It also gives us a definite date to work towards.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-58907977948167298322008-05-19T11:41:00.002+10:002008-05-19T12:14:59.259+10:00Sunday, 4th March, 2001: In which the consequences of my decision begin to biteOn Friday night I had a long, interesting, but in the end, disappointing and saddening discussion with Pastor DB on the phone. I had rung him to let him know that I was sending through the service outline for Knox for Sunday (today – he is taking the service there today while I go down to Casey and Frankston). Then we got into a discussion regarding what to expect from Friday’s summit, and finally we got into a discussion of the issues that are at stake. We talked from about 9:30pm to just after midnight.<br /><br />During the phone call, he told me that in his opinion I should not be currently exercising my ministry, since I believe that the ministry of the Lutheran Church has no validity. He also criticized the way in which I made my resignation, and the fact that I am continuing to work as a Lutheran pastor, when everyone knows that I have already decided to join the Catholic Church. I became very angry at this point and said that I was completing this three month period in obedience to the President and at the express request of my congregation. At the same time, this was my employment and I currently had no other economic option for supporting my family. Furthermore I pointed out that I had not wanted my desire to enter the Catholic Church to be generally known, but that the President himself had broken confidence and made it known.<br /><br />But when I got to the point that I had first concluded that I would need to become a Catholic 11 months ago, he said “I wish you hadn’t told me that--you have just fallen in my estimation”--as if this was a conclusion that could be acted upon as suddenly as it was made! When I defended my current ministry on the basis that I was doing what was required of a Lutheran Pastor, he then brought up the subject of <a href="http://yearofgrace.blogspot.com/2007/02/sunday-29th-october-2000-sermon-for.html" target="_blank">the sermon I gave in my parish last Reformation Day</a> (October last year—I had sent him a copy at the time). He said he had never intended to tell me this, but he was very disappointed at with it. It was, he said, an “historical lecture defending the Catholic Church” rather than preaching the gospel, and that I had misused the pulpit.<br /><br />I hardly slept that night. I was so angry at what I took to be his unfair treatment of me. The next day I sent him this email:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Here is the service order. <br /><br />With regard to last night's phone conversation, I apologise for keeping you up so late and for pushing the issue so far. We should have terminated the call at the first instance, and we would both have left it with a much higher regard for one another than I now fear we have reached. <br /><br />Several points I feel I should make now, with the reflection of half the night behind me. <br /><br />1) I obviously believe in some way that the ministry I am now exercising is "valid", or I wouldn't be doing it. <br /><br />Your assertion that I do not consider what I am doing "valid" and that I am just "playing church" was wide of the mark. The word "valid" holds a certain meaning for me which I do not think it means for you, so we misunderstood each other when you asked whether I consider my current ministry "valid" and I said "no". I do consider my ministry as a Lutheran pastor to be valid for the remainder of the period between now and when I undertake my "leave of absence." I also consider it "efficacious". I consider it to be both these things on the basis of a) the external word of God, b) the external call of the LCA through its president and the congregations, and c) because this ministry is received in faith by the members of my congregations. <br /><br />You cannot charge me with dishonesty or a lack of integrity in what I am doing. In a perfect world, one would naturally, having made a decision to change denominational allegiance, immediately retire from the one and enter into the other. In a slightly less than perfect world, in which such decisions (even once made) need time to grow and take time to act upon, one would immediately retire and go into "retreat" for the period between the moment a decision is first formed in one’s mind until the time when one can fully enter into the new reality. <br /><br />But I am living in a far from perfect world, and I am a far from perfect person. The decision I made 11 months ago needed a great deal of thinking and praying through. It needed talking with colleagues (such as yourself), a testing of the waters, and a re-testing. It needed investigation. Whatever was in my heart needed to be tested against objective reality. In this time of testing, I had to continue my ministry, whatever I thought of it. <br /><br />In a word, I was called to be faithful--to lash myself to the wheel, and do the job that God had given me to do "while it was day", whatever I was beginning to think of it. It may seem incidental to you that in all this I had to act as a married man with a young family to support, or that you may think that on this basis I was "just in the job for the money", but this would be very unjust--and unpastoral. <br /><br />I had to weigh up all sides of the decision. I couldn't just "drop everything" and follow my hearts desire because that would have been unjust to my family. When the fulness of time came, and it came before I was ready for it, but I recognise the hand of God in that, I did make the decision to resign. I made this decision freely. The President did not force me to make it. It was a decision between the call to Hope Valley that would have required me to affirm my Lutheran ministry, and resignation. The only thing I could do with integrity was resign. <br /><br />So I did resign, and I did it in accordance with the directions the President gave me. I intentionally did not go into the issues behind my resignation, because I knew this would cause insurmountable pastoral problems of the sort you have identified. Unfortunately, the President himself--without my permission--chose to tell all the pastors in the Victorian District of my issue. Once this matter was out in the public arena, there was no way it could be stopped. It was better that I told my congregations myself before they heard on the grape vine. <br /><br />In all this, I don't know how I could have acted with greater integrity toward either my congregations, the LCA, my president, my family, my self and my God. I feel it is grossly unjust of you to lay upon me the burden of instant cessation of all pastoral duties. This is taking things in such a black and white way, when indeed, it is all a messy gray. I am neither at A nor at B, but in a wide chasm or limbo between the two. I became angry on the phone with you because you were not taking into account the reality of my situation. You were dealing with me as a theory, a theological problem, and not as a real human being in a real human situation. You were seeing one side of the story only. Besides all this, I AM resigning. What more can you truly want from me? What other blood do you want to squeeze from a body that is already almost fully drained? <br /><br />2) My reformation sermon. <br /><br />Your assertion that in the last 12 months I have been acting as something of an undercover agent for the Roman church in the Lutheran church is unjust. Yes, of course, you can see in my preaching and ministry over the last 12 months an attempt to work out my inner struggles. It is partly because I have realised I was doing this that I have accepted resignation, when many people urged me to continue on in my ministry and work it out with my hand to the plough. <br /><br />But can't you see in that Reformation Day sermon a sincere attempt to find a Lutheran approach to the problem of catholicity? This may not be obvious to you, but to me I can clearly see elements of that sermon that I could not affirm as a Catholic because I was preaching as a Lutheran. Yet at that time I was preaching what I believed to be the truth. <br /><br />You say that I wasn't rightly dividing Law and Gospel. Well, fine, you have every right to say that. You say that I wasn't preaching Christ. Well, fine, you have every right to that opinion too. Perhaps all this proves is that I am perfectly suited for a Church which, in the opinion of many Lutheran theologians, errs in the fact that it doesn't rightly divide Law and Gospel and doesn't preach Christ. <br /><br />I preached the sermon that I did then because a) I believed it to be true, b) I believed it to be God's word for that situation, c) I believed it had to be said, d) I was confronting what I regarded to be a sin in the Lutheran church, namely, an uncharitable celebration of Reformation Day that attacked the "straw man" of the Catholic Church, when Catholics are and should be regarded as brothers and sisters in Christ. Now this probably does not justify me in your eyes, and fair enough. I say only that I am glad you are not my eternal judge. <br /><br />My spiritual director warned me that there would be a change of relationship between me and others. I have strongly attempted to avoid this on my part. But I have already noticed it happening. First with one of my elders, and now with you. I guess I should expect this and I can be thankful that this problem is not more widespread than it currently is. But I am disappointed that you felt you had to say the things you did on the phone last night. You were kicking a man who was already down. I don't know about rightly dividing law and gospel, but I thought a part of that doctrine requires, not only in preaching, but in pastoral relationships, to recognise when someone needs the law and when someone needs the gospel. Right at this time, I am grasping for every bit of gospel I can get my hands on. Only the gospel can enable me to complete my ministry and make the transition that lies ahead of me. I feel like a drowning man--I am getting weary of the long swim until my resignation becomes final and I am trying to keep my head about water. What I need now is help to reach the finishing line, not someone dragging me under just a few metres from the end of the race. <br /><br />David<br /></blockquote><p>That email expresses well the emotion that I was feeling at the time. I then went on an all day ride with my motorcycle club--for the first time in about three months--and got it all out of my system. Or so I thought. I woke this morning thinking to myself, “How can I celebrate the Eucharist with this ill will toward DB on my heart?” Then God stepped in.<br /><br />I was running close to schedule on this morning. At 8:10am, I went down to the Knox Church office with my sermon and service order on my floppy disk to print it out on the office computer. I still needed to buy the bread for the service at Casey. I waited for the computer to boot up (a long process down there), put in my disk, went to print it off and it said "Disk error". I could not access my document, so I had to rush home, copy it off again onto a new disk, and back down to print it out (after rebooting the machine). This time it began printing out, so I rushed down to the shop to buy a roll of bread, and got back to find the machine had stalled after one page saying "Disk error". By this time it was 8:35am and I had to be at Casey by 9am, so I rang ahead to tell them I would be late. I put the phone down, grabbed my gear (I realised I would have to preach ex corde and minus manuscriptus), and as I was heading out of the door it suddenly occurred to me that if I didn't hurry up, I would run into DB arriving to take conduct the service here.<br /><br />I didn't feel in the emotional state to be able to handle a meeting at that point. I turned for the car, and there he was, getting out of his car. I couldn't just drive away--that would have been utterly unforgivable, so I went to him to shake hands and wish him God's blessings for the Eucharist. But he wouldn't let go of my hand, and he told me he had been trying to send me a letter via email which he had written the night before at 3am. He couldn’t get it through, so he had posted it. As he was talking I was thinking "I want to hug this man just to show him that I do love him and I don't hate him"--but I didn't have the guts. Then suddenly he hugged me, and planted a great kiss on my cheek. That he did have the guts is something that I am very grateful for. That "holy kiss" brought tears to my eyes. When I got into the car and it suddenly occurred to me that without all that hoo-hah with the computer I would have missed him. I began to cry and I think I cried half the way to Berwick.</p>Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-68899567643572647892008-03-29T13:44:00.006+11:002008-04-13T11:58:01.283+10:00Thursday, 1st March 2001: In which the President calls a "Summit" to discuss our cases, I prepare my case, & receive a letter from my godmotherI am losing enthusiasm for this journal. The reason, I think, is that I have few things I still need to work through. Writing has been for me not so much a way of recording the journey, as of actually making the journey. Now, although much is happening, and there is much that someone in the future would probably be interested in (eg. How did he go about telling everyone, and what were their reactions), yet little is happening in the sense of my journey. It is as if I have come to a landing half-way along the stairway, or the lift has become stuck between floors, and there is little to do but to sit and wait it out. I am waiting for my annulment. I am waiting for a job. I am waiting for my resignation to take effect. I am simply waiting...<br /><br />In the mean time, the District President has summoned a ‘Diet’ to meet next Friday. Yesterday he emailed all Victorian pastors with the following email:<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Brethren,<br /><br />I am convening a summit for Friday the 9th March at St. Pauls Box Hill from 10.00am - 3.00pm.<br /><br />The purpose of the Summit is to clarify and discuss the doctrinal concerns of the brethren David Schutz, Peter Holmes and [P.]. To that end I am asking David, Peter and [P.] to prepare an A4 (1 page) specifying the concerns that are troubling you. I am further asking that [Pastors PK, DB and GW] prepare an A4 (1 page) response to David, [P.] and Peter. NB. David, [P.] and Peter send your statement to [PK] (David), [DB]([P.]) and [GW] (Peter) by Tuesday of next week at the latest and then kindly email it to all of the brethren listed above.<br /><br />...I have invited the people named above for specific reasons. They are either pastors on DCC, Zone Counsellors, colleagues in ministry (team ministry, class mates) or they have been asked to fulfill a specific role in regard to each of the brethren. I have also been conscious of the need to try and avoid overpowering the brethren with concerns. If I have overlooked someone who falls into one of the above categories please contact me. <br /><br />Those of you not specifically involved please use a proportion of your day on the Friday for specific prayer for those attending the summit. I urge all of you to make this matter a matter of prayerful concern in the days leading up to the summit and beyond it.</blockquote> <br /><br />He followed this up with a second email:<br /><br /><blockquote>Dear Brothers,<br /><br />If you re-read my email on this matter you will note that I sent an invite to 21people and then sent a copy to all of you. The 21 were [RA, AB, DB, PG, PH, JH, AH, Holmes, VK, PK, GL, SM, P., SP, GS, CS, Schutz, DS, GS, GW and JW]. <br /><br />I did say that if I have overlooked anyone according to the criteria for invitation in email, please let me know and I will invite. If someone else would very much like to be there please let me know. <br /><br />I also called the rest of you to prayer.</blockquote><br /><br />We got a foretaste of what it this "Diet of Box Hill" would be like when Zone Pastor’s conference met on Tuesday. I had asked for time to tell the brethren what was happening, and Peter [Holmes] and P. were invited to join in. Most people are stunned at “how far” I have “gone”.<br /><br />Although by now all these questions are simply academic for me, since I have committed myself to the path that I am on, I have drafted the following questions for the Summit:<br /><br /><blockquote>1) In ecumenical theology, <strong>two ecclesiologies </strong>are possible: 1) The true Church of Christ on earth is a <strong>visible reality </strong>which is manifested and recognised by certain “marks” and is to be identified with a particular denomination to the extent that it preserves these “marks” in their fullness/purity; or 2) the true Church of Christ is an <strong>invisible reality </strong>that consists of the spiritual communion of true believers who are known only to God, and who may be found in any denomination, or indeed, even beyond the bounds of organised Christianity. I do not believe the second option to be valid: the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is incarnate (he is not “the invisible man”). It is my understanding that historically the Lutheran Church (and even more specifically, the LCA) has held the former definition, and has regarded itself to be the true church because it alone has perfectly preserved the true Word and Sacraments. For this reason, we have been wary of entering into communion other churches, because of a perceived lack of purity in the preservation of these marks. If so, is the Lutheran Church not claiming to be the one holy catholic church, and, if so, how is this claim to be justified?<br /><br />2) The Lutheran Church holds that the true church is present wherever <strong>the Word and Sacraments </strong>(the liturgy of the church) are celebrated. If the church does not have an organic reality apart from the event of the celebration of the liturgy, what must we say of our church <strong>when it abandons on a large scale the very liturgy</strong> that is supposed to bring it into existence?<br /><br />3) What is the locus of Christ’s authority in the Lutheran Church? Who can claim to be the “you” in Luke 10:16 today and on what grounds? <strong>How is this authority validated</strong>, ie. how is it communicated incarnationally from Christ himself? Whether authority is claimed by the presidents, the pastors conferance, the synod, the local congregation, the confessions, the Theses of Agreement or the theologians of the church, <strong>on what grounds would we regard such authority to be validated</strong>?<br /><br />4) When the LCA came into existence, the first Synod adopted a doctrinal position that said the ordination of men only was “binding upon all Christendom”. 35 years later, the same institution held a vote which potentially could have overthrown this “binding” practice. Apart from the question as to whether the truth can be determined by a vote, <strong>did this action not invalidate the authority of Synod itself</strong>? For while making doctrinal pronouncements which are binding for the LCA, it does not consider these statements to be binding upon itself for its future confession of faith. Hence no doctrine, currently considered “binding” by the church, can be safe from revision or rejection by the Synod in the future. <br /><br />5) I do not believe the Lutheran Church will ever reach agreement on <strong>the doctrine of the ministry</strong>, since there is <strong>an inherant ambiguity in the Lutheran tradition</strong> on the matter of whether the authority of the ministry comes from ‘above’ or ‘below’ (popularly refered to as a ‘high’ and ‘low’ view of the ministry). GL’s paper at our last Pastors Conference demonstrated the difficulty in trying to resolve this ambiguity. Is there any way of resolving these tensions without ultimately chosing either between a fully catholic understanding of orders or congregationalism?<br /><br />6) The LCA regards the <strong>external validation of the call </strong>by the church to be essential to the ordained ministry, for it is by this external validation that authority to exercise the ministry is confered from those who already have it (understanding that one cannot exercise the office without the authority to do so, and that only those who have the authority can confer it upon others). Although the Augsburg Confession recognises <strong>the authority of the episcopate </strong>(CA 28), the 16th Century saw <strong>a radical break in the continuity of the orders </strong>when the bishops of the church did not validate Lutheran ordinations. <strong>How then can we consider the ministry of the Lutheran Church to be validly authorised</strong>?<br /><br />7) The historic episcopate and episcopal succession has, since the very beginning of the church, been regarded as essential to the church, since by this succession a <strong>tangible continuity of authority </strong>has been maintained with the apostles who were first commissioned by Christ. The LCA does not have bishops and <strong>cannot create an episcopate simply by giving them authority ‘from below’ </strong>since such authority must be given by Christ (ie. ‘from above’). Is it not therefore clear that we lack one of the essential marks of the church, and that <strong>this ‘lack’ cannot be repaired</strong>?<br /><br />8) Some Lutheran theologians and pastors have claimed that the Lutheran Church is an “evangelical catholic” church. <strong>On what grounds can the Lutheran Church of Australia claim to be “catholic”? </strong>Is it even possible to reach a clear agreement on what it means to be “catholic” <strong>if communion with the bishop of Rome is not included in that definition</strong>?<br /><br />9) Sasse: “Gentlmen, if there were no Lutheran Church, where would you go? You would go back to Rome. But why go back to Rome? Is it not full of evils? Yes, but they have preserved the sacraments.” Given <strong>the priority of the Roman Catholic Church</strong> (ie. it was there first--we broke away from it, not vice versa, despite the old “Luther never wanted to start a new church” line), Lutherans are guilty of committing the <strong>sin of schism</strong> by continuing to separate themselves from the Roman communion. The evil of schism may be justified if it is undertaken in order to avoid a greater evil, namely, apostacy from the catholic faith. Yet it is evident from the bi-lateral dialogues and agreed statements, and from Rome’s own official documents, that <strong>the Roman church has remained faithful to the catholic faith</strong>, when many other churches, Lutheran churches included, have apostasised. Rome has not only remained faithful in the face of contemporary attacks upon the ordained ministry, the inerrancy of scripture and the sanctity of life and marriage from liberalism and feminism, it has recently proven its orthodoxy in such documents as the Joint Declaration on Justification and the declaration Dominus Jesus. <strong>Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?</strong><br /><br />10) “Only the unity of the Church’s faith and her authority, which is binding on each member, assures us that we are not following human opinions and adhering to self-made party groupings but that we belong to the Lord and are obeying him.” <em>Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion. </em><strong>How does a Lutheran answer this statement?</strong></blockquote><br /><br />I was talking to AB on the phone today (I also spent about an hour talking this morning to Pastor RT, a cousin of my mother-in-law who is preparing stuff for me for the Worship Resources--and I think this primed me up for the chat with A.), and I realised just how much conscience has played a part in what I am doing. If I could have gone any other way than I have and still been true to my conscience, I would have taken it. I was a bit stunned at a letter I received from aunt and godmother yesterday. It read as follows:<br /><br /><blockquote>To dear David and Cathy,<br /><br />You have been much in our thoughts and prayers in recent weeks. While we continue to disagree with just about everything in your rationale for the direction you have chosen, David, we hope that, ‘ere long, your theological turmoil will be replaced with peace. While we continue to believe that you are not acting wisely but makng your own and Cathy’s life very difficult, we want you to know we love you both and will be here to walk with you on the journey. In the final analysis, those of us who lvie under the thoelogy of the cross are called to suffer with and for eachother. We wish you well in the weeks ahead, as you look for a job and another place to live. You continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. Please keep in touch. <br /><br />God bless, </blockquote><br /><br />Why should I find this letter disturbing? After all, Cathy read it as very supportive. The fact is, I think, that I feel uncomfortable with the notion that I have simply “chosen” a direction on the basis of a “theological rationale”. There is nothing “rational” about this (although I will admit that originally the questions were primarily intellectual and theological)! In the end, it has become such a matter of conscience and of faith and of integrity, that I could do no other. If this is what Martin Luther felt when he stood before the Diet of Worms, then I know just what he meant. He was personally convinced of the truth of his position, and he declared that he could not budge from it even if he wanted to. I feel much the same way. How I wish I had been able to accept the call to Hope Valley! There is still a little bit of me that pipes up from time to time and says “If JW turns the call down, you could say you want to be reconsidered!” But of course that bridge has now been definitively burned. There is no going back. There is, in fact, no going anywhere but forward.<br /><br />And the fact of the matter is that the way forward may indeed be the way to the goal that God is leading me, and to turn back would be to turn away from the very destiny that he has laid out for me. Yet he is only revealing one step at a time--literally. I feel like I am walking across a chasm on an invisible bridge: stepping out into a nothingness that only becomes visible stone beneath my foot just as I am putting it down and shifting my weight onto it, such that I need to trust and to place my life into the decision to take each step. The stone bridge may not materialise, and I may fall forward into the chasm. But so far, the stone has been there, carrying me on. To use a more biblical picture--it is like stepping out of the boat, and walking on the water towards Jesus. I have to keep my eyes focused on the goal, and step out in trust.<br /><br />And it may all come out right. I may get my annulment. Cathy may eventually get her application in and she might get her annulment. I might then be received into the church. I might get a job in the Church. I might even be considered for ordination. Then how wonderful it will all be! All that my heart desires may yet be given to me.<br /><br />But of course, it might be the direct opposite. I might not get my annulment. There might never be a job for me in the church. I might never be received into the Catholic church. Trying to raise our children when Cathy and I belong to two different churches may be a disaster. I may be reduced to working in a factory somewhere. Then what will it all have been for? For my conscience and for my integrity and for my witness to the truth. And I will have made myself a martyr without any recognition of the effort it cost me. This is the worst of it. I and all I am doing may simply be ignored and forgotten. <br /><br />Yet here the words of Christ from yesterday’s Ash Wednesday gospel ring in my ears: Do not do your works of righteousness before men, for if you do, you will have recieved all your reward. I have to be certain I am not doing this for fame or notoriety. If in the end, it goes as I have said in the paragraph above, and not as in the paragraph above that, then I will have done my duty and only my duty as a servant. And as in one of Jesus parables, does a slave expect to be praised for doing his duty?<br /><br />I think I will stop now. Cathy is talking on the phone still, and I would like to pray.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-4907398450806675322008-03-29T13:28:00.003+11:002008-03-29T13:43:20.373+11:00Saturday, 24th February 2001: In which I talk to Fr Anthony about my annulment application, and begin reading the CatechismThings are preceding slowly at the moment. I have had no “bites”--not even “nibbles”--from the job market, but I am remaining hopeful. Not getting a job before May is now my biggest worry. Not much of a worry, though... I had an interview with <em>Library Locums</em> [an agency for placing librarians on temp contracts] on Wednesday, and I remain hopeful of something coming up in that department sooner or later. In the mean time, I continue applying for jobs. There was nothing in this morning’s paper however, and nothing new on the internet either.<br /><br />I saw Fr Anthony yesterday. It was good to see him again. He is concerned that nothing much seems to be happening with Cathy’s application for annulment, and we discussed things we could do to make it easier for Cathy. Two suggestions: first, we will have Anthony around to dinner soon so that he can meet Cathy; second, I will try to make it possible for Cathy to take [baby] Mia and herself off somewhere for two or three days so that she can make a start on her application. I have brought both of these suggestions to Cathy, and she was quite agreeable to both.<br /><br />I said to Anthony that I really wasn’t worried about Cathy’s application being in straight away. Before long I will know the outcome of my own application, and then, if it is negative there will be no point in Cathy applying. Anthony agreed. Second, I said that if I get a positive answer then the delay in Cathy’s annulment will not be a great concern to me, since I have valued the time that God has given me to fully consider what I am doing. Anthony was not so agreeable on this point. He said, with some emphasis, “I want to give you the Eucharist”. This was very gratifying, as it seems that there is no doubt about my convictions at least from his (their) side. Peter [Holmes], on the other hand, has been told that they want him to test his decision a little more.<br /><br />I raised again my supreme annoyance at the generosity of the Holy See in recognising Mormon baptism [this was still a disputed issue at this point in 2001]. I even asked (half joking) if there was a chance I might get an audience with the Holy Father when he comes out (if he comes out) later in the year, and make a personal appeal to him. Anthony said that he needs to cure me from this Lutheran “voluntarism” (a new term for me) that makes us think that the saying of something can make it so, and that the Pope has the power to make something so which is, in reality, not so. Fair enough, of course. I knew that.<br /><br />I also said that I have no doubt that Cathy’s annulment will be granted if mine is. Anthony, on the bare evidence he has, agreed.<br /><br />We talked a little about “grave” and “venial” sin--a distinction that I have not been used to making, and the reasons for this distinction. Anthony compared our relationship to God like a marriage relationship, where there are some offences that fundamentally threaten the relationship, while there are others that, while making the relationship rocky and difficult, do not fundamentally do so. This made sense.<br /><br />We discussed also whether or not my remarriage was a grave sin. Anthony said that on the evidence he has, he would not consider it so, since at the time of marrying, neither Cathy nor I had any notion that we were not free to marry, nor did we think that what we were actually doing was contracting a bigamous marriage in contradiction of God’s law. <br /><br />However, the discussion made me very aware that there are grave sins that I have committed that do need confession and absolution (I don’t think Anthony believed this, and I didn’t go into details with him since he is not my confessor--nor probably ever will be), and so towards the end, I asked him if there was any possibility of my being admitted to the sacrament of confession even though I have not been confirmed nor admitted to communion. He said that it may be possible--in the same way that a new convert usually will receive the sacrament of reconciliation before receiving communion, and he will check this out with his canonist friends.<br /><br />Anthony has encouraged me to hope to attain to a life of holiness, and I will sincerely try to do this.<br /><br />I have realised that a certain “schizophrenia” has characterised my Lutheran/Catholic life. While this has begun to be resolved, there is another schizophrenia -- that of hardened sinner and sanctified saint -- which is even more urgent to be overcome.<br /><br />I have now received a copy of the Catechism, and am working my way through it. This has been made more difficult by the fact that I have one of the early translations that needs all the corrections done. I did it once with pen--but it looks very untidy, so now I am downloading the revised sections from the net, and will cut and paste them into my copy. It’s one way of getting to know the contents, at least!!!<br /><br />In preparing my sermon on the Transfiguration for tomorrow, I have used a lot of material from the Catechism. Nothing that is remotely “un-Lutheran”, of course, but I have discovered that there is a good deal of excellent exegesis in the Catechism that is really useful.<br /><br />I rang the pastor who works as a counsellor in my parish yesterday to tell him of what was happening, since Cathy would like to use him as a witness. I also talked to [a friend] whose marriage I will be celebrating in a month or so on the phone about my decision today. I ran into [some aquaintances] from the Moorabbin parish at the joint regional service at Casey last Sunday, and they were quite surprised by my decision. [One dear old lady] from Casey though is quite convinced that I am doing the right thing. “I knew all along”, she said! I am afraid though that this will just convince her that the Lutheran Church has nothing in common with the Catholic Church. Probably she is right after all... It is strange now--I can agree with those Lutherans who want to ordain women, and who want to be anti-Catholic, because I see this now as a perfectly valid living out of some aspects of the Lutheran creed.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-54907610512094075872008-02-24T23:50:00.000+11:002008-02-24T23:51:07.695+11:00Thursday 15th February, 2001: In which it is all in the openThere are now no more secrets. <br /><br />At tonight’s open meeting of the church council and elders of the Knox congregation, I told them everything about my journey to the point where I am at the moment. It was a difficult thing to do. I told them that although I would have liked to have kept the reasons for my resignation personal, to talk about only in private with those who would like to know, that the District President's email to the pastors has put this into the public arena, and that they would hear from someone else if not from me. <br /><br />There was some shock, I think. [X] was the first to speak, saying that no-one should really be surprised given what I had been preaching over recent months. [X2] reacted very much according to his experience of the Catholic Church in South American—sprouting out some very negative stuff. [X3, an elder] had had some warning, so she was a rather moderating influence for a change. So was [X4], although she may have already known, since I had a very frank discussion with her husband up at Martin Luther Homes last week (he had guessed what it was all about). [X5] said she would follow me wherever I went—I hope she wasn’t serious! [X6, another elder] expressed some concern that now he did not know what to do—and he would have to consider worshipping elsewhere until such time as I had completed my ministry at Knox. <br /><br />There was some discussion regarding the three month period until the conclusion of my ministry at Knox, some thinking it would be best if I went straight away rather than dragging it out. I assured everyone that I would continue to be bound by my ordination vows in the conduct of my ministry, just as I always have been. In fact, my sermons and teaching will probably be less controversial than before. Some expressed disappointment at this!<br /><br />It was really hard to tell them, and now I cannot really believe that I have. Can everything that I have held so close to my heart for so long really now be public knowledge? How do I conduct my ministry now, knowing that they know what I really am? Never have I been so honest about my Catholic faith. I feel good about it—but also scared, because this drives a very real wedge between me and the congregation. <br /><br />Yesterday I met for our usual Wednesday session with Peter Holmes and P., but this time at the Doncaster manse, since Peter was looking after his two children while Suzie was on a three day retreat. I challenged P. up front for not objecting to the District President's draft of his “Pastor to Pastor” letter. P. said that he was perfectly happy with the proposed approach. He said “He has treated me as I deserve”, to which I mumbled “You must be a dog then...”. <br /><br />Someone asked me tonight if I felt betrayed by the President—and yes, I think I do (not for the first time either!). Still, P. is now talking a very different tune. He wants to prepare some statement or do some ground work before the “forum” (or “Diet of Worms” as Pete calls it), and said: “We’re all in this together.” That certainly is a different approach to the one he has taken so far. And he hasn’t even met with Fisher yet. This time it was us who had to tell him that we are all coming at this from different ways (Peter: What is truth; Me: Historical continuity; P.: realism vs nominalism), and with different consequences.<br /><br />Last night, I had a phone call from Pastor BA [himself a convert to Lutheranism from Presbyterianism]. It was hard to tell this dear, sainted father in the faith, under whose hands I was ordained to the office of the ministry, my reasons for leaving. He said that he had once considered Rome as a student, and also that he was very distressed by the LCA’s current situation, but still he could not imagine going to Rome. He feels very strongly the injustices of Rome over against the protestant martyrs. I didn’t raise with him the issue of those who were Catholic martyrs under Henry and Elizabeth...<br /><br />Then this afternoon, Father Greg Pritchard invited Peter and me to have dinner with him and with his new assistant priest, Father Paul, who is a convert from Anglicanism. This was a delightful occasion, and I especially valued exploring with Greg the ramifications of being a divorced and remarried Catholic for parish life. I appreciate the care that Greg is showing toward us.<br /><br />So now it is almost midnight again. I am tired. I have to go and wake Cathy up—she was putting Maddy to bed, and is probably asleep herself as usual. I am aware that there are great gaps here in my journal, and that I have not written down all that has been said (eg. at today’s luncheon). But, like St John, I feel that if I wrote everything the whole world could not contain it.<br /><br />One thing I do need to say is that I find it hard to take a starting point for my story when I need to give it, and furthermore, that I find just about impossible to come up with a single statement of why I have decided in favour of the authority of Rome over against the authority of the Lutheran Church. The argument, once started however, easily rolls on. Again, it is a problem with starting points.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-59916175771649816222008-01-31T22:26:00.000+11:002008-01-31T22:44:57.775+11:00Tuesday, 13th February, 2001: In which My District President Broadcasts My Confidences to All and SundryAlthough the last two weeks have been momentous in terms of my journey, I have not been in the frame of mind to enter much into my journal. As I have said, I spent the past week in peace. Very significant was a meeting last Thursday with the Casey congregation where I was clear and open about my reasons for resignation. They seemed to need to know this, so that they could come to terms with my decision. They were quite accepting. I am hoping for a similar reaction from a congregational meeting at Knox this Thursday.<br /><br />In the mean time, my district president issued the following in his “Pastor to Pastor” newsletter yesterday:<br /><br /><blockquote><strong>Omnium Gatherum</strong><br /><br />Many of you will have heard directly from David Schutz that he has resigned as pastor of the Knox, Frankston and Casey parish (effective around May) and is applying to the LCA for 2 years leave of Absence. I am deeply saddened by this decision and in particular by the reasons that occasion it. David wrote:<br /><br /><em>I have growing doubts about my interior call to the ministry of the Lutheran Church. These doubts have made it increasingly difficult for me to function as a public representative of the LCA.</em><br /><br />David will be seeking other employment and using the time to fully explore the issue enumerated above. <strong>Bound up with this issue is the possible renunciation of membership in the LCA and the joining of the Roman Catholic Church.</strong> <em>[My emphasis--I considered this more or less confidential information]</em> I urge your prayers for David, Cathy and their children. <br /><br />I am also in discussion with two other brothers: <em>[Here he names the person I have referred to in this journal as "P."]</em> and Peter Holmes who have similar concerns to David. Those concerns revolve around the question of Authority. At the recent meeting of the Pastors of DCC, endorsement was given to my proposal to appoint pastoral advisors/carers to each of these men (that also includes David and Cathy). I am also exploring the possibility of a forum of pastors where these concerns can be aired among us in a very focused way. I urge your prayers also for <em>["P."]</em> and Peter and their families.<br /><br />John Wilksch <em>[my father's cousin, then pastor at Dandenong]</em> has been called to Hope Valley Homes (Adelaide) as an associate pastor with John Hartwich in aged care ministry....</blockquote><br /><br />I was very disappointed with this. Cathy was actually angry, and rang her own pastor to get it all of her chest this morning (since the president has appointed him as our ‘pastoral carer’, she thought she would let him have it!). I sent a copy of the president's email to Anthony Fisher with the following comments:<br /><br /><blockquote>I am rather disappointed with <em>[my district president]</em> for the following reasons: <br /><br />1) He here expresses nothing but disappointment in my decision. When I last talked to him, he said he also felt joy that I had decided to affirm my faith in the Catholic Church. <br /><br />2) He correctly quoted from my circular letter the only reason I have publically given for seeking leave of absence. I invited anyone who wanted to know more to contact me personally. Many have done so, and I have been as frank with them as the situation demanded. I think he rather overstepped the mark by publically stating the reasons I gave him in confidence. <br /><br />3) He put a negative spin on my decision by saying that I was considering "renouncing" the LCA--I may be leaving it, but I wouldn't have used the word "renounce".<br /><br />4) He included [P.] and Peter in this. Peter is a long way from being ready for his questions to be public knowledge, and [P.] won't even admit to himself that he is thinking about becoming Catholic, let alone anyone else. <br /><br />5) He has decided on a process without consulting any of us; and appointed "pastoral carers", not only for ourselves, but for our wives as well, again, without any consultation.<br /><br />I also understand that he may have contacted George [Pell] asking him to tell his priests to maintain their distance from us. If he has done this, I take it as a personal affront. <br /><br />I am disappointed, but I really feel for [P.] and Peter. I am already as good as out of it. Please pray for us. </blockquote><br /><br />Peter and Susie were very upset over this. The District President is demanding that they jump through all sorts of hoops. I do not understand why I was spared all this. <br /><br />It just so happened, that today I was on a scheduled retreat with the President and five other pastors. I was feeling ill at ease all day, probably due to the President's letter of the night before, but I shared my “emotional journey” rather than “theological journey” with the brothers towards the end of the day. <br /><br />I also took the president to task privately during lunch time re his comments in the newsletter. Apparently P. was shown these comments during his interview yesterday and did not object. I am a bit annoyed at P., although I know I shouldn’t be. But he has walked with us so far along this journey, but now appears to be turning back at the last minute. And how could he not have realised, seeing the President's letter, that those comments would cause heartache for Peter and me?<br /><br />The President tried to use the image of “wandering in wilderness” for me with the brothers today. I corrected him and said I prefered to use the “Abraham” image--in the desert maybe, but not aimlessly wandering. He still seems to think, though, that I will come back to the Lutheran fold. He must be kidding! It would require such an about face... <br /><br />On the way home, I was thinking about the fact that I may never be received into the Catholic Church (because of my marital status). Then, with the district president's wilderness image in mind, I came to thinking about Moses--a member of God’s people, leading them right up to the promised land, but not being allowed to go in himself, instead only viewing it from the top of Mt Nebo.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-16675764541598448912007-12-05T13:46:00.001+11:002007-12-05T13:50:27.453+11:00Wednesday, February 7th, 2001: In which I resign from my Parish and PositionsThe last week has been one of most significant in my life. Wednesday week ago (January 28th) I met with the District President to determine a strategy for the way forward. He advised me that I should give notice of my intent to take leave of absence this Sunday.<br /><br />So, on Sunday 4th of February, the following letter was read out at Knox and Frankston:<br /><br /><blockquote>From Pastor David, to my brothers and sisters in Christ at Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church: Grace and Peace to you from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Thank you for all your prayers and support during the time I was considering the call to Hope Valley. Last week I announced that I had turned down this call, because I believed that God was leading me in another direction. I apologise that I could not have made this announcement last week. On the one hand, I was committed to giving an answer regarding the call, but on the other hand, things were not yet in place for me to divulge any further details. <br /><br />Last Wednesday, I met with Dr Stolz. Now that that meeting has taken place, I am able to give you notice that I will be taking two years ‘leave of absence’ from active ministry in the Lutheran Church of Australia. This ‘leave of absence’ will come into effect in three months time, unless circumstances should require it to be earlier or later.<br /><br />‘Leave of absence’ means that I will resign from this parish, but remain on the Roll of Pastors as a ‘pastor without call’ for up to two years. At any time during that period I will be able to accept a call and return to the active ministry, but in the mean time, I will need to seek employment outside the church. <br /><br />I am taking this course of action for several reasons--not the least being the stress that I have experienced in ministering to the three congregations. But primarily I am taking leave because I have had growing doubts about my interior call to the ministry of the Lutheran Church. These doubts have made it increasingly difficult for me to function as a public representative of the LCA.<br /><br />Although I knew that things would come to this eventually, I did not expect it to happen so soon. The call to Hope Valley, however, brought the crisis to a head, and Dr Stolz advised me before I went on holidays that if I turned down the call, I should consider taking leave of absence.<br /><br />The three month period before my leave of absence becomes effective may be shortened if I am able to secure full-time employment before it comes to an end. Alternatively, it may be lengthened should I still have found no alternative employment after three months. This, and other terms of the leave, will be negotiated with the Church Council. <br /><br />I make this announcement with the deepest sadness. I have found my time with you rewarding and enriching, and have built up many strong pastoral relationships. I also deeply regret that this announcement has to be by way of a letter, in which I cannot properly convey the grief this decision brings me. Nor can I properly address your own reactions. Next week I will be with you to answer any questions you may have. In the mean time, please phone me if you want to talk about this further.<br /><br />May the love and peace of God be with you all. <br /><br />David.<br />5th Sunday after Epiphany, AD 2001</blockquote><br />Although this letter was read by the elders at the Knox and Frankston parishes, I was present in person to make the announcement at Casey. I was glad of this this, because, of the three, Casey was the one I was worried about. In the words of District President “there is quite certainly a small cult of the person of David Schütz going on down there.” In the end, however, they accepted the news with equanimity and with gladness that I had the courage to make this decision. We were all being very strong about it, until one boy (one of the three young people I had admitted to first communion that morning) began to cry. That set me off, and several others too. I thanked him for being brave enough to be able to show his feelings like that--it was helpful for the rest of us.<br /><br />I had tried to speak to my brothers on Saturday night to tell them what I was doing, but I was only able to speak to my younger brother and the wife of my youngest brother, as my youngest brother was away fighting bush fires on the Eyre Peninsula, and my oldest brother and his wife were away in Adelaide. So I tried again on Sunday, this time, getting my oldest brother as well. That was when I wrote the letter included in the last entry. <br /><br />I then sent out a batch email to all pastors and other contacts and friends in and out of the church, sending a copy of the letter I had used to announce my decision to the congregations with this covering note:<br /><blockquote>Dear Friends and Colleagues, <br /><br />I am just writing you this brief note to make you aware of a decision that I have taken and announced to the congregations at Knox, Frankston, and Casey this morning. Attached is a letter that was read to after the lay-reading services at Knox and Frankston, as I was attending Casey all this morning. <br /><br />I have taken this step of doing a "batch emailing", in an attempt to head off the "grapevine" and any rumours that may be spreading. I don't want to bore you all with the details or the reasons why, but if you want to know more, please phone me on (03) 9758 5194, or send back an email saying "tell me more", and I will be glad to respond. <br /><br />Please also note that this decision has yet to be processed and approved by the District Church Council and the General Church Council.</blockquote><br />Then on Monday, I wrote the following official letter of resignation:<br /><br /><blockquote>District Church Council,<br />Lutheran Church of Australia--Victoria District,<br /><br />Dear President and members of the District Church Council,<br /><br />Yesterday I gave notice to Our Saviour’s Knox, St Peter’s Frankston, and Ascension Casey that I am applying for two years leave of absence, starting from 6th May 2001.<br /><br />I am requesting this leave to allow myself time and space to determine the future of my ministry in the Lutheran Church of Australia.<br /><br />Should I be offered employment outside the church before 6th of May, I will negotiate with the congregations for a reduction in my pastoral duties until that date is reached. If, through some misfortune, I am unable to attain employment before that date, I will seek an extension of up to one month before my leave becomes effective. <br /><br />It is our intention to negotiate with the Knox congregation to continue living in the manse until such a time as we are able secure alternative accommodation, or the manse is required for other purposes by the congregation.<br /><br />I understand that I will remain on the Roll of Pastors throughout the time of my leave of absence, and my access to the benefits of clergy of the LCA will not be inhibited. Should I not take a call within the two year period, I understand that I will be removed from the Roll of Pastors.<br /><br />I commend the three congregations into your care.<br /><br />Yours in Christ, etc.</blockquote><br />I also wrote letters resigning from all my other duties, including LCA Commission on Worship, Victorian Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission, Chairmanship of the VCC Revisioning Committee, Australian Consultation on Liturgy, <br /><br />I have been receiving many emails back from people and some phone calls to engage in discussion. Depending on who I have been speaking to, I have been fairly open about my reasons for making the decision, although I am trying to keep the reasons separate from the fact of my resignation for the sake of the congregation.<br /><br />In the days since, I have felt very much at peace. It was the right decision after all. Even our cleaning lady said to me yesterday when I told her what I had decided: “Oh, that must be why you are looking so happy for a change!”<br /><br />The last two nights I have fallen asleep praying the rosary. I don’t seem to be able to get beyond the third joyful mystery!Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-78259866280430712282007-10-23T22:48:00.000+10:002007-10-23T23:02:59.417+10:00Notes on the period between Tuesday 30th and February 5th: in which I write lots of lettersI spoke to Peter Holmes tonight on the phone: “Mum, I’m tired, can I go home now?”<br /><br />I have spoken about the road ahead to lots of people in the last few days: to members of my congregation, to my mother on the phone, to my seminary mentor, and to Fr John Fleming (who phoned as a "pastoral call").<br /><br />The latter believed that my District President was "playing games" with me. He wanted to be quite sure that this is my own free decision, and that I was not being coerced. His question was: Could I ever see Cathy becoming a Catholic?<br /><br />I had an argument with Cathy, a phone call from D. (one of my closest pastor friends) on Tuesday afternoon, and another call from my seminary mentor. I spent a lot of time preparing and mailing job applications.<br /><br />I wrote the following letters to my family. <br /><br />This is what I sent to my brothers, and to my Grandmother at the Hope Valley Homes:<br /><br /><blockquote>11 Piperita Road<br />Ferntree Gully 3156<br /><br />4th February, 2001<br /><br />Dear ...,<br /><br />I am glad we got to talk on the phone the other night. I would have preferred that I could have talked to you both in person, but I will have to use a letter to explain what has been happening. I have sent a similar letter to [my other brothers], and to Grandma. This will probably not be an easy letter for me to write, but I want to explain to you a little of why I turned down the call to Hope Valley and have taken leave of absence.<br /><br />To begin with, I should say that the call was everything I could have wanted. Over a year ago, when the position was first created as a part-time chaplaincy, I said to Cathy “There is a job that I would really love to do.” I really thought that Aged Care might have been a direction for me to take, with my experience here as a chaplain for Martin Luther Homes in Boronia. The fact that I would have been moving back to Adelaide, closer to my family (right next door to Grandma, and practically next door to you!), and working with Pastor J.H. again (he was my senior partner at Warradale and is now the senior chaplain at Hope Valley), made it all the more attractive. <br /><br />Yet in the end I had to turn it down. The reason for this is that I no longer believe that God is calling me to be a pastor in the Lutheran Church. When J.H. rang me to ask if he could put my name forward for call, I said ‘yes’ thinking that if the Lutheran Homes did decide to call me, this might be a real sign from God that I was indeed meant to continue as a pastor. I have been having these doubts since Easter last year, so I have been living with this for a while. The call actually accelerated things, and in discussion with my district president, he said to me that it had become clear that I had to decide between either going to Hope Valley and reaffirming my call to the ministry, or taking “leave of absence” from the ministry to sort things out. <br /><br />In the end, after a very great deal of prayer and a lot of discussion with other pastors and friends and with Cathy, I have chosen to take leave of absence. Today I gave my congregations notice that I would be resigning, and that my resignation would be effective from three months time or earlier if I manage to secure a job (I am applying for jobs as a librarian). Theoretically, this gives me up to two years during which I will remain on the roll of pastors of the LCA. Any time during that two years, I can return into the ministry by taking a call. <br /><br />The fact is, however, that I will not be returning to the ministry. So far what I have written in this letter is now public knowledge, but the reason for me taking leave of absence is something that I have only told friends and colleagues and family members in private (although I have no doubt the rumours will start to circulate soon). I will not be returning to the Lutheran ministry because I am preparing to be received into the Roman Catholic Church as soon as possible. <br /><br />Two events have led me to this point. First, there was the agreement between the Catholic and Lutheran Churches with regard to the doctrine of justification. This agreement has shown that we have been guilty of misrepresenting the Catholic doctrine. The fact is that the Catholic Church teaches just as much as the Lutheran church that we are justified by God’s grace alone, and not by our own efforts. Secondly, the Lutheran Church of Australia very badly mishandled the issue of the ordination of women at the pastors’ conference and synod back in July last year. The split vote of the pastors’ conference, and the narrow defeat of women’s ordination at synod, demonstrated to me that the Lutheran Church had no recognised authority upon which it could decide such a fundamental issue of what was and what was not true.<br /><br />But on top of this has been an intense reflection on the question of what the church actually is, and the authority by which the church distinguishes between what is true and what is false. In discussing my concerns with Lutheran pastors and Seminary lecturers, I realised that the Lutheran Church had no satisfactory answers to these questions. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church did have answers, and they were answers that, after some reflection--I came to accept as the truth.<br /><br />In the face of this, I could not really continue to excercise a ministry as a Lutheran pastor. This “leave of absence” will basically cover the time between now and when I am (hopefully) received as a communicant member of the Catholic Church. <br /><br />However, everything is not as clear and as straight-forward as all that. The Catholic Church has clear and strict rules regarding those who have been divorced and remarried. Divorced and remarried Catholics are not allowed to receive Holy Communion. For a convert to the Catholic faith such as myself, this means that I cannot actually be received into communion until my marriage to Cathy has been “regularised”. This means that both Cathy and I need to receive an “annulment” of our previous marriages (as we have both been married before). An “annulment” is a legal decision by the Catholic Tribunal that our previous marrriages were not binding sacramental marriages according to the definition of the Catholic church (similar to the way the State can “annul” a marriage if it doesn’t meet the legal requirements for a valid marriage). The process is lengthy, and is not guarenteed of success. In fact, the Tribunal may uphold one or the other or both of our previous marriages as valid, and therefore declare that our marriage to each other does not meet the requirements for a sacramental marriage recongised by the Church. If this is the case, I will never actually be able to be received into the Catholic Church.<br /><br />That all sounds very complicated, but in fact it will make little difference to me with regard to which church I identify with. I will regard myself as a Catholic, even if I am never received into full communion in the Catholic church. On the other hand, if I am received into the Church, then a whole range of possibilities arise--maybe even ordination as a Catholic priest, although that would possibly be a bit of a long shot! <br /><br />Cathy is not, herself, becoming a Catholic. She is remaining in the Lutheran Church. But she is very supportive of this decision. While the business of annulments raises some very unpleasant considerations for us, we are both totally committed to one another, our marriage and our children. <br /><br />I know that this decision will cause pain for a lot of people, not the least those who are members of our family. But in the end this has become a conscience issue for me. I could not have gone to Hope Valley because I could not honestly have made the vows of a Lutheran pastor at my installation. If I went, I would have been doing so under false pretences. <br /><br />There is so much more to say about this, but I find it very difficult to put into a short letter. I sent Mum and Dad a copy of my journal since last Easter, in the hope that it would help them understand my decision, and it is more than 40,000 words long (about 75 typed pages)--so it really is a very, very long story. <br /><br />I hope I get the opportunity to sit and talk with you some time. I think that will be the only way that I could convey some of the reason for what I have chosen. <br /><br />I am so very sorry that I could not have gone to Hope Valley. Like the call to Hermannsburg, it was never meant to be. Last time, I realised that as exciting as Hermannsburg would have been, it was not the way in which God was calling me. Thanks to that decision, I now have a wife and two wonderful daughters--something that at one stage I had thought would never happen. Now, I am acting in faith again, passing up what many would have seen as the perfect call, to follow where I think God is calling me. I trust that like the last time, this will also turn out for the best.<br /><br />Please pray for me. I pray that you will be able to accept my decision. We can never really be happy if we try to live in a way that goes against our own conscience. I am at peace with my decision now, even though it probably will cause a lot of heart ache for others.<br /><br />God be with you.<br /><br />All my love, <br /><br />David.</blockquote>Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-70962193078263079312007-10-23T22:45:00.000+10:002007-10-23T22:47:44.364+10:00Tuesday, 30th January 2001: in which I tell my story to my 'deanery' headContinuing the story, I had to go to around to the St James' Church manse after the wedding rehearsal to pick up the wedding registrar. While there, I took the opportunity to tell Pastor W. what I had decided, given that he is the Zone Counsellor (equivalent of a 'deanery head'). He is also my father's cousin. He had a lot of questions, but at no stage did he say, “These questions don’t make sense”. I guess there will be many people to whom I will have to tell the whole story from scratch like this. <br /><br />That night I listened to the Governor General’s Australia Day message. At the end of his message, he quoted the well known words of King George VI: <blockquote>I said to the man at the gate of the year, give me a light. He replied: Put your hand into the hand of God, and it will be to you better than a light, and safer than a known way.</blockquote>Nothing could be more appropriate for me at the moment.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21908393.post-62681245973106973142007-09-19T23:22:00.000+10:002007-09-19T23:24:03.875+10:00Monday, 29th January, 2001: in which I cross the Rubicon, if not the Tiber, and Anthony Fisher gives me good news and bad news.Okay. I am telling people now that I may not yet have crossed the Tiber, but I have certainly crossed the Rubicon. “Elea iacta est”, as Ceasar said. <br /><br />I rang my seminary mentor to tell him I wouldn’t be coming to this next round of Commission on Worship meetings, because I was taking leave of absence to determine whether I would join the Catholic Church. He tried to encourage me still to come, but I said it wasn’t worth paying the airfare. For a start, I could have a job by then, and be unable to come (hence, it would be a waste of the church’s valuable money); secondly, I didn’t think I should be away from Cathy and the kids at this time; finally, I thought it was not valid for me to be involved with something that I am no longer fully committed to. He accepted all this with genuine sadness.<br /><br />On Friday there was a ‘Pastor’s Wives’ lunch at Holmes, but really it was just Holmes’, Brook’s, and ourselves there. Still, it was a good opportunity for the two of us to talk to Andrew, and for Jodie and Cathy to talk with Susie. Andrew is one of those who listens, understanding that the issues we have dealt with are serious, and not just us “doing our thing”. <br /><br />After this, I had an appointment with Anthony Fisher. He had rung me to say that he had something he wanted to tell me after his interview with the Vicar General (Bishop Denis Hart) and the Archbishop (George Pell). It was a bit of a “good news” / “bad news” interview. The good news was that I would not need to worry about employment; that when I needed something, there would be something. Anthony said, “for instance, if you last out to Easter, we will have something for you.” But it did not matter if I found a secular job in the meantime, and that if I needed something sooner, he would put the pressure on the guys at the top to do something. Basically, my CV has been circulated among the various personnel offices of the Catholic Church and its agencies and schools, and they will contact me if there is anything going. A job will not simply be created for me, however. <br /><br />The “bad news” on the other hand was that Anthony did everything he could to discourage me from thinking that ordination is anything other than a far shot for me. He said that the Vicar General seemed distinctly uneasy about the suggestion of ordination in my case, because of my “messy” marital situation. Furthermore, there is the problem of Cathy not being a Catholic. None of these reasons mean definitely that I will not be accepted for ordination, but they raise question marks. <br /><br />Then we finished by talking about P. Anthony said: “It is bizarre that there is this figure there who is ushering you into the church and who isn’t going in himself.” And after I had made some reference to “bloody P.”, Anthony said: “Tell “bloody P.” that he had better come and see me soon; he might die tomorrow.”<br /><br />The rest of the day was a bit of a daze, as I tried to take all this in. I had a wedding rehearsal at Moorabbin after seeing Anthony, and I think I drove all the way there and back home without really concentrating on my driving.Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com0