It’s a “hard saying” put I think it is applicable in this situation.So if some Methodists come along tomorrow and tell the pope and cardinals, “I want St. Peters!” I guess they should walk away and give it to them! Or your parish church this Sunday. Would you give a stranger your home, Eutychus, if they ask this Friday? “Eutychus, I want your house and car.” I doubt “OK!” will be the response.
I tend to agree that those forced to leave should probably just give up the buildings. It isn’t fair or right, but that isn’t necessarily the most important thing.It’s a “hard saying” put I think it is applicable in this situation.
When I was a Methodist, I never wanted St Peter’s
I understand, but they have to weigh the Gospel of Christ against personal interests. What would Jesus have done? Yes, many loved ones may be in a cemetary, but they can still visit the graves, right? Let’s face it, many priests remain in TEC due to pension concerns, and when they retire, they bolt to the Anglicans (they can still get their full pension, that way). TEC has ownership of parish property, and has recently strengthened their claim by changes to church law. It’s a mess, and Schori is suing Christians - and, I’m sure, will come under judgement for doing so. Meanwhile, when a congregation steps out in faith, God provides better than that what they had before!
TEC didn’t have ownership of parish property. Which is why they passed (if it was passed; there are reasonable points made on each side) the Dennis Canon (Title1.7.4) to TEC’s Canons, back in 1979, to make a prima facie case that the property in Episcopal parishes was held in trust for the "national " Church, contrary to the history up to that point. An entity that, as gurney has pointed out, was mostly a legal fiction until the past 35 years or so, the Episcopal Church being organized at the diocesan level, historically. The TEC (meaning, currently, the gracious Catherine) began a conscious effort to restructure the polity to one in which a hierarchy is over-laid on the dioceses which is higher than the dioceses acting in voluntary union. This at the time reaction to a number of litiurgical and theological points were causing a number of parishes and individuals to take their leave.
I really find posting about the subject distasteful, and can usually resist.
I’ll cleanse the palate with a dark beer.Weeeeeell! Sorry to leave a sour taste on thy palate!
I am not aware of any policy that would prohibit the selling back of churches but it doesn’t surprise me. Here on the progressive side there is a lot of bitternes about the Africans stepping in a fomenting this schism. Without their interference, something may well have been worked out. Just like the women’s ordination controversy, there could have been parishes and dioceses that allowed gays and some that didn’t. That is the way Anglicans have worked out issues before. But the border crossings made the schism too easy so there is some bitterness in the Episcopal Church over that.
Orval or Chimay. Or, I got one bottle of my SIL’s home brew left.My good friend, GKC. Tolkien fan, comicbook collector affecionado, aircraft expert, anglophile…lush!
The Africans didn’t foment a schism. The problem began long before, with the St. Louis meeting and the Continuum being the reaction to the Novus Ordo clearly coming toward TEC like a train wreck. Anglicanism is diverse and elastic. But not infinitely diverse and elastic.
Yea well, like GKC pointed out: polity and theology changes. Happened during with Constatine, happened with the rise of papism (no offence toward Catholics), happened during the Reformation. That’s life. I am sorry about the nastiness with the property. There are folks here in Virgina that are sad to see a Nigerian subsidairy church occupy the church that there families built up. I understand your frustaration because I see the same thing on this side. The courts will hash it out I suppose. They know the law much better than you or I. Life goes on. Lets not be bitter.
The Africans did play a part in it. Its pretty naive to think that the ACNA would exist as it does today without the endorsement of the Global South as they are called. One of the reasons that the St. Louis crowd didn’t gain much traction is because no one in the Anglican Communion paid them any mind so they lacked legitamcy. The same probably would have been true for the ACNA. So don’t try to sell me that the schism wasn’t encourged by the Africans. Of course it was. The Nigerian mission CANA is the group that absorbed the disaffected conservatives in Virginia. What are Nigerian missionaries doing in this country? Fomenting schism thats what.
No, what I said was that the Africans didn’t foment a schism. That was done by the revisionists. The Africans entered into it, years later. Providing alternate episcopal oversight in response to heresy, as requested, is what they were doing.
I can see that you don’t like my choice of words. Lets just say then that the Africans seized on the opportunity to help and encourage the conservatives to leave the Episcopal Church by offering Episcopal oversight. A favor the the St. Louisians din’t recieve. Surely you can understand why an Episcopalian might take offence to such an action. Especially if the sign on the generational family church now reads “A Mission of the Church of Nigeria”.
And surely you can understand when Episcopalians see the faith they have loved being changed, liturgically, theologically, morally, and in polity, and seek to take action against that. Anglicanism is historically diverse and elastic. Or, as the wise here say, a motley crew. But not infinitely elastic. Neither is Christianity. Surely you can understand why a traditional Episcopalian might take offense if a heterodox minority of his parish converts it, to the point of being unrecognizable, and the sign out front still says “Episcopal”, when it is fundamentally different.
I do understand the frustration on the part of conservatives. They don’t want the changes. I get it. All religions have these confrontations. The Catholics, and the Orthodox have the same types of traditionalists. I feel bad for all of them because in the end, whatever religion they are in, the traditionalists almost always lose because tradition changes. Nothing, no church or religion, is static and stays the same. And eventually, the traditionalists will fade into an ever small minority.
Women’s ordination wasn’t really worked out. People were living with it, but that is not the same. It wasn’t a long-term solution , because once there begins to be sizable numbers of female bishops, having both groups side by side just can’t work.
Actually she tends to be politically “liberal” in American terms. No, she was too theologically conservative - she took the Nicene Creed pretty seriously for starters. In any case, she’s now firmly rooted in the Orthodox Church.
