C
CARV
Guest
Whatever guy. You guys got some major problems over there that dwarf our problems. Pray for your church.
- Status
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
People who call sodomy holy and blessed by God and even biblical, folks who consider a man dressing as a woman giving out communion, people who sanction infantacide, folks who want women dressed up as priests playing clergymen, and parishoners who cannot make their lips confess Christ as Lord, yep, IMO, are goons.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
What problems specifically?
C
CARV
Guest
You just said that the TEC is “falling apart financially”. Now you’re saying its “wealthy”. Which is it?Now let’s see who’s on a high horse, CARV? My parish is being sued by TEC right now. And guess what? TEC isn’t just suing the church for its property and school, they’re suing EACH MEMBER of the vestry individually by name for significant $$$! They only have like 50 parishoners while our ACNA parish has about 300. They have openly admitted that if they win, they can’t afford to pay for the building so they’ll sell it. Schiori made it clear in a Modesto Bee article to “Bishop” Jerry Lamb that they are NOT to sell it back to the conservatives. Better to sell it to private business and turn the hallowed ground into a pub than let those nasty ole’ conservatives keep their property. So you can say this is no big woop and a distraction or much ado about zip, but it is so a big deal. My rector and parishoners are fighting for the building, school, parish hall, everything. The liberals were not forced to leave in any way. They were welcome to stay even if they did vote to stay in TEC and lost. They were welcomed with open arms. I remember it all and how it went down.
It’s not all about retirements and $$$. TEC is a wealthy denomination so you have your facts wrong. ACNA was the ones risking finances and retirement. They made it work with financial groups and retirement companies, etc. They made it work with far less than TEC so TEC can make it work.
Ever consider if TEC would quit suing people they could take the millions in lawsuits and actually pay for their clergy’s retirement?You do know that the lawsuits alone have been the primary monster in their financial strains, right? They’re shooting themselves in the foot.
What my diocese of San Joaquin did in leaving TEC was perfectly legal by rules of the canons and constitutions of San Joaquin. They amended it legally, the entire diocese voted, then +Schofield, bless the man, allowed each individual parish to vote for themselves if they were 100% sure they wanted to leave. If they decided to stay, Schofield assured them, go in peace with his blessings. And two parishes in my area did stay TEC parishes and not once did Schofield issue reprisals or threats or nasty rumors and bashing.
In fact, the neighboring town has a TEC cathedral and they kicked out their conservatives. I kid you not. The vestry held a meeting and publically told the organist and one vestry member to hit the road and leave. They were told, “you’re no longer welcome here.” and they go to my parish now.
TEC is hardly the victim.
I am sorry about the circumstances with your parish. Its only money and the TEC has some right to appeal to the law for what it believes it is rightfully theirs.
I didn’t say that TEC is the victim. I just said that there are financial reprecussions on both sides of the schism. We’ll let the law work it out. Try not to be bitter. It’s only money.
C
CARV
Guest
Well fine. Go to another church but don’t lecture anyone on Christian brotherhood.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I’m not contradicting myself. TEC has been the wealthiest Anglican Church on the planet Earth. You know that, right? But lately they have been bending over backwards to sue the beans out of the conservatives and it is a matter of fact that they are draining their wealth at a rapid rate. It’s like saying that Donald Trump is worth 500 million dollars and in the last six months he has lost 150 million. Would you say he’s not still wealthy? but wouldn’t you also say that he’s rapidly falling apart at that rate?
Also, as far as “it’s only money,” I don’t view it that way. There are Anglican churches that go back centuries in this country where loved ones were buried literally right next to the parish building, CARV. There are buildings where families have financially contributed the stain glass, pews, bricks, courtyards, and have emotionally and financially supported and loved and nurtered their parish in that building. Is the building Christ himself? Of course not. But there is sentimental, meaningful, historical attachment and love for these edifices that means a lot to a parish. The building doesn’t make the parish but no one has the right to sue it away, especially when they’re the ultra minority and it’s mainly for spite and “if I can’t have it, dude, nobody can!” kind of thinking.
Also, as far as “it’s only money,” I don’t view it that way. There are Anglican churches that go back centuries in this country where loved ones were buried literally right next to the parish building, CARV. There are buildings where families have financially contributed the stain glass, pews, bricks, courtyards, and have emotionally and financially supported and loved and nurtered their parish in that building. Is the building Christ himself? Of course not. But there is sentimental, meaningful, historical attachment and love for these edifices that means a lot to a parish. The building doesn’t make the parish but no one has the right to sue it away, especially when they’re the ultra minority and it’s mainly for spite and “if I can’t have it, dude, nobody can!” kind of thinking.
B
bkayw
Guest
Is it Christian to preach and display by action that sodomy is holy?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I absolutely can and will, CARV. Anglians suing fellow Anglicans is not Christian brotherhood. If that’s your view of brotherhood, wow, don’t know what to tell ya. Siblings don’t sue each other, especially spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ of the same heritage. And I’m not going to another church. You can’t tell me where I should go, what to believe, and where I should hang my hat. That high horse is getting saddle sores…
If your group keeps suing everyone, there won’t be another church to go to!
If your group keeps suing everyone, there won’t be another church to go to!
C
CARV
Guest
But that knife cuts both ways. There are liberals who are torn between the attachment to those setimental things a a sense of conscience to about what the conservatives have done. What of them? I’m sorry but the is hurt on both sides and that is life. It shouldn’t be about the darn stained glass windows anyways. We’ll let the law settle the property disputes and move on. Your side will get some of the windows and my side will get some of the windows.
C
CARV
Guest
According to you, we are not siblings anyways because me and mine are goons. I don’t know what you are complaining about. Your group thinks my group are heretics so you want to seperate and take the property. My group says fine leave but thats our property. The courts don’t care about our religious disagreement, they’ll just tell us who is right. If your group is right they’ll keep it. If not, then you don’t have a right to it anyways. Move on, be the best Christian you can be with your new group. What’s the problem? Life goes on.I absolutely can and will, CARV. Anglians suing fellow Anglicans is not Christian brotherhood. If that’s your view of brotherhood, wow, don’t know what to tell ya. Siblings don’t sue each other, especially spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ of the same heritage. And I’m not going to another church. You can’t tell me where I should go, what to believe, and where I should hang my hat. That high horse is getting saddle sores…
If your group keeps suing everyone, there won’t be another church to go to!
C
CARV
Guest
Funny thing. You are a going to a parish that left the National denom and took the property. I am moving in a week to a parish that lost its property to the conservatives. They share a chapel with a bunch a groups in the meantime. They are suing to get their church back. Only on the internet can you get this conversation going. So we are like arch enemies now, right? I kid.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I know you’re kidding, CARV, but I definitely do NOT view you as an enemy. Not in the least.
From the ACNA conservatives’ point of view they certainly did NOT take the property as you said. The Diocese of San Joaquin owned the property lock stock and barrel.
When the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America was originally formed, it was formed with an agenda. The agenda was to NOT have the same structure as England…that is, a national hierarchical church that has an archbishop and a structure that rules over each diocese. The Episcopal Church was formed with each single diocese being sovereign and having its own constitution, its own hierarchy with each local bishop king of his domain, a vestry and convention for each individual diocese, and here’s the kicker-----NO ARCHBISHOP! They decided on a “presiding bishop,” who was only to be a gavel-banger with no power whatsoever over other bishops.
Don’t take my word for it, go read up. This was the nature of Episcopalian polity in the American Church. No archbishop, no national church, no hierarchy save the local one.
Presiding “bishop” Schiori has envisioned a totally different polity; it is one in which the presiding bishop is a pseudonym for an archbishop who has direct control, almost like a pope, over each diocese. Whereas the Episcopal Church in the 1800’s or 20th century would’ve had no power to stop a diocese from amending their constitution to leave the body of TEC, the new regime has sought to claim the “national church” is national and hierarchical.
That is the exact argument in all these lawsuits that is being thrown out there. Supposedly each diocese is a part of the whole. NOT TRUE. Supposedly each diocese cannot leave without the PB’s consent and the other bishops’ consent. NOT TRUE. On and on the hierarchy argument is being hurled out when American history is completely the opposite.
There is no “national church” in American Episcopalianism so there’s nothing to "break off’ from? Each diocese IS the episcopal church! And they can case to be so and call themselves something else if they wish. That was the American ideal, religious freedom, that they wanted, with an episcopal polity at the local level.
This is nothing short of tyranny and a federalist hierarchical approach to a church that never was anything but free and local. National conventions and meetings with bishops were out of the sake of unity of mind, unity of purpose, working together, and building up the Body of Christ. Sad Schiori and her ilk have tried to re-write history.
From the ACNA conservatives’ point of view they certainly did NOT take the property as you said. The Diocese of San Joaquin owned the property lock stock and barrel.
When the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America was originally formed, it was formed with an agenda. The agenda was to NOT have the same structure as England…that is, a national hierarchical church that has an archbishop and a structure that rules over each diocese. The Episcopal Church was formed with each single diocese being sovereign and having its own constitution, its own hierarchy with each local bishop king of his domain, a vestry and convention for each individual diocese, and here’s the kicker-----NO ARCHBISHOP! They decided on a “presiding bishop,” who was only to be a gavel-banger with no power whatsoever over other bishops.
Don’t take my word for it, go read up. This was the nature of Episcopalian polity in the American Church. No archbishop, no national church, no hierarchy save the local one.
Presiding “bishop” Schiori has envisioned a totally different polity; it is one in which the presiding bishop is a pseudonym for an archbishop who has direct control, almost like a pope, over each diocese. Whereas the Episcopal Church in the 1800’s or 20th century would’ve had no power to stop a diocese from amending their constitution to leave the body of TEC, the new regime has sought to claim the “national church” is national and hierarchical.
That is the exact argument in all these lawsuits that is being thrown out there. Supposedly each diocese is a part of the whole. NOT TRUE. Supposedly each diocese cannot leave without the PB’s consent and the other bishops’ consent. NOT TRUE. On and on the hierarchy argument is being hurled out when American history is completely the opposite.
There is no “national church” in American Episcopalianism so there’s nothing to "break off’ from? Each diocese IS the episcopal church! And they can case to be so and call themselves something else if they wish. That was the American ideal, religious freedom, that they wanted, with an episcopal polity at the local level.
This is nothing short of tyranny and a federalist hierarchical approach to a church that never was anything but free and local. National conventions and meetings with bishops were out of the sake of unity of mind, unity of purpose, working together, and building up the Body of Christ. Sad Schiori and her ilk have tried to re-write history.
T
The_Sentry
Guest
Isn’t that the truth? We must fight on for a better day.
T
The_Sentry
Guest
It is sad that it has come to this, is it not?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I’m not sure how you can maintain it is this simple when TEC won’t even sell the churches back to those conservatives, when they actually have put them up for sale? As a matter of policy?
And I have a friend who was asked to leave her parish because she was too conservative. She was new, had moved and gone to the new local Anglican parish, and they told her they didn’t want her.
E
Eutychus123
Guest
If TEC wants to keep the buildings, let them. The buildings aren’t worth it.
Some years before I arrived, the Continuing parish I attend fought a multi-year battle with TEC to retain the building. The parish lost. Considering the scars left by this process, they would have been better off just walking away. Not only that, Christians suing Christians is a decidedly non-Christlike behavior.
There is a local TEC church, who took exception to the purported ordination of Gene Robinson. They want to leave, but don’t want to lose the building. So… They have opted to be placed under DEPO. They have a erected a new sign that says “Anglican” and they withhold some of the money due the diocese. It will be interesting to see what happens when their DEPO expires. I know many of them and I wish them well, but the building just isn’t worth it.
Some years before I arrived, the Continuing parish I attend fought a multi-year battle with TEC to retain the building. The parish lost. Considering the scars left by this process, they would have been better off just walking away. Not only that, Christians suing Christians is a decidedly non-Christlike behavior.
There is a local TEC church, who took exception to the purported ordination of Gene Robinson. They want to leave, but don’t want to lose the building. So… They have opted to be placed under DEPO. They have a erected a new sign that says “Anglican” and they withhold some of the money due the diocese. It will be interesting to see what happens when their DEPO expires. I know many of them and I wish them well, but the building just isn’t worth it.
A
Anglican_Gal
Guest
I agree. Jesus said, where your treasure is, there will be your heart also.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I don’t think that applies so much here though. I don’t think the parishoners’ “hearts” are in real estate property but rather it belongs to them, it’s their meeting place, there are many wonderful memories there, it functions as a place of piety, it’s hallowed ground, often loved ones are buried on the property if the property is very, very old, lots of $$ have been put into it and the point is, it’s theirs! A building doesn’t make a church necessarily but every Tom, Dick, and Harry doesn’t have the right to come along and steal your property on a whim and we should just take it lying down IMO.
E
Eutychus123
Guest
Jesus also said:
And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him - Douay-Rheims
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
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. 
- Status