E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Amen!!
- Status
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Amen to what? The idea that a denomination that is NOT hierarchical and national can confiscate and sue the crud out of a majority of people who amend their constitutions to leave of their own free will? Amen to the fact that the courts are always right? Amen to what? How many times have the courts been wrong? To say that a judge decides to hear a case doesn’t imply either side is guilty.
And the idea that orthodox, conservative, traditional Anglicans should be forced to stomach new world order liberal nonesense and just walk away from the property THEY own, that deserves an Amen?
And the idea that orthodox, conservative, traditional Anglicans should be forced to stomach new world order liberal nonesense and just walk away from the property THEY own, that deserves an Amen?
C
CMatt25
Guest
You’re welcome. God bless you as well!
G
gamewell45
Guest
Well, think about it; 600 people voted to leave the Episcopal Church and go with the ACNA. Fine. There’s still 100 according to your figures that remain members of TEC. That is their building as well; you just can’t throw them out; Its an Episcopal Church and their are still 100 Episcopalians who remain. So what happens to them? Under your scenario they’d have to pick up and get out of the church building and find somewhere else to worship?? You’re the ones who wanted to leave, so leave, but don’t make those who wish not to break away from the church to have to find another place to worship; its not fair to them to suffer because a majority of the parish was unhappy. I realize in this country the majority rules, however there are laws to safeguard certain rights of the minority and I think in this case it applies to this current dispute.
I’m not that familiar with the history of the parish at all but common sense dictates that if the new parish (ACNA) does not agree with the Episcopal Church, then they should turn to the courts for resolution of the dispute. Its the mechanism that we use in this country to settle civil disputes and to me it makes good sense. Otherwise how could it ever be resolved??
Hope that gives you a better idea of where I am coming from.
G
GKC
Guest
I’m tempted to skip this issue, but gurney shouldn’t have to do all the shoveling. The question is what has been, legally and historically, the relationship between the parish and the entity known as the Episcopal Church. And Gurney is right. It has not been one of a hierarchy. The Episcopal Church, as I once said, in my second post on line anywhere, is organized up to the diocese level. Above that the situation has changed. What gurney said about the office of presiding bishop is correct. But what was once a unimportant office, handling corporate matters, has morphed itself into something different.
Episcopal parishes are usually organized as legal entities, membership being as defined in by-laws, governance by vestry. This entity usually holds the legal title to the parish property, and can do such things as a legal owner may: sell, mortgage, tear down, rebuild, establish a trust to hold title. And they have the obligations of a legal owner: mortgage, insurance, liabilities, taxes on salaries, etc. Governance being IAW parish by-laws, by vestry or by parish vote, decisions being made on things that are not mandatory (shall we mortgage the building, to add an addition? Shall we put the title into a trust?).
The point of contention relates to how a trust might be established, with respect to property the title to which the parish holds. Certainly, as is the law in every state, the entity that holds title can establish a trust and declare the provisions of the trust, with respect to the title. No one else can.
But there suddenly appeared in the canons of the Episcopal Church, a few years ago, a canon that said that the various parishes held their property (paid for by, being paid for by, titled in the name of, the parish entity) in trust for the artificial entity, the Episcopal Church. Not many folks noticed at the time that an agency that did not, in any sense, own the property, had just claimed the right to direct how it would be disposed; i. e. a trust was said to exist, where no legal steps necessary to legally establish a trust had taken place. If you try to set up trust in your state I think you will find that somewhere in the process, a signature is going to be needed, from the legal title owner.
How did the Episcopal Church get around that? By claiming that the Episcopal Church was a strictly hierarchical entity, and the canons governed all members, absolutely, by virtue of the parish being a member of the TEC, at that time. Hence if the canons suddenly said to the parishes that all your base are belong to us (as a saying goes), then so it was. Courts have responded well to this idea, for reasons not always clear or logical. The Supreme Court of SC being an exception, for some particular reasons related to that case.
If you have great faith in the courts to necessarily discern and administer justice, be glad you did not live in the south in the days of Jim Crow laws.
GKC
Episcopal parishes are usually organized as legal entities, membership being as defined in by-laws, governance by vestry. This entity usually holds the legal title to the parish property, and can do such things as a legal owner may: sell, mortgage, tear down, rebuild, establish a trust to hold title. And they have the obligations of a legal owner: mortgage, insurance, liabilities, taxes on salaries, etc. Governance being IAW parish by-laws, by vestry or by parish vote, decisions being made on things that are not mandatory (shall we mortgage the building, to add an addition? Shall we put the title into a trust?).
The point of contention relates to how a trust might be established, with respect to property the title to which the parish holds. Certainly, as is the law in every state, the entity that holds title can establish a trust and declare the provisions of the trust, with respect to the title. No one else can.
But there suddenly appeared in the canons of the Episcopal Church, a few years ago, a canon that said that the various parishes held their property (paid for by, being paid for by, titled in the name of, the parish entity) in trust for the artificial entity, the Episcopal Church. Not many folks noticed at the time that an agency that did not, in any sense, own the property, had just claimed the right to direct how it would be disposed; i. e. a trust was said to exist, where no legal steps necessary to legally establish a trust had taken place. If you try to set up trust in your state I think you will find that somewhere in the process, a signature is going to be needed, from the legal title owner.
How did the Episcopal Church get around that? By claiming that the Episcopal Church was a strictly hierarchical entity, and the canons governed all members, absolutely, by virtue of the parish being a member of the TEC, at that time. Hence if the canons suddenly said to the parishes that all your base are belong to us (as a saying goes), then so it was. Courts have responded well to this idea, for reasons not always clear or logical. The Supreme Court of SC being an exception, for some particular reasons related to that case.
If you have great faith in the courts to necessarily discern and administer justice, be glad you did not live in the south in the days of Jim Crow laws.
GKC
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Great post, GKC, as usual. The last point about Jim Crow laws is especially poignant. It’s fascinating how liberals have so much faith in the courts. Sometimes the courts get it right but frequently they haven’t a clue. Watching what the courts have ruled with eminent domain in recent years really rings my chimes. The Dred Scott decision was a sad piece of history, Roe vs. Wade is a no-brainer tragedy, Plessy vs. Ferguson and the whole seperate but equal segregation was a nice touch, they did a bangup job with the Indian Removal Act in the 1830’s, etc. The courts aren’t perfect and they should not be involved in religious dramas in my opinion. The property in the San Joaquin Diocese is owned by the diocese, the diocese by a overwhelming majority voted to leave the TEC. As you so eolquently put it, the TEC doesn’t own the property or possess hierarchical powers to enforce anything. And what the poster to whom you were answering doesn’t understand is that Bishop John David Schofield, our bishop here, made it very, very, very clear that ANY parish who did not wish to go with the diocese out of the TEC had every right to keep their parish, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. He said it over and over that anyone who wanted to stay would receive absolutely NO punitive reaction from him, no hard feelings, and certainly no litigation. This is a sign of a Christian man. And guess what? The town adjacent to ours, Tulare, voted to stay in TEC as did the liberal Church of the Saviour in neighboring Hanford. And there was a parish up in Fresno that voted to stay in TEC. All three were met with nothing but well-wishes, no questions asked, no litigation, and the diocese parted company with them. So for Gamewell to imply that a tiny minority was marginalized is inaccurate. In the parish in our town, St. Paul’s, only about 100 people wanted to stay Episcopal. And they did. They worship at a local synagogue on Sunday morning that they share with our Jewish community. They also worship and coordinate with their liberal cohorts in Tulare and Hanford. Hanford incidentally, is a cathedral and a flagship edifice for Anglican churches around here and it’s still TEC.
If TEC is of God and they are confident in their faith, their guidance by the Holy Spirit, and their strong future, they have no need to sue when the vast, and I mean vast, majority of their former brethren chose a different path. In the spirit of good will they should back off, go their own way, and realize they will not be sued for their decision so the reverse should apply to ACNA Anglicans. It’s just common sense. But the TEC does not have confidence, they feel the need for secular powers to dictate their fate, not Christ.
If TEC is of God and they are confident in their faith, their guidance by the Holy Spirit, and their strong future, they have no need to sue when the vast, and I mean vast, majority of their former brethren chose a different path. In the spirit of good will they should back off, go their own way, and realize they will not be sued for their decision so the reverse should apply to ACNA Anglicans. It’s just common sense. But the TEC does not have confidence, they feel the need for secular powers to dictate their fate, not Christ.
G
gamewell45
Guest
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Tell me, I’m curious; when the canons were changed or added, were any objections filed? If so what was the response from TEC if you are aware of any?
Finally, there are many rulings made by numerous courts of law that I may not agree with; in either case there is a winner and loser but I accept the decisions as I’ve noted in prior posts, its the system we’ve all agreed to work under in this county.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
But should it have to get to that? Should TEC, in charity and Christ-like fellowship, have to resort to using the secular courts to financially slam their Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ when they could just let them go? If they are not hierarchical, if the property is owned by the congregation or diocese, and the vast majority is on board with departing, they shouldn’t try to behave punitively and use a third party. As I said, the diocese here let the TEC majority parishes stay TEC and there was no harm, no foul. No hard feelings. But the strategy around here has been, and TEC knows this, it’s not about justice or right or wrong. It’s about DRAINING $$$$$ from the conservatives. How? TEC has infinitely more money and lawerly power than the ACNA breakoff Anglicans. So, what do you do if your’e TEC? Sue, sue, sue, re-file if you have to, and keep ACNA having to retain lawers and channel all their funds into courtroom costs and legal fees. After a while, they’ll be drained to nothing and have to just surrender. How do I know this? Because my former rector even told me that the vestry had, at one point, considered just walking away from their 80 year old brick beauty of an edifice rather than go bankrupt. They ultimately decided to stay in fight, bless them.
So you see, it’s not about right vs. wrong and may the best man win, it’s about a giant foe in TEC being armed to the teeth with financial power to drain a smaller group into oblivion. This is an aspect you might want to meditate upon rather than the no-big-whoop, TEC only wants what’s right angle.
So you see, it’s not about right vs. wrong and may the best man win, it’s about a giant foe in TEC being armed to the teeth with financial power to drain a smaller group into oblivion. This is an aspect you might want to meditate upon rather than the no-big-whoop, TEC only wants what’s right angle.
G
GKC
Guest
I cannot say. I have, Deo gratias, nothing to do with the Episcopal Church and darn well going to keep it that way. But I hear that there were.
Which is not the point. The canon was inserted, under the cloak of night, at the end of a General Convention. And it is a passive thing. Legally, establishing a trust is a positive thing. And cannot be done absent the signature of the owner/title holder of the resources that are involved in the putative trust.
If you owned your window cleaning service, lock, stock and barrel, and belonged to the National Window Cleaners Association, following its rules and by laws, you might take it amiss to discover that an amendment to the rules of the association that you were unaware of suddenly made the association the owner of your building and sponges, which you now held in trust for them.
I can see how you would have counseled a black person, attempting to get equal treatment under the law, around 60 years ago.
GKC
Which is not the point. The canon was inserted, under the cloak of night, at the end of a General Convention. And it is a passive thing. Legally, establishing a trust is a positive thing. And cannot be done absent the signature of the owner/title holder of the resources that are involved in the putative trust.
If you owned your window cleaning service, lock, stock and barrel, and belonged to the National Window Cleaners Association, following its rules and by laws, you might take it amiss to discover that an amendment to the rules of the association that you were unaware of suddenly made the association the owner of your building and sponges, which you now held in trust for them.
I can see how you would have counseled a black person, attempting to get equal treatment under the law, around 60 years ago.
GKC
G
gamewell45
Guest
Unfortunately, right or wrong, these things happen when people cannot agree to make compromise on the difference before the parties. It sort of reminds me of two siblings arguing over a piece of cake. Nine times out of ten the older and more powerful sibling will probably get his way; the smart, younger and less powerful sibling will have to wait until he is older and can control his own terms and long range will build up a strong positive relationship with his older sibling.
I think that everything you do in life comes with some sort of risk. In this case the Rector obviously considered what they stood to gain as opposed to what they stood to lose. They made their choice and I’m sure no regrets attached to it and as such will live with what they decided to do. Personally I would have preferred to just walk away and leave it all behind and start off clean and that way no one could make a claim. But thats just me; I recognize others think differently.
Likewise TEC reviewed their options and made their decision no matter how popular or unpopular with those who stayed or left. As I mentioned earlier in a post, its the parishioners who make up the church, not some physical building that might have sentimental value for some of the parish.
Did TEC have to do this in the first place? Probably not, it most likely wouldn’t have injured them financially but its most likely possible that they wanted to send a message to other parishes who might contemplate leaving the church and strike out on their own being if you want to leave our house fine; but leave your keys behind so others who replace you can use it.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
CMatt25:Hi Anna, I am not Episcopalian but have looked into the Episcopal Church myself and have corresponded with wonderful priests at my local Episcopal parishes. I am referring to the ECUSA here. I’m one of those awful cafe Caths which someone referred to in an earlier post so have looked into the ECUSA as perhaps a better fit for me in my walk with Christ. From what I gather they are very welcoming wherever one is on their walk.
The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) seems to unite in common worship. Not necessarily requiring complete allegiance in all matters of faith. They allow it seems to me greater freedom of reason and conscience. Faith, tradition, and reason are sometimes how it is described.
Anyway here’s what I can maybe help you with. Yes Episcoplaians baptize infants. If you have already been baptized in the Roman manner and ever decide to actually join an Episcopal Church, you would not need to be baptized again. The same goes for if you have already been confirmed in the Roman tradition. All that would then be required is for you to be received into the Episcopal Church by the bishop. Perhaps after taking a course offered thru the local churches, simlar to RCIA I suppose. But the one at my local Episcopal church is 6 wks I believe. Confirmation would not be needed again.
Official Episcopalian teaching is Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. The Communion minister will say, “The Body of Christ” to which the person receiving responds “Amen.” They don’t have the elaborate doctrine Roman Catholics do in trying to define how this is achieved. Episcopalians concentrate on it being a mystery of faith and leave it at that. Now all of this aside, any in the trinity Baptized Christian may receive Communion in the Episcopal church. No one is interrogating anyone when they go forward. If a Christian feels called to receive, so be it!
In regard to confession to a priest sometimes Episcopalians like to say "all may, some should, none must.
Episcopalians sometimes are called Catholic lite and some describe themselves as Catholic but not Roman. Between Catholic and Protestant. No papal infallibilty. Allow women priests, married priests.
I know I didn’t answer all of your questions but hope this helps just a little. I’ve never visited yet but I often feel I might too. You may find various types of Masses ranging from the traditional similar to a Roman Mass to the more contemporary even within the same parish. I you go, I hope it is a wonderful experience for you on your walk. Peace and God bless.
Since I can’t send you a PM; just wanted to let you know that I visited the Episcopal Church today (“Traditional” Service); and really enjoyed the experience. There is such reverence in the Sanctuary, which is such a welcome change. I liked all the prayers and readings. The organ music and choir were inspiring–the simplicity was refreshing to the soul. I didn’t feel like I was at a rock concert.
I had previously attended a large Baptist Church here in Texas (about 12,000 members–Texas has a number of mega-churches.) Over time, Sunday morning worship has turned into a “spectator sport.” I really do not mean any disrespect to my Baptist brethren; but the “entertainment factor” has been on the rise in recent years. Maybe my age is catching up with me.
This Episcopal Church has a small congregation with very friendly people. I will definitely go back next week.
Just wanted you to know. I really appreciated the information you gave me and your words of encouragement. I will continue my studies.
God Bless,
Anna
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
You might not feel that way, walking away so easily, if you were in the shoes of these folks. If your grandfather and a parent were buried in the adjacent cemetery, if your mom and dad or great grandparents donated the stained glass, if your family was there when the church was built, if you had had many years of deep, meaningful worship in that house of the Lord, you might feel differently. It’s easy on a message board to throw out a hypothetical without passion but if you have had decades of great moments, financial investment in, and love for your parish building, it means something. And furthermore, why should they have to “just walk away.” If someone came over to my house here one sunny California day and said, “your house is mine now, buddy,” and I own it, I suppose I could wimp out and just walk out, but that’s not me. Of course the Body of Christ is not an edifice, but the people that occupy it but that’s beside the point. That reality shouldn’t force people off their property. I’m not a fan of forced relocations whether it’s Jews, Cherokee, or something as small as a parish of any denomination. I’m not an Anglican anymore so I don’t have a horse in this race, but I feel for anyone being forced out, thrown into litigation, and treated this way. It’d degrading and contrary to Christ’s will. It’s not like two brothers fighting over cake, it’s far more serious. Trying to bankrupt a congregation in legal fees is diabolical and disgusting, pure and simple. But in the end, TEC will be the group to wind up paying. They are declining in revenue, they’re aging like crazy and their youth to elderly ratio looks like our current social security funding setup, they’ve sold out to liberal secular quasi-pagan values, they’re being drained themselves by the litigation, and their attendance numbers according to reports are pretty sad and diminished. The jury’s out on ACNA as well due to their internal squabbling and disagreements and retention of women’s ordination as well as $$$. Only time will tell. I wish them well. I hope TEC implodes.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Mormons are very “nice people” as are some unitarians; do you plan on attending those congregations?
CMatt25:
Since I can’t send you a PM; just wanted to let you know that I visited the Episcopal Church today (“Traditional” Service); and really enjoyed the experience. There is such reverence in the Sanctuary, which is such a welcome change. I liked all the prayers and readings. The organ music and choir were inspiring–the simplicity was refreshing to the soul. I didn’t feel like I was at a rock concert.
I had previously attended a large Baptist Church here in Texas (about 12,000 members–Texas has a number of mega-churches.) Over time, Sunday morning worship has turned into a “spectator sport.” I really do not mean any disrespect to my Baptist brethren; but the “entertainment factor” has been on the rise in recent years. Maybe my age is catching up with me.
This Episcopal Church has a small congregation with very friendly people. I will definitely go back next week.
Just wanted you to know. I really appreciated the information you gave me and your words of encouragement. I will continue my studies.
God Bless,
Anna
C
CMatt25
Guest
Anna, oh I think I had PM turned off. But I am so glad you had a good experience today. God bless you as well!
C
CMatt25
Guest
gurney, I didn’t get the impression that was the only reason Anna enjoyed her experience. But why can’t we just be happy when a fellow believer experiences Christ wherever that may be, encourage each other along our walks and praise God?
G
gamewell45
Guest
I sense so much anger, bitterness and frustration in your post.
Fortunately in my diocese we’ve had no rumblings like what they went through in the West Coast and Virginia and in most of the parishes i’ve visited there is a good mixture age-wise of Episcopalians and the membership levels in most cases are holding even as far as i know.
While you appear to be very bitter towards TEC church, its probably best that your not an Anglican anymore because I think they’d most likely condemn your very uncharitable remarks. While i do not agree on some of the issues between the ACNA and Episcopal Church, I’d never, ever wish the ACNA to implode. That’s very unchristian behavior. We are all children of God and while we may disagree, to wish negative thoughts does nothing to help heal the wounds.
Peace Be With You…
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
jAs a Catholic, I would hope you wouldn’t desire or encourage a person to go to a church that strongly promotes women’s ordination, abortion, the gay lifestyle, co-worship with non-Christian groups like Hindus and Buddhists. I would hope you wouldn’t “encourage” and “be happy for” a person walking into a church that has turned its back on the orthodoxy of its past embracing secular values. I can’t be happy for anyone entering a church that fosters the belief that Jesus is just one way amongst many ways of entering heaven, or a denomination that has priestesses saying in sermons that “abortion is a great blessing.” Get on the internet and read the hideous tales of what the TEC has done, how they sue the pants off anyone with a descenting opinion, and how truly unchristian they really are. I do not understand your motivation for wishing anyone to go down this road. I do not believe that the road to the episcopal church is a “walk” toward Christ, but an off ramp to much darker territory. So, that being said, I couldn’t disagree with you more. It is scandalous for a Catholic to encourage another in that direction.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
This is the usual response from an episcopalian or liberal Christian…that the other side is bitter, angry, full of venom. Not at all. I’m not frustrated or bitter. I’m not an Anglican at all so it’s not an issue. But I follow what goes on in the Anglican world because it is a part of my past, my journey, and I wish Anglicans well. You’ve sense wrong, respectfully.
If you look at the documents that came out late last year, there was a lot of cover-up from the “presiding bishop” about attendance numbers and she was very reluctant to reveal them, but did upon pressure to do so. They weren’t pretty. And the statistics show vividly that the Episcopal Church is aging and crusty.
As for my remarks, I don’t retract or regret a word and I don’t need your perceptions as to what is christian and unchristian to guide my behavior or spiritual life. The irony is that you’re part of an unchristian group that embraces neo-pagan values and synchronistic beliefs, a group that ordains bisexuals and cross-dressers and men who are openly sodomites, and you call me unchristian? As William Shatner said in “Airplane,” “irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.”
You are right in one respect, that it’s best I’m not Anglican anymore. It’s especially best that I’m not episcopalian anymore. I wouldn’t wish that on my three children, my wife, and I…My friend, his wife, and two kids also became Catholic and are all full of joy at their conversion. They haven’t regretted it a bit.
And I wanted to laugh out loud when you said that my fellow ACNA Anglicans with whom I used to be a parishoner would condemn my remarks. For goodness sakes, have you ever been at a vestry meeting or coffee hour or bible study with these conservative Anglicans and listened to their thoughts on your church? Have you not read Virtueonline or conservative anglican blogs? Have you not looked into the statements and disagreements and rancor toward the TEC for what they teach and how they have comported themselves? Trust me, there is NO love for TEC in ACNA, nor should there be. I don’t wish ill on you, be sure of that. If I didn’t care about your salvation or soul, I wouldn’t hope for you to walk away from the episcopalian church. I would be a pretty poor Catholic if I wished this ecclesiastical body to continue. I wish no harm on its members, just the theology (what little there is) and the heretical beliefs they hold and I wish it to disband and see them embrace the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Peace be with you as well.
If you look at the documents that came out late last year, there was a lot of cover-up from the “presiding bishop” about attendance numbers and she was very reluctant to reveal them, but did upon pressure to do so. They weren’t pretty. And the statistics show vividly that the Episcopal Church is aging and crusty.
As for my remarks, I don’t retract or regret a word and I don’t need your perceptions as to what is christian and unchristian to guide my behavior or spiritual life. The irony is that you’re part of an unchristian group that embraces neo-pagan values and synchronistic beliefs, a group that ordains bisexuals and cross-dressers and men who are openly sodomites, and you call me unchristian? As William Shatner said in “Airplane,” “irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.”
You are right in one respect, that it’s best I’m not Anglican anymore. It’s especially best that I’m not episcopalian anymore. I wouldn’t wish that on my three children, my wife, and I…My friend, his wife, and two kids also became Catholic and are all full of joy at their conversion. They haven’t regretted it a bit.
And I wanted to laugh out loud when you said that my fellow ACNA Anglicans with whom I used to be a parishoner would condemn my remarks. For goodness sakes, have you ever been at a vestry meeting or coffee hour or bible study with these conservative Anglicans and listened to their thoughts on your church? Have you not read Virtueonline or conservative anglican blogs? Have you not looked into the statements and disagreements and rancor toward the TEC for what they teach and how they have comported themselves? Trust me, there is NO love for TEC in ACNA, nor should there be. I don’t wish ill on you, be sure of that. If I didn’t care about your salvation or soul, I wouldn’t hope for you to walk away from the episcopalian church. I would be a pretty poor Catholic if I wished this ecclesiastical body to continue. I wish no harm on its members, just the theology (what little there is) and the heretical beliefs they hold and I wish it to disband and see them embrace the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Peace be with you as well.
C
CMatt25
Guest
gurney, as I’ve tried to explain before, you must look at the entire TEC. I can get on the internet and look at various Catholics as well. But my guess is you would not want people looking at Kung and the like and coming away thinking they have the whole picture of the Catholic Church. Again as I’ve siad before we will simply have to agree to disagree. I know Benedict has spoken of non Catholics as ecclesiastical communities but has the Church decree Episcoplians are no longer Christian?
God bless and have a good night.
G
gamewell45
Guest
Well, to end this discussion on a positive note; It’s refreshing to hear that your conversion to the Roman Catholic faith was a good choice and that you and yours are full of joy. After all its always better to worship in what you believe in as opposed to something you don’t.
…And Also With You!
- Status