Originally posted by CL:
Beeswax,
You're want a church that is traditional and orthodox, yet is liberal on Dead Horses?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Makes me wonder if the destiny of all former EPCUSA buildings is to become mosques or pentecostal churches, then.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
There are two interesting questions that the piece raised. First, Most Rev. Jefferts-Schori stated that churches that have no Episcopal parish to fill them may be leased or sold to Baptists or Methodists or other religious groups, but categorically not to any Anglican parish; her rationale for this, which I've never heard before but has a certain logic, is that she will not allow a diocese to "set up" any organization which seeks to harm or destroy the (Episcopal) Church.
[/QB]
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
What an evil woman TEC has as their leader, I feel sorry for the 0,6% of the USA population that remains episcopalian. She rather have her sheep becoming atheists or muslims then see them joining another church that is in full communion with the Anglican Communion.
quote:Boy, would William Stringfellow (of blessed memory) have a field day with that sentiment-- as much as he was an early advocate of women's ordination and would have rejoiced to see a female presiding bishop. Ultimately, institutions are interested in self-preservation and will stop at nothing to serve that end.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
her rationale for this, which I've never heard before but has a certain logic, is that she will not allow a diocese to "set up" any organization which seeks to harm or destroy the (Episcopal) Church.
quote:Surely, if that was "your own church" there would be enough episcopalians to fill the pews. We are not talking about a divided congregation, with 50% wanting to stay with TEC and 50% wanting to go out... We“re talking about a whole community that doesn“t want to be in TEC anymore, with no TEC members left wanting to remain in the building, so they have to SELL the building.
Originally posted by Zach82:
You might feel sorry for us, gorpo, but you've clearly given little thought to how we might feel about schismatic priests preaching about how evil our primate is in our own churches.
quote:Of course not. Schism is a sin.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Do you think that it might please God for both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church to exist?
quote:What churchmanship? KJS promotes a form of broad churchmanship not seen since the Hanoverian church. I only hope we see the revivals that happened in the 19th century. The Anglican splinter groups could become our Methodists.
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
KJS had/has the added problem of whole dioceses leaving as well as individual churches. Whether or not a one size fits all rule should have been put into place is what is of concern. I think probably not, but obviously YMMV.
As far as TEC being out of communion with the rest of the church, I'm not always so sure about that. Where do you get an 80% figure from??
As far as churchmanship, what is KJS promoting? We seem to be going up the candle here in this very low diocese. We also seem to be spending more and more time in prayer and fellowship with members from across the divide. I don't think either of those two things are bad, per se...
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unfortunately, I believe the churchmanship represented by KJS is slowly killing TEC. Most priests and bishops like KJS are good and well meaning people. However, TEC is in decline and they have misidentified the problem. Their cure for a problem TEC doesn't really have will only kill us faster.
Sadly, I worry that the Anglican parishes will survive TEC.
quote:We can deduce by a process of elimination that it's all about da gayz.
Originally posted by PD:
They have already accepted the major tenants of liberalism, so I do not see why they have such a beef with TEC. They differ only in degree not kind!
PD
quote:In some respects, the absolute worst thing anyone can say about +KJS is that she is a sympthom, not the cause, of TEC's decline.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I can't think of any problem in the TEC that began with her tenure. The structures and systems that have caused our decline were long in place before she converted from Catholicism.
Seems a bit strange to blame her or her churchmanship for a demographic shift that has affected religious groups of all kinds of churchmanships.
quote:For many of them, their problems with TEC would be solved if only the clock could be turned back to 5 minutes before +Robinson's election.
Originally posted by PD:
I do wish folks would not call the ACNA/CANA crowd continuing Anglicans. The defining issues for the Continuers were the 1928 BCP and the Ordination of Women, neither of which are of any practical interest to Bishop Duncan's crowd. They have already accepted the major tenants of liberalism, so I do not see why they have such a beef with TEC. They differ only in degree not kind!
PD
quote:TEC: finally diagnosed to death in 2015.
In some respects, the absolute worst thing anyone can say about +KJS is that she is a sympthom, not the cause, of TEC's decline.
The liberalization of the denomination and the demographic that supports it took place a generation, or more, before she was ordained. Indeed, you could say that PECUSA emerged as a relatively liberal denomination c.1900 with the decline of the old Evangelicals, and as "systemically" liberal in late 1960s and early 1970s. Basically, most of the Theological traditionalists were out of there by 2000, and I expect most of the social conservatives will be gone by 2015.
quote:Of course the trends of decline exist in every denomination that is mainly white/european because that demographic group tends to have a lower birth rate, which means there are more people dying then getting batpized. But when less then 50% of the kids who are confirmed remain church members in adulthood, and the denomination strongly believes that evangelization is anti-ethical, you can“t blame demographic trends alone for the decline. Indeed, the Missory Synod and the Baptist Convention are also declining, but nothing like TEC or even ELCA (who lost nearly 6% of its membership last year alone). TEC went from 3.6 million members in the 70“s to just 1.9 million as of last year. ELCA lost more then a million since the late 80“s and the rate of delcine is just getting bigger every year. Of course it“s not the case of the people getting old and dying and not enough children being born - it“s adult people who freely decide to leave which is causing the decline.
There are identical patterns of declining birthrates, ageing congregations, apathetic younger people and shrinking membership across Christian denominations with all kinds of different leaders and polities. It's even started to affect conservative evangelical denominations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and Southern Baptist Convention.
quote:Me neither. I don“t blame her for the falling apart of the denomination. I just blamed her for the evilness of not letting people who left her church to remain worshipping in the buildings they have build and mantained with their own money.
I can't think of any problem in the TEC that began with her tenure. The structures and systems that have caused our decline were long in place before she converted from Catholicism.
Seems a bit strange to blame her or her churchmanship for a demographic shift that has affected religious groups of all kinds of churchmanships. [/QB]
quote:A PB with a churchmanship such as hers is a symptom of the decline of TEC. +KJS is not responsible for the decline. If not +KJS then TEC would have another PB with the same churchmanship. I really don't have anything against Bishop Schorri as a person. What I have against her as a bishop, I will likely have against her successor who might also be a good and well meaning person.
originally posted by PD:
In some respects, the absolute worst thing anyone can say about +KJS is that she is a sympthom, not the cause, of TEC's decline.
quote:Surely "Anglican" refers to a religious tradition and orientation as much as (if not more than) a tenuous state of communion with Canterbury.
Originally posted by Mary Marriott:
A misapprehension in this thread.
TEC IS the only 'Anglican Church' in the US. They happen to use the synonym 'Episcopal' - like Scotland and other countries, rather than 'Anglican'.
The ministers and parts of congregations and other organisations calling themselves 'Anglican' are not Anglican,(i.e. not in Communion with Canterbury).They ARE trying to subvert TEC, and overthrown TEC's witness to equality.
They could have left and set up their breakaway meetings in public halls etc., but have deliberately chosen to seek to steal the property of TEC.
The Presiding Bishop has stood firm on this. Why oh why would she allow her denomination to be undermined in this manner ?
I have been encouraged by TEC's witness to a renewed Gospel. Few Anglican or Episcopal churches have this effect on me !
quote:Not so fast there, buster. When I was going to my little Roman Catholic Schoolhouse, I was regularly accused by my fellow seminarians of being the most orthodox student in the class. I'm pretty typical for my parish and my parish is not alone.
Originally posted by PD:
Basically, most of the Theological traditionalists were out of there by 2000...
quote:Except for that most heinously verbed noun, I agree with Zach82: for many RCs of my acquaintance just talking with an Episcopalian gives them hope for their own church. Similarly, even Orthodox speak to me in envious wonder, "You are actually talking about women and gays! We can't even have the conversation!"
Originally posted by Zach82:
I go to a Roman Catholic seminary, and I know for a fact that gorpo's screed the Episcopal Church being "DEAD as it comes to ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church" is simply false. Certain Church leaders might have it out for us, but the rank and file, clergy and laity alike, continue to dialogue with us.
quote:Again I'm going to ask for your definition of "churchmanship". It's hard to understand what you are talking about without it. Are we talking about liturgy or theology? Can you give me an example?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:A PB with a churchmanship such as hers is a symptom of the decline of TEC. +KJS is not responsible for the decline. If not +KJS then TEC would have another PB with the same churchmanship. I really don't have anything against Bishop Schorri as a person. What I have against her as a bishop, I will likely have against her successor who might also be a good and well meaning person.
originally posted by PD:
In some respects, the absolute worst thing anyone can say about +KJS is that she is a sympthom, not the cause, of TEC's decline.
quote:gorpo, I think your final phrase needs to be reconsidered. On the issue of the ordination of non-celibate gays - clearly the main factor in the Virginia schism - TEC is on the same side of this issue as the Old Catholics, many of the continental Lutheran churches, and some of the continental Reformed churches; in the US, ELCA and the Presbyterian Church. Although the Moravian Church in North AMerica continues to discuss these issues, they remain in full communion with both ELCA and TEC. It has hardly turned its back on "the whole Christianity worlswide." The Anglican/Episcopal churches in New Zealand, Scotland, and Canada are, I believe, equally liberal on this issue.
Originally posted by gorpo:
Episcopalians, on the other hand, are on frozen relations with 80% of the anglican communion, and are DEAD as it comes to ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and evangelical forms of protestantism (namely, more then 90% of global christianity). It has turned its back on the anglican communion and the whole christianity worldwide...
quote:Maybe not but being purposely vindictive is another matter altogether, a case in point being the treatment of Matt Kennedy and his parish - they offered to purchase their church at full market value; not only were they refused, the building was instead sold cut price to Muslims and is now a mosque.
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're evil for not giving them churches, Gorpo? We don't owe them squat.
quote:These people are going about calling themselves the legitimate Anglican Church of North America. It is their stated purpose to replace the Episcopal Church. Letting them continue on in these churches sure seems, to me, just a bad strategic decision. People will get the idea that they are a legitimate continuation of the former Episcopal parishes, and Lord knows that's how they present themselves.
Maybe not but being purposely vindictive is another matter altogether, a case in point being the treatment of Matt Kennedy and his parish - they offered to purchase their church at full market value; not only were they refused, the building was instead sold cut price to Muslims and is now a mosque.
quote:Both
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:Again I'm going to ask for your definition of "churchmanship". It's hard to understand what you are talking about without it. Are we talking about liturgy or theology? Can you give me an example?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:A PB with a churchmanship such as hers is a symptom of the decline of TEC. +KJS is not responsible for the decline. If not +KJS then TEC would have another PB with the same churchmanship. I really don't have anything against Bishop Schorri as a person. What I have against her as a bishop, I will likely have against her successor who might also be a good and well meaning person.
originally posted by PD:
In some respects, the absolute worst thing anyone can say about +KJS is that she is a sympthom, not the cause, of TEC's decline.
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
quote:Something "compelling "? Or a convenient , temporary refuge. Any port in a storm
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
It's just not enough to make up for the falling birthrate amongst the educated, mostly White base that makes up 80% of TEC's membership.
quote:But walk into Roman Catholic churches in Europe, Canada, Argentina, Australia, etc. and you find a similar death rattle.
Theologically, our main focus seems to be about making Christianity about leftish (radical enough that you can feel good about yourself for having the opinions but not so radical as to demand major change in your own life) politics. A good sermon is one short and makes the congregation feel good about being politically progressive. Why? People doing the theology agree more with the Green Party Platform than they do with the Nicene Creed. All that stuff in the Nicene Creed is too exclusive and archaic. Nobody believes still believes that stuff. So say the priests over the age of 55 who attend clergy gatherings. Had they even a touch of awareness they would notice the large number of priest under the age of 40 who disagreed with them.
TEC is dying. Our leaders want to double down on what we've been doing. We need more theological innovation. We must strive to create an even more welcoming church experience where nobody but traditional Christians and Republicans could possibly be offended. The question our leaders aren't addressing is why anybody should care if we welcome and include them in the first place.
quote:A port is better than no port, wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:Something "compelling "? Or a convenient , temporary refuge. Any port in a storm
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
It's just not enough to make up for the falling birthrate amongst the educated, mostly White base that makes up 80% of TEC's membership.
quote:I don't think your maths works, toujoursdan.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
It's just not enough to make up for the falling birthrate amongst the educated, mostly White base that makes up 80% of TEC's membership.
quote:Evidence ?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
quote:What Zach said.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:These people are going about calling themselves the legitimate Anglican Church of North America. It is their stated purpose to replace the Episcopal Church. Letting them continue on in these churches sure seems, to me, just a bad strategic decision. People will get the idea that they are a legitimate continuation of the former Episcopal parishes, and Lord knows that's how they present themselves.
Maybe not but being purposely vindictive is another matter altogether, a case in point being the treatment of Matt Kennedy and his parish - they offered to purchase their church at full market value; not only were they refused, the building was instead sold cut price to Muslims and is now a mosque.
It's not about revenge, though it must be flattering to the schismatics to imagine it must be so. It's only about what is best for the Episcopal Church.
Zach
quote:What ToujoursDan said.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
It's just not enough to make up for the falling birthrate amongst the educated, mostly White base that makes up 80% of TEC's membership.
quote:As the people that make up the TEC tends to be more affluent and attract more lifelong singles, gays and urban people, their fertility rates will be lower than the average for all whites nationwide. There is a Faith Communities Together (FACT) Study that estimated that the fertility rate for Episcopalians and Presbyterians is closer to 1.3 per couple, which would cause a 40% shrinkage per generation. When I have more time I can search for the link to it.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:I don't think your maths works, toujoursdan.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
It's just not enough to make up for the falling birthrate amongst the educated, mostly White base that makes up 80% of TEC's membership.
The most recent fertility rate I can find for white US females is 1.84. Allowing for a replacement fertility rate being 2.1, that implies a lifetime church shrinkage rate of around 13% over a lifetime (say 75 years?) due to this factor alone. But your shrinkage rate is higher than that, and if you genuinely have 30% of your parishioners as joiners from elsewhere, that suggests your loss rate is pretty much more serious.
I'm just commenting on the stats, not offering anything beyond that.
quote:I'd be happy if you could provide credible evidence that TEC is not in decline. I really would. No joke. Everybody familiar with the situation knows TEC is in decline. I'm not exaggerating. Everybody at every level of TEC (local, diocesan, and national) knows TEC is in decline. The only thing different is the spin.
Originally posted by Mary Marriott:
quote:Evidence ?
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
quote:If so, it's in good company. It will also take a miracle to save the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Orchestra. Does that mean that the honorable thing for the Philadelphia Inquirer to do is to turn itself into the National Enquirer, or that the Philadelphia Orchestra members ought to become rappers?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, there is absolutely no doubt that the present declines leave the Episcopal Church in a crisis, Ron. It will take a miracle to save the Episcopal Church.
quote:Being in a flag-ship diocese that prides itself on all that he describes, all I can say is that Beeswax Altar drives that nail fully home. Call me if you want details.
Among other things, Beeswax Altar sez this:
And before anybody asks, no, this has nothing to do with Gene Robinson. Gay and lesbian Episcopalians who hold orthodox beliefs and prefer traditional liturgy can have a hard time in most places. The few conservatives remaining in TEC reject them because they are gay. Liberals are offended at the audacity some gays and lesbians will not join them in supporting every theological or liturgical innovation anybody dreams up. How dare you support the orthodox and traditional view of anything?! We welcomed and included you!!! Bunch of ingrates. Think I'm exaggerating. I've watched it happen with my own eyes. I've listened to my gay and lesbian colleagues share their experiences of it happening.
quote:I thought it kinder and more politic than calling them what they are - schismatics.
Originally posted by PD:
I do wish folks would not call the ACNA/CANA crowd continuing Anglicans. The defining issues for the Continuers were the 1928 BCP and the Ordination of Women, neither of which are of any practical interest to Bishop Duncan's crowd. They have already accepted the major tenants of liberalism, so I do not see why they have such a beef with TEC. They differ only in degree not kind!
PD
quote:OK, thanks. If you could dig out the statistics it would be interesting.
As the people that make up the TEC tends to be more affluent and attract more lifelong singles, gays and urban people, their fertility rates will be lower than the average for all whites nationwide. There is a Faith Communities Together (FACT) Study that estimated that the fertility rate for Episcopalians and Presbyterians is closer to 1.3 per couple, which would cause a 40% shrinkage per generation. When I have more time I can search for the link to it.
quote:They are.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I thought it kinder and more politic than calling them what they are - schismatics.
Originally posted by PD:
I do wish folks would not call the ACNA/CANA crowd continuing Anglicans. The defining issues for the Continuers were the 1928 BCP and the Ordination of Women, neither of which are of any practical interest to Bishop Duncan's crowd. They have already accepted the major tenants of liberalism, so I do not see why they have such a beef with TEC. They differ only in degree not kind!
PD
quote:Oh, sure. The inconvenient fact is that I find it hard to escape the judgment that the ACNA is a convocation of weasels and thieves who bolted because they just couldn't tolerate a difference in opinion when it came to the gays (theology, liturgy, church governance, sure. But not the gays). But I didn't want to say that. But now I have. Oops.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:They are.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I thought it kinder and more politic than calling them what they are - schismatics.
Originally posted by PD:
I do wish folks would not call the ACNA/CANA crowd continuing Anglicans. The defining issues for the Continuers were the 1928 BCP and the Ordination of Women, neither of which are of any practical interest to Bishop Duncan's crowd. They have already accepted the major tenants of liberalism, so I do not see why they have such a beef with TEC. They differ only in degree not kind!
PD
But so are we. Best not to forget this one, I feel.
quote:With a name like mine, I naturally approve of the latter. I can't attest to the weasels and thieves bit (we did a more impressive bit of church-nicking in our time), but as to the rest, it seems self-evidently true.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Oh, sure. The inconvenient fact is that I find it hard to escape the judgment that the ACNA is a convocation of weasels and thieves who bolted because they just couldn't tolerate a difference in opinion when it came to the gays (theology, liturgy, church governance, sure. But not the gays). But I didn't want to say that. But now I have. Oops.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:They are.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I thought it kinder and more politic than calling them what they are - schismatics.
Originally posted by PD:
I do wish folks would not call the ACNA/CANA crowd continuing Anglicans. The defining issues for the Continuers were the 1928 BCP and the Ordination of Women, neither of which are of any practical interest to Bishop Duncan's crowd. They have already accepted the major tenants of liberalism, so I do not see why they have such a beef with TEC. They differ only in degree not kind!
PD
But so are we. Best not to forget this one, I feel.
At least I'm honest.
quote:The TEC has many churches that are growing and thriving as well - both liberal (All Saints, Pasadena and Beverly Hills) and conservative (St. Martin's Houston, etc.) as well as high church and low church. I'm not sure if this represents an increase due to the clustering of people fleeing smaller, deader churches for an experience with more spiritual vitality, or whether they are attracting people from outside the denominational community or probably, a mix of both, but it is happening. To say that all TEC churches are in crisis and dying isn't truer than saying that there isn't a problem at all.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What Honest Ron said
Plus, churches are not in the same rate of decline in the United States as in Europe. The United States has churches many churches that are growing and thriving. The ones that are haven't embraced anything like the current paradigm of TEC.
quote:The membership declines started about the time I was born - 1965 or so - so we are about 50 years into it, which would be about the second or third generation.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
ToujoursDan wrote:quote:OK, thanks. If you could dig out the statistics it would be interesting.
As the people that make up the TEC tends to be more affluent and attract more lifelong singles, gays and urban people, their fertility rates will be lower than the average for all whites nationwide. There is a Faith Communities Together (FACT) Study that estimated that the fertility rate for Episcopalians and Presbyterians is closer to 1.3 per couple, which would cause a 40% shrinkage per generation. When I have more time I can search for the link to it.
Incidentally, it's right that a lower fertility rate produces a diminution in overall population of the same factor per generation, but not until about the third generation onwards, due to people living beyond their reproductive age. I had assumed the trend was new-ish, but if not, then it lends added credence to the thesis that population statistics being seen now are the result of actions taken around 50 to 60 years ago, and you are right to use the reduction per generation figure for the present.
As to the decline elsewhere, our experience here is that there has been a widespread decline in engagement across all organizations that could be classed as voluntary - not just churches. I can't really comment on how TEC is doing vs. other churches, but I'm sure there must be comparable stats. out there.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Not sure what your point is. I'm not talking about how many megachurches there are, but whether there are healthy growing TEC churches. There objectively are. Even when the TEC was its largest and most influential we were eclipsed by the Methodists and the Baptists.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, there are still large TEC parishes in urban areas. Your point? St. Martin's is the largest parish in TEC. It's not among the top 100 in the United States or even the top 5 in Houston.
quote:The whole thing is worth a read...
The Episcopal Church is unique among mainline Protestant denominations in that it has a clear identity which is celebrated by almost all of its churches and a large number of healthy, growing congregations... Despite these positive features, certain problems or "serious realities" are also apparent in the data contained in this report. Specifically, the Episcopal Church has many small, weak congregations that are attended and supported by an aging (and largely female) membership. The aging of the Episcopal Church and the weakening of smaller congregations in small towns and older urban neighborhoods can only be expected to worsen, given the demographics of the population, the minimal evangelism efforts of most Episcopal congregations, and the small numbers of new churches being started in expanding suburban areas.
The Episcopal Church has an advantage in that it could respond to its serious realities by expanding on its strong points, rather than trying to somehow turn weaknesses into strengths. Episcopal churches are known for their liturgy and for the fact that the Episcopal Church is a progressive denomination, populated (for the most part) by educated, open-minded people. The strongest Episcopal congregations do liturgy well and are able to project a moral presence in the community without resorting to a dogmatic theology. Episcopal congregations are attractive to unchurched and formerly churched adults who want to experience the sacred and grow in their faith in a context devoid of condemnation...
quote:Not sure what your point is. Best I can tell you seem to be saying that the only healthy congregations are megachurches. And that white people in large metropolitan areas don't have valid spiritual needs, so they shouldn't count. Strange.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How large is All Saints Beverly Hills? We are a church that appeals to affluent white people of a fashionably progressive bent. Beverly Hills has a bunch of affluent white people of a fashionably progressive bent. It is a part of the second largest metropolitan area of the country. Best I can tell, All Saints Beverly Hills is probably around half the size of St. Martins Houston.
quote:I would think that the point is that growing parishes in certain locations shows that there's still health in the Church - it's clearly working in some places, for some people, and it's not uniformly dying off.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, there are still large TEC parishes in urban areas. Your point? St. Martin's is the largest parish in TEC. It's not among the top 100 in the United States or even the top 5 in Houston.
quote:According to an old, friend thus it has always been, and this (or what's left of it) is a valuable role. Its yoke may be relatively easy and its burden light; but it used to be regarded as a requirement in circles whose members were able to do and get just about whatever they wanted, who could easily abandon all responsibility and become prodigal sons. The deal was, "if you want to be and remain part of Society, then you will put yourself under the guidance of the Episcopal Church".
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The strongest Episcopal congregations do liturgy well and are able to project a moral presence in the community without resorting to a dogmatic theology.
quote:And my point all along is that this is happening throughout Christendom in developed countries. What is happening in TEC may be farther along and it may experiencing it more severely for a variety of reasons both within and outside of its control, but this is a religion-wide trend.
There is a core of people who desire to worship and who find value in some form of the liturgical tradition... And it might be better to have 500,000 people that genuinely value the church and its mission than to have 5 million, 90% of whom just go because that's what' expected in their social sphere.
quote:This doesn't make sense to me. Again, you seem to be asserting that unless the Episcopal Church has the kind of megachurches the Baptists and non-denoms do we're less healthy as a denomination. I think everyone who has responded to this thinks this is an odd assertion.
I'm comparing apples to apples. Pointing to larger churches in urban areas proves nothing.
quote:I've given several examples and you keep moving the goalposts.
I've never lived in a place where the large, growing church in the area was theologically liberal.
quote:The UMC has lost 23% of their membership through the same period we lost 32%. Not much to be tickled pink about there. Source:Demographia - Religion membership 1960-2004 The Southern Baptist Convention expects to the 50% smaller by 2030. And that's with the advantage that they often double count their membership. Adherents.com: Anyway you slice it, fewer Southern Baptists
Hell, I'd be tickled pink if TEC could manage the same rate of decline as the United Methodist Church or Southern Baptist Church.
quote:Try reading for comprehension next time. That isn't the point I made.
You make the point we have our largest churches in places with the most people.
quote:Nope. Listed more than one. Try again.
You've provided one example: All Saints Beverly Hills
quote:I'm interested in how TEC parishes are doing compared to other churches with similar worship standards (if any). Otherwise it's not apples to apples. Show me some of these which are doing significantly better than TEC, and I'll pay attention.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm comparing apples to apples. Pointing to larger churches in urban areas proves nothing. Compared to other churches in the same area, TEC congregations are still small. I'm interested in how TEC parishes are doing compared to other churches in the same area.
quote:I agree. But have we? I think that we actually keep more traditions than the brassy megachurches who brag about how conservative they are.
TEC can still be a comparatively progressive church without jettisoning every last bit of traditional belief and practice.
quote:Yes it was.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Try reading for comprehension next time. That isn't the point I made.
You make the point we have our largest churches in places with the most people.
quote:Nope. Listed more than one. Try again.
You've provided one example: All Saints Beverly Hills
quote:What worship standards are those?
originally posted by Alogon:
I'm interested in how TEC parishes are doing compared to other churches with similar worship standards (if any). Otherwise it's not apples to apples. Show me some of these which are doing significantly better than TEC, and I'll pay attention.
quote:Traditional theology? No we haven't. Tradition as in liturgy? Sort of.
originally posted by Alogon:
I agree. But have we? I think that we actually keep more traditions than the brassy megachurches who brag about how conservative they are.
quote:Surely this appears on everyone's screen?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Then speak to the priests at All Saints Pasadena, or All Saints Beverly Hills...
quote:This is why it's hard to take you seriously and why I am contemplating calling you for hell because you pretend to engage in serious discussion but then put your fingers in your ears and say la-la-la when people contradict you. Stop bullshitting and either acknowledge that there are exceptions to your assertions or that you don't what to hear what others say.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yes it was.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Try reading for comprehension next time. That isn't the point I made.
You make the point we have our largest churches in places with the most people.
quote:Nope. Listed more than one. Try again.
You've provided one example: All Saints Beverly Hills
No you didn't.
quote:I listed All Saints BV and Pasadena which are 2 parishes. You even acknowledged ASC Pasadena once, for fuck sake.
The TEC has many churches that are growing and thriving as well - both liberal (All Saints, Pasadena and Beverly Hills) and conservative (St. Martin's Houston, etc.) as well as high church and low church. I'm not sure if this represents an increase due to the clustering of people fleeing smaller, deader churches for an experience with more spiritual vitality, or whether they are attracting people from outside the denominational community or probably, a mix of both, but it is happening. To say that all TEC churches are in crisis and dying isn't truer than saying that there isn't a problem at all.
quote:Oh, I'm sorry. You mentioned 2.
originally posted by Tojours Dan:
I listed All Saints BV and Pasadena which are 2 parishes. You even acknowledged ASC Pasadena once, for fuck sake.
quote:I don't doubt some episcopal churches mostly in large urban areas are showing modest growth. I'm concerned with the vast majority of Episcopal parishes that aren't. I'm concerned with ministering to a demographic other than just white, affluent, progressives.
originally posted by Tojours Dan:
Secondly, I didn't say that were healthy because they were large, I said they were healthy because they had vital ministries and were growing. I never even mentioned their size. I only picked them because I figured you'd know about them.
quote:The urban parishes are usually the racially and economically diverse ones with a younger crowd, at least in my experience.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't doubt some episcopal churches mostly in large urban areas are showing modest growth. I'm concerned with the vast majority of Episcopal parishes that aren't. I'm concerned with ministering to a demographic other than just white, affluent, progressives.
Hell, I'd like to serve at a parish that had much of anything to offer people under 55 or was even seriously interested in trying.
quote:I'm sure there are economically and racially diverse parishes in urban areas. I've seen some that are relatively so myself. This doesn't describe all episcopal churches in urban areas. Far from it. Younger people outside urban areas attend church. I know they do. I've seen them. I've talked to them. Just not episcopal parishes in any large number.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:The urban parishes are usually the racially and economically diverse ones with a younger crowd, at least in my experience.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't doubt some episcopal churches mostly in large urban areas are showing modest growth. I'm concerned with the vast majority of Episcopal parishes that aren't. I'm concerned with ministering to a demographic other than just white, affluent, progressives.
Hell, I'd like to serve at a parish that had much of anything to offer people under 55 or was even seriously interested in trying.
Rural parishes tend to be tiny, elderly and demographically stagnant.
quote:Let's try BCP MOTR Eucharistic, either Rite I or II, with acolytes who carry the cross down the aisle without weaving like drunkards and know how to assist with ablutions; congregational singing largely from the official hymnal; and a choir that tries to offer classical repertoire at least twice a month.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What worship standards are those?
quote:We say the Nicene Creed every Sunday, as churches have done for centuries. Our so-wayward bishop insists on it, in fact, and wants an explanation in writing if ever it is omitted. Preaching generally addresses the assigned lections. I can't recall ever being a regular part of an Episcopal congregation where this was not the case. What else do you have in mind along "traditional" lines, and how would you know when you have obtained it?
Traditional theology? No we haven't. Tradition as in liturgy? Sort of.
quote:You could find all that at about 6 places in my diocese. Maybe a few more depending on how many acolytes are necessary to meet your standard but perhaps a few less depending on how you define the "classical repertoire." Some of the churches who could do all that don't. Some of the churches would like to do that can't afford it.
originally posted by Alogon:
Let's try BCP MOTR Eucharistic, either Rite I or II, with acolytes who carry the cross down the aisle without weaving like drunkards and know how to assist with ablutions; congregational singing largely from the official hymnal; and a choir that tries to offer classical repertoire at least twice a month.
quote:In addition to the things I've already mentioned, I'd like to not routinely be in clergy gatherings where at minimum half of the participants have major problems with the Nicene Creed or by their own admission don't believe it to be all that important. Do I really know what they believe? Yep. They say as much. I'd like to participate in clergy bible study where nobody tried to introduce their pet political issue when none of the scriptures remotely addressed anything similar to it. You think I'm exaggerating? Do you think of water conservation on the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord? I know those who do. Yes, I know...baptism...water...but really?
originally posted by Alogon:
What else do you have in mind along "traditional" lines, and how would you know when you have obtained it?
quote:Yeah because that can't happen with the worship you describe. I note in my copy of the Saint Augustine's Prayer Book the definition of Sentimentality, "Being satisfied with pious feelings and beautiful ceremonies without striving to obey God's will." The member of the Order of the Holy Cross didn't have a glittering production inspired by Hollywood or Las Vegas in mind when he wrote about Sentimentality.
originally posted by Alogon:
"How do you worship?" seems as good a starting point to me as anything else. No doubt a megachurch can attract crowds with cult of personality and glittering weekly productions inspired by Hollywood or Las Vegas, but I'm afraid that the connection to the Christian faith becomes tenuous: like a guttering candle flaring up shortly before it dies out.
quote:Yes
Originally posted by CL:
Beeswax,
You're want a church that is traditional and orthodox, yet is liberal on Dead Horses?
quote:Come to my parish tomorrow morning at 9:00 and find out.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
But I can't for the life of me imagine an Episcopal Rite II service with drums or a praise band and a projector. What would such an animal look like?
quote:What you're looking for doesn't exist; it never has, and given the hermeneutic in which acceptance of the relevant Dead Horses necessarily exists, never can or will. I can understand, while not agreeing with, your desire and I sympathise that you find yourself in such an invidious position from conscience's point of view.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yes
Originally posted by CL:
Beeswax,
You're want a church that is traditional and orthodox, yet is liberal on Dead Horses?
Nothing in the Nicene Creed about Dead Horses.
quote:I never said it can't happen or that a liturgy is sufficient. My point is that it is necessary-- specifically, a Eucharistic liturgy (although I realize that Anglicans have disagreed on how often to celebrate it.) You know as well as I do, probably, that the sacraments are part of the Lambeth Quadrilateral, and that the Lambeth Quadrilateral reflects ancient criteria for a completely functioning church.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah because that can't happen with the worship you describe.
quote:I think the Episcopal Church is a lot of things in different places. I'm thankful for the differences in styles and congregations.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The denomination you think the Episcopal Church ought to be like doesn't exist, Bee, and won't exist until the last day.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yes
Originally posted by CL:
Beeswax,
You're want a church that is traditional and orthodox, yet is liberal on Dead Horses?
Nothing in the Nicene Creed about Dead Horses.
quote:I must review this whole thread, because I no
Mockindale writes:
My ideal congregation would be a lot like the one I attend right now. It would have a moderately formal liturgy, no EOW, with a traditional choir and no guitars or drums... gay-friendly
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:It may very well be true, but the bickering does sound very much like it's right out of 'The Life of Brian'.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:Being in a flag-ship diocese that prides itself on all that he describes, all I can say is that Beeswax Altar drives that nail fully home. Call me if you want details.
Among other things, Beeswax Altar sez this:
And before anybody asks, no, this has nothing to do with Gene Robinson. Gay and lesbian Episcopalians who hold orthodox beliefs and prefer traditional liturgy can have a hard time in most places. The few conservatives remaining in TEC reject them because they are gay. Liberals are offended at the audacity some gays and lesbians will not join them in supporting every theological or liturgical innovation anybody dreams up. How dare you support the orthodox and traditional view of anything?! We welcomed and included you!!! Bunch of ingrates. Think I'm exaggerating. I've watched it happen with my own eyes. I've listened to my gay and lesbian colleagues share their experiences of it happening.
There was nothing inarticulate or rambling about that post that isn't made up with fervor.
...
quote:Plenty of bickering, but comparatively little litigation among ourselves, though certain bishops have made themselves pariahs within the movement by having their lawyer on speed dial. In this respect I do not think we have been any worse or better than the denizens of TEC. Much of the splitting has been due to the fact that the 1977 ACNA(E) was an alliance of incompatible groups.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Among the various breakaway groups from the Episcopal Church during the last 40 years or so, I am inclined to think that there has been no lack of bickering and litigation and no lack of further breaking away among the original breakaways.
quote:Why is that? I've written several long posts.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm at a loss to discover what it is you think TEC ought to be doing, Beeswax Altar.
quote:What a remarkably offensive post.
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:Makes me wonder if the destiny of all former EPCUSA buildings is to become mosques or pentecostal churches, then.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
There are two interesting questions that the piece raised. First, Most Rev. Jefferts-Schori stated that churches that have no Episcopal parish to fill them may be leased or sold to Baptists or Methodists or other religious groups, but categorically not to any Anglican parish; her rationale for this, which I've never heard before but has a certain logic, is that she will not allow a diocese to "set up" any organization which seeks to harm or destroy the (Episcopal) Church.
quote:Uh, because you've been vague about what exactly you believe TEC should be doing differently. Perhaps you could provide a list of specific recommendations. I understand you believe that TEC should assertively teach the "orthodox" faith, yet leave dead horsies be. Yet, a considerable number of Christians - especially outside TEC and the mainline magisterial reformation denomiations - believe that the defunt equines are integrally wrapped up with orthodox Christian doctrine.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Why is that? I've written several long posts.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm at a loss to discover what it is you think TEC ought to be doing, Beeswax Altar.
quote:I don't know what the article was looking at, so it would be a bit unfair to draw any conclusions directly from it. But indirectly, and relating to it -
I recently read an article that said most schismatic movements eventually die out--usually within a generation--because they refuse to change with the times.
quote:With 5, TEC has many parishes (ever diocese I've seen) that need to be combined. The diocese tries yoking parishes together. People complain the time of Eucharist changes or they can't have an early service. The diocese suggests combining the parishes into one larger and more viable congregation. People complain because they'll have to give up their building. So the parishes continue to decline separately. What's important? Coming to the same building at the same time and having coffee with the same people appears to be what its all about.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What Beeswax Altar sez: #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, & 9, thought I'm not sure what's up with #5 and would want to hear more about #6.
quote:What Zach82 said: a church which is dependent on other traditions/ churchmanships for 30% of its membership is not in a healthy place. I would hazard more than an educated guess that a large part of that 30% come from more conservative, more evangelical backgrounds and have moved higher up the candle liturgically and to the left theologically as they have 'grown up' spiritually (as they would doubtless see it); the irony here therefore is that TEC needs the more con-evo denominations/ non-denoms for a significant proportion of its membership!
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
quote:Of course it's always The Other Lot™ who are the schismatics...
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:These people are going about calling themselves the legitimate Anglican Church of North America. It is their stated purpose to replace the Episcopal Church. Letting them continue on in these churches sure seems, to me, just a bad strategic decision. People will get the idea that they are a legitimate continuation of the former Episcopal parishes, and Lord knows that's how they present themselves.
Maybe not but being purposely vindictive is another matter altogether, a case in point being the treatment of Matt Kennedy and his parish - they offered to purchase their church at full market value; not only were they refused, the building was instead sold cut price to Muslims and is now a mosque.
It's not about revenge, though it must be flattering to the schismatics to imagine it must be so. It's only about what is best for the Episcopal Church.
Zach
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I never fail to be surprised at how vindictive so called "liberal" clerics can be. I do hope the congregation treated in this way flourishes and the church authorities are afflicted with piles.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Maybe not but being purposely vindictive is another matter altogether, a case in point being the treatment of Matt Kennedy and his parish - they offered to purchase their church at full market value; not only were they refused, the building was instead sold cut price to Muslims and is now a mosque.
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're evil for not giving them churches, Gorpo? We don't owe them squat.
quote:I never fail to be surprised at how impertinent your responses are at nearly every opportunity.
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:I never fail to be surprised at how vindictive so called "liberal" clerics can be. I do hope the congregation treated in this way flourishes and the church authorities are afflicted with piles.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Maybe not but being purposely vindictive is another matter altogether, a case in point being the treatment of Matt Kennedy and his parish - they offered to purchase their church at full market value; not only were they refused, the building was instead sold cut price to Muslims and is now a mosque.
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're evil for not giving them churches, Gorpo? We don't owe them squat.
quote:IME, the posh parishes are usually MOTR to Low. High Church parishes are likely to have a wider distribution of varying socioeconomic circumstance, and more self-consciously Anglo-Catholic places are likely to have the least posh congregants overall. I have always gathered that the truly posh don't like heavy-duty ritualism.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
A beautiful service and proclaiming the gospel aren't mutually exclusive. Being posh and proclaiming the gospel? Not so much.
quote:The thing is, on the ground much of TEC feels quiescent and business-as-usual. The current "situation" has been going on in one form or another since 1976, but most of the Church feels quite normal, even thriving. A lot depends on the diocese one is in and whether a mission plant was ever a viable thing in the first place. Some suburban plants never had much of a chance, never attaining parish status (i.e. never capable of full self-support and paying a normal diocesan assessment), maybe making it for some years to parish status before reverting back to mission status, or occasionally closing up shop. IMO, the latter hasn't happened nearly often enough. Many dinky litte TEC shacks need to be consolidated. There was a great deal of suburban mission planting in the late 1950s and early 1960s all over the country. Much of that was ill-advised even if well-intentioned.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
As an outsider - in Australia - Matt, I think whatever went on/is going on with the TEC has got many of its current members rattled. Really rattled. If you are badly enough rattled it often looks like you might be falling to pieces.
Being here I can only see it as an outsider. Whatever the truth of the matter is and what the outcome will be I really have no idea. It's a bit like watching a news clip from a war zone. The clip itself tells you very little. Analysts vary as to their insights and prognostications. Think tanks supposedly think. Foreign ministers make announcements. It's no clearer.
quote:How is taking back the church property which these congregations flat out stole vindictive again?
I never fail to be surprised at how vindictive so called "liberal" clerics can be. I do hope the congregation treated in this way flourishes and the church authorities are afflicted with piles.
quote:An equine died in 1976, leading to the first significant defections from TEC and lawsuits over property. The next horse didn't die until the consecration of Gene Robinson during the past decade, although I'm sure the elevation of ++Katherine Jefferts-Schori to the Primacy of the national Church really got up the noses of people like +Jack Iker of Fort Worth. The secession of four dioceses, Iker's amongst them, has been most troubling but nonetheless really limited in scope. Taking Fort Worth as an example, several strong parishes remained in TEC and the TEC diocese there has been reconstituted so that it now expresses the ethos of the national Church and the progressives/loyalists who remained with TEC are no longer yoked to the arch-conservative reactionaries. The latter will most likely ultimately lose their property and their folk will have to make decisions as to whether to rejoin TEC, go to other established denominations, enter the Ordinariate (as quite a few of them are now already starting to do, to the loss of the secessionist diocese), or build/buy some tacky little worship-shacks of their own (which I actually don't think will suit many of the secessionists, who thus far have been able to stay in their own buildings and hold on to all their accustomed ecclesiastical ornaments, plate, etc).
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What happened in 1976 that triggered this?
quote:With one possible exception, I would agree. Anglo-Catholic parishes attract a variety of people from all over the geographical area. The posh must not like ritualism.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:IME, the posh parishes are usually MOTR to Low. High Church parishes are likely to have a wider distribution of varying socioeconomic circumstance, and more self-consciously Anglo-Catholic places are likely to have the least posh congregants overall. I have always gathered that the truly posh don't like heavy-duty ritualism.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
A beautiful service and proclaiming the gospel aren't mutually exclusive. Being posh and proclaiming the gospel? Not so much.
quote:I went to Advent for Easter Vigil (I was in town for the weekend). If I had to guess, the population was mostly very wealthy, from the surrounding Beacon Hill/Back Bay area, with a significant contingent of students from maybe Harvard or MIT.
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's true- the two parishes that might be called the poshest in my diocese are low (Trinity Church Copley Square) and middle-low (Church of the Redeemer Chestnut Hill). I don't know about the poshitude of nose-bleed high Church of the Advent, Back Bay though.
Zach
quote:But whose patrimony is it? Surely the moral argument is with the congregation and not necessarily the church hierarchy. The church must be made up of its people and not some sort of legal entity!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:How is taking back the church property which these congregations flat out stole vindictive again?
I never fail to be surprised at how vindictive so called "liberal" clerics can be. I do hope the congregation treated in this way flourishes and the church authorities are afflicted with piles.
Parishes hold their church property in trust for the Episcopal Church. Everyone knew this before the schism. If a congregation wants to split, fine, but they cannot take the patrimony of the Church with them.
quote:I assure you that, in my painful experience, this is a fantasy. If anything, it has the opposite effect.
If we make it a little harder to leave, maybe cooler heads will prevail.
quote:Well, at the very least, we're not rewarding their attempts at theft.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Mockingale writes:
quote:I assure you that, in my painful experience, this is a fantasy. If anything, it has the opposite effect.
If we make it a little harder to leave, maybe cooler heads will prevail.
quote:Not impertinent- just false. You might imagine any number of moral arguments, but Church canons are clear that the church property belongs to the Episcopal Church, and exists for the propagation and worship of the Episcopal tradition. The schismatics, at least the ones with a lick of integrity, knew full well this was the case beforehand.
But whose patrimony is it? Surely the moral argument is with the congregation and not necessarily the church hierarchy. The church must be made up of its people and not some sort of legal entity!
The example was one where the authorities preferred to sell the property to become a mosque than to let the original congregation buy it at market value.
Apparently commenting on this as vindictive is seen as impertinent by some!
quote:Without getting into the ten-year-long fight at S Vartan's, where I was of the minority that held out against the pirate crew takeover (those shipmates who know me IRL are aware of the viciousness and unpleasantness of it all), I would not characterize their efforts as attempted theft (in Canada, the in-trust-for-the-national-church doctrine is not pertinent, either in canon or civil law). Their intent is not criminal, but rather contrary to legal provisions for ownership.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Well, at the very least, we're not rewarding their attempts at theft.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Mockingale writes:
quote:I assure you that, in my painful experience, this is a fantasy. If anything, it has the opposite effect.
If we make it a little harder to leave, maybe cooler heads will prevail.
quote:"It's not criminal, it's just contrary to the law!"
Their intent is not criminal, but rather contrary to legal provisions for ownership.
quote:Actually I'd say most of that 30% is accounted for by former Catholics whether gay; divorced and remarried; or just plain theological liberal.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Beeswax Altar makes a number of good points above IMO.quote:What Zach82 said: a church which is dependent on other traditions/ churchmanships for 30% of its membership is not in a healthy place. I would hazard more than an educated guess that a large part of that 30% come from more conservative, more evangelical backgrounds and have moved higher up the candle liturgically and to the left theologically as they have 'grown up' spiritually (as they would doubtless see it); the irony here therefore is that TEC needs the more con-evo denominations/ non-denoms for a significant proportion of its membership!
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
quote:I understand that argument and its appeal. But it is the goal of the "Anglican Church of North America" and its leading bishops to usurp the Episcopal Church and destroy it, in effect remaking the Episcopal Church in its own image. I believe there are clergy and lay people who believe they are doing God's work, and that the church had gone too far. But I think the bishops recognize that they're trying to depose the Episcopal Church and put themselves in the place of the Presiding Bishop through a procedural Anglican Communion coup.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:Without getting into the ten-year-long fight at S Vartan's, where I was of the minority that held out against the pirate crew takeover (those shipmates who know me IRL are aware of the viciousness and unpleasantness of it all), I would not characterize their efforts as attempted theft (in Canada, the in-trust-for-the-national-church doctrine is not pertinent, either in canon or civil law). Their intent is not criminal, but rather contrary to legal provisions for ownership.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Well, at the very least, we're not rewarding their attempts at theft.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Mockingale writes:
quote:I assure you that, in my painful experience, this is a fantasy. If anything, it has the opposite effect.
If we make it a little harder to leave, maybe cooler heads will prevail.
A split is a split and, like a divorce, we must make it as tidy as possible to that people can proceed forward with the least damage. Our local arrangement was a complex buy-back scheme whereby the pirates bought one of the two seceding churches. This partition seemed to have a cooling effect on post-split passions, and the Diocese and the pirate crew now cheerfully ignore each other and go about their business.
quote:I am sorry, Zach82 (and Mockingale as well), I must disagree with you very strongly. Any armchair lawyer can distinguish between civil dispute and criminal action. Again, I note that I was in the trenches for long years fighting against them, but I knew them and their intent was not criminal. They were also dead wrong from the start, but the Diocese through its sloppiness and ambiguity gave them more cause than I would have liked--- but this leads into a Diocese of Ottawa tangent.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"It's not criminal, it's just contrary to the law!"
Their intent is not criminal, but rather contrary to legal provisions for ownership.
Again, we wish these people the best, but the primary concern of the Church must be the propagation of the Gospel as it understands it. How these parishes are to "get along" when they chose to leave is an ecumenical, and therefore secondary concern.
quote:Their intent is completely irrelevant. I am defending the integrity of the Episcopal Church. They don't have a right to a penny of the Church's patrimony, and the Episcopal Church is perfectly within its rights to throw them out of Episcopal buildings and to take back its own endowments.
I am sorry, Zach82 (and Mockingale as well), I must disagree with you very strongly. Any armchair lawyer can distinguish between civil dispute and criminal action. Again, I note that I was in the trenches for long years fighting against them, but I knew them and their intent was not criminal. They were also dead wrong from the start, but the Diocese through its sloppiness and ambiguity gave them more cause than I would have liked--- but this leads into a Diocese of Ottawa tangent.
quote:Which was exactly the situation I was in. And without going into detail, the departers were not particularly couth or honest in how they dealt with things.
Not to mention how you'd feel if you were one of the congregants who voted to stay put in the church you grew up in, and watched your former friends take all the trappings of your church home with them.
quote:When little Johnny took candy from the drugstore, not knowing any better, his intent was not criminal. When he threw a temper tantrum after it was made clear to him that he could not take what wasn't his, he become culpable for stealing, whether he was willing to understand that fact or not.
But I must disagree with Zach82 entirely: intent is entirely pertinent, and denying this (on both parts) means that the damage will be exacerbated, and long-lasting. While it moves into the realm of ecumenical relations rather than intra-Anglican life, ecumenical concerns are, given the dominical instruction, rather primary.
quote:Zach82-- I do not know how you concluded that I favour surrendering property for ecumenism. I have re-read my post twice and find your interpretation quite singular. I am suggesting that we do not assume the worst of our Xn interlocutors in disputes, and that we look at solutions which bring us forward. That the other party is not being helpful is a fault with which we must deal, not a characteristic to emulate.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:When little Johnny took candy from the drugstore, not knowing any better, his intent was not criminal. When he threw a temper tantrum after it was made clear to him that he could not take what wasn't his, he become culpable for stealing, whether he was willing to understand that fact or not.
But I must disagree with Zach82 entirely: intent is entirely pertinent, and denying this (on both parts) means that the damage will be exacerbated, and long-lasting. While it moves into the realm of ecumenical relations rather than intra-Anglican life, ecumenical concerns are, given the dominical instruction, rather primary.
Giving our patrimony over to people preaching against us is a little much for the sake of ecumenism.
Zach
quote:Applied to the schismatics fighting to keep those parishes, that is a matter of vincible vs invincible ignorance.
Do a better job explaining the definition of Episcopal and the polity of TEC. It never ceases to amaze me how many Episcopalians think we are Congregationalists. This unfortunate mistake causes all sorts of problems for everybody involved.
quote:I'm not sure it's anything to do with ignorance. I've recently run onto a nest of these creatures and ISTM that they simply choose to willfully disregard the reality of what TEC in 2012 is; they refuse to conform themselves to the doctrine and discipline of TEC as established by the bishops and representative clergy and laity in General Convention assembled. They want their little corner within TEC to be something other than a parish community in communion with its diocese and with the national Church. It's not ignorance, but rather denial, intransigence and incorrigibility.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Applied to the schismatics fighting to keep those parishes, that is a matter of vincible vs invincible ignorance.
Do a better job explaining the definition of Episcopal and the polity of TEC. It never ceases to amaze me how many Episcopalians think we are Congregationalists. This unfortunate mistake causes all sorts of problems for everybody involved.
I suppose, if I was bishop, I would sell the congregation their church back (though without a endowment they would be unlikely to afford it), so long as they changed their name to reflect the fact that they were not a legitimate continuation of the Episcopal parish there before. But I can't see that anyone is selling to icky Muslims just to score revenge against these people.
quote:Not to be pedantic, but there is no such thing as "the Episcopal faith." Episcopacy is a particular form of government. There is only the Christian faith, full stop.
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]that doesn't change the fact that the congregation is no longer using Church property for the propagation of the Episcopal faith.
quote:That is explicitly how the United Church of Canada is organized and it is incorporated within the United Church Acts and the Trusts of Model Deed. Each congregation has a Board of Trustees who hold title to the property with reversionary interest to the United Church of Canada, through the Presbytery.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:Without getting into the ten-year-long fight at S Vartan's, where I was of the minority that held out against the pirate crew takeover (those shipmates who know me IRL are aware of the viciousness and unpleasantness of it all), I would not characterize their efforts as attempted theft (in Canada, the in-trust-for-the-national-church doctrine is not pertinent, either in canon or civil law). Their intent is not criminal, but rather contrary to legal provisions for ownership.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Well, at the very least, we're not rewarding their attempts at theft.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Mockingale writes:
quote:I assure you that, in my painful experience, this is a fantasy. If anything, it has the opposite effect.
If we make it a little harder to leave, maybe cooler heads will prevail.
A split is a split and, like a divorce, we must make it as tidy as possible to that people can proceed forward with the least damage. Our local arrangement was a complex buy-back scheme whereby the pirates bought one of the two seceding churches. This partition seemed to have a cooling effect on post-split passions, and the Diocese and the pirate crew now cheerfully ignore each other and go about their business.
quote:It should be noted that "global christianity" is not the same as "euro-american christianity".
Originally posted by sonata3:
quote:gorpo, I think your final phrase needs to be reconsidered. On the issue of the ordination of non-celibate gays - clearly the main factor in the Virginia schism - TEC is on the same side of this issue as the Old Catholics, many of the continental Lutheran churches, and some of the continental Reformed churches; in the US, ELCA and the Presbyterian Church. Although the Moravian Church in North AMerica continues to discuss these issues, they remain in full communion with both ELCA and TEC. It has hardly turned its back on "the whole Christianity worlswide." The Anglican/Episcopal churches in New Zealand, Scotland, and Canada are, I believe, equally liberal on this issue.
Originally posted by gorpo:
Episcopalians, on the other hand, are on frozen relations with 80% of the anglican communion, and are DEAD as it comes to ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and evangelical forms of protestantism (namely, more then 90% of global christianity). It has turned its back on the anglican communion and the whole christianity worldwide...
quote:The bishop was not happy to sell the building to a group of anglicans who don“t accept gay bishops. She sells it to a congregation that, instead of the Bible, will be reading a book that says its ok for men to spank their wives, and has a curse against "non-believers" every 5 verses... the irony.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Maybe not but being purposely vindictive is another matter altogether, a case in point being the treatment of Matt Kennedy and his parish - they offered to purchase their church at full market value; not only were they refused, the building was instead sold cut price to Muslims and is now a mosque.
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're evil for not giving them churches, Gorpo? We don't owe them squat.
quote:30% of the mebership growing in other traditions is not much in a country they are a minority, and there are hundreads of other protestant and christian traditions. In fact, it means that most episcopalians who marry someone from another denomination move to their spouses“s church, instead of bringing them to TEC.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:In many ways it is prospering. A church where approx. 30% of the membership grew up in other traditions and made a conscious decision to join it, must have something compelling to offer, otherwise this wouldn't be occurring.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
If it was the "witness to a renewed Gospel" , it would be prospering. It is dying as previous posters have pointed out
It's just not enough to make up for the falling birthrate amongst the educated, mostly White base that makes up 80% of TEC's membership.
quote:What's your point? That TEC has deserved to die since 1970, or that the Church of England has deserved to die since the 16th century, so that Anglicanism should never have reached American shores?
Originally posted by gorpo:
Roman catholics and orthodox are nearly 70% of worldwide christianity. And the other 30% are overwhelmingly conservative on most issues, since the fastest growing religion in the world is pentecostalism.
quote:I'm afraid this is a condition of being an American church. Regardless of the actual polity of the denomination, American Christians tend to behave like Congregationalists within their own building-based communities.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
10. Do a better job explaining the definition of Episcopal and the polity of TEC. It never ceases to amaze me how many Episcopalians think we are Congregationalists. This unfortunate mistake causes all sorts of problems for everybody involved.
quote:Sorry I was under the impression that the Episcopal Church had jettisoned tradition in its adoption of all things modish.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not impertinent- just false. You might imagine any number of moral arguments, but Church canons are clear that the church property belongs to the Episcopal Church, and exists for the propagation and worship of the Episcopal tradition. [/QB]
quote:OK, since we are talking civil law then, there may be at the very least something of an implied or resulting trust (as defined in English law at least) arising in favour of the leaving parishioners: Beeswax Altar made the point that if the parishioners have financially contributed to the upkeep and repair of the building, then they morally as well as legally have some kind of stake in the worth of the building.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I will grant that this is a matter for civil courts, since I am not calling for anyone to be criminally prosecuted anyway, and I hardly care about their intent. We'll take back what's ours, forgive them their schism, repent out part in it, and thereon let all the ecumenism either side can stand commence.
It might get lost in the back and forth, but my intent here has been to argue that the Episcopal Church is not being vindictive in its pursuit of church property (which it has every right to) or in refusing to sell it back to the people that ran off with it (which would not be in the best interest of the Church). It has nothing to do with revenge.
Zach
quote:I agree with the final paragraph, but as someone who had flirtations with the early Continuers of the late 1970s/early 1980s, I would guess that the latest vintage of secessionists have been mindful of how unsuccessful many of the early leave-takers were, in significant measure because they left without buildings or much property of any kind. Many of the little Continuing start-ups in people's living rooms, in the chapels of existing churches, in motel spaces or in the rented halls of the ladies auxillary of the Masons disappeared in a relatively short amount of time. Even some of the Continuing congos who managed to get some sort of unattractive building didn't make it. Unless you have rich, generous benefactors, the fact is that you are likely screwed if you march out into the wilderness with no building. At least St Mary's Denver managed to finally reach a settlement with the Diocese of Colorado, in which they continued to occupy their building but ownership remained with TEC. Of course, that screwed the third of the congregation who had remained loyal to TEC and who were thus without their former church building and parish home. The general policy of TEC afterward has been not to engage in such settlements, a decision that I would endorse.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:I'm afraid this is a condition of being an American church. Regardless of the actual polity of the denomination, American Christians tend to behave like Congregationalists within their own building-based communities.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
10. Do a better job explaining the definition of Episcopal and the polity of TEC. It never ceases to amaze me how many Episcopalians think we are Congregationalists. This unfortunate mistake causes all sorts of problems for everybody involved.
If I were in a position to offer advice to congregations (or percentages thereof) leaving TEC, it would be to pick up and leave with nothing. Just get out, and don't worry about the building or the stuff. It's just stuff. Leave it behind. Meet in a VFW or rent space from some other church and start up all over again. The rancor and stress caused by litigation is just not worth it.
These protracted disputes draw the wrong element, in any case. The continuing church has drawn more than its share of professional malcontents and other goofballs to its welcoming embrace. It is past time for the continuers to assert a positive identity rather than setting themselves up as "Not The Episcopal Church". We're getting there, slowly, I think, but there's a way to go yet.
quote:Not according to Church canons there ain't. And again- it really was very obvious the whole time, so it's a definite case of vincible ignorance.
OK, since we are talking civil law then, there may be at the very least something of an implied or resulting trust (as defined in English law at least) arising in favour of the leaving parishioners: Beeswax Altar made the point that if the parishioners have financially contributed to the upkeep and repair of the building, then they morally as well as legally have some kind of stake in the worth of the building.
quote:I can't see that a marriage metaphor is very apt. Who is married to who? The individuals? The parish as an organization? If you ask me a more accurate metaphor would be a tenant that feels that the landlord's house is his just because he's paid rent in the past. Which is why neither legal nor moral cases are usually based on metaphors. The principles that apply in the metaphor don't necessarily apply in the case itself.
It's the same principle as is at work in the following example: a man owns a house in his sole name. He then gets married, wife moves in and pays towards the bills, maintenance and mortgage on the property. The courts will rule that she over time will acquire a financial interest in the proceeds of sale of the property.
quote:It's a distinction without a difference in this case. I understand the difference between crime and tort, but the law does not allow a person to profit from either.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As far as your other comment, I will restate bluntly my previous position: my god-daughter's Grade XII civics class knows the difference between theft and a civil dispute over property. Crime and tort. Gee whillikers.
quote:I'm talking not about canon law but about the law of property which presumably applies to the building and the land it is on
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Not according to Church canons there ain't.
OK, since we are talking civil law then, there may be at the very least something of an implied or resulting trust (as defined in English law at least) arising in favour of the leaving parishioners: Beeswax Altar made the point that if the parishioners have financially contributed to the upkeep and repair of the building, then they morally as well as legally have some kind of stake in the worth of the building.
quote:OK, they don't have to be married for a resulting trust to arise; it applies equally to co-habitees.
quote:I can't see that a marriage metaphor is very apt. Who is married to who? The individuals? The parish as an organization?
It's the same principle as is at work in the following example: a man owns a house in his sole name. He then gets married, wife moves in and pays towards the bills, maintenance and mortgage on the property. The courts will rule that she over time will acquire a financial interest in the proceeds of sale of the property.
quote:Why don't you just admit that you have nothing of value to add to the conversation and leave it at that? The Episcopal Church is not in the business of soothing and appeasing those who seek to destroy it. Not ever.
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:Sorry I was under the impression that the Episcopal Church had jettisoned tradition in its adoption of all things modish.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not impertinent- just false. You might imagine any number of moral arguments, but Church canons are clear that the church property belongs to the Episcopal Church, and exists for the propagation and worship of the Episcopal tradition.
As a church it is doomed if it has given up on the hearts and minds of its fellow anglicans and sees the church as buildings and endowments. [/QB]
quote:Don't mind aumbry, Mockingale. As my old father used to say, "Sometimes it's best to just let pointless dogs lie." Or something like that.
Why don't you just admit that you have nothing of value to add to the conversation and leave it at that? The Episcopal Church is not in the business of soothing and appeasing those who seek to destroy it. Not ever.
quote:Again, the metaphor isn't apt, since it simply doesn't accurately describe the relationships involved. I imagine one would have to look at Church canons to determine just what the relationship was between the parish, the Church, and the individuals in the parish, and the individuals making a break for it.
OK, they don't have to be married for a resulting trust to arise; it applies equally to co-habitees.
quote:Given that posts used the term theft freely and without precision, I felt that the distinction was important to make. A property dispute resulting from internal political differences does not constitute a crime. Having been publically addressed with opprobrium (Tool of Satan) during the disputes up here, I feel strongly that we need to bring light, not heat, to what needs to be done.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:It's a distinction without a difference in this case. I understand the difference between crime and tort, but the law does not allow a person to profit from either.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As far as your other comment, I will restate bluntly my previous position: my god-daughter's Grade XII civics class knows the difference between theft and a civil dispute over property. Crime and tort. Gee whillikers.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, admittedly English and Welsh jurisdictions only, but I am endeavouring to apply the principles here to the situation under discussion, nevertheless.
quote:Don't mind aumbry, Mockingale. As my old father used to say, "Sometimes it's best to just let pointless dogs lie." Or something like that.
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]Why don't you just admit that you have nothing of value to add to the conversation and leave it at that? The Episcopal Church is not in the business of soothing and appeasing those who seek to destroy it. Not ever.
quote:A resulting trust (I am a lawyer) arises when you give someone money with the instructions that they purchase property for you. The person then purchases property in his own name and refuses to turn it over to you. If you can prove to the court that the arrangement was that he, as your agent, was instructed to purchase property for you, then the court will find an implied or "resulting" trust with the agent as the trustee and you as the settlor/beneficiary. The court will then order that the agent convey title over to you.
OK, they don't have to be married for a resulting trust to arise; it applies equally to co-habitees.[/quote
Again, the metaphor isn't apt, since it simply doesn't accurately describe the relationships involved. I imagine one would have to look at Church canons to determine just what the relationship was between the parish, the Church, and the individuals in the parish, and the individuals making a break for it.
Just a quick question. Do you know much about property laws yourself? Or are we both arguing from what we imagine the laws to be?
Zach
quote:I'll have to take your word for it then, and clarify that I do not begrudge the schismatics taking what they actually have a right to. It is just obvious, even to one who does not know much about property laws, that they have a right to very little, and are not being very gracious about it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Zach, property law is my specialism
quote:As a matter of fact I am not a Continuing Anglican - I am a somewhat half-hearted member of the Church of England - but I would have hoped that a Christian denomination would have treated church property in a way congruent with Christian Ethics and not Property Law. The Church of England, for all its many faults, does not act in this vindictive sort of way.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Why don't you just admit that you have nothing of value to add to the conversation and leave it at that? The Episcopal Church is not in the business of soothing and appeasing those who seek to destroy it. Not ever.
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:Sorry I was under the impression that the Episcopal Church had jettisoned tradition in its adoption of all things modish.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not impertinent- just false. You might imagine any number of moral arguments, but Church canons are clear that the church property belongs to the Episcopal Church, and exists for the propagation and worship of the Episcopal tradition.
As a church it is doomed if it has given up on the hearts and minds of its fellow anglicans and sees the church as buildings and endowments.
Assuming that you're a continuing Anglican, from your attitude, your childish insults speak volumes. [/QB]
quote:Tool of Satan?!
Some assert that Augustine the Aleut is a:
Tool of Satan
quote:How is it that you suppose the Episcopal Church to have acted unethically? Did they hide the trust rules in dusty code books in the cellar of headquarters, only to be viewed upon completion of 1000 pages of paperwork in triplicate?
Originally posted by aumbry:
As a matter of fact I am not a Continuing Anglican - I am a somewhat half-hearted member of the Church of England - but I would have hoped that a Christian denomination would have treated church property in a way congruent with Christian Ethics and not Property Law.
quote:Oh I am sure TEC has been scrupulous in its keeping to the letter of the law. But to this party stopping an anglican congregation from purchasing their church (not taking it) and preferring it to become a mosque instead hardly seems like the actions of a christian church, more like those of a rapacious corporation.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:How is it that you suppose the Episcopal Church to have acted unethically? Did they hide the trust rules in dusty code books in the cellar of headquarters, only to be viewed upon completion of 1000 pages of paperwork in triplicate?
Originally posted by aumbry:
As a matter of fact I am not a Continuing Anglican - I am a somewhat half-hearted member of the Church of England - but I would have hoped that a Christian denomination would have treated church property in a way congruent with Christian Ethics and not Property Law.
Did they do something they promised not to do?
Are parishioners entitled to take back contributions to the Church?
Did the Church in any way covet, steal, bear false witness?
quote:Clearly you are incapable of defending the actions of TEC. Which I suppose is in your favour.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Pointless dog, posting pointlessly.
quote:Yes, and at the annual vestry. The topic of much correspondence, all available to church historians sometime hence. The incident was even stranger than you can imagine. So much for my attempts to help bridge differing perspectives.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:Tool of Satan?!
Some assert that Augustine the Aleut is a:
Tool of Satan
Nobody's ever called me a Tool of Satan! You must be doing something right Mr. Aleut. And, I need to work harder.
quote:So as far as you are concerned the moral argument and the legal argument are one and the same?
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The fact is that the case law over the last 30+ years has been quite consistent in ultimately finding in favour of TEC in these disputes. The leave-takers are really throwing good money after bad. Of course, lawyers will be quite willing to take their cases, represent them in litigation, and develop theories contrary to the most pertinent established case law. That doesn't mean these cases ultimately having the hopes of a snowball in hell.
quote:I believe it was Chesterton that said something along the lines of "It was previously understood that compromise meant half a loaf was better than no loaf, while today it seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf."
Originally posted by jordan32404:
As I've said before, the best thing for TEC to do is drop the lawsuits, pray for ACNA, and apologize for any wrongdoing. The only thing holding ACNA together is a dislike of TEC. Beyond that, they don't agree on anything, Prayer Books, WO, churchmanship, polity, anything really. I wish them well but I don't see how it's going to last. They've already created a "no-compromise" culture so it's bound to fall apart, soon.
quote:I don't have any particular stake in this fight but this looks more like a case of schism so the analogy doesn't really hold. Perhaps it's that I'm more interested in church history than civil law but it seemeth to me that those former-Episcopalians could make a credible argument that they have not changed their faith, TEC has (I make no comment on the substance of the dead horse but this would be undeniably a credible claim), and therefore along with the fact that they're there on the ground, they have some claim to the property of the pre-schism entity that originally owned it.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Are parishioners entitled to take back contributions to the Church?
quote:The faith and polity of TEC is dictated legitimately, according to the rules they previous accepted, by the General Convention, so saying they hold the true Episcopal faith in the face of the General Convention has very weak ground.
Perhaps it's that I'm more interested in church history than civil law but it seemeth to me that those former-Episcopalians could make a credible argument that they have not changed their faith, TEC has (I make no comment on the substance of the dead horse but this would be undeniably a credible claim), and therefore along with the fact that they're there on the ground, they have some claim to the property of the pre-schism entity that originally owned it.
quote:Contrary to what some would have you believe, the gospel is still preached in TEC. At least it is by the very orthodox priest who leads the parish I belong to, as well as by the assistant. And both the retired priests (one gay, one a woman) who volunteer their services.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
it seemeth to me that those former-Episcopalians could make a credible argument that they have not changed their faith, TEC has (I make no comment on the substance of the dead horse but this would be undeniably a credible claim)
quote:Huh? And the rest of us are up in the air?
and therefore along with the fact that they're there on the ground,
quote:If I get fed up and leave the parish I've been contributing to for almost two decades, how much of the property do I get to take with me?
they have some claim to the property of the pre-schism entity that originally owned it.
quote:You must have different definitions of "undeniably" and "credible" than we in the States.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I don't have any particular stake in this fight but this looks more like a case of schism so the analogy doesn't really hold. Perhaps it's that I'm more interested in church history than civil law but it seemeth to me that those former-Episcopalians could make a credible argument that they have not changed their faith, TEC has (I make no comment on the substance of the dead horse but this would be undeniably a credible claim), and therefore along with the fact that they're there on the ground, they have some claim to the property of the pre-schism entity that originally owned it.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Are parishioners entitled to take back contributions to the Church?
quote:Even so, the church Canons did not speak to the sexuality of a candidate for Bishop as a disqualifying factor. There is nothing in the Book of Common Prayer, which is incorporated by reference, disqualifying a candidate for episcopal ordination. The General Convention did not hold a vote to change canon law in order to allow a person in a same-sex relationship to stand for episcopal office, because it did not need to.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Out-of-USA posters are not always conscious that TEC polity is different from that of many other Anglican churches, which have explicit limits on their decision-making powers (e.g., Canada with its Solemn Declaration of 1893) and even on the application of decisions (Oz and Canada, where many decisions need to be received in dioceses to have effect).
Differing sets of trust and association laws (e.g., the absence of similar patterns in Canada -- to being with, we have two sets of civil legal culture--led most Canadian churches to have enabling legislation passed by parliaments as equity practice was insufficient to deal with property or pension issues) in other parts of the world help to confuse the issue.
Greyface assumes that no-change is the default viable position, and this does fit with a strong tradition in Anglicanism. The TEC's structure is such that any change it makes in accordance with procedures thereby becomes the orthodox position. This left USA no-changers in an untenable position when they felt unable to move with the majority. When we join this with some cultural politics and the overwhelmingly congregational self-perception of most US Xns (even the RCs and Orthies are challenged by this), the resulting frustration and demonization is perhaps more understandable, even if not desireable.
Apologies for the ramble, but I'm trying to understand the disconnect in much of this thread.
quote:Never doubted it for a second. My argument is that TEC changed a teaching, rightly or wrongly, and that this changed teaching has caused a schism. Whether you were right to change it or not isn't my point and I'm sympathetic to your position if the truth be known. My point is rather that you can't essentially just say (as some seem to be here) to people who don't accept the change, you knew the powers that be in the TEC had the authority to change what they wanted and you still signed up so stop whining. Faith in the infallibility of the decision-making structures of the Church isn't the primary characteristic of Anglican Christianity.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Contrary to what some would have you believe, the gospel is still preached in TEC.
quote:I thought we were talking about situations where whole congregations had... what's the word? Schismated? Schizzed? Buggered off without moving? Help me out here.
Huh? And the rest of us are up in the air?
quote:I don't know, would you be seriously claiming that you getting fed up constituted a schism?
If I get fed up and leave the parish I've been contributing to for almost two decades, how much of the property do I get to take with me?
quote:Perhaps I have misread the contributions so far, but I understood that was exactly what could be and had been done. (I didn't think it was appearing to be said - it actually was being asserted).
My point is rather that you can't essentially just say (as some seem to be here) to people who don't accept the change, you knew the powers that be in the TEC had the authority to change what they wanted and you still signed up so stop whining.
quote:On the other hand, there were also several high-profile cases where litigation went on for a decade or so, leaving everyone involved broke and exhausted at the end of the fight. That's not good for anyone, spiritually or materially.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I agree with the final paragraph, but as someone who had flirtations with the early Continuers of the late 1970s/early 1980s, I would guess that the latest vintage of secessionists have been mindful of how unsuccessful many of the early leave-takers were, in significant measure because they left without buildings or much property of any kind. Many of the little Continuing start-ups in people's living rooms, in the chapels of existing churches, in motel spaces or in the rented halls of the ladies auxillary of the Masons disappeared in a relatively short amount of time. Even some of the Continuing congos who managed to get some sort of unattractive building didn't make it. Unless you have rich, generous benefactors, the fact is that you are likely screwed if you march out into the wilderness with no building.
quote:It's very,very seldom the whole congregation. The faithful remnant (usually 10% to 15%) is definitely left up in the air. After my formerly beloved parish broke away (by way of help, that's my preferred description), it took years of wandering for me to find one I valued as highly, and it happened only because a formerly snake belly parish went rocketing up the candle.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I thought we were talking about situations where whole congregations had... what's the word? Schismated? Schizzed? Buggered off without moving? Help me out here.
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]Huh? And the rest of us are up in the air?
quote:That's a claim that no court in the US would accept. From the start, courts here have adamantly and wisely refused to adjudicate doctrinal issues.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Perhaps it's that I'm more interested in church history than civil law but it seemeth to me that those former-Episcopalians could make a credible argument that they have not changed their faith, TEC has (I make no comment on the substance of the dead horse but this would be undeniably a credible claim)...
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Are parishioners entitled to take back contributions to the Church?
quote:~
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Never doubted it for a second. My argument is that TEC changed a teaching, rightly or wrongly, and that this changed teaching has caused a schism. Whether you were right to change it or not isn't my point and I'm sympathetic to your position if the truth be known. My point is rather that you can't essentially just say (as some seem to be here) to people who don't accept the change, you knew the powers that be in the TEC had the authority to change what they wanted and you still signed up so stop whining. Faith in the infallibility of the decision-making structures of the Church isn't the primary characteristic of Anglican Christianity.
Originally posted by RuthW:
[qb]Contrary to what some would have you believe, the gospel is still preached in TEC.
quote:I challenge you to identify any sentence of any of the Apostle's, Nicene, or Athanasian Creeds which the Episcopal Church contravened by installing Gene Robinson as a bishop.
Originally posted by gorpo:
The reason why the christian church has creeds, and most protestant churches have their confessions, is exactly to avoid the church beliefs to swim acording to the preferences of the current authorities.
quote:I still don't understand your assertion that the in-trust-for-the-national-church doctrine doesn't apply in Canada. It is a standard feature of Canadian church private parliamentary acts. I found that the Diocese of Ontario states that Churchwardens are Trustees under the Anglican Church Act, 1979. Walks like a duck.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut: I would not characterize their efforts as attempted theft (in Canada, the in-trust-for-the-national-church doctrine is not pertinent, either in canon or civil law). Their intent is not criminal, but rather contrary to legal provisions for ownership.
quote:
An important feature of this settlement is that both sides have agreed to enter into a covenant of mutual charity and respect. This document will frame the way the Diocese and Truro Anglican will deal with one another and speak of one another. The covenant is being drafted by the Rev. Baucum and Bishop Johnston.
This is an important step for the Diocese of Virginia and Truro Anglican, said Bishop Johnston. What the Diocese has sought since the courts ruling has been a witness and not merely an outcome. The parties have carried on a public dispute for five years and it is important that we publicly begin to make peace. As I recall, this was one of the more vitriolic conflicts, and even in this case, it seems some rapprochement is possible, and the Episcopal Church can be gracious in victory.
Bishop Johnston and the Rev. Baucum have been meeting together for prayer and conversation for over a year. Bishop Johnston and I have become friends, said the Rev. Baucum. In spite of our significant theological differences, we care for and are committed to each other as brothers in Christ.
quote:Canada's got their own deal. I'm sure it matters to some people, and I wouldn't call it unimportant, but I have been to Canada for a grand total (total grande?) of 9 hours. I'd love to visit our neighbors to the North.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What will the poor US folk think as we ramble into an area only 9 human beings care about?
quote:But isn't it the case that the court's refusal to accept the claim would be based entirely on the wisdom of keeping the secular courts out of doctrinal disputes, and not on the credibility of the claim were it to be made in an appropriate context?
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
That's a claim that no court in the US would accept. From the start, courts here have adamantly and wisely refused to adjudicate doctrinal issues.
quote:Yes to both points.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:But isn't it the case that the court's refusal to accept the claim would be based entirely on the wisdom of keeping the secular courts out of doctrinal disputes, and not on the credibility of the claim were it to be made in an appropriate context?
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
That's a claim that no court in the US would accept. From the start, courts here have adamantly and wisely refused to adjudicate doctrinal issues.
Your point about the proportion of the congregation schizzing (I invented that word so I'm going to use it) is well taken. My only experience with this kind of thing round these parts is of a place that jumped to the Ordinariate leaving behind maybe 20% of the congregation. I don't think there was ever any question of them taking the building but then again, the realities in England of thousand year-old stonework, leaky roofs, damaged pipe organs, listed building legislation and so on might mean the priorities are a lot different from those in the US and Canada.
quote:No. The property that the parish used over the years are deemed to be contributions by members to the organization of the church.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:But isn't it the case that the court's refusal to accept the claim would be based entirely on the wisdom of keeping the secular courts out of doctrinal disputes, and not on the credibility of the claim were it to be made in an appropriate context?
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
That's a claim that no court in the US would accept. From the start, courts here have adamantly and wisely refused to adjudicate doctrinal issues.
quote:You're making my case for me. The reason that the law does this is that it (wisely, as has been said) keeps out of doctrinal arguments. If on the other hand, we as Christians consider doctrinal issues to be pertinent and the Church to be something more than other non-profit organisations, even determined by faith (such that possibly heresy* and certainly apostasy* would cause the organisation to cease in fact to be the Church whatever its legal status) then the law will not necessarily give us a just outcome.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
The law views the church no differently from any other non-profit organization.
quote:On considering this again, maybe I can extend the analogy. What would the legal position be if, for example, the trustees or executive or whoever they are of the WWF decided their charity is now in favour of the extermination of pests like lions and tigers, publicly supported the ivory trade and began to advocate the destruction systematic destruction of animal habitats across the world? What if Amnesty's leadership one day turned round and said actually we've changed our minds, sod those political prisoners, they should have known better and kept their mouths shut, we're using what we have in the bank to fund internment camps for big-mouthed idealists? What if Oxfam's bosses had a rethink and began redirecting its efforts away from disaster relief and sustainable development programmes into, I don't know, you get the point.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Imagine if a 10% contingent of the lifetime members of the World Wildlife Federation, or Amnesty International, or Oxfam were disgruntled at what they perceived as an intolerable shift of mission or policy, and those members decide to break off and form a new parallel organization that they claim represents the values of the original before they were corrupted.
No court anywhere is going to say that the new non-profit has a right to take 10% of the operating funds and real estate, or that they have a right to sublease space from the old organization, or that the old organization will have to liquidate its property to satisfy the percentage representing the contributions of the old members.
quote:Well yes, this is how Anglican polity works. You can send your representatives to Synod but in the end the denomination makes the decisions. Theologically I would be far more with the conservatives, but I don't get on with them bleating about the denomination not respecting their congregation's dissent etc. You sign up for Episcopal church government and you abide by the structures of your church or you leave, and don't expect the denomination to share the assets. One of the reasons I'm a convinced congregationalist.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Greyface wrote:-quote:Perhaps I have misread the contributions so far, but I understood that was exactly what could be and had been done. (I didn't think it was appearing to be said - it actually was being asserted).
My point is rather that you can't essentially just say (as some seem to be here) to people who don't accept the change, you knew the powers that be in the TEC had the authority to change what they wanted and you still signed up so stop whining.
quote:The difference is that the Anglicans portray themselves as the true expression of what the Episcopal Church supposedly use to be. To the extent that they have any unifying doctrine, it's that the Episcopal Church is apostate and they are the true proprietors of "orthodox" "Bible-believing" "traditional" Anglican Christianity in the United States and Canada, and that TEC and ACC are illegitimate imposters. The Baptists and the Muslims make no such claim, and although they have their own interests and compete with us in a way, they are not seeking to attempt a coup.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Mind you, what TEC has to gain by selling the building to Baptists or Muslims rather than the congregation is also a mystery to me. It seems silly to sell to those groups because the Schizzers (good word Greyface) will say bad things about you. What do you think that the average Baptist (or Muslim!?) is going to be saying about TEC in the building? That it IS the one true church? Hardly!
quote:That will be the gay-friendly mosques TEC will be flogging (oops!) their churches to?
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:The difference is that the Anglicans portray themselves as the true expression of what the Episcopal Church supposedly use to be. To the extent that they have any unifying doctrine, it's that the Episcopal Church is apostate and they are the true proprietors of "orthodox" "Bible-believing" "traditional" Anglican Christianity in the United States and Canada, and that TEC and ACC are illegitimate imposters. The Baptists and the Muslims make no such claim, and although they have their own interests and compete with us in a way, they are not seeking to attempt a coup.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Mind you, what TEC has to gain by selling the building to Baptists or Muslims rather than the congregation is also a mystery to me. It seems silly to sell to those groups because the Schizzers (good word Greyface) will say bad things about you. What do you think that the average Baptist (or Muslim!?) is going to be saying about TEC in the building? That it IS the one true church? Hardly!
Letting the "Anglicans" use centuries-old church properties only serves to further their claims and allows them to appropriate the "brand," if you will. It gives them the appearance of being a legitimate remnant of the true faithful in the Episcopal Church, rather than a ragtag group of homophobes that have conspired with GAFCON to destroy The Episcopal Church and remake it in their own image.
quote:Some would have a say by means of a vote in the internal affairs of the organization. These organizations have bylaws for voting or removing officers and boards of directors, and for passing certain amendments. If you have a vote in this mechanism, then you are free to have your say there. If the majority vote the other way, well, that's democracy.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
On considering this again, maybe I can extend the analogy. What would the legal position be if, for example, the trustees or executive or whoever they are of the WWF decided their charity is now in favour of the extermination of pests like lions and tigers, publicly supported the ivory trade and began to advocate the destruction systematic destruction of animal habitats across the world? What if Amnesty's leadership one day turned round and said actually we've changed our minds, sod those political prisoners, they should have known better and kept their mouths shut, we're using what we have in the bank to fund internment camps for big-mouthed idealists? What if Oxfam's bosses had a rethink and began redirecting its efforts away from disaster relief and sustainable development programmes into, I don't know, you get the point.
Now clearly these are ridiculous examples and I'd have to ask somebody who actually had a clue with legal matters but I'm reasonably certain the bodies which oversee charities in this country would have a few words to say if something like this happened and I don't think people who'd given donations to these organisations would simply shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, I gave a donation to the structure of the organisation, what they do with it is up to them."
quote:I've ceased trying to decipher your nonsense.
Originally posted by aumbry:
That will be the gay-friendly mosques TEC will be flogging (oops!) their churches to?
quote:I've ceased to be interested in your turgid efforts - Yah Boo!
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I've ceased trying to decipher your nonsense.
Originally posted by aumbry:
That will be the gay-friendly mosques TEC will be flogging (oops!) their churches to?
quote:It's called irony, I believe. I got it.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I've ceased trying to decipher your nonsense.
Originally posted by aumbry:
That will be the gay-friendly mosques TEC will be flogging (oops!) their churches to?
quote:If it's about how you are portrayed, I'd have thought TEC have much more to lose by being portrayed as materialistic property grabbers via the courts and the media. A nice quiet friendly settlement might even mean that the leavers say relatively nice things about you in the building as per the Truro example above. The person on the street doesn't give a fig who is the authentic Anglican, but is very likely to be put off your church by a very public legal battle.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:The difference is that the Anglicans portray themselves as the true expression of what the Episcopal Church supposedly use to be.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Mind you, what TEC has to gain by selling the building to Baptists or Muslims rather than the congregation is also a mystery to me. It seems silly to sell to those groups because the Schizzers (good word Greyface) will say bad things about you. What do you think that the average Baptist (or Muslim!?) is going to be saying about TEC in the building? That it IS the one true church? Hardly!
quote:The thread began with someone saying they heard it being discussed on NPR.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Leprechaun, you seem to imagine that very many people pay attention to the TEC-Schimatic Anglicans stuff, know about or care about it at all. It ain't the CofE: there's little media attention. The conflicts are relatively invisible even to the vast majority of people within TEC.
quote:As I recall, though, the court cases in Virginia were first filed by the breakaway churches--I suppose as a strategic pre-emptive strike. While the agreement means they are saying relatively nice things now, it certainly has NOT been that way over the past few years.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
If it's about how you are portrayed, I'd have thought TEC have much more to lose by being portrayed as materialistic property grabbers via the courts and the media. A nice quiet friendly settlement might even mean that the leavers say relatively nice things about you in the building as per the Truro example above.
quote:If the building is pretty, it will be a factor. The experience of communal worship is the main draw of the Episcopal Church and the appearance of the building contributes to that for a lot of people, so that's not all idolatrous building-worship. It's easy to pooh-pooh the faith of those who dropped out of splitter groups because they ended up worshipping in unattractive spaces, but we're physical beings, worship is something we do with our whole selves, including our bodies, and appearances matter. Claiming otherwise is Manicheistic dualism and contrary to incarnational theology.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
So it is possible no one really knows or trusts where the true loyalties of the laity lie. This makes holding the property more important. Naturally, when properties are returned to TEC, TEC will hope that this is a sizable portion of the congregation while ACNA will hope it is a negligible portion... It probably won't be the same in every church, but it will be interesting to see if this is really a factor.
quote:That's not what you were asking, or if that was what you intended to ask, you asked in a roundabout way. You were asking if a schism, under certain circumstances, entitles the spinoff church to a share of the parent church's property (i.e. Does a breakaway parish have a viable legal argument for terminating the Episcopal Church's beneficial interest in parish property in circumstances where the Episcopal Church has materially departed from church doctrine?) That's what the discussion was about. I can't discuss schism under law because American law does not get involved in church doctrine.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I understand all this Mockingale, I really do. But with respect you're not answering the point I'm raising. Or are you saying that there are no possible doctrinal changes whatsoever that would legitimise a schism in your eyes?
quote:NPR is a sleepy, loosely affiliated network of donation-supported college radio stations that is listened to regularly by maybe 500,000 yuppies on their way to work. 300,000 of those are probably Episcopalians. It's not exactly big media.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:The thread began with someone saying they heard it being discussed on NPR.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Leprechaun, you seem to imagine that very many people pay attention to the TEC-Schimatic Anglicans stuff, know about or care about it at all. It ain't the CofE: there's little media attention. The conflicts are relatively invisible even to the vast majority of people within TEC.
Anyway, if what you say is true, then it really isn't important at all who is "portrayed" as the real Anglican, as no one will notice.
quote:No church stealing is not an issue in Canada, for reasons I have been trying to make clear. Though Augustine is correct that the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians/United Church have property peculiarities stemming from their former established status, those have been overridden by varies private Church Acts for each denomination. That's why that UofO prof's analysis was irrelevant, it was rendered irrelevant by legislative action. History has given way to the present.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Canada's got their own deal. I'm sure it matters to some people, and I wouldn't call it unimportant, but I have been to Canada for a grand total (total grande?) of 9 hours. I'd love to visit our neighbors to the North.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What will the poor US folk think as we ramble into an area only 9 human beings care about?
Is the church-stealing as much of an issue up there as it is in the States? That new group is called the Anglican Church in North America, but I wonder if that's not like naming baseball's championship "The World Series" because there are a couple of teams in Canada.
I know little about Canadian law and even less about Canadian churches. Does Canadian statute address church politics? The courts here are hesitant to even wade ankle deep into church doctrine.
quote:Nyah!
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:I've ceased to be interested in your turgid efforts - Yah Boo!
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I've ceased trying to decipher your nonsense.
Originally posted by aumbry:
That will be the gay-friendly mosques TEC will be flogging (oops!) their churches to?
quote:With respect to Ruth's comment, there's an excellent example (going in the other direction) in this diocese -- one of the two congregations which voted to leave the ACC. We have many friends there. THe presenting issue in the parish's vote was homosexualty ( in a parish, oddly enough, that had benefitted substantially through the years from the work and contributions of gay men and, I suppose, gay women). We have pro-gay friends in that parish who voted with the anti-gay faction to preserve the community they loved and could not contemplate living without. And that was in an ugly building (I can say that because I was a churchwarden in that parish for a number of years when we could simply have let the place fall down) -- the Lord only knows how many more people who actually disagreed with the separators would have voted with them if the building had been pretty.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:If the building is pretty, it will be a factor. The experience of communal worship is the main draw of the Episcopal Church and the appearance of the building contributes to that for a lot of people, so that's not all idolatrous building-worship.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
So it is possible no one really knows or trusts where the true loyalties of the laity lie. This makes holding the property more important. Naturally, when properties are returned to TEC, TEC will hope that this is a sizable portion of the congregation while ACNA will hope it is a negligible portion... It probably won't be the same in every church, but it will be interesting to see if this is really a factor.
quote:I must admit my understanding (at an Atlantic-sized distance) is that the main question at issue in most of the ongoing Court cases (and what the Supreme Court may be asked to opine on) is whether the national Episcopal Church legitimately obtained a valid beneficial interest in the propert in the first place.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GreyFace:
That's not what you were asking, or if that was what you intended to ask, you asked in a roundabout way. You were asking if a schism, under certain circumstances, entitles the spinoff church to a share of the parent church's property (i.e. Does a breakaway parish have a viable legal argument for terminating the Episcopal Church's beneficial interest in parish property in circumstances where the Episcopal Church has materially departed from church doctrine?)
quote:So did I.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:It's called irony, I believe. I got it.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I've ceased trying to decipher your nonsense.
Originally posted by aumbry:
That will be the gay-friendly mosques TEC will be flogging (oops!) their churches to?
quote:Me either
originally posted by Mockingale:
I still don't see why the Episcopal Church should bend over backwards for people that hate us.
quote:It seems to me there Is enough hatred and people up on their high horses in both sides liberal and conservative or what passes for those positions
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Me either
originally posted by Mockingale:
I still don't see why the Episcopal Church should bend over backwards for people that hate us.
Good thing Jesus didn't say something stupid like, "Love your enemies."
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Does that mean that the Catholics should be given all our medieval Anglican parish churches back, then, by us naughty Anglican schismatics?
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:That's not what you were asking, or if that was what you intended to ask, you asked in a roundabout way. You were asking if a schism, under certain circumstances, entitles the spinoff church to a share of the parent church's property (i.e. Does a breakaway parish have a viable legal argument for terminating the Episcopal Church's beneficial interest in parish property in circumstances where the Episcopal Church has materially departed from church doctrine?) That's what the discussion was about. I can't discuss schism under law because American law does not get involved in church doctrine.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I understand all this Mockingale, I really do. But with respect you're not answering the point I'm raising. Or are you saying that there are no possible doctrinal changes whatsoever that would legitimise a schism in your eyes?
No court in the United States is going to say "Oh, well, the Episcopal Church once had an implicit doctrine that same-sex activity was sinful and disqualified a person from becoming a bishop, but in 2005 they changed church doctrine, so they ceased really being The Episcopal Church, or Anglican, or Christian, and therefore Truro Anglican Parish is entitled to take its former parish buildings and bank accounts with it." It's not a decision over which federal or state courts have any jurisdiction.
As to whether certain theoretical doctrinal change "legitimizes schism in my eyes," I suppose. If the Episcopal Church were to undertake a doctrinal change declaring that Jesus was not divine or not human in nature, or denying the Trinity, or declaring that God does not exist, or denying the resurrection, I could see a decision by dissenters to leave as a "legitimate schism," to the extent that schism can exist in an organization that is no longer a Christian church. I'd be among the "schismatics" in that case. Each one of those doctrines is part of the creeds. They're what make us Christians. But that would still not justify the remnant from claiming church property.
I distinguish such things from doctrinal changes about ancillary matters. If the church were to declare that suicide is not a violation of the commandment against killing, and not a sin, but merely a product of mental illness or legitimate concerns about prolonged pain and suffering, it would be a doctrinal change of sorts, but it's not the sort of thing that would cause the Episcopal Church to cease to be Christian.
quote:But it's the Baptists/Muslims you're bending over backwards for! If you let the secessionists buy the building, TEC gets a load of money (could probably charge over the market rate) to start or build something new. My guess is the buildings will end up being sold at a good deal less than market value to other religious groups who also hate you. Anyway, far be it from me to hope the success of the Episcopal Church.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I still don't see why the Episcopal Church should bend over backwards for people that hate us.
quote:Apart from the ones built before 1054, of course, which should belong to The Plot™
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Does that mean that the Catholics should be given all our medieval Anglican parish churches back, then, by us naughty Anglican schismatics?
. Of course, the older it is, the more likely it is that the roof leaks...quote:Not at all. Adverse possession, and what not - I think the statute of limitations has run.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Does that mean that the Catholics should be given all our medieval Anglican parish churches back, then, by us naughty Anglican schismatics?
quote:I've neither claimed that it's moral or immoral for the Episcopal Church to maintain their property. I *have* claimed that it is their right to do so, and the courts have thus far agreed.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure the fact that the Catholic Church isn't specifically claiming title alters the moral principle being advicated by some on this thread, namely that schismatics should return church property.
quote:I'll pray for you.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Anyway, far be it from me to hope the success of the Episcopal Church.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I still don't see why the Episcopal Church should bend over backwards for people that hate us.
quote:We're commanded to love our enemies. We're even commanded to turn the other cheek. But we're not commanded to load the gun that our enemy is pointing at our face.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Me either
originally posted by Mockingale:
I still don't see why the Episcopal Church should bend over backwards for people that hate us.
Good thing Jesus didn't say something stupid like, "Love your enemies."
quote:I advocate their right to do so, as well. And it makes sense, if there is a viable congregation of Episcopalians to sustain the building but, to me, it doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on litigation and the building if there is no remaining TEC congregation and no guarantee of the ability to sell the building to another Christian body (I'm completely opposed to denying a Christian congregation the ability to worship in a church and selling it to be a mosque or something else, a la Binghamton).
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I've neither claimed that it's moral or immoral for the Episcopal Church to maintain their property. I *have* claimed that it is their right to do so, and the courts have thus far agreed.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure the fact that the Catholic Church isn't specifically claiming title alters the moral principle being advicated by some on this thread, namely that schismatics should return church property.
quote:I think that English civil law is complex on statutes of limitations. In any case, the Holy See accepted compensation in the early 1700s in consideration of any claims it might have.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Not at all. Adverse possession, and what not - I think the statute of limitations has run.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Does that mean that the Catholics should be given all our medieval Anglican parish churches back, then, by us naughty Anglican schismatics?
quote:Mount Calvary and St. Luke's, Bladenburg negotiated lease deals with options to buy. The TEC dioceses have not just handed the properties over. Both parishes had almost complete unanimity about joining the Ordinariate.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
There is some indication that TEC policy will treat the Ordinariate differently than "Continuing" Anglican schismatics. Mount Calvary, Baltimore is apparently being permitted to leave with their building and other property, going to the Roman Catholic Church/Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter. I assume that all or virtually all of their congregation decided to depart for the Ordinariate along with their clergy. IIRC, the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland has first right of refusal in any future sale of Mount Calvary's property -- IOW the TEC diocese would be able to buy the property back on favourable terms. As I understand, the thought is that the Ordinariate is not in competition with TEC or actively trying to subvert TEC, whereas the Anglican schismatics are seen as taking that course. However, I must disagree with that assessment. IME there are some Anglo-Papalists who would be disposed to foment a sort of coup in their parishes, aimed at taking the parish into the Ordinariate and retaining its property. This will fail, of course, as long as such elites are strongly opposed by a majority of the congregation, but where they are able to sew confusion, demoralisation, and general discord - driving TEC loyalists out - such efforts at a grab-and-run might well succeed. Thus, I think TEC ought to investigate the membership roles and transfers-out of parishes seeking to leave for the Ordinariate with their property, and only settle on generous terms with any such parish if it is reasonably clear that there has been near-complete unanimity of sentiment amongst parishioners and parish clergy for a move to the Ordinariate.
quote:Truthfully, if I were Presiding Bishop (heaven forbid), I would lease to the breakaways in the event that no other Christian church wanted the space. I would require them to take certain actions to make clear on their signage that they were part of the Anglican Church in North America and not the Episcopal Church. I would also retain the right to terminate the lease with adequate notice if an Episcopal congregation wished to take over the property.
Originally posted by jordan32404:
quote:I advocate their right to do so, as well. And it makes sense, if there is a viable congregation of Episcopalians to sustain the building but, to me, it doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on litigation and the building if there is no remaining TEC congregation and no guarantee of the ability to sell the building to another Christian body (I'm completely opposed to denying a Christian congregation the ability to worship in a church and selling it to be a mosque or something else, a la Binghamton).
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:I've neither claimed that it's moral or immoral for the Episcopal Church to maintain their property. I *have* claimed that it is their right to do so, and the courts have thus far agreed.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure the fact that the Catholic Church isn't specifically claiming title alters the moral principle being advicated by some on this thread, namely that schismatics should return church property.
quote:What you have been refusing to understand for 6 pages of thread now is that TEC is not wasting money getting this property back. Part of the litigation is endowments, often worth millions of dollars. Real estate is also worth money, and in most of these cases TEC is sending money after a sure bet. TEC is, furthermore, going after assets it has every right to. If anything it's the schismatics wasting money.
I advocate their right to do so, as well. And it makes sense, if there is a viable congregation of Episcopalians to sustain the building but, to me, it doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on litigation and the building if there is no remaining TEC congregation and no guarantee of the ability to sell the building to another Christian body (I'm completely opposed to denying a Christian congregation the ability to worship in a church and selling it to be a mosque or something else, a la Binghamton).
quote:I'd say that any pre-schism endowments belong to the Episcopal Church. If the breakaway parish wants to keep vestments and small items of property like candles, books, and eating utensils from the parish hall, I say let them take them.
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
That does sound reasonable, but what then about endowments, plate, vestments, and other things like that which are very important as well. Should they be held in trust for a future Episcopal Parish?
quote:That is not my understanding, per several published reports on the internet, such as this one. The property was deeded to Mount Calvary and TEC retained first right of refusal in the event of future sale of the property -- as I stated.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Mount Calvary and St. Luke's, Bladenburg negotiated lease deals with options to buy. The TEC dioceses have not just handed the properties over. Both parishes had almost complete unanimity about joining the Ordinariate.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
There is some indication that TEC policy will treat the Ordinariate differently than "Continuing" Anglican schismatics. Mount Calvary, Baltimore is apparently being permitted to leave with their building and other property, going to the Roman Catholic Church/Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter. I assume that all or virtually all of their congregation decided to depart for the Ordinariate along with their clergy. IIRC, the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland has first right of refusal in any future sale of Mount Calvary's property -- IOW the TEC diocese would be able to buy the property back on favourable terms. As I understand, the thought is that the Ordinariate is not in competition with TEC or actively trying to subvert TEC, whereas the Anglican schismatics are seen as taking that course. However, I must disagree with that assessment. IME there are some Anglo-Papalists who would be disposed to foment a sort of coup in their parishes, aimed at taking the parish into the Ordinariate and retaining its property. This will fail, of course, as long as such elites are strongly opposed by a majority of the congregation, but where they are able to sew confusion, demoralisation, and general discord - driving TEC loyalists out - such efforts at a grab-and-run might well succeed. Thus, I think TEC ought to investigate the membership roles and transfers-out of parishes seeking to leave for the Ordinariate with their property, and only settle on generous terms with any such parish if it is reasonably clear that there has been near-complete unanimity of sentiment amongst parishioners and parish clergy for a move to the Ordinariate.
