|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
And he was numbered with the twelve apostles despite having been nearly crushed to death by them.
And let us not forget when Paul fell on a youth who happened to fall out of a window and died, a miracle took place and life was restored
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
And he was numbered with the twelve apostles despite having been nearly crushed to death by them.
That is funny! I had never noticed that interpretation.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Resurgam:
Rep. Kennedy was not elected to be a diocesan representative, but a Representative in the the United States Congress. Not all of his constituents are Catholic, or even Christian. If he were to change his voting in order to please his Bishop, he would in effect be representing the Bishop and not the People.
But his bishop is not asking him to vote against his party, his platform or his conscience - just to refrain from claiming to be just as much a Catholic as if he voted "with the Church". Obviously, if he wishes not to have his status as a loyal Catholic impugned, he could always stand as a loyal Catholic candidate in the first place, making it clear that he won't vote or otherwise act against the fundamentals of his faith. If he chooses to vote "for abortion" he cannot claim to be doing so as a Catholic in good standing. He must know that. Therefore, why claim to be one?
He is actually being "less Catholic" by supporting abortion rights in this way, although that is precisely what he denies. On this one, it's his bishop's judgement that counts for more.
But all of this is now a massive de-railment of a perfectly good threat topic. Sorry.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Vicar Threatened
Although I am saddened by what happened, Fr Ed's blog makes rather like it was the local SCP chapter wot dunnit. Disgraceful.
The discussion threads to both of these blogs make the Ship look like a Very Christian Website Indeed.
While I am disgusted at the vandalism, and concerned for Fr Waller and his people, it's sad that both of the priests imply that their main motive for becoming Roman Catholics would be despair at the Church of England. This is exactly the wrong reason, as Archbishop Nichols says very clearly.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
it's sad that both of the priests imply that their main motive for becoming Roman Catholics would be despair at the Church of England. This is exactly the wrong reason, as Archbishop Nichols says very clearly.
But such disillusionment can be the necessary "letting go" stage in a process of genuinely appreciating and moving towards a postive good. It very often is, in fact. Sometimes necessary, never sufficient.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Vicar Threatened
Although I am saddened by what happened, Fr Ed's blog makes rather like it was the local SCP chapter wot dunnit. Disgraceful.
The discussion threads to both of these blogs make the Ship look like a Very Christian Website Indeed.
It started out so well. 'Let's all be friends', 'We come in peace', but ends with:
quote:
Pray today then for our common future amd spare a thought for Anglo-Catholics who cannot accept the ordination of women. It really does feel horrid being in the Church of England currently. Father Waller’s board expresses what many of us are starting to fear- that we are actually hated within our own family, who have no real desire to help us, but will seek to hurt us if we stay and hurt us if we go. Pray God that this fear is entirely unfounded.
{Bangs head against wall}.
The fear is unfounded. But fear leads to ...
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
I think the fear is indeed unfounded, despite this sad episode. This fear, though, is the central issue in numerous dead horse issues, some of which have lead to the pope's offer. Religion based on the teachings of Christ ought to be free of fear.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
I'm new to this board so please forgive me if I'm being presumptous.
I really don't have a dog in this fight as I'm somewhere in the middle of the candle theologically speaking (my chaplain at grad school loved to call me a "Protty"). I'm a musician so when it comes to liturgical music and extra-liturgical music in church, I'm floating several feet above the candle. I'm just wondering what would happen if an Anglican rite parish was assigned a "cradle" Roman priest who decided to replace the pipe organ with a synthesizer ang instituded the singing of "guitar masses" and "singing nun" ditties? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 24. November 2009, 21:51: Message edited by: Christian Agnostic ]
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic: .... I'm somewhere in the middle of the candle theologically speaking
All Anglicans think they are central. Its a Rule.
quote:
I'm just wondering what would happen if an Anglican rite parish was assigned a "cradle" Roman priest who decided to ... "singing nun" ...
I imagine that is exactly why TAC wanted an ordinariate - so that these deployment decisions would be made by an Ordinary who is one of their own. And now they are promised one they are it seems going to join Rome as a body - bishops, priests, deacons, congregations.
In England (& also perhaps in some parts of Africa) the issues are rather different, and not so much about liturgy, and I suspect many fewer people will find themselves willing or able to take up the offer.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
Forgive my typos. I have typing dyslexia.
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
He must know that.
In defense of Rep. Kennedy, he has never given the impression that he is the brightest of Congressmen.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
I think the fear is indeed unfounded, despite this sad episode. This fear, though, is the central issue in numerous dead horse issues, some of which have lead to the pope's offer. Religion based on the teachings of Christ ought to be free of fear.
I agree with Comper's second sentence. The first is, alas, not that accurate. The peculiar episode aside, those who hold the opinion in North American Anglicanism are, at best, ignored with embarrassment or gently mocked. At worst, they get lectures, suggestions that they find another home, and are regularly sidelined. English FinFers are not unaware of this.
At the same time, the call of their home altars is very powerful, and I think few will desert them. As I have noted before, B16's offer is for the TAC gang, and I do not imagine that there will be hordes in addition to that lot. However, it does provide a home for a few, and will be useful for that end.
++Rowan was quite right when he said that it was an imaginative pastoral move (IIRC), but that it broke no ground ecclesiologically. I think that B16 missed an opportunity there-- one which could have kept a wider door open for the long run-- although I understand how the logic of his perspective would not have allowed a move in that direction.
In the short term, it will provide a healthier home for TAC and other Tiber-traversers, and will not be a bad thing for the Latins-- there are circles where diversity will come to be a cherished if not initially welcomed gift.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
A number of people on this thread have suggested that the group most likely to avail themselves of this provision are the TAC. (Indeed it's been suggested that the TAC is main group BXVI had in mind.)
For me this raises a question about who Anglicanorum Coetibus applies to. It says it is aimed at "Anglicans". How is that being defined?
If one defines Anglican as "in communion with the See of Canterbury", then the TAC aren't Anglican are they? Is it just "all groups of Christians who self identify as Anglicans"? How much more than the name Anglican would a given Christian grouping require in order to be allowed to join the new Ordinariate?
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Christian agnostic - I don't have a dog in this fight either,but I thought that the whole idea of the 'anglican rite ordinariate' was that it would operate as a rite within the wider Catholc church,just like the Maronite rite and others.
A Roman rite priest would not be assigned to be pastor of a Maronite parish,nor would a Roman rite priest be assigned as pastor of a Byzantine rite parish.The faithful,of course, can attend the services of any 'Catholic' church,but most out of habit,knowledge and respect would attend the services of their own rite.
One example of those easily transferring between one rite and another would be in the ecclesiastical province of Milan where the faithful can easily attend both Roman rite and Ambrosian rite parishes.
Should this 'anglican rite ordinariate' ever get off the ground - at the moment everything is quite hypothetical - then I would hope that the faithful of both rites would come and go,but the clergy qua clergy no.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
He must know that.
In defense of Rep. Kennedy, he has never given the impression that he is the brightest of Congressmen.
Invincible ignorance, eh? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
When faced with stumbling-blocks, here is a temporary solution that brought me a smile a few days ago:
An ecumenical song anyone, well, almost anyone, can sing
Mary
[ 25. November 2009, 12:32: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Yeehaw, Comper's Chile....
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... then I would hope that the faithful of both rites would come and go,but the clergy qua clergy no.
But currently the small number of Anglican Use priest can say the Roman Rite and do, as I understand it. They also fill in when needed at Roman Rite Roman Use (as opposed to Roman Rite Roman Use?) parishes. Also, bishops who will most certainly be Roman Rite Roman Use will have to celebrate Roman Rite Anglican Use liturgies. Hmmm. Could we one day see B16 saying a Roman Rite Anglican Use Mass in St Peter's?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
J2P2 had said Mass by the Mozarabic Use in Toledo (IIRC) and, of course, Paul VI was familiar with the Ambrosian as a former Archbishop of Milan, so then B16 should have no trouble with an Anglican Use Mass, although we might have trouble with understanding his accented English.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659
|
Posted
quote:
Could we one day see B16 saying a Roman Rite Anglican Use Mass in St Peter's?
We might even see him saying one in Birmingham or Oxford next year!
Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Just out of interest- and I'm definitely not trying to make a party point here- what would be the score for Anglican clergy/congregations that use the Roman Rite if they went over under the proposed plan? Would they have to de-Romanise their liturgy?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659
|
Posted
AIUI, they'd be required to adopt the Book of Divine Worship, which is more Anglican than what they use now and more Roman than the BCP. I am happy to be corrected by anyone who has more accurate information than I do.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just out of interest- and I'm definitely not trying to make a party point here- what would be the score for Anglican clergy/congregations that use the Roman Rite if they went over under the proposed plan? Would they have to de-Romanise their liturgy?
--------------------
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
AIUI, they'd be required to adopt the Book of Divine Worship, which is more Anglican than what they use now and more Roman than the BCP. I am happy to be corrected by anyone who has more accurate information than I do.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just out of interest- and I'm definitely not trying to make a party point here- what would be the score for Anglican clergy/congregations that use the Roman Rite if they went over under the proposed plan? Would they have to de-Romanise their liturgy?
Not so.
From the Apostolic Constitution:
'III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.'
(Emphasis added by me)
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Very clear- thanks
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Perhaps this question should be a separate thread. But, apparently, ++Rowan has told ++Vincent that the sale of CofE properties to the Romans is impossible.
I am puzzled by this as the CofE certainly could use the money and many of these old buildings are very expensive to maintain.
Perhaps those more familiar with arcane CofE property issues than I can unpuzzle me a bit. (Some of the discussion on page 18 is already helpful.)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But it seems to me that anyone who has a real "issue" with anything in the Catechism, to the point of being unwilling to give inner assent to it, is quite possibly not ready to become a Catholic.
What the Catholic Church requires of people received individually into communion with it is that they assent to all those doctrines which the Catholic Church believes to be divinely revealed.
Are you seriously suggesting that a committed Christian believing the creeds, the doctrines of the councils and the ex cathedra statements of Popes ought not to become a Catholic because, say, she cannot agree with the Catechism's teaching on masturbation, or that Christians have a duty to vote in elections, say? That just seems bizarre.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Vicar Threatened
Although I am saddened by what happened, Fr Ed's blog makes rather like it was the local SCP chapter wot dunnit. Disgraceful.
The discussion threads to both of these blogs make the Ship look like a Very Christian Website Indeed.
While I am disgusted at the vandalism, and concerned for Fr Waller and his people, it's sad that both of the priests imply that their main motive for becoming Roman Catholics would be despair at the Church of England. This is exactly the wrong reason, as Archbishop Nichols says very clearly.
I actually know both priests from my Anglican days. Whilst that may have been the impression given by the reports, I don't think it's really where they are coming from.
[ 27. November 2009, 15:52: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Vicar Threatened
Although I am saddened by what happened, Fr Ed's blog makes rather like it was the local SCP chapter wot dunnit. Disgraceful.
Well, quite. I hardly think that vandalism is the sort of thing even the wooliest of liberals in the CoE would countenance. If anything, this reads like a Church Society job! [/irony] I find it curious (to be polite) that Fr Tomlinson is so stricken by what he perceives as AffCath's lack of charity given that his posts stand very much in the old school of "gin, lace, and backbiting." Definitely not part of the new friendly face of FiF.
What immediately struck me about the attack in question was that it must have been carried out by someone who had some knowledge of AC movement in the CoE, and who has followed the developments of the constitution. Obviously S. Saviour's is a Papalist parish - resolution C, Roman Rite (I should imagine anyway - I'm open to correction), and as I recall their last curate went over to Rome ahead of the apostolic constitution. But the defacing was obviously done by someone who knew all this, and not by some drunken young ruffian who didn't care about his target (i.e. the sort of person I would expect this sort of thing from). But I suppose you never really know.
[ 27. November 2009, 16:30: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I actually know both priests from my Anglican days. Whilst that may have been the impression given by the reports, I don't think it's really where they are coming from.
It's good to know that. I suppose too that either of them, in the exasperation of the moment, could let slip comments about the C of E which wouldn't necessarily represent their considered opinion.
Re: the vandalism... could it not simply be coincidence? ie. a drunken follower of some quasi-fascist protestant sect (they do still exist, though even Paisley is probably above that sort of thing), who sees the word 'Mass' on an Anglican noticeboard and reacts predictably. He (probably a 'he') might not even have heard of the Pope's recent move.
Re; the 'impossibility' of the C of E selling church buildings to the Ordinariate. Isn't it more likely that the RCC wouldn't want to be saddled with them? After all, they are closing churches because their congregations have dropped below the size needed to maintain them, which is much greater than that of most struggling - or even average - Anglican congregations. I can't imagine that a congregation 'converting' en masse would be as big as even 100.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Edward Green/Angloid - I've just looked at Fr. Ed's blog, and I can't for the life of me see how you read that SCP thing into it. Am I reading the right page? All he said was a passing comment about Traditionalists vs. Liberals in the church generally - a POV I disagree with BTW, but one commonly held on both sides of this divide.
Is it on another page to that linked?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I actually know both priests from my Anglican days. Whilst that may have been the impression given by the reports, I don't think it's really where they are coming from.
I wondered if it was around your old gaff.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Well, quite. I hardly think that vandalism is the sort of thing even the wooliest of liberals in the CoE would countenance. If anything, this reads like a Church Society job! [/irony] I
Spreading nasty lies about fellow Christians isn't negated by wrapping the word "irony" around it. Though you do manage to show that you probably don't know what "irony" means.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
That really wasn't my intent, and if that was how it came across, I disavow that portion of my remarks.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Sorry, maybe over-reacted.
Weird as the Church Society are (I can't quite get my head around simultaneously supporting the English Establishment and Calvinist Evangelicalism - they don't go together in my book - and I neither understand nor sympathise with their obsession with homosexuality) I don't think they are the sort of people who go in for vandalising church buildings. Grumpy whinges over the sherry after Morning Prayer maybe, but that's about as hard as they get. Not a lot of Rangers supporters in that on the whole rather pleasant and doctrinally very orthodox and very Anglican bunch of people (not that I have anything against Rangers supporters. Quite a lot of my relatives are Rangers supporters)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Perhaps this question should be a separate thread. But, apparently, ++Rowan has told ++Vincent that the sale of CofE properties to the Romans is impossible.
I am puzzled by this as the CofE certainly could use the money and many of these old buildings are very expensive to maintain.
Perhaps those more familiar with arcane CofE property issues than I can unpuzzle me a bit. (Some of the discussion on page 18 is already helpful.)
Well, it isn't strictly impossible, but so rare, difficult and time-consuming as to be not a major option across-the-board.
I refer the Hon. Gentleman to my post on page 18.
The 'CofE' does not exist in terms of owning things. It is a spiritual entity, but it is not the money owning or spending bit.
The Church Commissioners are a joint body of Church and State who act as trustees of the national property of the Church of England, and pay the clergy and retired clergy pensions, and many other things. They must act as charity trustees and in the manner required by Parliament and the other legitimate authorities of church and state.
A major change to their function would require major primary legislation, which would be difficult to get through Parliament and would need the government to allocate time to something with no political advantage. ++Canterbury is one of the Commission but has no real power in that context, they must follow professional legal advice.
There are a whole range of other charitable trusts and officials which own or pay the other charitable trusts in the line from parish to diocese to the national church.
Thus in general church buildings are held in tension and trust between the national church trust (but this is not under the control of the General Synod or Archbishops), the diocesan trust and the local corporation sole - the vicar in office. So the Vicar in office has the right to remain in the vicarage, he rents it free from a charitable trust of which he is the only living trustee! But if he defects to Rome, then he automatically stops holding that position and his successor takes over.
The congregation have absolutely no possession rights over the church physical property.
The diocese only gets rights during a vacancy and a suspension. If a parish church becomes non-viable as a separate church it may be merged with a neighbouring church, in which case that Vicar gets the rights over that church as well, or closed. Even if closed and sold, the money gets split between the diocese and church commissioners, they must achieve a market price. Nothing to stop the RC bidding at this point, but they would have to have enough money and need for it. But no special favours can be done.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
A lovely lighter moment at 25:30 on The Now Show (available BBC iPlayer in UK only).
Possibly the first time that the Angelic Doctor has been rhymed with the female internal genitalia. Or maybe not the first....
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
Thank you FreeJack for a comprehensible explanation of the position (as I struggle to understand it).
I think this portion is worthy of comment.
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Thus in general church buildings are held in tension and trust between the national church trust (but this is not under the control of the General Synod or Archbishops), the diocesan trust and the local corporation sole - the vicar in office. ...
The congregation have absolutely no possession rights over the church physical property.
The interesting moral question is that in most cases the national church and its trust, and the diocesan church and its trust, will have paid ne'er a penny towards the building, ehanancement or maintenance of the building. Probably most of the anglo-catholic churches will have been built by the vicar in office or the local congregation and the upkeep will also have been entirly at their expense.
Obviously with ancient churches the original building was 'acquired' by the national church but has foe very many years been entirly funded locally).
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
The interesting moral question is that in most cases the national church and its trust, and the diocesan church and its trust, will have paid ne'er a penny towards the building, ehanancement or maintenance of the building. Probably most of the anglo-catholic churches will have been built by the vicar in office or the local congregation and the upkeep will also have been entirly at their expense.
Obviously with ancient churches the original building was 'acquired' by the national church but has foe very many years been entirly funded locally).
Thanks. My post wasn't 100% technically accurate but for non-CofE specialists conveys the sort of inter-woven charitable complexity of it all.
You make the key point again. Congregations, collectively or individually do not own the buildings or its fittings or even the PCC cash bank account.
Once you give money to a charity it is theirs not yours, you have no residual control over it. (You may in certain circumstances place restrictions at point of gift.)
If I give £10 to Cancer Research and then in ten years time, decide I'd rather have given it to the RSPCA, I can't ask Cancer Research to forward the money on to the RSPCA, and they must not do it.
If I give £10 to a CofE PCC, I cannot subsequently ask for it to be forwarded to a RC diocese when I convert. I cannot insist that the PCC never changes its churchmanship - indeed a PCC does not have one. A PCC cannot convert to Rome, by law it must be part of the CofE. It must serve all its parishioners, not just the clique who 'run' the church. If a PCC goes off the rails, then eventually the diocese and/or parish meetings will bring it back into line.
(Probably another reason, the RCC don't want to get too involved with Anglican buildings and finance. As I understand it most ordinary RC churches are owned by the diocese, or a monastic order, not individual parishes.)
There are a few evangelical and anglo-catholic charities that are designed to be slightly more portable, if its leaders change denomination, but it is very hard to do that, without basically just naming the trustees at a point in time.
So the moral point is if you give money to a charity, you have given it, you must have no residual benefit from it, except perhaps a warm inner glow, and even that can be dangerous if you start thinking of it as 'my altar rail' or 'my hymn book' in 'my church' because 'I paid for it.'
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
The interesting moral question is that in most cases the national church and its trust, and the diocesan church and its trust, will have paid ne'er a penny towards the building, ehanancement or maintenance of the building. Probably most of the anglo-catholic churches will have been built by the vicar in office or the local congregation and the upkeep will also have been entirly at their expense.
Obviously with ancient churches the original building was 'acquired' by the national church but has foe very many years been entirly funded locally).
Thanks. My post wasn't 100% technically accurate but for non-CofE specialists conveys the sort of inter-woven charitable complexity of it all.
You make the key point again. Congregations, collectively or individually do not own the buildings or its fittings or even the PCC cash bank account.
Once you give money to a charity it is theirs not yours, you have no residual control over it. (You may in certain circumstances place restrictions at point of gift.)
If I give £10 to Cancer Research and then in ten years time, decide I'd rather have given it to the RSPCA, I can't ask Cancer Research to forward the money on to the RSPCA, and they must not do it.
If I give £10 to a CofE PCC, I cannot subsequently ask for it to be forwarded to a RC diocese when I convert. I cannot insist that the PCC never changes its churchmanship - indeed a PCC does not have one. A PCC cannot convert to Rome, by law it must be part of the CofE. It must serve all its parishioners, not just the clique who 'run' the church. If a PCC goes off the rails, then eventually the diocese and/or parish meetings will bring it back into line.
(Probably another reason, the RCC don't want to get too involved with Anglican buildings and finance. As I understand it most ordinary RC churches are owned by the diocese, or a monastic order, not individual parishes.)
There are a few evangelical and anglo-catholic charities that are designed to be slightly more portable, if its leaders change denomination, but it is very hard to do that, without basically just naming the trustees at a point in time.
So the moral point is if you give money to a charity, you have given it, you must have no residual benefit from it, except perhaps a warm inner glow, and even that can be dangerous if you start thinking of it as 'my altar rail' or 'my hymn book' in 'my church' because 'I paid for it.'
There is potentially a case in Equity if not in common law for a church building entirely built by "catholic" funding. Likely unsuccessful, but a possibility.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
There is potentially a case in Equity if not in common law for a church building entirely built by "catholic" funding. Likely unsuccessful, but a possibility.
Almost certainly unsuccessful. I cannot think of a single case where this has been done, not even when there has been say an HTB takeover and a real change of churchmanship.
I cannot think the Roman Catholic Church would be remotely interested in it. An expensive court case with the Church of England trying to use some principle of non-statute to overturn a statutory provision before judges who will most likely be closet Anglicans. In order to 'win' a church with enormous heating and maintenance bills and which would become a focal point for disunity. Dream on, John.
And if the change of churchmanship is only from say FiF to a moderate AffCathism then you would have a hard job saying that Roman Catholicism is closer 'somehow' to the original FiF donors than AffCath anglo-catholicism, even if you could work out who the donors were.
(I can see complications of the equity type where you have a parish with districts of different churchmanship and the PCC over-rules the DCC or similar.)
If FiF are really planning to sue the CofE then that will kill whatever goodwill there may be in General Synod towards those that remain.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I'm not sure why people keep worrying about the possibility of a brangle over Anglican Church property which might become redundant with the rise of the new ordinariats. This really is worrying about nothing.
I suspect the new ordinariats, like the TAC, will mostly hold services on the premises of Latin Rite Catholic churches which already exist.
The prospective great move across the Tiber is not going to happen.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I cannot think the Roman Catholic Church would be remotely interested in it.
Too bloody right.
In my day job, I am the Financial Secretary of a Catholic Diocese - the job is a sort of combination of Diocesan Secretary and Diocesan Treasurer in CofE terms. I can assure you that there is absolutely no appetite for the kind of dispute you envisage.
I think it also important to recognise that the way we are organised means that in these kinds of cases, there's no such a thing as a collective Catholic entity. The apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus establishes, in the Ordinariates, new juridic persons, i.e. new canonical entities with the right to acquire, administer and alienate their own property free from the interference of others (subject to certain hierarchical oversight provisions). Therefore, should a congregation geographically located in, say, my diocese wish to join the ordinariate, issues of property are strictly its own business not my Bishop's.
In England and Wales the legal structure of ownership of property is that diocesan trusts own all the real and moveable property of the diocese (excluding that owned by individuals and religious orders). This is a hang-over from the time, pre-1909, when parishes were strictly only 'missions' for canonical purposes. The structure envisaged in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law (and indeed in the Septem Librorum which preceded 1917) is rather more like the CofE structure, i.e. that parishes (that is properly erected parishes and not missions) are juridic persons with all the rights that go with that status. Accordingly, they would 'own' their own parishes. Since 1909 (when England and Wales ceased to be 'mission territory') there has been no attempt to devolve the properties held by the dioceses to the parishes and for a whole host of reasons I can't see that happening. With the ordinariates, if parishes (personally rather than territorially defines, I suspect) are established, and having regard to what we are encouraged to refer to as 'Anglican Patrimony', it might well be that they would own their own property rather than it being vested in the ordinariate.
[ 29. November 2009, 09:50: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Edward Green/Angloid - I've just looked at Fr. Ed's blog, and I can't for the life of me see how you read that SCP thing into it.
quote:
Father Waller’s board expresses what many of us are starting to fear- that we are actually hated within our own family, who have no real desire to help us, but will seek to hurt us if we stay and hurt us if we go. Pray God that this fear is entirely unfounded.
I guess it depends how you read 'family'. As I see the traditionalists as part of the 'Reformed Catholic' family perhaps I took it too personally?
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Ah - I see. I had read it to mean Anglicanism in general. But who knows?
Thanks for responding anyway.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I may be tangenting too much on an already-overtanged thread, but perhaps a solution might be found in the French model where, if I understand it correctly, the Republic owns the buildings, and leases them to "cultic associations." This would solve not only several disestablishment-related questions, but also safeguard the preservation of the religious built heritage of the English people (for argument's sake, everything pre-1867, the year of the first Lambeth conference).
Leases could be distributed either to PCCs, or even to inter-church consortia. This would allow for the Ordinariate to snap up a few less-used Butterfield or Ninian Comper joints, the Latin Rite folks could comfort themselves with some ancient saints' shrines, the CoE could breathe more easily as surplus churches (a growing designation) find homes and local congregations would get a respite from maintenance and externally-imposed reno costs.
With greater clarity among all on building ownership, we might even have less desecration of godly spiritual edifices with power-point screens and amplifiers.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Given the fashion for public apologies for things done by our ancestors, maybe we Anglicans should give back to the RCC the buildings we stole from them at the Reformation.
Maybe if they were to repay the money spent on the upkeep of these churches since that time.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
