|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ordinariate repays £1 million
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
That makes sense?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by CL:
quote:
If Anglicans want unity it's Ordinariate or bust. The end.
...and the moderate RC strikes again, hehe.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by CL:
quote:
If Anglicans want unity it's Ordinariate or bust. The end.
...and the moderate RC strikes again, hehe.
Harsh truths are rarely appreciated.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That makes sense?
Anglicanism makes no claim to be the One True Church. On what basis does it thus base its authority to do as it pleases given repeated claims to having no doctrine other than that of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That makes sense?
Anglicanism makes no claim to be the One True Church. On what basis does it thus base its authority to do as it pleases given repeated claims to having no doctrine other than that of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Are you implying if the C of E did have that authority and doctrine you would not "remove our funds" to a "proper" home?
AtB Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
There will not be unity, there never will be unity and people on both sides would be a damned sight better off if they stopped indulging in childish fantasies and had the balls to be honest.
Couldn't agree more.
Bullshit ecumenism is finally bearing fruit tho. It has become about work.
Working together for the Kingdom.
No more of this vapid poncing about. Time for the real shit - the practical outworking of all our various faiths.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Are you implying if the C of E did have that authority and doctrine you would not "remove our funds" to a "proper" home?
AtB Pyx_e
Did CL talk about doing any such thing?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Are you implying if the C of E did have that authority and doctrine you would not "remove our funds" to a "proper" home?
AtB Pyx_e
Did CL talk about doing any such thing?
Nor was this thread about it but it did not stop him banging on about it.
AtB Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
There will not be unity, there never will be unity and people on both sides would be a damned sight better off if they stopped indulging in childish fantasies and had the balls to be honest.
Couldn't agree more.
Bullshit ecumenism is finally bearing fruit tho. It has become about work.
Working together for the Kingdom.
No more of this vapid poncing about. Time for the real shit - the practical outworking of all our various faiths.
Funny how there is not one mention of Jesus Christ in that article.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Nor was this thread about it but it did not stop him banging on about it.
AtB Pyx_e
To be fair, it wasn't he, by RugbyPlayingPriest who started banging on about it and CL picked up the tangent, but I take the point.
[ 30. June 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
There will never be unity because Canterbury has chosen division. It is merely catching up with it's Erastian fellow travellers in the Scandinavian state churches. The mealy mouthed facile statements of "ecumenists" that everything is possible with God or we can't foresee the movement of the Holy Spirit are asinine to the point of insulting intelligence.
There will not be unity, there never will be unity and people on both sides would be a damned sight better off if they stopped indulging in childish fantasies and had the balls to be honest.
If Anglicans want unity it's Ordinariate or bust. The end.
What a very depressing point of view. I don't agree with you (obviously) and I don't think your argument takes into account the last 50 years.
I think the establishment of the Ordinariate went very much against the tide of recent church history. In fifty years, I firmly believe it will be seen as a blip in ecumenical relations, rather than their conclusion.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
CL is basically right, if'n you ask me. Rome has basically always operated under the idea that unity could be achieved if Anglicans got over believing in their validity and started behaving like Roman Catholics. He's just saying what the 70's ecumenists wouldn't. To be fair, most Anglicans have been more or less the same- so long as Rome started acting Anglican we would all get along quite merrily.
In retrospect, the optimism of 70's theologians predicting imminent reunion seems to have been rather foolish. Of course, talk about ordination of women being a real ecumenical game changer is also silly, since we were not an inch closer to Rome recognizing our orders before we started ordaining women.
The Anglicans that wanted a pope have gotten one, the silver they tried to run off with has been restored, and now the ecumenical program can continue precisely as it was before.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
It was formed to promote Catholicism within the Church of England. One could as easily point to modern Anglicanism, and certainly Affirming Catholicism, as being as unrecognisable to the founders as the Ordinariate would be. The point is surely that so much has happened since the 19th Century, especially due to women's ordination, to make the present situation one that nobody would have seen coming... and so nothing is as clear as they would like.
As to the mean spirited tearing apart of my previous post. Fine. I have no desire to argue. Enjoy your money - and delight in crushing us stinking traitors. Enjoy...I really do not care.
Well, there we are then. Whatever the Ordinariate may be, it is surely not the promotion of Catholicism within the Church of England . It seemes to be more about the preservation of "Anglican patrimony" within the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever it's about, the Ordinariate doesn't promote anything within the Church of England, so if that remains the established point of the charity, the charity should not have been giving money to the Ordinariate.
As a non Catholic, non Anglican, non desiring to be either, I am sorry that some people seem to cause you so much unpleasantness. The Ordinariate appears to allow for some people to get what they have always wanted, and for others, it is not what they've always wanted. Both sides appear to be free to carry on pursuing their ambitions.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... Of course, talk about ordination of women being a real ecumenical game changer is also silly, since we were not an inch closer to Rome recognizing our orders before we started ordaining women....
Maybe so, but before it happened it was possible to envisage some sort of 'convalidation' or 'reception' of Anglican Orders that might be acceptable. Now it is completely impossible.
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
No just give Rome another four hundred years and it might well be considering it.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I find it rather disturbing that the CBS (the CofE branch that is -- I've no idea of the wealth of its branches in TEC or elsewhere)were sitting on such a massive pile of money in the first place. Surely, the charity should dispurse its funds more liberally and regularly so that it never accumulates such a vast hoard of treasure. The operating expenses of the CBS can't be very great, surely. It doesn't really need to save for a rainy day. It shouldn't be banking such a large amount of money. Thoughts?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I find it rather disturbing that the CBS (the CofE branch that is -- I've no idea of the wealth of its branches in TEC or elsewhere)were sitting on such a massive pile of money in the first place. Surely, the charity should dispurse its funds more liberally and regularly so that it never accumulates such a vast hoard of treasure. The operating expenses of the CBS can't be very great, surely. It doesn't really need to save for a rainy day. It shouldn't be banking such a large amount of money. Thoughts?
I imagine the money is invested, and the income for the money funds the day-to-day expenses of the charity.
If, for instance, they had a return of 5% (which seems fairly conservative) that would be an annual income of £80000, plenty enough to live off, and perhaps increase the capital. So it's not just saving for a rainy day; it's guaranteeing its future income.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
It is the rule of most charities to only spend the income from investment and not touch capital. Another reason why the Ordinariate grab was frowned upon. To slightly understate the matter they dipped into capital.
AtB, Pyx_e
[ 30. June 2012, 17:48: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
I imagine the money is invested, and the income for the money funds the day-to-day expenses of the charity.
If, for instance, they had a return of 5% (which seems fairly conservative) that would be an annual income of £80000, plenty enough to live off, and perhaps increase the capital. So it's not just saving for a rainy day; it's guaranteeing its future income.
Just to confirm this point, have a look at the Charity Commission's page summarising CBS's accounts.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1082897 &SubsidiaryNumber=0
So they have been spending a little more than their income in recent years, but not by a great deal. Certainly not by ~1100%.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I could understand this if we were talking about an institution that has a physical plant to maintain, in which case you certainly want to avoid dipping into the capital assets. My own parish church operates in this fashion, as do so many others. However, I don't see the CBS being in an analogous situation. How is sitting on such a large chunk of change advancing the objects of the charity?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
As someone who has served on Boards from time to time, what appalled me most was the disbursement of such a large percentage of the funds at a meeting without a quorum.
Unless the rules of order are significantly different in England, that's a major breach of fiduciary trust. To be more blunt, it would be considered theft and people would be prosecuted.
I guess I missed the footnote in the Decalogue that says you can ignore the commandments as long as you are theologically correct...
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I could understand this if we were talking about an institution that has a physical plant to maintain, in which case you certainly want to avoid dipping into the capital assets. My own parish church operates in this fashion, as do so many others. However, I don't see the CBS being in an analogous situation. How is sitting on such a large chunk of change advancing the objects of the charity?
Because if they spent it there would be no charity, not in any meaningful sense.
If you look at the 2010 accounts you'll see that the CBS had income of £91727. £140 was from "activities for generating funds", £8542 was from "donations and legacies", while £83045 was "investment income". If they spent the capital in a blaze of glory (I'm sure you can think of an example) the charity would have very little income in future years. The objects of the charity would not be advanced by spending all the money in 2012 and having no charity at all in 2013.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
As someone who has served on Boards from time to time, what appalled me most was the disbursement of such a large percentage of the funds at a meeting without a quorum.
Unless the rules of order are significantly different in England, that's a major breach of fiduciary trust. To be more blunt, it would be considered theft and people would be prosecuted.
I guess I missed the footnote in the Decalogue that says you can ignore the commandments as long as you are theologically correct...
That's a symptom of running an organisation as though it were a private club for the benefit of a select set of members, in this case apparently the former board of directors of the CBS.
Also, further to my earlier posts, it should be pointed out that the CBS presumably doesn't have multiple significant staff salaries to pay, so this is another reason I fail to see why the capital should be allowed to grow to such an enormous amount (enormous for an outfit that is supposed to provide things like vestments, monstrances, devotional materials, and the periodic event and AGM).
[ 30. June 2012, 18:48: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
As someone who has served on Boards from time to time, what appalled me most was the disbursement of such a large percentage of the funds at a meeting without a quorum.
Unless the rules of order are significantly different in England, that's a major breach of fiduciary trust. To be more blunt, it would be considered theft and people would be prosecuted.
In their defence, they didn't believe they were inquorate. The Charity Commission has ruled that the meeting was inquorate because the majority of those attending were ineligible to vote on the matter because of their personal interest in the decision. The trustees believed that they did not have such a personal interest and therefore that the meeting was properly quorate.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Thanks, Basilica--that makes a little more sense.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Basilica, do you really think the CBS needs capital of 2 mil to operate effectively? And how much of the investment income is being spent on the objects of the charity, as opposed to being plowed back into its investment fund. One really gets the sense that the main object of the CBS - in the CofE anyway - is simply to perpetuate itself. It's ironic if the perpetuation of the charity should become more important than the mission of serving the objects of the charity.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
2 million is not a lot.
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I agree with Organ Builder. That seemed extraordinarily sloppy and prima facie evidence of trustee incompetence.
I don't, however, agree with the suggestion the charities should spend only their income. The Charity Commission's view has been, for the entire time I have been a charity trustee (17 years) the Commissions view is that, apart from permanent endowment, charitable trustees should seek to disburse the funds they hold in pursuit of the charitable objects, holding only those reserves that are necessary. The Commission's publication CC19 helpfully sets this out. It seems to me that if the trustees had been quorate (which they were not) and had the grant been within the objects (which the commission thinks not but which the charity's lawyers advised otherwise) then making such a grant would be perfectly reasonablesince the funds in question were not permanent endowment.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I'm with Pyx. 2 million bucks is the endowment of a single parish church, albeit a prosperous one. I think the Church should not be shy about putting away enough to live on. Lord knows there are hard times ahead.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
2 million is not a lot.
AtB, Pyx_e
It wouldn't be a lot for some types of organisations, but I would maintain that it's quite a lot for a devotional society with charitable aims of the type exemplified by the CBS. I also agree with what Trisagion has said about this matter.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Basilica, do you really think the CBS needs capital of 2 mil to operate effectively?
That rather depends on what "operating effectively" would mean.
quote:
And how much of the investment income is being spent on the objects of the charity, as opposed to being plowed back into its investment fund.
Slightly over 100%, as can be seen from the link I posted above. That is to say, they have been spending all of their investment income and a little of their capital each year.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm with Pyx. 2 million bucks is the endowment of a single parish church, albeit a prosperous one. I think the Church should not be shy about putting away enough to live on. Lord knows there are hard times ahead.
But it IS NOT a parish church, Zach. That's the point. It does not have the operating expenses of a parish church AFAIK.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The income from 2 million would certainly not support anything but the smallest congregation. £91,727 in less than $150,000- barely enough to pay for an office and a secretary on top of actually doing charitable activities.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm with Pyx. 2 million bucks is the endowment of a single parish church, albeit a prosperous one. I think the Church should not be shy about putting away enough to live on. Lord knows there are hard times ahead.
Not in England, it's not. Because CofE and CinW parishes have, historically, been exempt from filing charitable accounts with the Charity Commission, it's almost impossible to know, but I'd be staggered if more than a handful of parishes had an endowment of that size.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea. That would be a very large endowment by American standards as well, and endowments at many parishes are tied up for specific uses- very few of which include "paying the priest a living wage" or "keeping the roof from caving in or the electricity on."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Yes, but that does rather assume the congregation aren't giving anything.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The income from 2 million would certainly not support anything but the smallest congregation. £91,727 in less than $150,000- barely enough to pay for an office and a secretary on top of actually doing charitable activities.
It would not support a "church" with 1000 laity and 100 clergy for sure.
So it was only ever intended to be a short term sticking plaster giving hopefully enough space/time to get some momentum. Understandable tactically but (as it transpires) poor strategically.
AtB , Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Some of the TEC parishes on the East Coast, however, have endowments much greater than $2mil. These old places also tend to have high expenses, with a highly professionalised music programme, and sometimes quite smallish congregations (although some well-endowed Manhattan parishes are fortunate enough to have quite large congregations).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Well, there we are then. Whatever the Ordinariate may be, it is surely not the promotion of Catholicism within the Church of England . It seemes to be more about the preservation of "Anglican patrimony" within the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever it's about, the Ordinariate doesn't promote anything within the Church of England, so if that remains the established point of the charity, the charity should not have been giving money to the Ordinariate.
If we poke around on the CBS website, we find a page with a Q&A document (pdf file from July 2011), from which we lern that CBS is “[not] a Church of England charity,” that “CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury” and that they have members “outside the Church of England.” This includes continuing anglican bodies, like the TAC. It seems to me, then, that the criterion is that one is part of the Anglican tradition, and not that one is in communion with +Canterbury. The fact that those in the Ordinariate have other doctrines than those in the CofE is also irrelevant, as this is equally true for those in the TAC. For them, the inability for women to get ordained is a doctrine.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
K-mann, all of that reflects changed rammed through at the beginning of this debacle, when the board knew they were leaving and decided to take it all with them.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Funny how there is not one mention of Jesus Christ in that article.
It's called faith in action.
Never heard of the idea before?
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Well, there we are then. Whatever the Ordinariate may be, it is surely not the promotion of Catholicism within the Church of England . It seemes to be more about the preservation of "Anglican patrimony" within the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever it's about, the Ordinariate doesn't promote anything within the Church of England, so if that remains the established point of the charity, the charity should not have been giving money to the Ordinariate.
If we poke around on the CBS website, we find a page with a Q&A document (pdf file from July 2011), from which we lern that CBS is “[not] a Church of England charity,” that “CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury” and that they have members “outside the Church of England.” This includes continuing anglican bodies, like the TAC. It seems to me, then, that the criterion is that one is part of the Anglican tradition, and not that one is in communion with +Canterbury. The fact that those in the Ordinariate have other doctrines than those in the CofE is also irrelevant, as this is equally true for those in the TAC. For them, the inability for women to get ordained is a doctrine.
A charity is not a sort of worthy club. It is set up to fulfill its objects, as defined by those objects, not the interests of its members. The people who gave to it are entitled to assume, even after they are dead, that their money will be used for those purposes, and those only.
The role of the members is that they are supposed to be people who join it because they are committed to the same objects. Even if all the members were Roman Catholic, that would have no bearing on what the charity was set up to do or what was a legitimate way to spend the charities funds.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Stranger:
quote:
Maybe so, but before it happened it was possible to envisage some sort of 'convalidation' or 'reception' of Anglican Orders that might be acceptable.
Lol; which part of 'utterly null and void' hinted to you that there would even be a sherry reception for those in Anglican orders?!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
From Enoch:
"A charity is not a sort of worthy club. It is set up to fulfill its objects, as defined by those objects, not the interests of its members. The people who gave to it are entitled to assume, even after they are dead, that their money will be used for those purposes, and those only."
Exactly. English Equity law has strayed into strange paths over the last 25 years or so, but I can't imagine that there has been that much change to the law of charities. Those who donate are entitled to have their donation used for the rated purposes of the charity. If those purposes included the support of aged, indigent or ill Roman Catholic clergy or their dependents, then the giving of the money would have been valid. But it seems pretty clear that tho was not one of the stated purposes of the charity, and the gift was clearly beyond the powers of the trustees.
Churches are in no different a position to any other charity. Indeed, the courts here have intervened in matters of liturgy basing their decisions on charity law: see Wylde v. Attorney-General (N.S.W.) (ex rel. Ashelford) [1948] HCA 39; (1948) 78 CLR 224. The Bishop of Bathurst had authorised use of a liturgy for the Eucharist other than that in the BCP. Rubrics in this alternative liturgy allowed for making a sign of the cross at the Absolution and Benediction, and for the ringing of a Sanctus bell at the Consecration. Not exactly major issues, one may think, and all that the Bishop did was to authorise the use of the service, not make it mandatory. Roper J held that the question was to be decided in accordance with the principles of public charity law and granted injunctions. An appeal to the High Court was by majority dismissed, but one judge held that the whole procedure was to him distasteful.
I can see no reason why the affairs of the CBS could be viewed in any light other than of a charity and had the matter gone to litigation, it's hard to see how the gift would have been upheld.
As for the rhetorical questions of rugbyplayingpriest, surely the obligation to maintain those clergy who made the change is now that of the church into which they were received?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As for the rhetorical questions of rugbyplayingpriest, surely the obligation to maintain those clergy who made the change is now that of the church into which they were received?
I am puzzled by why there's a problem.
Surely the ordinariate model is one of congregations and their pastors moving as groups to the RC church, and not one of individual clerical submission? In the C of E congregations pay a parish share which more or less covers clergy costs incl pension costs, plus keep up what is usually a very costly building. In the RC church they are, I understand, sharing premises with a rather larger congregation, so that's a big saving (and I guess a welcome little extra for the "hosts"). Surely there ought to be lots of spare cash sloshing around?
What have I missed? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Not in England, it's not. Because CofE and CinW parishes have, historically, been exempt from filing charitable accounts with the Charity Commission, it's almost impossible to know, but I'd be staggered if more than a handful of parishes had an endowment of that size.
Not exempt (the exempt charities were scheduled in the various acts) but excepted. It came to the same thing.
Of course one reason why you are right is that many of the historic parochial endowments (glebe land) were centralised [=snaffled] and are held and run by the diocese, the income being used collectively -- in our diocese as an offset to the clergy cost calculation. It's also the case that the Charity Commission made many schemes to separate off parochial charities from the PCC funds, and rationalise they way they are run.
I think a PCC with endowment funds (in strict sense) of 250k would be envied by the neighbours.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Are there many cases where a priest and the whole or most of the congregation have moved? I understood that few lay people were swimming (and not that many clergy either).
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Are there many cases where a priest and the whole or most of the congregation have moved? I understood that few lay people were swimming (and not that many clergy either).
About half our congregation moved at the same time as the priest. But the original congregation was relatively small anyway.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Funny how there is not one mention of Jesus Christ in that article.
It's called faith in action. Never heard of the idea before?
Faith in action? Certainly have. Existentialism, isn't it?
Of course, you mean faith put into action, but faith in what? The be-all-and-end-all of the Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
I rather fancy that was what CL was getting at.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
