Posted on 02/10/2007 11:58:58 AM PST by XR7
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1765981/posts?page=3#3
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1755748/posts<
The latter has links to explore.
It (The Falls Church) is .
The church preexists the diocese.In fact, it was before there was an Episcopal church.
The earlier contending that it is cut and dried are quite wrong.
I would love to do a retreat circuit, and ask them all, "Why? Isn't His bread alone enough to sustain us?"
And of course John 14:6..."I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
I think Christians in Africa and other troubled places are simply struggling to survive. This can cause one to focus on what is important. They cannot afford the luxury of arguing about what color the church carpet should be (if they are fortunate enough to have a church building and a carpet) and somehow I don't think the most important thing with them is homosexuality, poltical correctness, or deconstructing the Bible.
I am certain that rule was instituted with exactly this sort of conflict in mind.
Well, you saw what Gerald Ford's TEC preacher did during his funeral: Quoted the first sentence, lopped off the second.
Virginia statutory law explicitly in cases of denominational splits gives the property to the congregation, not the larger denomination.
Besides that, TEC's legal claim to individual properties dates only to 1980...put in place by the liberal leadership at the time...to mollify (blackmail) conservative congregations into submission. Each mainline (liberal) Protestant denomination (Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal) put similar measures in place at the time, for the same reason.
There has been no purchase or fundraising on the part of the denomination for these church properties, each congregation bought and maintained the properties themselves.
The key churches in the Virginia cases date to the 1750s anyway....well over 50 years before any Episcopal denomination in America existed.
These property disputes are an attempt at intimidation and stealing on the part of liberal churchmen, plain and simple.
The Anglicans didn't much care when they stole all those Catholic properties in the 16th century...
You guessed it!
In Anglican theology, as in Reformed, (see Art 19), the church is the people, not the propertyThis is the United States of America. What does Anglican theology have to do with the law. Thomas Jefferson (a good Virginian if ever there was one) is spinning in his grave. I know some posters here are more conservative than most Americans, but the Revolution was a long, long time ago and King George III is still dead.
Thank you, your reply was helpful.
I live in northeast Florida. We have an episcopal church here that simply walked away from thier building without a court fight. A now meeting in a chapel at a catholic high school and have joined the Anglicans.
It seems to me the Episcopal church is breaking up.
It was over the same issues, homosexuality, the leadership saying there are many routes to heaven, etc. The former rector said this battle had been going on for almost 40 years and the election of the new head of the church who is a thelogical liberal was the last straw.
This is what The Falls Church is embroiled in. It seems to be an attempt by the diocese to intimidate any congregations who may want to leave into thinking twice.
Falls Church is counting on Virginia law to decide who legally holds the church propery, which goes back 300 years. We shall see.
For centuries, when a group of churchgoers had a radically different idea (e.g., God approves of homosexual conduct), they would leave the established church and found a new church or denomination. That involved real sacrifice for their beliefs. In this case, the radicals merely took over the church, and claimed its inheritance. They'll end up with lots of gorgeous buildings, and the hard-earned efforts of real Christians, but won't be able to support it with actual parishioners.
It has to do with your lack of proper terminology. If you wish to refer to property owned by the parish, you should do so; if you want to talk about the church, you are referring to the people, not the land. When dealing with legal issues, one must be specific.
Thomas Jefferson (a good Virginian if ever there was one) is spinning in his grave.
Aye, but not for the reasons that you seem to imply. Jefferson knew that the Constitution was a limit on federal, not state power. To the extent that Virginia recognizes that the Parish controls the real estate (Code of Virginia Sec. 57-9 (A)), the federal courts should not interfere.
I see that you theological liberals are still quoting that New York Times slander of the Bishop of Nigeria.
The situation was somewhat different in northeast Florida. I looked at some of the real estate records there, and the Bishop had the properties titled in his name; they were not titled in the names of the individual parishes. In Virginia, it is my understanding that the properties are titled in the parishes, and that there are no written trusts. Thus, the legal outcome should be quite different than would have been seen in Florida.
The Virginia parishes should also be able to show bad faith dealing on the part of their bishop, which should help their case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.