Babyblue on the Virginia Court Proceedings

Read it all.

Update: ENS has a pice here also.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Virginia

10 comments on “Babyblue on the Virginia Court Proceedings

  1. RalphM says:

    The ENS article is pure spin city. Too bad they didn’t have the integrity to publish the entire letter that Patrick Getlein sent to the DoV clergy and lay leadership.

    From reading the ENS article, one would never know what the primary purpose of yesterdays’s hearing was….

    RalphM

  2. Revamundo says:

    Please enlighten us RalphM

  3. Brian from T19 says:

    Wow, BabyBlue

    If this is a win, I’d hate to see what a loss is for you. TEC and the Diocese got everything they wanted. Your friends may not be listed as defendants, but they are still subject to litigation if they stole – which is bexactly what would happen if they were still listed as defendants! And the court is basing the decision on the Constitution and Canons!! This a slam dunk for TEC. Even the trespass motion was not dismissed with prejudice, so they just need to file it correctly. There must be something about CANA that blinds people to objective reality.

  4. dpeirce says:

    Guess someone should point out that the fat lady has not yet sung, neither in the matter of the Va properties nor in the matter of September 30.

    In faith, Dave
    Viva Texas

  5. seminarian says:

    Brian,

    This is in no way a slam dunk for TEC or the DioVA. The judge did not say that the he was going to exclusively use the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. There is a precedent in the state of Virginia to apply neutral principles of law. What the hearing yesterday was was to see whether the court cases could be dismissed. He sustained a portion of the demurrer (what was being decided yesterday) against TEC and DioVA. However, he also overruled a portion of the demurrer. Again, this is in no way a slam dunk for the DioVA and TEC. Brian, the judge did sustain the portion of the demurrer that dealt with the Trespass aspect of the litigation. In addition, there is still a hearing on whether the 57-9 statute governs the case whcih will come in November.

  6. seminarian says:

    tinpipes,

    A response from the Anglican District of Virginia churches issued on Thursday states:

    Pastoral Ministrations Continue for all past and present members of Anglican District of Virginia Churches

    Fairfax, VA (August 9, 2007)—-The Rt. Rev. David Bena, Suffragan Bishop of CANA, issued today a strong affirmation that “requests for pastoral ministrations for all members, past or present, will be courteously honored by the clergy of the Anglican District of Virginia.” This includes requests for weddings, funerals, and other special services in ADV churches.

    “We stand firm on the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ that all Christians who are or who have been members of our churches receive the pastoral ministry set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, “Bishop Bena said.

    In fact, ADV member churches have already made facilities available for a number of special pastoral services – including funerals – and will continue to do so. Several of these services have been conducted by both Episcopal and Anglican priests together. “We are grateful for the leadership and pastoral example of these priests,” said Bishop Bena. “They have shown remarkable Christian unity in these troubled times.”

    For more information, call the Anglican District of Virginia office or the rector of any of the ADV churches.”

  7. AnglicanFirst says:

    If the Diocese of Virginia wins it’s secular lawsuit and takes physical possession of the parish properties that are the subject of the diocese’s litigation, than I am convinced that they may gain possession of the properties, but they will end up holding properties that are no longer Holy Ground.

    That is, I personally sense that the Holy Spirit will no longer grace those properties with His Presence.

    But for the revisionist/progressive group this shouldn’t be much of a problem since their theology is suspect and they will probably make some sort of secular adjustment in their efforts to seize control of the Anglican faith in the United States that will lead them into some sort of delusion that their seized properties are still Holy Ground.

  8. TonyinCNY says:

    I wonder how the DoV is going to pay for all those large buildings if they win them. It doesn’t look like they have too many people to populate or pay for them. On the other hand, even if these huge churches lose, they have the people and means to start over at a new location. I don’t see how the diocese wins either way.

  9. dpeirce says:

    Tony: They win by causing disruption to the faithful. If they get nothing more than that it’s worth any cost to them. Also, they gain properties they can sell if necessary to gain resources to cause more trouble for other faithful people. Their objective is NOT to preserve the properties for future generations but to cause as much turmoil as they can.

    In faith, Dave
    Viva Texas

  10. carol says:

    …“We must protect and preserve our heritage for future generations.”…

    I love that quote above. I wonder what is being preserved when churches are sold off, not to believers who have left that church, but to anyone who will pay top dollar, stained glass windows are sold to raise money in NJ, along with other church property being sacrificed to secularism. What and how are future generations going to inherit what is no longer there?

    …“According to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, dioceses are created or dissolved only by acts of General Convention (Articles V and VI) and dioceses create or dissolve Episcopal congregations in their midst. Congregational property is held in trust for the diocese, and the diocese holds property in trust for the wider church (Canon I.7.4 of the Episcopal Church). Virginia’s diocesan canons concur with the national canons.”…

    So does this mean that the church in NJ which is selling off the stained glass windows needs the permission of General Convention since the property is held in trust for the wider church?