Los Angeles Superior Court Rules That St. Luke’s Congregation May Remain On the La Crescenta Church Property Pending Appeal
La Crescenta, Calif. ”“ August 22, 2007 ”“ St. Luke’s of the Mountains Church will continue to occupy the church property and buildings it has purchased and maintained for over 60 years, during the appeal of a ruling by the Los Angeles Superior Court on July 3, 2007. St. Luke’s Church is located at 2563 Foothill Boulevard in La Crescenta, California, and was formerly affiliated with the Episcopal Church until it aligned with the Anglican Church of Uganda in February 2006. The Court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and The Episcopal Church on their claim to take over the property of St. Luke’s based on an internal Episcopal rule, following a recent decision of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District. On August 15, 2007, St. Luke’s Church appealed the Court’s judgment against it.
This morning, the Honorable John S. Wiley of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted a stay of the judgment pending appeal, which allows the St. Luke’s congregation to remain in the La Crescenta church property until a final appellate ruling is made.
The Court rejected the Episcopal demand that the local congregation deposit over $7 million ”“ based on a commercial valuation ”“ in exchange for permission to remain on the property. By doing so, the Court adopted St. Luke’s arguments that the property was an historic church in continuous operation for many decades. In addition, the Court rejected the demand of the Episcopal Diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, that no other Christian bishops be permitted on the property without his prior permission. This demand was irrelevant to protecting the property from damage pending appeal, and instead would have served solely to deprive St.Luke’s Church of visits from its spiritual leaders based on their church affiliation. St. Luke’s Church will be required to protect and preserve the property
pending appeal, and post a small bond which will be returned to the congregation if it ultimately prevails.
St. Luke’s has been a separate, California nonprofit religious corporation since 1940, and it will continue to hold worship services in La Crescenta.
My favorite line . . . “In addition, the Court rejected the demand of the Episcopal Diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, that no other Christian bishops be permitted on the property without his prior permission.”
It really [i]does[/i] bother them, doesn’t it?
Sarah, is the word, “other,” in that sentence superfluous?
This may be because the “other Christian bishops” may not feel free to share the Eucharist with Bruno.
Especially if Bruno were to want an ‘open’ Eucharist or maybe even a clown Eucharist.
The request for “no other bishops” is incredibly uncharitable, even for John Bruno. This looks spiteful to me.
I’m pleased that the judge did not grant the diocese’s spiteful requests. Certainly the most casual observer can see through the attempts to financially break this parish.
It does my ex-Episcopal heart good to see an Orthodox parish prevail over TEC, even if it lasts only for a short time.
Doesn’t Bruno already participate in a clown Eucharist? It is at very minimum, a farce.
I am not aware of a clown eucharist being associated with the current Bishop of Los Angeles; if anyone has documentation for that, please post it–thanks.
As others have noted, I am simply appalled that Bishop Bruno asked the court to ban any Christian bishop from visiting this church. This is such a hostile and un-Christian act. Does this man have no pastoral heart at all?
Kendall, I think catholic mom sc has tongue stuck firmly in cheek to portray +Bruno’s actions according to their true stature, not that the Eucharist is celebrated in whiteface and funny costumes. Just as every chocolate cake in Germany is a German chocolate cake…
#8:
It is standard and ancient catholic custom that bishops have the right to invite (or disinvite) other bishops on their own territory. Since the court ruled that the church buildings do indeed belong to his diocese, +Bruno’s demand may seem harsh, but it is consistent.
It is, unfortunately, all part and parcel of the same sort of games being played by both sides — such as +Lee being banned from Falls Church and Truro on pain of being charged with trespass. It is the same sort of thing, and yes, I view both as being quite un-Christian (assuming +Bruno were to have followed through and blocked a Ugandan bishop entirely from entering the building by refusing his consent, though that was rendered moot by the court’s refusal to go along).
Just to clarify.
Milton you are entirely correct about the firm placement of my tongue in my cheek.
I was asserting that Bruno is the clown.
“St. Luke’s has been a separate, California nonprofit religious corporation since 1940, and it will continue to hold worship services in La Crescenta.”
Our church in Virginia has fit this description in its town for over 125 years, but when the legal pit bulls from NYC came to court, they would not accept any of our claims. Not even our status as a 501c3 organization.
Our atty’s. refer to it as a “scorched earth” approach. I would note such is often used in full retreat when no other good options are available. What options does +Bruno have? He is not inclined toward Christian charity.
#10 – It is standard and ancient catholic custom that bishops have the right to invite (or disinvite) other bishops on their own territory. Since the court ruled that the church buildings do indeed belong to his diocese, +Bruno’s demand may seem harsh, but it is consistent.
It is also the standard and ancient catholic custom not to bless what the Church has called sin. You cannot lean only on only those “ancient catholic customs” you like.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#13:
That’s normally called “begging the question”.
I was responding to #8 for point of clarification. Your petty remark has no relevance to what I had to say, which was simply to point out the reason for +Bruno’s action (which I, by the way, implicitly criticized by characterizing it as a “game”).
B. Bruno seems to be one of the principal proponents of the strategy TEC hierarchy has adopted since the election of PB Schori. It seems to be less then coincidental that he was also rumored to be one of the few who orchestrated the strategy which got the PB elected much to the surprise of the vast majority of bishops. As an ex NFL football player, he seems to have brought those sames skills to his pastoral approach in dealing with those who disagree with his theology. Predictable but sad.
#10 and #13–It is also standard and ancient catholic custom, based on direct Biblical authority, not to sue other Christians over church disputes. I believe Lee would probably have been allowed in CANA churches until he breached his own protocol for churches that wanted to leave TEC and then, with the assistance of the presiding chancellor and his bishop, sued them. I don’t know either of you, but I bet if I sued you, especially after breaking a promise I had made to you to the contrary, you wouldn’t want to have much to do with me.
Here in Bruno land where I live, although thankfully no longer as a priest in the diocese of Los Angeles, I do not recall seeing Jon Bruno in his Bozo suit. I was present for his well documented use of the notorious bogus Hooker quote in his diocesan convention address defending his vote to consecrate a practicing homosexual divorcee a bishop in the Church. If not a clown maybe the “joker”.
#16:
Sigh. I was responding to a narrow issue in #8 — +Bruno’s request for a ban on other bishops visiting the church without his permission, something that is perfectly consistent with catholic church tradition, even if I would quibble over exercising that right. I then went on to say that I find the behavior of both sides to be poor.
Apparently I have committed the grave faux pas of not making one-sided harsh criticism of “reappraisers” or “filthy libruls” or whatever it is I’m supposed to demonize this week, while making mild implied criticism of “your” side when it doesn’t live up to the same standards.
What’s the point of even engaging in a discussion if people just want to vent their spleen at foes real and imagined? This is a “Christian” discussion? If so, count me out. Good day.
One can only assume that TEC’s strategy is designed to limit losses from as high as 1/4 to under 15%. I think the litigation strategy fails if after Sept 30 a mass exodus of several dioceses and several hundred churches occurs – especially if there is a second recognized province. Too much bad press and not enough money for lawyers under that scenario. I still think the reasserters are missing an opportunity by not aggressively funding a media PR campaing.
But this ruling is not final, and is being appealed. Bruno knows that this congregation will occupy the church buildings until all appeals are heard. He was specifically asking that while this congregation is still in possession of the buildings no bishop be allowed to visit them. And that is petty.
[blockquote]He was specifically asking that while this congregation is still in possession of the buildings no bishop be allowed to visit them.[/blockquote]
…without his permission. It is the same situation as in any other diocese and parish building. The court stated that the buildings belong to his diocese, and it follows that he would have that right. If they had recognized his right, [i]and[/i] he had denied a Ugandan bishop permission to visit, [i]that[/i] would be petty. However, asserting and defending his rights according to tradition is not in and of itself petty. It’s really not that hard to understand.
I know it’s fashionable to tar people you oppose with a broad brush and see every action they undertake as wrong. But in this particular, narrow case of asserting his right once the court said the buildings belong to his diocese, +Bruno [i]didn’t do anything particularly wrong.[/i]
(Correction, by the way: The parish still has the use of the buildings, but formally the diocese owns them pending appeal. An important distinction.)
I don’t like the fact that it’s gone to court, either, in LA or in Virginia or elsewhere. Indeed I hinted at that by referring to the “games” both sides are playing. But that’s not relevant to #8’s question or to what I said.
If you want to score points in debates, y’all might want to address points your partner in discussion [i]actually talks about[/i]. It also helps to reflect and admit when “your guys” are in the wrong, and it helps to be consistent in upholding standards. Bringing up irrelevant issues just aggravates and annoys people and doesn’t solve a thing.
Walsingham, you may be right. I’m guessing Bishop Bruno has a great track record in allowing Ugandan bishops to officiate at dissident churches in his diocese?
#22:
[blockquote]Walsingham, you may be right. I’m guessing Bishop Bruno has a great track record in allowing Ugandan bishops to officiate at dissident churches in his diocese?[/blockquote]
Have you considered that conceding that narrow point to him might make him more willing to accede to a visit by a Ugandan bishop, rather than deny him something that is his by tradition? (While on the subject of “scorched earth” policies…)
As a matter of fact, before all this brouhaha blew up, it wasn’t all that unusual to have bishops from outside a diocese officiate for pastoral reasons, so long as the authority of the local bishop for that territory was acknowledged. Since the building (for the time being anyway) is part of the Diocese of LA, that’s the minimum expectation.
By not giving +Bruno the benefit of the doubt, you’re being just as petty as he [i]would[/i] have been by denying the congregation a visit by their new bishop.
Walsingham,
I was pointing out that +Bruno is leaning on a valid tradtion – one bishop, one territory. It is wrong for bishops to come swooping into other bishops (with whom they are in communion) uninvited.
However, it is also ancient tradition for bishops to discipline heretical/apostate bishops (even without a trial). Anthanasius often went into the territories of Arian bishops to baptize, confirm, and ordain. From Uganda’s point of view, they are doing the same thing. +Bruno (from their point of view) has reliquinished his authority as a bishop by authorizing the blessings of same sex unions and oraining men and women who are sexually active outside of holy matrimony and for violating the teachings of the Anglican Communion and Holy Scripture.
Like I implied earlier, you cannot deny the teaching and doctrine of the Church on the one hand and then hide behind another aspect of it.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#24:
*sigh*
Look, that’s [i]still[/i] not relevant to anything I wrote regarding #8. Here is what was in #8’s post:
[blockquote]I am simply appalled that Bishop Bruno asked the court to ban any Christian bishop from visiting this church. This is such a hostile and un-Christian act. Does this man have no pastoral heart at all?[/blockquote]
OK? With me so far? #8 is criticizing what +Bruno is demanding: that his rights as bishop for that property be respected. I pointed out that he is acting [i]on that point[/i] in a reasonable fashion and entirely within Christian tradition. You may of course argue that Ugandan bishops can do as they please from their POV, but that is irrelevant to my reply. You can argue that +Bruno is a real meanie, but that’s not relevant to the issue. You can bring up your detailed description of how Burger King tastes better than McDonald’s, which might be really fascinating on its own merits, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. There is no linkage between how +Bruno acts on that point and any other. Trying to insist that there [i]is[/i] opens yourself and “your guys” up to all kinds of inconsistency. The fact is that [i]if[/i] +Bruno’s diocese owns that building, and the court says it does pending appeal, he under normal circumstances would have the right to refuse entry to other bishops if he so chose. Any other remarks on that end is just pointless blathering and utterly irrelevant.
You will note that I have hinted that I think +Bruno [i]should[/i] allow a Ugandan bishop to make a visit, at the very least as a kind gesture, by describing the conjectured refusal as “petty”. Please do me the courtesy of 1) reading my posts more carefully and 2) actually replying to what I write, rather than pigeonholing me as a rabid-reappraiser-dirty-filthy-rotten-librul-heretic-whatever-it-is y’all rant about ’round these parts.
Thus your digging up Athanasius (you have one “n” too many) or the implied comaprison of TEC to the Arians is pretty scattershot (but it does remind me of Whoppers and Big Macs in terms of staying on topic).
#25 (sigh)
My point is that it is not correct within +Bruno’s “rights” to claim the ancient rights of a bishop when he denies the ancient role of bishop to uphold the teaching of the Church. It is not about +Bruno being mean or petty or outside of his “rights.” It is about his hipocracy in denying the ancient tradition of the church with one breath and then insisting on it with the other.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Walsingham, I assume since Bishop Bruno is so terribly concerned about the rights of bishops, and his insistence on the ancient tradition of only one bishop for the church in one geographical area, that he has requested permission from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles to officiate in Los Angeles? Does he oppose Lutheran bishops operating in his territory? Or only Ugandan bishops? After all, the congregation he is so worked up about is a Ugandan parish…
#26:
I note that #8 didn’t mention anything about hypocrisy (not “hipocracy”). Nothing. Zilch. De nada. Null. Instead, #8 called it “hostile and un-Christian” and heartless, which is not the same thing as “hypocrisy”. [b]You still just aren’t sticking to the topic.[/b] Once again you bring up things irrelevant to what I wrote (how does a Big Mac taste, anyway?), trying very desperately to find something, [i]anything,[/i] to stick it to +Bruno, rather than concede that maybe he has a point on even the narrowest of issues. That, frankly, is pretty pathetic.
Uh, no other than yourself has made any such characterizations…
#27:
Congratulations on demonstrating an utter lack of understanding of church polity. “Territory” in this case does not refer to contiguous landmass, but to parishes, dioceses and so on. The Roman Catholics, Lutherans and so on have no claim whatsoever to St. Luke’s (conversely, the Episcopal Diocese of LA exercises no claims on their respective churches) and thus none of them is of any relevance to this discussion. This is strictly an issue of the Episcopal Diocese of LA and the parish in question. Therefore your snark is a red herring and worthless to the discussion.
Meanwhile, repeating myself for the umpteenth time, the court did recognize (for the time being) that St. Luke’s does in fact belong to the Episcopal Diocese of LA and no one else. The congregation was granted temporary use pending the appeal.
Furthermore, +Bruno has not actually said anything about whether he opposes Ugandan bishops actually entering the building or doing much of anything. He was demanding to be [i]asked first[/i], which is normally would be his right, given the fact that he is still the lawful Anglican bishop in the area, pending any decision by the Primates and bishops at Lambeth in 2008.
If it so happens that TEC gets kicked out at Lambeth, then your comparison to the Roman Catholics and Lutherans would actually apply. Until then, it doesn’t.
#29:
ORLY? Then why the constant harping at me about all the sins real and imagined by +Bruno, when I didn’t bring them up?
Dear Walsingham,
The ruling determining the diocese ownership of the building has been stayed – meaning (usually) that it is not in effect until after the appeals process has run its course. California law seems to be in doubt because of splits in appellate courts on trusts/hierachical churchs – thus it is not +Bruno’s/La Diocese Church because the lower court ruling is not in effect – really it is the Ugandan Bishop who would have dominion until the stay is lifted. I think +Lee is not being allowed in because they do not wish for him to assert or reassert control of the buildings.
My guess is that the jugde may not like the decision reached by the appellate court above him but was compelled to rule accordingly. By staying the judgement until California irons out the law – he can allow the Church to continue to exist – if he allowed the summary judgement to take effect the congregation would likely have been severely damage even if his decision is overturned on appeal. The stay preserves the status quo prior to the summary judgement – a time in which +Bruno could not have stoped the Uganda Bishop from visiting. From my following of the goings on in the Anglican world +Bruno does appear to be a very vicious partisan and one should not be suprised that he is petty and mean.
The complaints were not directed at you. In fact, after they were made you showed up with a persecution complex…
Walsingham – I’ll try one last time.
I do not care what #8 brought up. You insist that Bruno has the rights of an bishop by referring to the ancient teaching of the Church. I submit that he lost those rights (particularly the right to be asked or to invite/disinvite another bishop) when he abandoned the ancient teaching of the Church. Thus, while he has canonical rights within TECUSA and can invite/disinvite ECUSA bishops, he cannot stop any other bishop from coming into “his” diocese and performing episcopal acts. I can stop rectors on his authority from inviting other bishops, but he cannot stop rectors not under his authority from doing so.
If you are going to rely on the ancient tradition of the Church, then you probably shouldn’t abandon it.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#32:
Hm, I’m not familiar with the workings of California law, so I’m not sure how exactly a stay works in this case, other than to delay the [i]full[/i] force of the ruling.
Of course, canonically there is still the issue that +Bruno and the Diocese of LA are still the Anglican presence in California, even if Uganda doesn’t like it, unless and until Lambeth says otherwise — meaning that even under those circumstances, +Bruno ought to have some say anyway, at least as a matter of courtesy, even in these extreme circumstances.
As for +Lee and Virginia, I still view it as a rather un-Christian thing to do to ban someone from church property outright like that, with threat of legal action. That was simply over the top and caused a bad situation to escalate even worse. Anyway, supposing he had tried something that devious (which I can hardly imagine) — it would have looked extraordinarily bad, initiated an even greater legal fight and so on. As it is, ADV now has ended up legally on the back foot and +Lee is holding most of the aces regarding the property anyway. So the trespass order just looked petty, and got the ADV parishes nothing. (Frankly I think the ADV lawyers should be fired for doing them a major disservice and costing them a lot of money for nothing. In the end I predict they will be forced to leave, and indeed they are making contingency plans, which is the smart thing to do at this point.)
#34:
Awww, I’m almost touched to think you’d care so much as to persecute me.
#35:
Then that is for Lambeth and the primates to determine and not unilaterally for individual bishops. If Uganda wishes to withdraw from the Anglican Communion, that is their decision, and they can do as they please in terms of doing mission work in the USA. But until either TEC is thrown out or Uganda leaves, Uganda must recognize TEC as the canonical Anglican presence there, and by extension the Episcopal Diocese of LA.
#36 – can you say where in canon law it says that Uganda bishops must recognize the Diocese of LA as the Anglican presence and +Bruno as the bishop? Please don’t talk about tradition or history because +Bruno has show his contempt for those.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
When I said in comment #3,
“Especially if Bruno were to want an ‘open’ Eucharist or maybe even a clown Eucharist,” I was making a broad reference to Eucharistic practices within ECUSA that might be found to be irreligious/blasphemous/anti-Christian in the eyes of a bishop from without ECUSA.
However, I believe that it is true that ‘open’ and clown Eucharists have been conducted, sometimes with non-believers of other faiths, within some of ECUSA’s dioceses.
Please confirm my statement if I am correct and correct me if I am wrong in this statement.
Walsingham – A stay (presumably in CA like other juridictions) means that the ruling does not take effect until the lower court’s paper is graded – it is not just delay – a stay recognizes that there is doubt about the final outcome. Not sure why you think the ADV is on the wrong foot. The Virginia statute (which I have read) seems clear that when a hieracrhciacal church divides the local church can pick where it wants to go – the Diocese of Virginia has clearly divided. I have yet to see any analysis as to why ADV will not prevail – unless the statute is declared unconsititutional – always a tough sled. +Lee caved into 815 or was always negotiating in bad faith (I prefer the former) then attempted to defrock the Priests (overkill as surely one can inform the health benefit folks and the pension fund that so and so no longer works with or for us) – I think mercy, quarter, Christian Charity, good manners is pretty much over. Btw- If the roles were reversed I would be happy to let progressive congregations depart intact – with some payment on the building equity to the diocese based upon the percentage of the congregation that elected to remain.
#37:
I can say it very easily: by the simple fact both are current members of the Anglican Communion, recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Instruments of Unity. Whether +Bruno has “shown contempt” for tradition or history is your own opinion, which in the larger scheme of things is about as interesting as the bunions on my left foot. Legally and canonically he is still the Episcopal (and thus Anglican) bishop of Los Angeles, unless and until TEC leaves the Anglican Communion, by choice or by force. No amount of trying to call a spade a Snausage will change that fact.
Uganda doesn’t get to define what’s Anglican. The entire Anglican Communion does (or rather, its Instruments of Unity do). And so far, the Anglican Communion still regards TEC as Anglican.
As to the Bishop of Uganda – clearly if a Bishop believes another Bishop to be an apostate or a heretic or to have merely abandoned the faith once delievered – and a portion of that offending Bishop’s flock reached out to him for protection – I would think that the Ugandan Bishop would view it as a moral imperative to take the church under his wing. If one believes that the teachings of TEC are immoral – and clearly many Primates do – to not act against TEC would be dereliciton of duty. Courtesy would seem a very much secondary consideration.
#39:
According to analysis I have read, the “division” noted in the Virginia law has a much higher standard than what seems to apply now. For that standard to apply, the division would have to be more along the lines of a true split, that is, approaching parity, and be nationwide, not just local, and be an organized split. Right now, even optimistically about a tenth of active parishioners are leaving, which is more than likely not enough to cause that clause of the statute to kick in. In other words, it’s not a clear “division” in the terms of the Virginia statute, or at least it’s very dicey for the ADV parishes — dicey enough that they had better start making other plans, just in case (and they are). Of course, if several bishops were to leave TEC and constitute a new church together with CANA/ADV, things could look rather different — but with the rather (it has to be said) silly habit of creating an alphabet soup of alternate Anglicanisms (AMiA, ACN, CANA, some new one?…), that doesn’t look all that likely.
As it is, the recent rulings agreed to take TEC’s canons into account, which is a serious setback for the ADV parishes, since it implicitly recognizes TEC and the Diocese of Virginia as being a hierarchical church — something that up until that point was vehemently denied by ADV.
To be blunt, I think the ADV’s lawyers have wildly oversold their case to the parishes and made a bad situation much worse.
I don’t agree that mercy, etc. are necessarily “over”. There is always a chance to try and make amends, and yes, I think the defrocking was a mistake as well. Even so, on the merits of the case, ADV has a losing proposition in my opinion — with the sad possibility being that the buildings will end up standing empty for a time, as the rump parishes won’t be able to fill them and the Diocese of Virginia probably won’t be in a mood to sell them to the ADV afterwards or make a settlement. One hopes that [i]that[/i] doesn’t come to pass.
#41:
There is naturally a paradox implicit in staying in a Communion that appears to tolerate what Uganda perceives as heresy or apostasy, or leaving the Communion. I don’t deny that. But the thing is, Uganda and the others are trying to have their cake and eat it, too, which is also rather inconsistent and hypocritical, speaking of picking and choosing ancient principles.
It would be more consistent of Uganda to either leave the Communion and openly do mission work in the USA, or to agitate for TEC’s dismissal and then do mission work once TEC was kicked out. As it is, they are trying to be in the same Communion while doing mission work in TEC’s territory, which is pretty amazingly inconsistent.
Waslingham (#40)
There is no canon law regarding what bishops of other provinces may or may not do outside their geographic province. Before the recent unpleasantness, it has been [b]custom[/b] or [b]tradition[/b] or [b]bonds of affection[/b] that a bishop from one province not interfere with any other province or area outside of his geographic area. Unfortuantely, +Bruno determined that neither [b]custom[/b] or [b]tradition[/b] or [b]bonds of affection[/b] were enough to stop him from changing the teaching of the church regarding what God blesses. So neither [b]custom[/b], [b]tradition[/b] nor [b]bonds of affection[/b] should be enough to stop the Ugandan, Kenyan, Nigerian, Southern Code, or Rwandan bishops from changing the teaching of the church regarding what bishops may do outside of their geographic provinces. God is doing a new thing! Let us rejoice!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Of course, the fourth district will rule against St. Luke’s. This will be in line with its recent rulings in other cases. It gave deference to self-proclaimed hierarchical control of parishes and property, excluding dissident TEC parishes from “neutral principles” protection under California corporate law governing property and trusts.
Next, predictably, St. Luke’s will join others in an appeal of the fourth appellate’s position to the California Supreme Court. The last major church property dispute to come before the state high court (in 2004) involved another St. Luke’s — St. Luke’s Methodist Church in Fresno. In that case, the fifth district appeals court had overturned a trial court decision awarding the church property to the United Methodist Church’s regional unit on hierarchical grounds. The fifth appellate division, judging on the basis of state corporate law, found no express trust existed that would entitle the denomination to St. Luke’s property. Even if one did exist, it added, St. Luke’s had the right to revoke it.
In a quick followup, the state supremes declined to intervene, letting that decision stand. Which should bode well for St. Luke’s LaCrescenta et al.
However, the state high court has a record of wishy washy inconsistency in matters involving church property disputes. It can’t continue. Parishes in part of California fall under the hierarchical exclusion, parishes in another part come under neutral principles of state corporate law, and still others don’t know where they stand. This won’t be another quick way out for the state supremes. They need to figure out what the law should be, and bring everybody under the same tent.
This will take time. Probably a long time in light of the fourth’s extensive opinion in support of hierarchicalism, which would have to be addressed one way or the other.
In the meantime, St. Luke’s La Crescenta’s members can stay in their pews.
w.w.
#44:
What absolute, utter nonsense. You apparently have no understanding of Church history or canon law pertaining to the Anglican Communion.
Bishops’ jurisdiction is a matter that has been solidly anchored in canon law since the earliest days of the Church, by general ecumenical council (in particular the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD in case you’re keeping track). Naturally the Council of Chalcedon is incorporated into Anglican canon law as well.
Uganda is free to condemn +Bruno’s teachings as a bishop, but he is still recognized as the legitimate bishop by the Anglican Communion, and they have no right to trespass on his diocese while both are still members of that Communion. It is a very simple clear-cut case. If Uganda et. al. want to be consistent and truly concerned about tradition and canonicity about it, then they should either leave the Communion or wait until TEC leaves, but until then they have no right to do what they are doing in this manner.
#45:
I’m rather more familiar with the workings of Virginia law than California law, so perhaps you can enlighten me here. Under Virginia law, the courts take the relevant church canons into account under statute in determining the precise nature of the relationship of parish to diocese. Is this the case in California? Would that explain the variances in how the courts have handled the Methodists and dissident Episcopal/Anglican parishes?
I think the mistake some may be making is looking at things strictly from a financial or secular legal point of view and not taking canon law into account. Canon law does have some legal force in some circumstances, such as in Virginia (though we don’t know yet just what the results will be).
Dear Walsingham,
TEC has split in VA. More than 25% of the Christians in DioVA left in 2006. Some churches left in 2006, prior to the December vote of the “eleven”. (10% of the churches had 25% of the people.) In other cases people simply walked out of the doors to never come back. All the mission plant congregations were the first to leave — they saw the hopelessness of trying to proclaim the gospel and be within TEC.
My church decided to remain Anglican. We recognize +Minns as our bishop. If he had not reneged on his agreement and then sued us too, I think +Lee would be welcome in our church. The DioVA continues to carry me on its mail list as though nothing has happened. I suppose that way they can say “not really many people left.” Belive it, we are gone. We have shaken the dust off our clothes.
How can this not be a split? If, over the last 40 years, TEC adherants had grown proportionally to US population growth it would have 6 million members. I doubt it had 0.6 million in church last Sunday.
How can this not be a split? The TEC does not uphold scripture — we do. TEC does not lift up Christ to the nations — we do. TEC is fading away.
How can this not be a split? The TEC is fragmenting in many states — VA, FL, PA, CT, NH, TX, CA, SC, others. It is not a local phenomenon.
How can this not be a split? The TEC will likely be split off from the AC (in some form or other) this year, or next.
I am really sorry for the mess TEC has come to be. My prayer is that the Lord will help them in any way possible.
— Stan
#48:
I am sorry for your feelings, and I am aware of the people who have left, as sad as that is. The whole affair is very tragic. But I’m talking about a [i]legal[/i] definition of a division under Virginia statute. People walking out the door is one thing, but that’s not a formal [i]institutional[/i] split, which is what the law is looking for.
This is what I’m referring to: It is easy to confuse the perceived situation with what can be argued before the court. ADV’s case looks very weak to me, and if you read the court’s recent ruling to that regard, it looks rather bad for them. The only positive thing is that the vestry officers are no longer named personally, but they are still named by virtue of their office — really a rather minor distinction.
ADV’s case originally rested on a rather Congregationalist understanding of the Church, that parishes could in effect leave TEC at will. That appears to have failed. The fallback position, that there is a formal division in TEC, looks weak as well. What is the “alternate TEC”, then? There are of course various splinter groups and individual parishes trying to leave, but as yet there is no actual formal division taking place that the Virginia statute could recognize.
Note that I’m not even taking sides in this. I wish there was a peaceful way to separate, or better, to reconcile. I’m simply pointing out my observations regarding the legalities of the case.
I think the forming of the ADV and Cana is a fomalized split (and likely why it was created). The statute does not define what is requred as a split – admittedly I have not done any research on VA case law – is there any – I assume this is a seldom used provision in the law? Of course not winning a summary judgment – one which was not based upon the division statute – is hardly grounds for dispair for the ADV. I also think that after Sept there will be new “facts” on the ground regarding division.
Walsingham – Cite me title and canon of the Church of Uganda’s canons regarding what bishop of the Church of Uganda can or can’t do in TECUSA?
If you can show me where it is illegal, under Uganda’s Canons, for them to visit congregations in the geographic region of another province without that bishop’s permission, then I will apologize. Until then, we are left with tradition and the bonds of affection. Both of which are not operative for +Bruno since he decided that they don’t count.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#50:
See the recent court ruling (it’s on the Fairfax Co. Circuit Court site somewhere — can’t find it at the moment). The TEC canons apply, and any split or division would have to be recognized by TEC (see Articles V and VI concerning the formation of dioceses, for example).
Since TEC does not recognize the split, under the canons [i]there is no split[/i] until TEC says so. Thus with the Fairfax County ruling recognizing the TEC canons, TEC is holding all the cards.
September of course does bring some possible change, but even that is only a deadline, one that may trigger action, but the action itself will only come with or after Lambeth in 2008. Furthermore, even then the Anglican Communion is technically outside Virginia and US jurisdiction, so even if TEC is kicked out, the split has to be initiated by or at least recognized by TEC.
That’s why I think it looks very bleak for the ADV parishes. I just don’t see how they can win after that last ruling. The only hope I can see is the fact that judges in the Commonwealth do have enormous leeway to interpret law as they see fit, so if the judge is at all sympathetic, there may be some surprises — but given that all but one ADV motion was denied, it’s not looking good for them.
Dear Walsingham,
I recall that the recent ruling was a denial of the motion for summary jugement by the departing congregations – there was no affirmative ruling that the Cannons apply – just no early decision that they did not. If the trial court did rule as you suggest that would be an end run on the statuatory provision concerning division – courts don’t like sophistry. I will attempt to find the ruling over the weekend. I think the relevant Va supreme court decison is Norfolk Presbytery v. Bollinger 201 SE2d 752 (Va 1974). According to the VA Supreme Court implied trusts do not trump deeds and contracts in Virginia. The Presbyterian diocese had to prove that it had property rights in the local congregtion church based upon the deeds or actual contractual rights (ie they paid for the church) – since the valuable land predates TEC that would be a pretty tought sled.
#51:
So you’re saying you and Uganda can ignore the Council of Chalcedon, a council accepted by every church with the historic episcopate, by definition. Or do you even know what the Council of Chalcedon [i]is?[/i]
Do you even know what the “historic episcopate” is? Uganda claims to have it, like all Anglican churches. Therefore it rests its claim to the episcopate on Chalcedon. It [i]has[/i] to. That’s where the episcopate was defined, by universal agreement!
Your suggestion is ludicrous on the face of it. It’s like saying that because the Bible isn’t written specifically and verbally into the Ugandan canon that it isn’t binding on them. The very fact that Uganda (as well as TEC) both are based on catholic tradition and both claim to adhere to the early councils (such as Ephesus, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Nicaea) means that both must abide by them. It is not for mere niceties, [b]it is binding law on us as Christians[/b], just like other provisions of those councils, like the Apostolic Creed.
Just for an example: I couldn’t find Uganda’s canons or constitutions online, but I did find Nigeria’s. (http://www.anglican-nig.org/constitutions.pdf) The word “bible” and “scripture” doesn’t show up once. So does the Anglican Church of Nigeria thus not have the Bible or Scripture binding on it? That’s what your argument implies. Neither document mentions the early Councils, either. But any canon lawyer will tell you that to suggest that those councils aren’t binding is downright heretical.
# 49. Dear Walsingham,
It is exactly the legal definition that the court in VA will decide. Neither you nor I can make that determination. Chip, in #50, makes the point that there is a split, on the face of it, by virtue of the formation of CANA and the ADV. I would further argue that the gastly oral beatings being applied to orthodox bishops by those of the liberal stripe are further evidence of division. Finally, another demonstration of division may happen at the end of next month, if TEC is asked to “walk apart.”
What more is needed for the court to make a decision? TEC will never admit to there being any division, or even any problem that cannot be overcome by a change in heart by the orthodox. CANA and the ADV will never admit to communion with the TEC as long as they do not repent of their actions re Robinson.
To me, this passes the SPLIT SMELL TEST. Now it is up to the court to wiggle its nose and see what it sniffs.
— Stan
Dear Walsingham,
I think it is clear that TEC has formented a crisis and has caused a schism within North American Anglicanism (arguably it has abandoned swaths of the faith once delivered)- the size of said schism having been reduced by unseemly and harsh tactics exibited by the Bishop of LA. In a time of crisis and since Uganda can take the position that the Diocese of LA has arguably abandoned the faith once delievered – extra judicial action can be justified. This is why it should be incumbent upon the ArchBishop of Canterbury to intervene and discipline or replace TEC as the Anglican presence in America. Had TEC done what was requested of it at the 2006 General Convention then Uganda would arguabley be out of bounds. When there is no law and order – people usually resort to self help.
I have reviewed Walsingham’s posts and my read of the Virginia case is that Cannon law as applied to artilces of faith, doctrine, or church discipline are not reviewable by the secular court – however property disputes are not doctinal issues and therefore are decideable by Virginia’s courts under normative principles of law.
#56:
The thing is, “extra-judicial” isn’t really allowed in the case of conciliar decisions. That’s being inconsistent. If you accept the historic episcopate, the apostolic succession, and apostolic tradition — and you would be a pretty strange Anglican if you didn’t — then you must accept not only the authority of Scripture, but also that of the early councils of the undivided Church, where such doctrines as the Trinity, the dual nature of Jesus and so on were established. There is no such thing as “extra-judicial” in this case. [i]There is no grey area.[/i] The principle established at Chalcedon is crystal clear: One diocese, one bishop. You are either in communion, or you aren’t.
You are free to argue that TEC or specifically +Bruno are apostate, in your opinion. So is Uganda. However, that is a matter for the Anglican Communion as a whole to decide, not for you as an individual or for Uganda as an individual local church. [i]For the time being,[/i] TEC and +Bruno are not found to be apostate by the Anglican Communion. [i]For the time being,[/i] the Anglican Communion continues to recognize TEC and by extension the Diocese of LA as the legitimate church for that area. The process has not run its course. Uganda is jumping the gun and flaunting an ancient conciliar law, perhaps with good intentions, but nonetheless it is committing a grievous error. We can’t mince words here. Going against ecumenical councils is heresy. This is what’s also at stake: Denying “one diocese, one bishop”, even in special circumstances, is just as bad as denying Jesus’ divinity.
Should TEC manage to stay in and not do enough to satisfy them, Uganda and the other churches in conflict with TEC face a choice — accept TEC as it is, or leave the Communion. Continuing to behave as they are now, frankly, is just as heretical as anything they claim TEC or +Bruno is doing. That is precisely why cross-border interventions were mentioned in the Windsor Report along with homosexuality (of course, practically no one pays any attention to Windsor anymore, but still).
#57:
We can only wait and see, of course. Personally I am skeptical of the ADV parishes’ chances, but unfortunately we are all forced to wait and let the lawyers slug it out. The only people that win in this are the lawyers — which is another reason why I’m so skeptical about the ADV’s chances (I just have a bad feeling about ADV being snookered because of wishful thinking). I pray, however, that somehow some kind of settlement or reconciliation will happen. But I will admit that I don’t see just how. It is all very saddening.
Dear Walshingham,
I really disagree about one bishop one diocese being on the same par as denying the divinity of Christ – and I consider myself Anglo-Catholic. The structure you discribe sounds like Rome pre-the reformation. The early councils of the undived Church as to Bishops and territory seem to already have been lost as we have Roman Catholic Bishops, Anglican Bishops and several types of Orthodox Bishops in the same territory throughout the US. I do not think the Anglican Communion structure you speak of has ever existed (perhaps with the proposed covenant it might). The Communion has apparently little to no enforcement power. The ABC does not have the power as a Pope. I think the ABC is not going after the cross border actions because TEC’s bad behavior is persisting. I think it is far better to break some traditions than to let TEC run the orthodox out of the TEC and the Communion and be allowed to do the “new thing” – but I guess you disagree. I really think that TEC is all about the New Thing and nothing will cause that trajectory to change course.
#59:
[blockquote] The early councils of the undived Church as to Bishops and territory seem to already have been lost as we have Roman Catholic Bishops, Anglican Bishops and several types of Orthodox Bishops in the same territory throughout the US.[/blockquote]
With all due respect, that’s nonsense. 😉
The difference is that Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans are not [i]in communion.[/i] Let us suppose that Anglicans and Rome were at a stroke to be back in full communion, then yes, those overlapping jurisdictions would indeed have to be resolved. But because Rome and Canterbury are not in communion, the principle of “one diocese, one bishop” still holds just fine. (That’s just what I’m pointing out by saying Uganda et. al. should either leave the Anglican Communion or wait until TEC does.)
In the case of Orthodoxy, they have arrangements to prevent overlapping jurisdictions as well. Their problem is a historical one, since the world was carved up for their patriarchs and metropolitans long ago, and America wasn’t even on the map for them, so they have never settled which part of Orthodoxy is actually responsible for the Americas. (Essentially the problem arose in the Americas through immigration — immigrants bringing their churches with them, and Orthodoxy never really caught up.) Even so, the problem was never one of [i]intentional[/i] cross-border interventions, they are aware of the problem, and they are resolving it as we speak.
Even so, Orthodoxy has come up with a system to where their territories may overlap, but they still have clearly defined competencies and dominions to prevent poaching of parishes. And the goal of clearing that up remains — and they certainly don’t seek to make the problem worse.
Thus you’re actually quite close to the mark when you think of Rome pre-Reformation, though the comparison is misleading because of the connotations. We don’t have a Pope, but we certainly have the underlying principle of one diocese, one bishop. That holds true of all churches with the historic episcopate. It is our common heritage — more than that, it is doctrine.
This is precisely why the overlapping Anglican, Episcopal and Old Catholic jurisdictions in Europe are supposed to be resolved, and ongoing discussions are taking place to try and figure out a way of fixing that problem. Unfortunately, CANA and AMiA have taken the overlapping Anglican presences in Europe as an excuse to do mission work in the USA — while ignoring that the situation in Europe is an aberration that is supposed to be [i]fixed,[/i] as all the participants acknowledge. (The situation arose more or less by historical accident and not by design, whereas AMiA and CANA were quite intentional.)
So the principle is this: If you as a bishop are in communion with another bishop, you may not trespass without that bishop’s permission. It’s really quite straightforward. It is an ancient doctrine, one that laypeople aren’t normally confronted with (certainly not like the divinity of Jesus), but it is no less sacrosanct.
As for why ++Rowan isn’t pursuing the cross-border interventions more, there are two facets to this. One is that the water is already over the dam, so there isn’t a whole lot he can do to punish the initiating churches. As you say, the Communion doesn’t have any real teeth to stop such actions (though to be honest I’m inclined to say this is actually a good thing). The other is that he [i]is[/i] doing something — note that +Minns and the AMiA bishops weren’t invited to Lambeth. Now you know why.
Walshingham,
Yes but Uganda is not in Communion with TEC. Both are in Communion with the ABC. The ABC seems paralized by inaction. I think Uganda may well leave the Communion if ABC sides with TEC. Waiting to act would only mean more souls lost to traditional Anglicanism. You are proposing that the Orthodox fiddle while Rome burns. TEC is behaving like an outlaw – and there is no sheriff. So Uganda et al have to take action ’cause the calvalry aren’t likely to make it in the nick of time. TEC Uganda CofE are all national churches and the Anglican Communion appears to be more of a club as opposed to a supernational hierarchical church. I would prefer a tight knit Anglican Communion where decisions are made by an organized body- but the ABC will shortly have to doff his cap to the EU – for the See of Canterbury not to fall to the new age sentiment is highly unlikely. If the See of Canterbury falls to socialist secular humanists and it may well have already – being in Communion with it wont be worth much.
#61:
[blockquote] Yes but Uganda is not in Communion with TEC.[/blockquote]
That’s what Uganda is trying to claim. The problem is that it doesn’t work that way. You can’t be a member of the Anglican Communion and be in communion with some members and not others (at least not while claiming full membership of the Communion itself). You also can’t have “impaired” communion. You’re either in communion with everyone else in the Anglican Communion, or not at all. There is no in between.
I’m also not proposing “fiddling while Rome burns”. I’m saying there are other things that can be done within the Communion to debate and argue the point without violating doctrine or sacrificing one’s own principles. I’m also pointing out the inconsistency of one group claiming “orthodoxy” while actually quite blatantly skating on thin ice (or falling through) on a very orthodox principle of doctrine — Chalcedon. It isn’t helping at all.
Uganda could, for example, simply refuse contacts with TEC while awaiting a decision at the Communion level. That’s perfectly acceptable even within the context of full communion. It could also argue for alternate oversight within TEC for those who want it, along the lines of the so-called “flying bishops” (a model I’m not too keen on because of the way it waters down Chalcedon, but if it keeps people happy and the overall church approves, then so be it), rather than trying to provide that oversight itself. There certainly are bishops within TEC that the more conservative types accept, such as +Iker or +Duncan. Why not have them provide alternate oversight inside of TEC, then, rather than having AMiA or CANA do it?
If TEC’s General Convention went along with the idea, and something roughly along those lines was after all offered as a basis of a possible compromise by ++KJS, then there would be no real need for AMiA or CANA anymore.
#61:
Addendum: See also [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1988/1988-72.cfm]Lambeth Resolution 72 from 1988.[/url], which was affirmed with [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-5-13.cfm]Lambeth Resolution V.13 in 1998[/url]. And of course the Windsor Report.
Walsingham,
I am hopeful that after this fall their will be no further need for Global South intervention because their will be a releatively united othodox American led Federation of Anglican Churches. I thought I was quaint divine right of kings type Anglophile – but you go beyond that. Chalceodon is a nice concept for purists – but this is America 2007. The reality is that Othodox Anglicans are and have been voting with their feet because TEC was taken over by a bunch of leftists (I saw the writing on the wall in the ’90’s – now that they have consecrated a gay bishop and are about to bless homosexual unions the average Joe including many moderates and orthodox Christians who are secular liberals are really concerned. The ACI and you (you may be ACI) make arguments that would work in a system with enforceable rules and people with a sense of honor. Leftists have no honor regarding tradition and rules – it is all about power – largely because they are parasitic – if they are not in power they do not eat – they survive by expropriating things that were created by others (this may be changing as the limosine liberal class appears to be growing – of course much of that is inherited wealth). What you would suggest is that the Orthodox play by English school boy rules – while the left continues the 30 year march of goring our ox. I would rather get the people and some of the property now – and create an enforceble system honring Chalceodon once the fighting is over.
#64:
[blockquote]Chalceodon is a nice concept for purists – but this is America 2007. [/blockquote]
Lord have mercy! Someone so-called self-labeled “orthodox” talks about apostolic faith [i]and order[/i], then denies one of the key elements of that faith and order as if it is just a piece of tosh.
I say again. Denying an ecumenical council of the undivided early Church is heresy. There is no two ways about it.
I am not “making rules”. Those rules already exist and have existed for almost 1600 years. Perhaps you were not previously fully aware of them, but that does not mean they don’t exist or are optional. Maybe, if you really are an “Anglo-Catholic”, it is time for you to study them more carefully, if you take the meaning of the word “catholic” in the name seriously.
Other Anglo-Catholics were far more consistent and either left the Anglican Communion, or stayed, but didn’t engage in cross-border interventions.
By the way, no, I am not with the ACI and I have nothing to do with them. Yes, the rules are enforceable, such as presentment or expulsion. The process simply has not yet run its course. Lambeth 2008 hasn’t even come yet, for one thing. Uganda and the supposedly orthodox churches could also take their hats and leave, for another. But breaking apostolic order is not the answer. Ever.
What you are suggesting is that when things don’t go your way fast enough, then go against council or Scripture when it suits you. That is precisely the same sort of behavior the “reappraisers” are demonstrating, only in mirror image. And that, dear chips, is being just as unorthodox as they are.
Your wish to be “orthodox” is laudable. I am asking you to rethink your position and take not just Scripture into account, but apostolic order and tradition, which as a good catholic you must. You have no choice in the matter. Otherwise you’re just behaving like a garden-variety Congregationalist Protestant — but not like an Anglican [i]or[/i] a Catholic. 😉
(BTW it is “Chalcedon”, not “Chalceodon”.)