Church Dispute Goes To Supreme Court

Church Dispute Goes To Supreme Court

There are 21 comments on the www.gpb.org story from Mar 24, 2012, titled Church Dispute Goes To Supreme Court. In it, www.gpb.org reports that:

Christ Church on Savannah's Johnson Square has been the subject of a legal dispute for four years.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.gpb.org.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1 Mar 24, 2012
Thou shalt not steal....and you will then find out again that this means YOU!

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#2 Mar 24, 2012
Why is it that fundamentalists think it is acceptable to sin in God's name?

As if that makes it ok........

“Ecce! Sic transit gloria mundi”

Since: Oct 10

I See New Jerusalem From Here.

#3 Mar 24, 2012
This case has been standing in the wings for a very long time. I can tell you now Vacuous Joe that your own Church of Rome will stand with TEC in this case. If TEC loses the case the managers of Vatican Inc's North American Division will face a very angry laity in the courts. That would be very interesting to watch.
George

Bridgewater, NJ

#4 Mar 24, 2012
T McCabe wrote:
This case has been standing in the wings for a very long time. I can tell you now Vacuous Joe that your own Church of Rome will stand with TEC in this case. If TEC loses the case the managers of Vatican Inc's North American Division will face a very angry laity in the courts. That would be very interesting to watch.
Once again you prove how truly ignorant you are. The RCC titles properties in the name of the office of the Diocesan Bishop. The Episcopalian Organization announces that it owns all of the properties pursuant to a trust in its own favor.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#5 Mar 24, 2012
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you prove how truly ignorant you are. The RCC titles properties in the name of the office of the Diocesan Bishop. The Episcopalian Organization announces that it owns all of the properties pursuant to a trust in its own favor.
That is only partly true.

In St. Louis, the Polish Catholic Church withdrew from the Diocese on nearly the same grounds that T McCabe is suggesting.

The whole idea rests on whether or not a contribution to the offering plate of the Church has strings attached that the parishioner making the contribution can prove gives an ownership position. Since the parishioner is given the right to deduct the contribution from earned income, thereby claiming a charitable contribution, i.e. a gift given, unless the parish established a claim otherwise when the amendments were made to Title 1, continuation in TEC has been regarded as tacit acknowledgment and is considered acceptance of the Dennis Canon.

But, this is all a bit academic in terms of the Teachings of Christ Jesus. Unfortunately, the Bishops, clergy and parishioners who have taken property and assets by disregarding Title 1.7.4 are reaping their own whirlwind. On the other hand, they knew this before they made their mutinous move.

I know. I was present in a number of their conversations.

In The Episcopal Church, this type of adverse claim was foreseen when schismatic threats were made following the amendments to The Book of Common Prayer. The threats were again voiced and intensified upon the acceptance of women into the priesthood.

The "Dennis Canon" formally known as Title 1.7.4 of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America states:

"All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission, or Congregation is held in trust for this Church [i.e., the Episcopal Church in the United States] and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons."

For the most part, the Courts have upheld this Canon.

Pretty simple, really.

Like it or not, T McCabe is basically right.

Rev. Ken
Think Again

Coats, NC

#6 Mar 25, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
Why is it that fundamentalists think it is acceptable to sin in God's name?
As if that makes it ok........
TEC is blessing and affirming sin by allowing homosexuals marriage rites.

Why do you think it is acceptable to sin in God's name?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#7 Mar 25, 2012
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
TEC is blessing and affirming sin by allowing homosexuals marriage rites.
Why do you think it is acceptable to sin in God's name?
Couldn't answer the question, could you?

Well, I don't blame you, really. Because, if you answer the question, you are checkmated. Plain and simple.

Unfortunately, by refusing to answer, you are checkmated, anyway.

TA, I would like to be able to say that your efforts to defend your stated beliefs about the supremacy and veracity of scripture are actually courageous, respectable and for a worthy cause.

I am sorry. I cannot do that for you. Jesus said that we MUST seek the truth. Plain and simple. No excuses; and excuses are all that you have. One after another, and another, and another. And when that doesn't work, you try to turn the tables by refusing to answer and then flipping the question that you cannot answer back in defense of your indefensible position.

The game is over for you, TA.

It is time for you to grow up.

Rev. Ken

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#8 Mar 26, 2012
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
TEC is blessing and affirming sin by allowing homosexuals marriage rites.
Why do you think it is acceptable to sin in God's name?
Your obsession with sin is, uh, concerning......

“Ecce! Sic transit gloria mundi”

Since: Oct 10

I See New Jerusalem From Here.

#9 Mar 26, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Your obsession with sin is, uh, concerning......
How kind of you to say it in that manner.
Think Again

Coats, NC

#10 Mar 26, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Couldn't answer the question, could you?
Well, I don't blame you, really. Because, if you answer the question, you are checkmated. Plain and simple.
Unfortunately, by refusing to answer, you are checkmated, anyway.
TA, I would like to be able to say that your efforts to defend your stated beliefs about the supremacy and veracity of scripture are actually courageous, respectable and for a worthy cause.
I am sorry. I cannot do that for you. Jesus said that we MUST seek the truth. Plain and simple. No excuses; and excuses are all that you have. One after another, and another, and another. And when that doesn't work, you try to turn the tables by refusing to answer and then flipping the question that you cannot answer back in defense of your indefensible position.
The game is over for you, TA.
It is time for you to grow up.
Rev. Ken
How many questions have you and MW refused to answer?

If the deed to the property is in the name of the church then it is not stealing. The congregation owns the property and it is TEC that is trying to steal the property. That is the case with this particular church.
Think Again

Coats, NC

#11 Mar 26, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Your obsession with sin is, uh, concerning......
Your lack of acknowledging sin is concerning......

1 John 1:8-10

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#12 Mar 27, 2012
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of acknowledging sin is concerning......
1 John 1:8-10
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
Your FOCUS on sin rather than love shows who you work for, the accuser, and who you work against, God who is LOVE.

Try Again....

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#13 Mar 27, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Couldn't answer the question, could you?
Well, I don't blame you, really. Because, if you answer the question, you are checkmated. Plain and simple.
Unfortunately, by refusing to answer, you are checkmated, anyway.
TA, I would like to be able to say that your efforts to defend your stated beliefs about the supremacy and veracity of scripture are actually courageous, respectable and for a worthy cause.
I am sorry. I cannot do that for you. Jesus said that we MUST seek the truth. Plain and simple. No excuses; and excuses are all that you have. One after another, and another, and another. And when that doesn't work, you try to turn the tables by refusing to answer and then flipping the question that you cannot answer back in defense of your indefensible position.
The game is over for you, TA.
It is time for you to grow up.
Rev. Ken
Talk about shifting the conversation!

LOL.

How sad for TA to constantly be so bitter, angry and hateful - the signs of despair - especially when he trips himself up as much as he does....

;-)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#14 Mar 27, 2012
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
How many questions have you and MW refused to answer?
If the deed to the property is in the name of the church then it is not stealing. The congregation owns the property and it is TEC that is trying to steal the property. That is the case with this particular church.
Well..... Why should we answer a question that is not sincere?

The Pharisees asked Jesus many insincere questions. He refused to answer them. Please pardon us if, as His disciples, we refuse to answer an insincere question from you for the same reason.

You have a problem.

You ask us questions from the viewpoint that we are, as you say, apostate heretics because we don't take the words of scripture literally and some of the stories in scripture as absolute fact.

You don't like it when we point out that some of what scripture presents is either or both myth and esoteric allegory. Furthermore, since we know that the basis for some of scripture is tribal superstition and taboo, you are even more perturbed when we openly show this to be true.

What is your reponse? It is always an attempt to discredit the truth by asserting that if any part of scripture is realized to be myth or allegory, than ALL becomes suspect and any comprehension must therefore be from a "gnostic" view!

LMAO!!!.... What do you really expect us to do, other than laugh our skinny, normal or bloated asses off at your cockamamie assertions?

Are we supposed to bow down to your gilded paper idol just because you do?

Are we supposed to believe that there cannot be God at the foundation of reality, just because you say we can't believe that?

In your response above, do you think that your words actually mean anything by your statement about "this particular church?"

The Courts have repeatedly upheld the Dennis Canon. Not every single time, because there are occasional exceptions to the rule. Those exceptions are the very reason for having the Court. If consideration for exceptions to the rule were not important, there would be no need for the Court. We could just open and then close the book after having read the appropriate statute.

But, that isn't how it works. Our sustem of judgment includes statute, common law AND the discretion of the Judge. Sometimes, the tail does wag the dog. Why? Because God owns the tail, too.

The same is true of Holy Scripture. It is a guide. Yes, it contains all things necessary for our salvation - IF WE READ IT AND HAVE THE MIND AND HEART TO UNDERSTAND IT!

But, if you don't have the mind and heart to understand it, then you must begin the lifelong journey of gaining that understanding by going to work on your mind and heart until you get these on the right track. And you don't become a Supreme Court Judge of your own mind and heart overnight.

You have to get close to having things in order first. Only then can the Holy Spirit usher your very soul into the presence of Christ in order for the necessary changes to be initiated. Otherwise, if you go before you are prepared, the change required is too much and a devastating earthquake is the only possible result.

The Court case at hand will be to consider why these parishes and Diocesan groups did not object to the Dennis Canon when it was ratified.

The Court case of the content and motivations in your heart and mind is also on the dockett.

Rev. Ken

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#15 Mar 27, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well..... Why should we answer a question that is not sincere?
The Pharisees asked Jesus many insincere questions. He refused to answer them. Please pardon us if, as His disciples, we refuse to answer an insincere question from you for the same reason.
You have a problem.
You ask us questions from the viewpoint that we are, as you say, apostate heretics because we don't take the words of scripture literally and some of the stories in scripture as absolute fact.
You don't like it when we point out that some of what scripture presents is either or both myth and esoteric allegory. Furthermore, since we know that the basis for some of scripture is tribal superstition and taboo, you are even more perturbed when we openly show this to be true.
What is your reponse? It is always an attempt to discredit the truth by asserting that if any part of scripture is realized to be myth or allegory, than ALL becomes suspect and any comprehension must therefore be from a "gnostic" view!
LMAO!!!.... What do you really expect us to do, other than laugh our skinny, normal or bloated asses off at your cockamamie assertions?
Are we supposed to bow down to your gilded paper idol just because you do?
Are we supposed to believe that there cannot be God at the foundation of reality, just because you say we can't believe that?
In your response above, do you think that your words actually mean anything by your statement about "this particular church?"
The Courts have repeatedly upheld the Dennis Canon. Not every single time, because there are occasional exceptions to the rule. Those exceptions are the very reason for having the Court. If consideration for exceptions to the rule were not important, there would be no need for the Court. We could just open and then close the book after having read the appropriate statute.
But, that isn't how it works. Our sustem of judgment includes statute, common law AND the discretion of the Judge. Sometimes, the tail does wag the dog. Why? Because God owns the tail, too.
The same is true of Holy Scripture. It is a guide. Yes, it contains all things necessary for our salvation - IF WE READ IT AND HAVE THE MIND AND HEART TO UNDERSTAND IT!
But, if you don't have the mind and heart to understand it, then you must begin the lifelong journey of gaining that understanding by going to work on your mind and heart until you get these on the right track. And you don't become a Supreme Court Judge of your own mind and heart overnight.
You have to get close to having things in order first. Only then can the Holy Spirit usher your very soul into the presence of Christ in order for the necessary changes to be initiated. Otherwise, if you go before you are prepared, the change required is too much and a devastating earthquake is the only possible result.
The Court case at hand will be to consider why these parishes and Diocesan groups did not object to the Dennis Canon when it was ratified.
The Court case of the content and motivations in your heart and mind is also on the dockett.
Rev. Ken
Brilliant!

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#16 Mar 27, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant!
Sycophant!
George

Jacksonville, FL

#17 Mar 27, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Sycophant!
What a gross understatement.
Think Again

Coats, NC

#18 Mar 27, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well..... Why should we answer a question that is not sincere?

The rest blah, blah, blah!
Exactly! Why should I?
Think Again

Coats, NC

#19 Mar 27, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Your FOCUS on sin rather than love shows who you work for, the accuser, and who you work against, God who is LOVE.
Try Again....
Your lack of focus on sin shows who you work for, the ultimate hedonist. Anything and everything goes because there is no sin.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#20 Mar 28, 2012
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of focus on sin shows who you work for, the ultimate hedonist. Anything and everything goes because there is no sin.
It is all very interesting to read the worthless comments of the three stooges. Especially Moe's comment about sin.

In the four posts above, nothing is said regarding the facts of the matter; no comments about the Dennis Canon, nothing about ownership strings attached to charitable contributions defined as gifts, nothing about the actual intent of past parishioners and grantors of endowments, not a word about the Acts of the Apostles and what happened to people who tried to hold back, silence regarding intent versus literal reading of the Law, a blank with regard to the Teachings of Christ Jesus.

You people deserve the second-class status for ideas presented that you have earned. It is there you will remain, unless and until you can bring yourselves away from simply accusing others and until you can begin to show you are thinking.

Worthless Fundamentalist Twits you are. By your own choice.

Rev. Ken

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Georgia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News South Georgia man damaged retina looking at 197... 13 hr Common Sense 1
women who want to mess around with married men (Jun '09) Tue Jim bill 33
News The Latest: Trump tweets back at 'Morning Joe' Aug 13 NymeriaStark 12
News Dahlonega bank robbery suspect shot dead in Helen (Jul '08) Aug 11 armada lewis 41
muddymortal Cordele, Ga Aug 5 concerned 1
goodwill sucks (Jan '10) Aug 4 tim bennett 130
What Georgian men want from a woman? (Jun '09) Jul 27 Prove Me Wrong 91
More from around the web