tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post4973152496123020850..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: The State of the Dennis Canon - an Introduction to Current LawA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-72335183586932249452012-02-07T20:41:21.467-08:002012-02-07T20:41:21.467-08:00Can you imagine what the impact on ECUSA would be ...Can you imagine what the impact on ECUSA would be if, at this late date, they were to rescind the Dennis Cannon and once again focus on the mission of Christ's Church (rather than on becoming a real estate holding company)? I have no idea how such a thing would ever come about, but can you imagine the changes that would bring about! No more suing parishes out of their property if they want to leave, an almost instant end to all litigation, hundreds of lawyers out of work! It is a grand fantasy!<br /><br />Fr. D+Dr.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18360786634583725263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-29466311018891349672012-02-02T17:34:20.958-08:002012-02-02T17:34:20.958-08:00That is a very interesting link you gave us, RC.
...That is a <a href="http://www.pcusa.org/media/uploads/oga/pdf/advisory-opinion11.pdf" rel="nofollow">very interesting link</a> you gave us, RC.<br /><br />I was going by the facts stated in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court in the Timberridge Presbytery case, downloadable <a href="http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s11g0587.pdf" rel="nofollow">at this link</a>. On pages 24-25 of his majority opinion, Justice Nahmias writes (his italics; my bold):<br /><br />"There is no dispute that <i>at that time</i> [in 1983] (1) the PCUSA’s governing constitution plainly stated that local churches hold their property in trust for the use and benefit of the general church, see BOO § G-8.0201, and (2) the governing constitution of the general church that Timberridge had previously belonged to, the PCUS, <b>contained an identical trust provision,</b> see BOCO § 6.3. . . . Timberridge then had the right to leave the PCUSA for eight years, taking its property with it, see Article 13 of PCUSA Articles of Agreement, but instead it<br />stayed. . .". <br /><br />So the Georgia Supreme Court got the facts wrong! But I wonder: what was this BOCO § 6.3 to which he refers? Could that have been the provision in UPCUSA's Book of Order?A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-39638046003786623072012-02-02T16:49:47.628-08:002012-02-02T16:49:47.628-08:00I do believe that it was the UPCUSA that had the p...I do believe that it was the UPCUSA that had the property clause, and the PCUS did not, as the only churches who could take advantage of the clause were former PCUS churches.<br /><br />See paragraph D here: http://www.pcusa.org/get/resources/resource/18402/Reformed Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15582319442292078422noreply@blogger.com