In any event, regarding the RCs and the CofE - I'm reasonably certain that a statute of limitations would apply. If the pope wanted his cathedrals back, he would have asked for them already.

I hope the CofE doesn't end up suing anyone either - in that I hope that the FCA or FiF don't think that they can make off with CofE property without seeking permission: it would be wrong of them (not to mention incompatible with scripture), and the church authorities would have no alternative but to recourse to law.

Well, Simon....I guess taking your attitude might land the CofE in court if some ask for a parsonage or a church to take to Rome.....they may assert that a lot of property was built and owned by the RCs and was taken away without agreement......so a parsonage or two is not much to ask for as compensation..... given there is no doubt that RC property was taken.  If ACNA must not take buildings their parishes built and have maintained for decades, but must leave them to a central organisation, even if that organisation did not pay for those buildings, perhaps the CofE ought not to be holding buildings which the RCs did pay for......

Anyway, I hope the CofE does not end up suing people, that would be a miserable witness and incompatible with scripture.

All this can be avoided....the CofE could respect past promises and not force through any "single clause" measures.....and people who have not left in the last decade, coexisting with those with whom they disagree in the CofE,  might stay .......   maybe some  people do not want those Anglicans to stay or value a "single clause" more than those people continiung in the CofE.....but promises were made and people do have consciences which deserve some respect.

I think most of us are quite happy to apply the same standards to the CofE - if any dissenting FCA congregations want to leave the CofE, they have to give up their property too.

As others have pointed out, the political and ecclesial situation is wildly different. Remembering that the USA is younger than the Reformation, I look forward to the First Nations reclaiming the land stolen from them... perhaps our own dear Queen, as the foremost landowner in the UK, can start repatriating parcels of countryside taken from the people and the church throughout our bloody history.

We have to work with where we are. In days past, force prevailed and the king had a divine right. Those days are gone: the US and the UK have fully-functioning courts and laws on the statute books that even royalty and presidents have to obey. Priest and bishops are no exception.

If ++Duncan and others are supposed to walk away even from buildings they have built but certainly many buildings which were not built or maintained by any national organisation, I don't see why RCs cannot ask for their property back.....perhaps they might argue that the CofE, when walking apart, ought to have left all the property which RCs built....at least they would not be claiming property that they did not build (that would be a strange thing to do)!  +Graham gives us an humourous quote in his Nov newsletter re a landlord looking round his property..... are we going to give up property, and we may well be asked to do so, as easily as some think ACNA ought to?   It's easy to apply standards to ACNA which we may not want to apply in the CofE......

In the days of the Reformation, church and state were not separate in England (and in some senses, still are not separate there); since Henry VIII made himself head of the church, I'm guessing he could legally take over the buildings.  --How did Lutherans do buildings in Germany?  I know that church and state were not separate there either (and in some respects still are not separate), and also  that Germany was not unified; it was up to the individual prince to say what the worship of people in his territory would be.  (I ask about Lutherans partly because of Abp Duncan's use of Luther's famous phrase "Here I stand, I can do no other" to the PB, as Luther used it as a response to the RC hierarchy on theology).   If it was to be Lutheran, did they take over the existing RC buildings? -- ACNA in some respects is starting from scratch; you may have read that their constitution says that the parish owns the building. 

originally posted by nersen paul:

"Simon -  would you argue that the CofE  ought never to have taken and should, therefore, return buildings once owned by the RCs?"

This is hardly a valid comparison, nersen. Before Henry VIII, church buildings in England were owned by - The Church of England. After he became Supreme Governor they were owned by - The Church of England! The whole of the national Church ceased to bear allegience to Rome, but it was and remained the national Church. Your case is stronger wrt the Monasteries, which were the property of the (international) Orders concerned, and, yes, I do think that what Henry ordered was thinly legitamised theft in that case; have you any evidence that anyone disagrees with this?

The real question to answer is whether you think it would be reasonable, for example, for a local congregation to secede from the CofE because it wanted to pursue a path of greater inclusion, beyond that currently permitted, and yet retain its buildings. I suggest that you would possibly not, and that position would be held because, in some sense, the buildings are not the property of any one congregation in one particular place and time, but are, in some sense, held in trust for the whole church. This is a quite well established principle, which is behind the rerquirements for faculties, for example. We are not the owners of ecclesiastical property, to do with as we want, we are only the stewards.

So let's get this straight: if I answer yes, I'm a hypocrite because I'm still enjoying the benefits of stolen goods (though there aren't many pre-reformation churches in the Durham diocese, the cathedral being a notable exception). If I answer no, I'm a hypocrite because ACNA congregations aren't being allowed to take church property with them.

Except this current situation is nothing like that situation. There is such a thing as stretching an analogy beyond breaking point. Although, if we handed all our medieval cathedrals over to the RCs, it might be a way of getting out of the crippling repair bills many diocese face...

Past bad behaviour doesn't excuse current bad behaviour. Unless you want to compare the leadership of ACNA with a power-mad, syphillitic despot. Which I'm assuming you don't.

Simon -  would you argue that the CofE  ought never to have taken and should, therefore, return buildings once owned by the RCs?

I'd like to comment on this, because it seems to me that clearly a lot of opposition to what TEC has done comes simply from the fact that TEC has done something.

TEC (and to some extent, Canadians, too) has faced an unprecedented situation not seen since, I guess, the Reformation. They've had to resort to law to keep their property (which, in the great majority of cases, it is). They've had to deal with the ministers who, as far as they can see, have abandoned their ministry in order to join another province operating outside its jurisdiction.

In the St. John's case, that the clergy involved never spoke to or wrote to their bishop to discuss the vote to leave the ACC entirely invalidated the manufactured shock at the removal of their licences. The same goes here. It might be the case that TEC has used the wrong instrument to remove the licences of the clergy in question - but that those same clergy did leave TEC and frankly shouldn't give two hoots about what TEC subsequently say, isn't an issue.

Those clergy, and their supporters who've left TEC with them, need to grow a pair. If they've had the courage of their convictions to leave one church and join another, having called their previous Province all sorts of names and accused them of all manner of ungodly goings-on, to complain on the manner of their removal from TEC just looks petty and stupid.

Move on. TEC is just sorting out its housekeeping, so why should you worry? You don't recognise them as a legitimate expression of the church anyhow. I'd have thought "I got thrown out of TEC" would be a badge of honour.

Celinda,

You have repeatedly, seemingly determinedly, failed to address the fundamental issue which makes the cited canon inapplicable to the purpose to which it has been put. The issue is neither the precise meaning and usage of the word "may," nor is it the precise meaning and usage of the word "and," nor is it the meaning or usage of any of the other conjunctions, prepositions nouns or verbs used. The first salient fact that makes this canon inapplicable is the test of applicability set forth in the very first clause of the canon itself. Namely, it is the following quoted words (already posted by someone else further up the thread, and ignored by you, and those others who support your conclusions.

To be very specific, it is this (emphasis added): "If any Priest of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 shall declare, in writing, to the Bishop of the Diocese in which such Priest is canonically resident…." If any priest in question did not so declare in writing, then this canon is immediately and unequivocally NOT APPLICABLE to that priest. As Pageantmaster has already stated, in any organization acting lawfully, it is totally inadequate to justify an act on the grounds that there was "nothing else available," because if there was nothing else available and this last resort is also unavailable, then the resulting action is simply unlawful. The organization that chooses then to apply the inapplicable is acting explicitly outside the law. Any organization which will not follow its own rules is simply engaging in outlawry.

Thanks for the recent comments.  Clarification:  the letter from the Standing Committee was composed and sent to all of us before it was sent to all the clergy in the diocese, and several people on the committee had minor suggestions for alteration.  I did not compose it--it's not "my" letter in that sense--but of course did see the contents and approved of it. I knew that  conservative members of the Committee, as well as liberal ones, approved of it, and it was well received by many members of the Anglican diocese.  What I meant to say about not having the the counsel of Bishop Price was that he didn't use the complete phraseology of the Canon in his letter, whereas the Standing Committee did, and I thought the Bishop's letter therefore had a kinder tone than ours (although the net effect is the same).  Pageantmaster's comment about "may"  not giving the bishop the option to choose among the "ands" has some merit, but I think in this difficult situation we are doing as well as we can.  I appreciate all of your prayers for our diocese.