I'm beginning to think hyperbole, distortion and melodrama are obligatory sacraments on the political, social and religious right...

You have to remember that the "Orthodox" can do as they please because they are "orthodox". It is the ultimate refuge for narcissists who can justify any behavior because, of course, they hold the truth.

This sort of claim violates the commandment against false witness, employed to justify them in violating the commandment against theft.

But they are the Orthodox and those who do not see it their way provide de facto proof that they are apostate.

Pretty neat, eh?

I continue to be baffled as to why this particular "we are the persecuted" line seems to play so well in England. Some time ago I confronted a well-placed English priest opining on the property disputes and tsk-tsking the US for seeking to maintain its property, suggesting that the English would do no less. His response was that "it couldn't happen here because the property clearly belongs to the Church of England." Penny apparently didn't drop.

I too would love to hear details on the hoard of faithful Episcopalians dispossessed. Until then, it appears Mr. Sugden is caught up in a web of rumor, gossip, slander and libel.

How odd that on the same day it was posted the Anglican Mainstream have declared "Comments are closed" on Canon Sugden's piece. Were I a bit more snarky this afternoon, I'd be tempted to suggest they didn't want to provide an opportunity to question the author's veracity.

Pepper,

Comments are always closed at Anglican Mainstream. They're employing blogging software, but don't allow comments, period. They don't want a conversation.

But it also proves is that they have not figured out how to prevent the words "comments are closed" from showing up on every post.

His response was that "it couldn't happen here because the property clearly belongs to the Church of England." Penny apparently didn't drop.

Almost makes you wonder if they don't consider the Colonists as having, w/ their property, quite the same "property rights" as do the Queen's subjects, eh? ;-X

I suppose a libel suit (v. Sugden) is out of the question, there or here? (Or maybe Canada?) {Sigh}

JC Fisher

Matt Kennedy and his family were kicked out of their rectory when his parish was sued out of its Binghamton, NY building. And his diocese, Central New York, was so zealous to maintain an Episcopal witness that they sold the building to Muslims for less than the Matt's parish was willing to pay for it. Does that count?

http://themcj.com/?p=10294

Christopher,

Given that the rectory and church facility were the property of The Episcopal Church you're proving the point that Sugden's claim is factually challenged.

As to sale, Sugden isn't talking about that. As to price, the church building was later found to have structural issues that Kennedy's price didn't reflect. As to italicized Muslims, what's the problem?

If I am not mistaken, Matt joined the Church of Kenya, before he was asked to leave the building.

At least Muslims don't purport to practice the love of the Holy Trinity, Christopher. [Beyond that...feh! Consider the source!]

JC Fisher

Read Matt Kennedy's affidavit in the case heard in Broome Co., to see his admission that he left TEC before he was asked to leave the property of which he was a steward -- not owner. His thesis was that property belongs to the incumbent clergy and current congregation; and that TEC was an apostate body no longer preaching the gospel of Christ. The court found him to be in error on the first count. A higher tribunal will one day rule on the second of his allegations, but I think he will be shown to have been in error on that as well.

This just in (but not news):

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1173305/gs%20misc%20979.pdf

"Church buildings and churchyards will continue to be held by the corporation sole comprising the incumbent for the time being of the benefice concerned, for the (Church of England) purposes inherent in the office of the incumbent. As such they are effectively held for the benefit of the whole body of parishioners resident in the area as well as those whose names are on the electoral roll of the parish concerned. The parsonage, which is also vested in the corporation sole, represents property of the benefice and is again therefore held for a Church of England purpose. Once an incumbent who is leaving for the Ordinariate resigns his benefice, the church and churchyard and the parsonage house automatically cease to be vested in him and the benefice will be subject to sequestration as with any vacant benefice."

I suspect that Sudgen's use of the term "Anglican" is to support his own syllogism which goes:

1. The property belongs to Anglicans.
2. Episcopalians are not Anglicans.
3. Episcopalians have no right to the property.

Or maybe simply: "If you choose to leave the Episcopal Church, and they agree that you can go, but without the property, you are automatically a dispossessed Anglican."

The left loves to argue and is far more fun than the right where no disagreement will be brooked. Try to disagree with David Virtue's blog and see how long your presence is tolerated. Only those who wish to join the chorus are welcome.