“That didn’t exactly answer my question, but it does reveal that my own view of your motivation for all but calling the founders of this particular congregation thieves, was correct!”
The founders of this particular congregation are the ones who have joined the Ordinariate! I never called them theives. I called the ones trying to steal the building from them, theives, as they are. They didn’t build the building and now they want to take it away!
This is very similar to recent cases in Vancouver, over exactly the same thing. Except, the difference here is the continuity of leadership. The priest here has been in charge for quite some time. Up there, a new bishop was appointed, and he started pushing the homosexual agenda, so congregations tried to leave outright.
“never since it’s inception has been RCC property.”
It’s RCC property now, since the congregation came over to the Ordinariate en masse.
“or that the Articles give the membership to vote such a change, either.”
The members, as far as I can see, can vote to do such a thing. They built this particular building (it was not inherited). They should get to keep it. The vote was to join the ordinariate, and those who lost the vote should accept it.
“If things were going the other way, and by vote of congregation Roman Catholic properties were to transferred to some other entity”
Transferred? How about looted. How about stolen? Look up the dissolution of the monasteries. Plenty of Catholic properties have been seized by the civil authorites.
To grab a Catholic church, it’s easy. Simply form a mob, charge in and get the city officials to recognize you.
“Would you still say “vote of the majority, they can take the building too”, and anyone disagreeing can take a hike?”
Where does the Catholic church vote on anything? They don’t vote to appoint their leaders and they don’t vote on doctrine.
Like I said, it depends upon the Articles, the church By-Laws, and to whom is assigned authority.
“It appears to me you are retracting your original comment, but without openly admitting that you misspoke.”
The original owners are the ones pushing for the ordinariate. There is continuity of leadership. I wasn’t sure how they got ahold of a ‘mission style church’, and thought they might have taken one.
“It could just as easily be said that if there are those whom wish to become more aligned with the RCC”
If they are the majority, then they should keep the building.
“hijack the property”
If the majority votes to leave, then it is not hijacking the property. If a majority of the ownership in a business votes for a course of action, your choice is to go along or sell your shares. They lost their vote, and like all democrats are trying to steal what they can.
“By what authority can they “take the building”?”
The fact that they built the darn thing in the first place?
They may well enough find the power to do so under their own Articles, then again, they may not. It depends much upon the Articles, and how they are worded.
“totally erases any claim of harm held against Anglican take-overs of properties previously by RCC or affiliates”
Go look up the dissolution of the monasteries. The state stole the property and gave it to the new ‘state’ church.
“if the church’s own by-laws define adherence to Anglican doctrines”
Well, then, the parish hasn’t changed. I can’t see how they can lose their building by refusing to enact doctrinal changes contrary to their original mission. See what I’m saying? They’ve chosen to go to the Catholic church rather than pass doctrine that they believe is an abomination.
“But then again the “ordinariate” appears to me to be designed to stir up just such conflicts.”
How so? They are giving all the traditional Anglicans who believe that homosexuality is sinful, an opportunity to join the Catholic church en masse. If anything, ECUSA has triggered these conflicts by shoving their doctrinal changes down the throats of unwilling parishioners for years .
The law shouldn’t intervene - the parish should decide.
I have studied California law concerning non-profit corporate sole, and non profit corporate religious. My comments were based on that information.
The dissenters may have a case. I touched upon why they may have.
You seem to insist the congregation has the power to give itself over to another entity? Again, they may have that power, they may not. Not all congregations are given the power "to vote". You yourself have established (or should we say mentioned) that fact.
In this nation, today, it seems we are not following our own Constitution very well. Some wish to ignore it. Others try to defend it. Those wishing to defend it, most certainly have a "legal" case, do they not?
The question here is, in regards to this church; are they following their own constitution (legal Articles of Incorporation)?
It all hinges upon that.
The law can be possibly be asked to intervene (by making a proper pleading) depending upon what is written in the Articles. For if they are not being followed, then the dissenters do have a legitimate grievance, adjudicable in the State of California.
Are you familiar with California law in respect to this?
You seem to also be skipping over how I repeatedly said that things could go either way, depending on the wording in the Articles of Incorporation, the By-laws of the church, what possible relationship this church had with a separate Anglican entity, etc.
You say such things as;
Oh, really? Has title been transferred? Or is this just another one of your facts made up on the spot in regards to this discussion? Without looking into the Articles personally, we don't even know for a certainty if the congregation could have properly and legally done what they have so far! Much less actually transfer title over to another entity. Besides, isn't the whole "ordinariate" thing, all about having congregations retain their own autonomy and tradition to a large extent, but be allowed to use RCC materials, and be considered in close fellowship with the RCC? But that's the canon law part of things, which have little or nothing to do with established law concerning California Non Profit Corporate Religious, and/or Corporate Sole. Confuse the two (canon law, and State laws) at one's own peril.
Just because you seem to prefer a certain outcome, doesn't mean what is being done now, is being done legally, under California law.
Please try to wrap your mind around that. Or else we will continue to be talking here of two entirely different things.
As I noted from the beginning, you are arguing from assumption, but seemingly to me, without keeping track of those assumptions.
If you insist on taking that route (and I think you shall) then I can't stop you, if you won't stop and think about what I'm saying to you, other than to how you will form argument against it.
But go ahead, pour out on me yet more specious argument. I've had my fill already. It's just rolling off of me right now, the reasons for which I have clearly outlined above.