Their nearly-empty buildings, for which they’ve fought so hard, reflect an equally empty faith. How appropriate.

I wonder if the Virginia courts may have made an unconstitutional decision by taking it upon themselves as a court, to “establish” the Episcopal Church as a national “hierarchical” church even though the Episcopal Church, (The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States), has not historically been established as a “hierarchical” church at the “national” level and certainly not on an international level.
This decision is not only tragedy for those in the congregation who are being evicted but it is also a warning to those of us who take our religious freedom for granted because this precedent could be used to inspire other religious church leaders and sects to declare their church or sect as “hierarchical” in the hope that they can use the courts to “establish” their church or sect as “hierarchical” and thereby gain for the leaders an element of control that they would not have as simple church or religious sect leaders.

No. 2.  there’s abundant case law in Virginia, clearly cited by the court,  that the church is hierarchical and, insofar as the Virginia court was concerned, it needed only look at the hierarchical relationship between parishes and the Diocese of Virginia.  The national and international aspects were irrelevant to this phase of the Virginia proceedings.

I think God will work some of these situations through.  I noticed recently that the empty church of the last orthodox Episcopal congregation in our area (which was told to leave by the bishop when its last rector retired or accept a Spirit is Doing a New Thing replacement), is now being rented out to a non-denominational Bible-believing church.  How ironic.  Big banners out in front.  God does have a sense of humor about some of this.

NoVa Scout (#3.) said,
“No. 2.  there’s abundant case law in Virginia, clearly cited by the court,  that the church is hierarchical and, insofar as the Virginia court was concerned, it needed only look at the hierarchical relationship between parishes and the Diocese of Virginia.”

Secular law, secular law, secular law.  Is that what the Body of Christ is all about?

Just how much Salvation will secular law and secular agendas buy you?

How about the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds, the Great Commission, the Great Commandment, the Ten Commandments, etc?

None of these seem to matter to the apostate leadership of ECUSA and those who eagerly sally forth to justify their unChristian actions.

NoVA Scout, there was abundant case law cited by this single judge, but whether it actually goes to support his decision is another matter.  His decision is not final, just a bump on the road.

Anyway its good to see that the liberals in TEC are continuing to spend money that they can’t replace. These congregations have made a strong public witness against the evil behaviour of Dio VA - prayers for them in whatever course they decide to follow now.

Jim the Puritan, very good point. TEC supporting non-denominational ministry is indeed amusing (in a healthy way)!

I notice a couple of comments to the article refer to the times when TEC has taken church properties from its congregations and then sold the properties to muslim groups. That is something that needs to be brought to the attention of all Americans (and indeed to the rest of the world as well).

No. 5, I agree that the secular courts have no impact on theological issues.  However, in the context of the post and the comments that preceded mine, we were talking about secular dispositions of property disputes.  Theology does not inform those dispositions other than to explain why some of us are uncomfortable with the direction of some of the mainstream denominations.  No. 6, the decision seems remarkably well supported and I strongly suspect that it will be, in essence, final, at least in Virginia.  The money spent on this litigation is being spent not just by “liberals in TEC” but by all of us on either side of the issue.  And what, by the way was the"evil behaviour of the Diocese of Virginia”?  I think a good case can be made that the Diocese has behaved with great restraint, compassion, and patience at all stages of this dispute.  I believe its Bishop and leaders will continue to do so.

“Theology does not inform those dispositions other than to explain why some of us are uncomfortable with the direction of some of the mainstream denominations.”

So you assert. But that is obviously untenable. If it weren’t for theology, congregations in Dio VA would never have expressed their concern and Dio VA in turn would never have commenced proceedings against them. This is all about theology.

“No. 6, the decision seems remarkably well supported”

To anyone who has already decided that they want Dio VA to win regardlesss of the circumstances, it certainly does!

“I strongly suspect that it will be, in essence, final, at least in Virginia”

I thought you had some legal background - why should a single judge decision at first instance be “final”? It will be final in only one circumstance, if the congregations decide that they made a sufficient public statement of their position and no longer need to continue the litigation. At that point, Dio VA can work out how it is going to maintain these properties.

“The money spent on this litigation is being spent not just by “liberals in TEC” but by all of us on either side of the issue.”

Indeed it is - that’s only fair.

“And what, by the way was the"evil behaviour of the Diocese of Virginia”?”

I am sorry but this is just mischievous. You are well aware that there has been ample comment on T19 and other blogs about the way in which Dio VA behaved. Your response on several threads has been in effect, “I only want to talk about the legalities”. Suit yourself.

“I think a good case can be made that the Diocese has behaved with great restraint, compassion, and patience at all stages of this dispute.”

Of course you do, just as you think that every decision in favour of the liberal hierarchy of TEC in any state is a fount of legal wisdom and unchallengeable! ;o)

Michael - I would not like (very much the understatement that) to live in a society where courts apply theological concepts (of my religion or anyone else’s) to settle legal disputes.  You appear to be saying that the Virginia decision is defective because a judge did not choose sides in theological controversies.  I’m very glad that he steered clear of this. 

The “finality” I spoke of is in the sense that 1) The Occupy Groups may not appeal; 2) the state Supreme court may not hear the appeal even if it is lodged; or 3) if the court does take the appeal it may not alter the result.  I, of course, don’t know that any of these three possibilities will end up being controlling, but it struck me as I laboured through the opinion, that extreme pains had been taken by the Judge to craft a decision that would be difficult to appeal on its major points. 

I forgive your mischievous moment, but think we could do with less of it. Nice of you to come clean on that.  You certainly are correct that many commenters are given over to name-calling and epithets when it comes to this or that element of the Episcopal Church.  However, I was speaking of objective reality.  The Diocese of Virginia has done absolutely nothing that I’m aware of to impede the departure of disaffected parishioners.  Its behaviour has been patient to a fault, in my view, and certainly nothing approaching “evil.”  Their actions in these cases have been defensive and the litigation only occurred after the properties were seized. 

My views on these legal disputes is not as monolithic as you suggest.  I think the issues and factual underpinnings may support different results in different jurisdictions.  I do consistently feel, however, as a moral, ethical, and witness matter, people who sincerely believe they should part with the Episcopal Church should depart the physical buildings and devote their efforts and treasure to starting new churches in new buildings.  I am as conservative theologically as many here, no doubt including you, but I cannot justify the take-over mentality that has so marred what could have been an inspirational re-suscitation of traditional Anglican thought and practice.

NoVA Scout,
How does the Diocese of Virginia or its congregations benefit in any way from this ruling, ostensibly made in favor of the Diocese of Virginia? 
It seems to me that this judgment is really in favor of TEC because it only benefits TEC, the national church, in that the judge has awarded The Episcopal Church, (the national church) the rights to all Church property in the state of Virginia.
Do I understand this properly? Does this ruling give TEC, the national church, the right to demand that all parish churches in the diocese turn over their property deeds to the national church?
How does this decision benefit the Diocese of Virginia or any other diocese or parish or even a member of this newly created hierarchical Episcopal Church?

“You appear to be saying that the Virginia decision is defective because a judge did not choose sides in theological controversies. I’m very glad that he steered clear of this.”

No, I don’t appear to be saying that at all. I suggest you go back and re-read my post!

“The “finality” I spoke of is in the sense that 1) The Occupy Groups may not appeal… etc”

In other words, not finality at all. Thank you. This is a first-instance decision by a single judge, nothing more.

“it struck me as I laboured through the opinion, that extreme pains had been taken by the Judge to craft a decision that would be difficult to appeal on its major points.”

Indeed. That is what judges attempt to do when they know that the basis for their decision is weak.

“I forgive your mischievous moment, but think we could do with less of it. Nice of you to come clean on that. ...”

Again, you need to read what I actually wrote, not some creation of your own mind! I wrote that YOU were being mischievous. The evil behaviour of the Diocese of Virginia has been pointed out numerous times before on similar threads to this, and you have avoided entering the discussion on the basis that you would rather just discuss civil law.

“Its behaviour has been patient to a fault, in my view, and certainly nothing approaching “evil.””

Of course it is, in your view, but I was speaking objectively.

“Their actions in these cases have been defensive and the litigation only occurred after the properties were seized.”

Nobody seized any properties, as you well know. The congregations were worshipping in the same properties where they had worshipped for decades if not longer. TEC decided to mount legal action to seize the properties. Good on it, I am quite happy for TEC to spend money that it can’t replace.

“I am as conservative theologically as many here”

So you assert, but I have never seen the least indication of it.

As to the “finality” thing, time will tell.  I’d be willing to bet a nickel (my wagering limit on anything), that the ultimate result under the scenarios I have acknowledged, will not differ from where we are now. 

My disagreement with you and several others on this site has been on the wisdom and propriety of persons who leave a church claiming property.  This is not a theological position.  It is a church governance, sound counsel, and ethics position.  I felt strongly that the shepherds were driving their flock off a cliff when these issues were unfolding in 2006.  This is my opinion.  My views are what they are and I can defend them.  You do not have to agree with them.  But that I hold them doesn’t permit you to type me as a “liberal”, “revisionist”, “apostate”, “heretic” or any of the other of the silly stereotyped charges that get lobbed around with so much abandon these days.  I come at these issues from a conservative respect for the law and as one who shares many of the misgivings expressed here about the general direction of leadership of the national Episcopal Church.

As for who seized what, perhaps it depends on one’s experience.  I am a member of a parish where the majority decided to leave. I decided not to.  I and others in my position were the ones who found ourselves out on the street the week after the decision to depart. It sure looks like another denomination came in and took over property where I and many others had worshipped for years and decades.  The distinction between me and someone who continued to worship in the church I had attended and funded for many years is that I decided to stay, and he decided to leave.  Where’s the sense in that?

The court in the recent decision recited that the litigation began when the departing parishioners filed petitions under the Virginia division statute.  That’s an objective indication that my point about how the litigation commenced is correct.  I’ve seen the court papers, I know this to be an objective fact.  If the Diocese had not responded to those petitions, the property would have transferred by default.  How is that an allowable course for Diocesan authorities? Everyone involved ended up “spending money that [they] can’t replace.”  The crime and waste is that that was God’s money, now it’s lawyers’ money.

Cite to me an “evil doing” of Bishop Lee or Bishop Johnston and I’ll consider it and take it on board.  Until you do so, however, I view such hyperbole as symptomatic of a general tendency here and elsewhere to gratuitously demonize (almost literally) good and gracious Christians, who, while certainly imperfect, are not acting diabolically.  As I have said previously, I am of the view that Bishop Lee handled the issue clumsily in the 2003-2006 period.  To call his actions “evil”, however, debases the meaning of the term.

#13—do you believe it was a good idea that the protocol for negotiating a departure, as prepared in the +Lee era, was set aside by the ‘national church’ so as to engage in a suit for property? One notes that the Bishops of CFL, Dallas, Ohio and others sought to negotiate and that the previous PB stayed out of their affairs. This was also the case more recently in NJ.

No. 14.  I regard the “protocol” as a supremely well-intentioned fiasco.  This is part of the “clumsiness” I alluded to earlier.  It is a very good example of an “agreement” that masked a complete lack of meeting of the minds. The Bishop and his Chancellor saw it as a gracious way of assisting departing parishioners to find new homes.  The clergy and vestries of the parishes saw it as a way to not only leave, but to leave with control of properties.  This was an unbridged, and perhaps unrecognized gulf between the parties.  While there was mention in the protocol of departing groups presenting offers to the Diocese to acquire all or portions of properties, I am certain, based on conversations with both the Chancellor and with Diocesan staff at the time and then some months later (i.e., in the 2008-2009 period), that no one contemplated that any offer would be acceptable for the historic parishes (particularly Truro and The Falls Church).  The Diocese may have been more ambivalent about others.  In any event, no one on the Diocesan side contemplated any scenario in which departing parishioners would simply take the property without compensation.  Once the occupations commenced, there was no basis on which any discussion could continue. 

At the time the Chancellor got into the discussions that led to the proposed protocol, I don’t think he had the slightest idea that the Clergy and Vestries of many of these parishes had been working assiduously for many months not only to promote and persuade parishioners of the idea of secession, but also to conform the facts on the ground as closely as possible to the Virginia Division Statute.  My supposition is that, whatever the role of the new Presiding Bishop and the national church in putting the kibosh on the protocol, the Standing Committee of the Diocese would not have approved it in any event. 

The Chancellor was stunned at how he was treated when he was allowed to formalistically address one of the parishes for a few minutes prior to a vote.  He was given a few minutes, not allowed to engage in questions and answers, and held in what to him seemed liked a kind of arrest in an office until his allotted time came up.  The bishop had been banned from visiting that same parish for quite some time and was clearly not well apprised of how aggressively hostile sentiment had become against the Diocese and the Church.  Anti-secession parishioners had begun to get the word back to the Diocese and its Standing Committee that the situation was far more dire than they understood.  It is for this reason that I think the Standing Committee would have rejected the protocol with or without opposition from the national church. 

The filing of court petitions by the departing group completely closed any chance of any sort of negotiation.  The diocese had to respond in court or risk default under the Division Statute.  In that case, there would have been absolutely nothing to negotiate about and not the slightest likelihood of either compensation or accommodation of Episcopalian parishioners who did not choose to reaffiliate.

I think, when one looks at the instances around the country where there have been successful negotiations, the common thread has been that none took place where a hostile occupation was in place.  All acknowledged that the Diocese had property rights.  The New Jersey example is very much of this description.  In those circumstances something short of litigation has been achievable and there has been no public opposition from the national church.  The position of TEC, which I find rational and appropriate, looks to me to be one which is based on the principle that one cannot reward a business model that includes a hostile take-over of property at no cost as a predicate for negotiation on its ultimate disposition. 

So, in short, yes, I believe it was a good idea that the Standing Committee did not approve the protocol.  It was a noble effort undertaken by very good people, but it caused far more confusion than it was worth.  I would have preferred the Bishop to have given a clear notice to clergy and vestry in the 2003-2006 period that they would, of course, be expected to honor their oaths and obligations, that if anyone felt they could not stay affiliated with the diocese and the Episcopal Church, they should leave promptly with the Bishop’s best wishes, but that it would not be tolerated for those who had determined that departure was the best course to continue to hold vestry and clerical positions and use them to encourage parishioners to leave and to plan for the take-over of properties.  A clear message on this front would have saved all sides a great deal of hardship and loss of treasure.

I have read NoVA Scout’s posts at #13 and #15 with sad amusement. Below is the text of an agreement which has been posted on various sites a number of times.  So far as I am aware, its correctness has never been disputed by anyone in Dio VA.

It makes a complete mockery of a number of factual assertions in NoVA Scout’s posts referred to.

TERMS OF STANDSTILL AGREEMENT
APPROVED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE AND EXECUTIVE BOARD
OF THE DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 18, 2006

1. The Diocese of Virginia (“Diocese”) and The Episcopal Church (“TEC”):
a. will not initiate any attempt to take possession the congregations’ property.
b. will not initiate any canonical or ecclesiastical actions against the congregations or their clergy or vestries.
c. will not initiate any civil legal action against the congregations, their clergy, their vestries, or their trustees.
d. will permit the congregations’ clergy and stay to continue to pay premiums and receive benefits under the Diocesan health care plan until at least January 31, 2007.

2. The congregations:
a. will not initiate any transfer or conveyance of their property.
b. will not initiate any civil legal action against The Diocese/TEC, but may report their congregations determinations by filing a petition/report with the relevant VA Circuit Courts pursuant to Va. Code 57-9 without violating the agreement. The congregations’ Va. Code 57-9 filings will state that notice has been provided to The Diocese/TEC. The congregations will not take any further steps to bring the Va. Code 57-9 filings to judgment. Upon the Diocese’s request, the congregations will seek a stay of their Va. Code 57-9 filings. If the Diocese seeks to intervene in the Va Code 57-9 filings, the congregations will not oppose such intervention and upon the Diocese’s request will jointly with the Diocese move to stay the filings. In not opposing the intervention, the congregation of course reserve the right to contest the Diocese/TEC’s alleged interest in the property.

3. The Diocese/TEC and each of the congregations:
a. will seek in good faith to negotiate with each other an amicable resolution of their differences concerning the property and clergy status.
b. may terminate the agreement by giving 7 days notice to all other parties, but this shall not affect the agreement between any remaining parties unless they independently invoke their right to terminate. This Agreement shall terminate on January 18, 2007 unless renewed by mutual agreement.

MichaelA, truth is, Bishop Lee always fancied himself The Great Negotiator and depended on his reputation [false] as A Beloved Moderate.  So he always simply assumed that it would never come to departures for these folks.  I mean . . . why would anyone wish to leave TEC?  I think he always believed in his arrogance and smugness that he’d be able to “talk ‘em round” . . .

He was wrong.  And the Presiding Bishop put the kebosh on the protocol or any notion of purchasing property or negotiations which effectively torpedoed the protocol’s efforts—understandably so since one of the very few things going for Modern TEC is its leaders’ ability to ape the tradition and features of the Christian faith while deconstructing and evacuating the Gospel of any substantive meaning.

But again—I’m convinced that Lee relied on his own egotistic beliefs about his reputation to see it through and sweet talk everybody into not leaving.  He never thought it’d come to all of this or that the congregations would be as repulsed by his leadership and actions along with so many others of TEC bishops. 

Further, many of the revisionist bishops who lived under the delusion that they had managed to snooker people into thinking they were moderate [Lee’s little “Center Aisle” publication was quite an amusement at the 2003 General Convention—you’d laugh to see its pretentiousness] were utterly shocked at the reaction of Christians in their dioceses when they returned from the 2003 GC.  Lee was one of those guys who thought it wouldn’t be all that bad and that everybody would just accept it and that it was only a teensy minority who didn’t approve of the clearly magnificently inclusive decision by TEC.  Obviously, again—he was wrong and didn’t know his own diocese by any stretch.

RE: NOVA Scout—I can see you’ve picked up on his m.o.  Just keep in mind that in another recent thread he asserted that he had “met no clergy in my diocese who resemble the ones you describe in your last paragraph” [described as “they believe in a mutable Scripture that can be molded to meet the secular needs and sins of the times.”]  Of course, as we know, the vast majority of the clergy in that diocese are revisionists and are *on record* in their votes at their diocesan conventions concerning just precisely what the commenter was referring to.

Which means that NOVA either knows *very few clergy in his diocese* or . . . well . . . I think most people at T19 understand what NOVA is.

RE: “The evil behaviour of the Diocese of Virginia has been pointed out numerous times before on similar threads to this . . . “

Right—for years now it’s been tediously listed and described in all of its monthly, weekly, daily activities.

But consider—what you recognize as evil is not what NOVA recognizes as evil.  He simply doesn’t share the same values or Gospel as the conservatives at T19 and that’s more than demonstrated by his pretense at cluelessness concerning the evil actions both of Bishop Lee and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Virginia.  Half of the actions that they have participated in over the years he’d pretend never happened, and half he’d think just fine—again, back to antithetical values.

But believe me—many many many Episcopalians recognize and are repulsed by their actions.  The leaders of the Diocese of Virginia are bywords amongst Christians in TEC.

thank you, Michael, for providing the text of the Protocol that was not approved by the Standing Committee of the Diocese.  This, indeed was what I referred to as a “well-intentioned fiasco” in my response to Dr. Seitz. 

Sarah, I think, hits on some degree of truth in describing Bishop Lee’s view of things.  I think he brought to the 2003-2006 discussion an extremely genteel view that completely underestimated the passions that were afoot at the time.  She is also correct that I know only a small proportion of the clergy in my Diocese.  Nonetheless, my statement stands as far as my personal knowledge extends.  It may be that people that I esteem, like Bishop Lee, his Chancellor at the time, and our current Bishop are/were completely evil creatures engaged in diabolical schemes against the Faith.  I hear that kind of suggestion frequently in certain circles.  But I do not believe that, nor do I regard that interpretation as necessary or informative for a useful discussion about the issues that have riven the fabric of Christian life in the Anglican community. 

Other than in this context, I suspect my view of evil would comport closely with the perceptions of “conservatives” at T19.  I do not view   “evil” (at least in a spiritual context) as a relativistic concept that requires type-casting as “conservative”, “liberal”, “revisionist” or any other arbitrary term to inform its meaning.

#18—the previous PB understood that it was the domain of Diocesans to deal with property matters and departures. Whether they did so elegantly of via ‘fiasco’ was not relevant.
Preludium conveniently provides this link from a respondent. It shows how implausible it was and is to claim the ‘national church’ has been given the authority the PB asserts (under oath and uncomfortably). And the upshot is vast sums of money lost. Fiasco?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8949878082609465579#

#18 This kind of fiasco is not an opinion but a reality:
With an annual budget of approximately $6 million and an average weekend attendance of about 2,000, The Falls Church (Anglican) will be displaced by a continuing Episcopal congregation with an average 2010 attendance reported as 74 persons. Figures provided in the annual report of the continuing congregation list a budget of $249,406 that has the congregation operating in a deficit and receiving special grant money from the diocese.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you re the role of the national church.  Its involvement in the disputes has been awkward, at best.  However, the wastage in terms of money and energy would have occurred with or without the participation of the national church.  In Virginia, these issues were controlled largely, if not completely, at the Diocesan level and the course of the dispute would have been largely the same with or without active engagement from the national church level.  Having said that, it is clear that the present national leadership will acquiesce in Diocesan negotiations re property in circumstances I described in a previous comment.  The situation is more complex where departees purport to be the Diocese when they leave, although I think the continuing Episcopal Diocese in those situations is probably an adequate structure to deal with disputed property issues.

“However, the wastage in terms of money and energy would have occurred with or without the participation of the national church”—this we will tragically never know. The present outcome is appalling and it is the consequence of the ‘national church’ change of policy (itself highly dubious polity, witness the awkward answers of the PB).
As for Diocesan sovereignty—that is what is being determined in places like SC, TX, LA and elsewhere.

I am just an awkward observer and I do not pretend to be an expert but it seems to me that the word “awkward” does not apply to what seems to be a well planned campaign which used the diocese of Virginia, its church members (both gay and straight) and the Virginia Courts to achieve a hierarchical victory.

Sarah wrote,

“But consider—what you recognize as evil is not what NOVA recognizes as evil.  He simply doesn’t share the same values or Gospel as the conservatives at T19 and that’s more than demonstrated by his pretense at cluelessness concerning the evil actions both of Bishop Lee and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Virginia.  Half of the actions that they have participated in over the years he’d pretend never happened, and half he’d think just fine—again, back to antithetical values.”

Yes, I wouldn’t doubt you.  And I certainly do not want to imply that all Christians in TEC share the values of people like KJS or NoVA Scout. 

The orthodox Primates recognised this when they invited three American bishops (+Howe, +Lawrence and ++Duncan) to take Holy Communion with them – a clear recognition and reminder that there are still many orthodox Christians in TEC, despite the antics of some of their leaders.

I was just intrigued that NoVA Scout went further on this thread than he usually does, with statements such as this:

“If the Diocese had not responded to those petitions, the property would have transferred by default.”

In fact the congregations had entered an agreement whereby they could not move to judgment on those petitions.  NoVA Scout now admits he was aware of that, but conveniently chose not to mention it! 

Oh well, plus ça change …

Michael, Michael, really.  I think I explained this on the other thread.  The Diocese did not agree and the process, absent opposition, is mechanical, as far as anyone knows (the statute had not been used in many years).  My view of the situation is that the protocol had no effect on the course of the litigation. 

By the way, I have no reason to believe that I have much in common (values or otherwise) with the Presiding Bishop (“KJS” to you, but I don’t know her that well).  I view her as theologically not as strongly grounded as I would want a Presiding Bishop to be.  She is someone whom I would not have chosen (had the choice been mine alone - how’s that for a fantasy?) as Presiding Bishop, particularly in this time frame.  I’m very keen on Bishops Howe and Beckwith, to cite a couple of examples.  And I admire Bishop Lawrence and appreciate his devotion to the Church.  I do not understand his actions with regard to his efforts to surrender Diocesan rights to local parishes.  I think this is destablizing and something that he will regret as he tries to manage his Diocese within the Episcopal church.  But I am not in that Diocese, so I bite my tongue, for the most part.

Here we go again. Every time NoVA Scout is called out on one of his inaccuracies, he just ignores the issue and throws out a couple more!

“I think I explained this on the other thread.”

No, you made yet another patently incorrect assertion on the other thread. That’s okay - its what we expect from you!

“The Diocese did not agree…”

Incorrect. The Diocese entered into the Standstill Agreement in December 2006, and the congregations were therefore bound not to proceed to judgment on any 57-9 filings.

You are attempting under cover of vague language to confuse readers, by conflating the issue of the Diocese choosing not to extend the agreement in January 2007.  But that does not alter the protections which the Diocese received from clause 2(b) of the agreement regarding the 57-9 filings. 

“and the process, absent opposition, is mechanical, as far as anyone knows”

Incorrect.  See above.

NoVA Scout,
With regard to your post stating the following: “there’s abundant case law in Virginia, clearly cited by the court,  that the church is hierarchical”.
I may not understand you correctly but you seem to be saying that church law, as perceived by the court, supersedes Virginia property law, with regard to church property deeds, simply because the state of Virginia has established, by precedent, that the church in question is a hierarchical church and therefore as a hierarchical church, its law supersedes the law of the state. 
If you take this reasoning to the extreme you could justify a churches right to do almost anything including burning people at the stake and persecuting people for reading the Bible by citing evidence that the precedent has been set and therefore the court, through precedent, establishes the church as a hierarchal church and therefore puts church law above the law of the state.
It seems to me that it is unconstitutional for a state or any government to “establish” a church as above the law for any reason, including the specious reasoning that it is above the law because it is a hierarchical church and I think that this is one of the reasons why the Constitution of the United States forbids that the government “establish” a church.
I do understand why those who founded this church and built these churches named their church “The Protestant Episcopal Church” in the United States and it seems to me that it is the duty of the “The Protestant Episcopal Church” (TEC) to recognize the validity of the names of the churches which are on church deeds.

No, that is not what I’m saying.  The deeds and the relationship between the parties were examined under neutral principles. It is, of course, unconstitutional for governments to establish churches in the United States (the federal government so constrained by the First Amendment, the states by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment).  I am not sure what that obvious verity has to do with the property dispute.  I simply do not follow your suggestion that human immolation would be permissible to a hierarchical church, but (presumably) not to a unitary, congregational church that is not part of a larger organisation.
The significance of the hierarchical church structure, it seems to me, is that some churches (e.g., the Roman Catholic, the Episcopal, the Lutheran, LDS, etc) have organized themselves along lines that have layers of responsibility and function.  The secular courts are not, under the Constitution, going to wade in and dismantle those structures.  They will defer to the internal rules and governance of those churches.  In the case of the people who decided to leave the Episcopal Church in Virginia, there was no foundation in the Diocesan or even parish canons/by-laws or other governance documents that permitted a group to band together, dissociate itself from the church, and then keep elements (or the entirety) of parish property.  A secular court is going to feel very much constrained from going in and creating those mechanisms.  I find this all rather straightforward and predictable.  This is why (well, one of the reasons why) I cautioned against the property takeovers and also the reason that I predicted that the decision that ultimately would issue from the Virginia court would be one that relied on a review of deeds and course of dealings, and would not require a validation of the Dennis Canon.

NoVA Scout,
I believe that you know enough about the history of the church’s Inquisition and the freedom the Reformation brought to Christians to understand what I meant by my last post so I will not explain it further.

If I remember it correctly no decision was made to leave, but a decision was made to disaffiliate with the national church, and affiliate with another Anglican Communion body.  I don’t recall that the diocese envisioned anyone leaving the local church.

In our case, Bettcee, the departing groups also removed themselves from the Diocese.  I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the diocese did not envision anyone leaving the local church.  Indeed, that’s what happened.  People left the church in large numbers.  They did, however, stay physically in place for their continuing worship in another denomination.  And, your explanation at NO. 29 makes little sense to me in the context of the Virginia court decision.

“In the case of the people who decided to leave the Episcopal Church in Virginia, there was no foundation in the Diocesan or even parish canons/by-laws or other governance documents that permitted a group to band together, dissociate itself from the church, and then keep elements (or the entirety) of parish property”

Notice the fundamental mistakes in your reasoning: The parish did not “band together”. It always was together. It had a corporate existence of its own and it decided to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church because of the liberal apostasy of its leaders.

The parish is entitled to do that. Equally, you as one of the minority members of the parish who agrees with the liberal apostasy of TEC, are entitled to disagree with your fellow parishioners. But the parish having made a decision with which you cannot agree, the right and proper course is for you to leave and go somewhere else.

“This is why (well, one of the reasons why) I cautioned against the property takeovers and also the reason that I predicted that the decision that ultimately would issue from the Virginia court would be one that relied on a review of deeds and course of dealings, and would not require a validation of the Dennis Canon.”

Well it will be interesting to see if your prediction comes true. When the decision ultimately issues from the court after all appeals are exhausted then you will know how accurate it was.

But you were right to caution TEC against pursuing this litigation (I assume you aren’t suggesting that you ‘cautioned’ the parish, since you were no longer part of it).  TEC is spending money that it can’t replace, and just opening the way for other Anglican groups to replace it in every area where TEC parishes are forced to close down for lack of funds.  Its a shame really because it used to be such a great and extensive denomination, and now its just being run into the ground, with these foolish law suits being a significant factor.

No. 32:  Perhaps we’ve both been a bit imprecise.  I think when we are using the term “parish” we are both really talking about the people who worship in a parish, as opposed to an administrative/jurisdictional unit.  Pre-revolution, during colonial rule, the parish was actually a governmental unit based on locations of churches.  It’s a small point, but I think we are really talking about the people who worship in a parish.  You feel that they have a corporate existence that can be discerned by some kind of head count (although I am still unclear on how that works, and whether it would work just as well if a bunch of people determined that they were being called to be RCs or Hindus, for example).

Re your last point, I cautioned other members of my parish at the time they were deciding whether to leave against doing so, unless they were willing to pool resources to build new buildings.  I felt strongly that the Diocese of Virginia had no choice but to oppose in court the departees’ efforts to take the property.  My concern was that an effort to take over the properties would lead to expensive litigation, the costs of which could not be recovered and in which there was a very high probability that those who occupied the property after leaving the church would ultimately lose.  My concern was that the money would be better spent building new facilities, and that to put the departure issue in a context which held out hope of retaining the property might skew people’s decision on whether to depart, as opposed to staying and witnessing for our views within the church. 

Actually, you are mistaken in your conclusion that I “agree with the liberal apostasy of TEC.”  I have taken some pains to say the opposite, so I don’t know the source of your confusion.  My choices at the time of the departure were based on my feeling that those of us with what I regard as more traditional views should hold our ground within the Episcopal Church. I have an aversion to schism, I guess.  I also did not want to associate with what I thought was an ethically and morally blind thought process about riding roughshod over the interests of people who chose not to leave the church. 

There was no unanimity of views within our church about departure.  Despite a very one-sided process of the vestry and the clergy advocating for departure for a period of months before the vote, the vote went off at around 2/3 of the accepted eligible voters voting for departure. 

I did, in some ways leave when I decided to stay.  The group that decided to leave kept occupying our church buildings and did not provide for continuing Episcopal worship for those of us who left.  I continued to worship at both places for some time on the theory that I should be gracious about letting my friends who left continue to use the space until the made other arrangements.  As the years went on, though, I saw no indication that they were about to strike out for their new church homes and I primarily continued to worship with the Episcopal congregation that I had been associated with for the twenty years prior to the split.  We were generously provided with quarters in a church across the street from our buildings.  It was very inspirational to have their help and support during this period of exile.