Jump to content

Talk:Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schism

[edit]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071208/tpl-uk-episcopals-schism-820eaf9_1.html - Worth adding? Asexual Hydralisk (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should reflect....

[edit]

This article should reflect the disputed status of the Diocese. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1066 states that the Diocese is now part of the Southern Cone province, as does Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de las Americas. It is my understanding from the current text of the article that the ECUSA disputes this claim and states that the diocese is still within its province. Both sides, of course, should be reflected in the article. Thanks. --64.113.89.191 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but...

[edit]

The Diocese is the basic unit of Anglican Christianity, as declared by Rowan Williams, Cantuar. Therefore, the diocese is in whatever province it and the bishop providing pastoral oversight say they are in. However, I will add a section on the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.70.40 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Much?

[edit]

This is definately a one sided article. The link to "Remain Episcopal" speaks volumes. Will be editing in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.178.253 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add

[edit]

Info on number of parishoners, number of clergy, and maybe, if available, numbers on both sides of the schism. It would also be good to have a focus on basic facts, avoiding controversy in accord with wikipedia policies. Fremte (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody knows things like number of parishioners or clergy until the dust settles. Tb (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info on the diocese pre-separation

[edit]

I think the statement about the conservative nature of the diocese prior to the split needs to stay in this article as background, without the existing conservatism, the split would never have arisen, the statement could usefully be better supported with citations however.

Perhps I'm wrong, but I assume it is less conservative people within the diocese who wish to remain within TEC? David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that including the information is useful for understanding the context. My intent was to clarify the difference between a diocese that is part of the Episcopal Church and one that is not. I have made another attempt at this.--Bhuck (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I am not good with graphics, but it seems to me that it would be a good idea to change the map. While the diocesan boundaries are the same as those of the Episcopal Diocese, it would make more sense to include the other dioceses of the Province of the Southern Cone on the map. The current map shows the boundaries of other Episcopal dioceses, with which the Anglican Diocese is not affiliated. If it is too difficult to show the other Southern Cone dioceses, then at least the map should be changed so that the only borders outside the diocese which show up are state borders, and not the purely Episcopal constructions like the circle around the Four Corners area of Navajoland, etc.--Bhuck (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

An editor recently changed the lead to assert that this diocese "transferred its membership". I have two difficulties with that. First, it upsets the rather delicate consensus wording which has existed for some time, Second, the new wording had an assertion of continuity which has been recognized by none of the instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion. The edit also added some fluffery like "voted overwhelmingly", which seems intended to suggest that the legal status of the vote has something to do with whether it was "overwhelming". I'm happy to discuss the matter further. Tb (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church (which now calls itself TEC) has suffered a legal setback in this case and the article should be updated to convey this. Essentially, the Diocese that voted to leave TEC has won and will be allowed to keep its churches and finances from being seized by TEC activists. Here is the link.

http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/episcopal-church-takes-a-legal-hit-in-california-the-church-of-england-newspaper-nov-26-2010-p/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.154.2 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs do not meet the criteria of being reliable sources. If you can find this information in a valid source, then we can get it worked into the article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All or many 'reliable sources' have blogs, and I think that the above post is the 'Blog' used and updated by the Church of England. Be that as it may, here is the court order that reversed the lower court's decision.

http://dioceseofsanjoaquin.net/latest/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/F058298.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.154.2 (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the ruling itself. It simply doesn't say that the schismatic parishes will be able to keep their property. It did rule that state courts could not declare Lamb the true bishop of the diocese because it is the right of the Episcopal Church alone to declare the rightful bishop. Zach82 (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said 'schismatic parishes'? Not only do I call into question your neutrality, but I question whether you understand the issue involved here that you are attempting to report on. Leaving aside who the real 'schismatics' are, the San Joaquin case isn't about parishes leaving anything. This case is about a whole diocese with its parishes leaving one general convention and joining another, or, to be more specific, leaving a heretical Anglican convention for an orthodox Anglican convention. Since there is nothing in cannon law that says a diocese cannot switch its convention membership, the TEC lawyers are trying to make this strange, legalese case saying that Schofield and the others 'left' the Episcopal faith(using the term not at it has traditionally been used which was to signify 'an Anglican Church self-governed by bishops,' but as if the term 'Episcopal' were a corporate trademark like Nike, etc.), so since they 'left' they can't use the church properties of the Diocese of San Joaquin, but since the church properties and finances belong to the local diocese and not to a national organization, TEC as part of its legal strategy has created these phantom dioceses in San Joaquin and Fort Worth with phantom churches that have addresses listed in shopping malls and mental health centers, which really only exist on paper with maybe 100 persons diocese-wide(if that many) claiming to be the 'true Episcopalians' and rightful owners of the properties and finances. The court's ruling, as I understood it, didn't support TEC's corporate trademark argument, which is what their claim on on the church properties hinges on. By denying that Lamb and the phantom diocese and parishes represent the Diocese of San Joaquin that is listed on all the property deeds and finances, it will be very difficult for the TEC lawyers to justify their right to legally claim them if they have not been recognized as the Diocese of San Joaquin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.41.24 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin (ACNA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin (ACNA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_San_Joaquin&oldid=1249970386"