[Magdalen] EC v. ED of Ft. Worth

[Grace Cangialosi]

Good grief!! I thought it was bad here in Virginia! I guess it's a whole new ball game when the bishop is one of the defectors.

> On Oct 21, 2014, at 6:49 AM, Ginga Wilder <gingawilder at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Grace,
> I cannot give sure answers for the Ft. Worth case.  Websites for each
> entity call themselves Episcopal Diocese of Ft. W.
> 
> Iker's diocese:http://www.fwepiscopal.org/index1.php
> TEC diocese:  http://episcopaldiocesefortworth.org/
> 
> Yes it is confusing...the labels are the same words BUT do not reflect the
> same entities.  That takes a bit of searching.  This explains why we read
> that The Episcopal Church is suing the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. W.
> 
> In SC, with the schism, the schismatic Lawrence churches/diocese left with
> everything they wanted.  (Churches that did not depart kept their
> buildings, records, trusts, etc. - no argument from Lawrence.)  The
> parishes that did leave kept their buildings, their records, their history,
> their money, their logos and marks, and their names.  The Lawrence diocese
> kept their name (Diocese of South Carolina), their signs and marks of
> identity - i.e. the diocesan shield, the diocesan records, the diocesan
> trusts, the diocesan offices, and St. Christopher Camp and Conference
> Center...I am sure there are more things.  (The Episcopal Church in SC is
> forbidden from referring to ourselves as a 'diocese.')
> 
> The schismatic Lawrence church (diocese and parishes), called Episcopal
> Diocese of SC, brought the suit against The Episcopal Church and The
> Episcopal Church in SC.  All real and intellectual properties are included
> in the suit.  TECSC has signed an amicus brief on the Ft. W. case before
> the USSC.
> 
> I'm sure this is no clearer.
> 
> Ginga
> 
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I'm still confused. You said the conservatives 'left, wanting to take
>> everything' and the Supreme Court of Texas gave it back to them.
>> So, in other words, they got to take everything?
>> 
>> Why is the Episcopal Church suing the Episcopal Diocese? Aren't they on
>> the same side? I would think the Episcopal Church or Diocese would be suing
>> the breakaway folks...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:00 PM, "Lynn Ronkainen" <ichthys89 at comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The conservatives 'left' wanting to 'take everything'.... the SCourt of
>> TX gave it back to them... it's still not settled as you can see.  The TX
>> SCourt still fancies that TX is a Republic, IMNSHO...
>>> 
>>> Lynn
>>> 
>>> website: www.ichthysdesigns.com
>>> 
>>> When I stand before God at the end of my life I would hope that I have
>> not a single bit of talent left and could say, "I used everything You gave
>> me." attributed to Erma Bombeck
>>> 
>>> Thomas Merton writes, "People may spend their whole lives climbing the
>> ladder of success only to find, once they reach the top, that the ladder is
>> leaning against the wrong wall."
>>> 
>>> "What you seek is seeking you." - Rumi
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Grace Cangialosi" <gracecan at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:54 PM
>>> To: <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Magdalen] EC v. ED of Ft. Worth
>>> 
>>>> So is this Episcopal Church vs. Episcopal Diocese? Which group are the
>> good guys?
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Roy Murphy <roy.murphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Episcopal church won in the state district court and the appeals
>> court
>>>>> but the TX Supreme Court ruled in favor of the former bishop of Ft.
>> Worth.
>>>>> TEC appealed to SCOTUS. The brief is not a bad argument. It has already
>>>>> gotten a few amicus curae briefs in support.
>>>>> 
>>>>> SCOTUS hasn't yet decided whether to grant cert on the case. The
>> justices
>>>>> will discuss it on 12/31 and decide whether to hear the case, deny the
>>>>> request they hear it or hold it over for another conference.
>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2014 12:26 PM, "Jay Weigel" <jay.weigel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Huh? Details, please.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Roy Murphy <roy.murphy at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Supreme Court docket says the case was distributed for the 10/31
>>>>>>> conference. We could hear further news on 11/1. Either grant, deny or
>>>>>>> relist.
>>