Talk:Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin

POV

This could, at the very least, be considered a news announcement from Remain Episcopal. It lacks balance. Let's try harder. 12.44.178.253 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous poster, yuo have not said what is the problem. It reads to me, a complete outsider (from another country, no knowledge of the religious group involved) as a factual description. If there is another side, you need to add it in. You must improve wikipedia by making contributions. Fremte (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

- needs to mention the disputed status of the diocese. The Standing Committee which should have done things like call the convention was fired in a non-canonical act by Bishop Schori —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.96.233 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, the people in question do not want to have anything to do with the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and are associated with an entirely different organization, the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. Tb (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Court Ruling

Here is a link to the court document, which is why I updated the site.

http://dioceseofsanjoaquin.net/latest/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/F058298.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.154.2 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually read the linked document before editing. It does not rule that the schismatic parishes will be able to keep their property. It merely says that rulings on Church property cannot be based on a state ruling of who the true bishop of the diocese is, because the right to declare the true bishop belongs solely to the Episcopal Church. Zach82 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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 as 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) 03:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Who is 'crusading' here? Also, what do you mean by not 'grammatical'? Are you using a 1920s English grammar book? (The one that says you can't 'split infinitives' and all that other silly nonsense?)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001184148/http://episcopalchurch.org/79901_92524_ENG_HTM.htm to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_92524_ENG_HTM.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)