By a vote closer than expected, 142 to 123, Diocesan Synod decided to continue to affirm its decision in 2005 to ask the bishop to impose a moratorium on allowing additional parishes to have the rite performed in their churches.
The moratorium on allowing additional parishes to use the rite came as the national General Synod was considering the issue, and the Windsor Report, done by a group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, had called for a moratorium on all such public rites.
Can someone please tell me, what difference it makes? So some churches can (are allowed) and some are not. That means absolutely nothing in the bigger scheme of things.
If it is wrong, it should be wrong in all places and in all times!
Sometimes, the thinking just amazes me.
But, then I’m an “elder”
Grandmother in SC
Grandmother, the laws of logic are suspended for the Episcopal Church. We only have our preferences to go on, even if they clash with one another.
Fascinating. Am I reading this right? Is the diocesan web site in its news update using the word moratorium in two different ways, but in such a way as to give the unaware reader the sense that the Canadian “moratorium” is the same as the one requested by Windsor?
Canadian “moratorium”: continuing to offer full church sanctioned SSBs in the nave at your choice of several different parishes, but we just won’t let more parishes than these do it for a while.
Windsor moratorium: (no more SSBs period).
“That word ‘moratorium’ you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means” (Inigo Montoya)
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Ah my strange diocese… Back in 2005 a full mortiorium was defeated by a huge margin and this was the next best thing, a compromise that passed and as we see was able to stave off defeat this year as well.
A lot of institutional liberals voted to keep the status quo until General Synod…no idea what will happen after though.
Interesting fact though, three young people (including myself) spoke for a total moritorium, made the Boomers rather unhappy!
Phil:
Inconceivable!
Peace,
It is sad to read of a once strong Church falling–parish by parish, diocese by diocese,—under the control of “the world, the flesh, and the devil.”
With all those caught with hands in cookie jar, please finish your cookie. The rest may go to bed without supper.
#4 Philip Snyder says:
Yeah, well, that cuts both ways. “Moratorium” means “delay” or “postponement.” Reasserters have been quite clear that their understanding of a Windsor “moratorium” is that it is to be a permanent cessation, which is a thing that is not in fact a moratorium at all.
Of course the time when it was relevant to argue about exactly what the Windsor Report meant or did not mean by certain words is long past, so this is moot. It is by now pretty clear where everyone stands and what they intend to do.
[blockquote] It is by now pretty clear where everyone stands and what they intend to do[/blockquote]
Crystal clear words there. The question is now that TEC and the Canadians have thrown down the glove and the ABC has made it quite clear he will not enforce even the lightest of disciplines; what are the ever dwindling number of Christians wandering among the ruins of TEC going to do?
I have great sympathy for those who have left, either for another province, one of the continuing churches, or another church altogether. But as much as I cordially detest the heretics now running TEC they have made their position clear. Those who remain are by default choosing to remain in communion with heretics. The justifications for such ring hollow to me.
If I may paraphrase the Fathers “you are who you are in communion with.”
Under the mercy,
John
#10, AO–that’s a powerful paraphrase from the Fathers you conclude with. Can you point me to which one and where would have said that. A direct quote would be even better. THanks
Ross,
The Moratium was to last until the communion changes its mind. In other words, please don’t violate the teaching of the Communion until the Communion changes its teaching.
So if the Anglican Communion comes to the understanding that blessing same sex unions is morally neutral or even a good, then the moratorium ends.
It’s kind of like the policeman who said to the driver: “Sir, please observe a moratorium on driving faster than the 30 (the posted speed) until the speed limit is increased.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#10 Philip Snyder:
And when, if the reasserters have their way, will the Anglican Communion change its teaching? Never, that’s when.
If you were on an airplane waiting for takeoff, and the pilot came on the intercom and said, “We will be experiencing a delay, as it seems that Congress has outlawed flight of all kinds, quote, ‘until we breed a race of flying pigs,’ endquote. Please remain in your seats and wait patiently until we get clearance from the tower,” then you might well question the appropriateness of the word “delay” in this context. Same with the Windsor “moratoria.”
Ross, #11, “And when, if the reasserters have their way, will the Anglican Communion change its teaching? Never, that’s when. ” I think this is correct, Ross. We don’t want the Biblical teachings on our created human nature to be superseded by something new. Traditional Christians view the essential Biblical teachings about these things as unchangeable. Progressives look at the Biblical teachings as a starting point, not a standard. Progressives accepted (sort of) the moratorium on same-sex blessings assuming that with more talk the Biblical view would give way. In the large majority of the Anglican Churches, and in the Orthodox and Roman communions, it’s not going to give way.
Re #12
Katherine,
Good points some of which I touched on in a post I left late last night which has since disappeared. Not sure if it was deleted or if some kind of technical glitch ate it.
In ICXC
John
#12 Katherine:
Exactly, which is why the Windsor “moratoria” are not, in fact, properly so called.
But, as I say, this is all moot by now. Pretty much everyone involved has chosen the path they’re going to follow, and for most of us it really is a case of, “I can do no other.” Now it’s only a question of how all the pieces shake out.
This is darn interesting. What some parishes call a “Sacrament” and is celebrated is forbidden to others! I used to think it would be a very simple thing to be a seminary student in ECUSA as there’s no theology to learn and very few questions to get wrong on a test. I now see that’s a mistake; whereas actual Christian schools have to teach the unchanging truth, Anglican ones have a fresh set of flaky ideas every few months to try to deal with. A moving target.
I’m glad (more glad than words permit) to not be raising a family in ECUSA. Life is interesting enough hoping to make children faithful to God without trying to explain such gibberish to bright young minds. The mystical theology of Anglicanism is just too deep; I can’t work that hard.