Kendall posted this to the backup blog on July 21, but it had not yet been posted here on the main blog. – elves
C056 quite obviously is a repudiation of the New Orleans undertaking as understood by the Joint Standing Committee and is the “determined movement” by the whole church the WCG did not find earlier this year. C056 made no effort to discourage the long-acknowledged and ongoing public blessings, and no one suggested for a minute that they were not what was being encouraged as a “generous pastoral response.”
Whatever one makes of the resolutions of the last two General Conventions, it is clear that TEC has now charted its own course and no longer considers itself bound by previous undertakings and Communion moratoria.
Here are the 3 comments that were left at the backup blog:
Anonymous said…
Or, as I put it to my bishop, 025, 056, and so forth are not actually repudiations of B033… they just render it irrelevant.
2:43 PM
————
Anonymous Anonymous said…
+Johnson = More of Lee
11:40 AM
————-
Blogger cmsigler said…
After +Lee voted to consent to VGR, he consistently maintained the lie that The Center Held(C). Once +Johnston takes over as ordinary, it’s likely that there will be little or no more appeal to this lie.
Clemmitt
Excellent piece and clearly explains why the talking points of the PB and many bishops in the EC are WRONG!
Sadly, Bishop Smith is saying nothing has changed and all is he same. I hope he reads this piece by the ACI but I would not count on it.
This is worse than denial….Lord have mercy.
Please send it to him and ask for his response. Encourage the same with all the Bishops who have voted Yes and defended the vote as consonant with Communion life. I am heartened that at least a good number of our Bishops let their No be No and wish those who voted Yes would cut the disingenuous ‘we love the Communion’ rhetoric. Can they not be asked to defend their views in the light of the evaluation given here, by the clergy/laity in their respective dioceses? I have the good fortune to work in the context of CFL and Dallas, but if I were where +Creighton (SWFL) and others are (AL, Mont, NV, etc) I would request of my Bishop a response to this evaluation. If anyone wants to know what postmodernism is about, one answer is: look at the way language functions in GenConv 2009.
[blockquote]Whatever one makes of the resolutions of the last two General Conventions, it is clear that TEC has now charted its own course and no longer considers itself bound by previous undertakings and Communion moratoria.[/blockquote]
If indeed it ever did. What we’re seeing now is quite a number of revisionists admit that there’s no moratoria in effect now because there was never any moratoria in effect then; it was all just voluntary restraint. This was a charge levelled by we reasserter madmen at the time, and we’ve been shown to be correct in our assessment. What D025 and C056 did was remove any pretense to restraint.
Dr. Seitz, quite right. What we see is the death of communication and law as words no longer have any meaning. We have disagreed in the past, but this is a great article.
As Chris as suggested, so I have done.
If anyone wants to know what postmodernism is about, one answer is: look at the way language functions in GenConv 2009.
It’s frightening, isn’t it? Nothing means anything and anything means nothing. My heartfelt thanks to all at ACI, for whom words and worship both have meaning.
“In other words, we will not be constrained by any extra-canonical agreements.” – VGR. See below for the whole enchilada and moving forward take.
“Really, it’s raining, I’m not urinating on your leg.” Now the historical revision occurs even before the ink has dried. Subterfuge befitting the serpent in the garden. At least it’s more obvious than the almost-imperceptible descent into chaos wrought by slow-moving deconstructionism.
Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
July 23, 2009
Dr. Seitz’s comment is incisive. I have observed – we have all observed – that TEC has manipulated language in ways t hat are hard to describe, but ways which falsify and fragment meaning. S.I Hayakawa pointed out long ago that the word is not the thing, the map is not the place, but t hat the human tendency is to take one for the other and so treat both as a single entity. What TEC has done is sever the connection between the word and the thing, the map and the place, so that the word and the map float freely, responding not to established denotation but to self interest and agenda. At the same time, TEC has encouraged the the common human tendency to confuse map and place in the hopes that the onlooker will continue to think that map and place are still one thing.
There is of course, a deep dishonesty here, so deep t hat one can only think of American advertising as a suitable parallel. Such a falsification will at last create a congregation, on the one hand, that cannot see the duplicity, and a congregation that, seeing and understanding, will not tolerate such duplicity. This is a prescription
for a fatal dose of a common drug. Larry