“I think the resolution properly augments my pastoral goal of caring alike for all of the people of the diocese, not reinforcing damaging distinctions,” Bishop Andrus said in his address. “I also think, at the same time, that the resolution writers have honored the spirit of the Windsor Report and subsequent requests from the primates of the Communion to not develop ”˜public rites’.”
The resolution on blessings was one of nine adopted by convention. The resolution garnering the most debate was one proffered by the standing committee calling for “the creation of the position of assistant bishop” and authorizing “the Bishop of California to appoint a bishop for that position, whose appointment is subject to the consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of California.”
Either the good bishop has not read the Dar es Salaam communique or does not understand what the primates wrote, particularly in paragraphs 21 thru 23. So for his convenience here is the link:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/primates/downloads/communique2007_english.pdf
What part of “no” doesn’t the good bishop…Oh, nevermind.
Susan
The dishonesty continues, and thanks to T19 for all the world to see.
My six year old fabricates better than this sad travesty.
“Son, why did you draw on the walls with your crayons?”
“Daddy, I was honoring the spirit of the primates’ requests.”
In the business world, I often hear (and hate) the phrase “perception is reality.” I normally counter that reality is reality. The difference between our perception and reality is commonly called “sin” by the Church or our degree of psychosis by the psychological / psychiatric community.
In either case, it seems that Bishop Andrus needs counselling if he truly thinks that what the Diocese of California does regarding same sex blessings meets either with Windsor or the Primates.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote] “I also think, at the same time, that the resolution writers have honored the spirit of the Windsor Report and subsequent requests from the primates of the Communion to not develop ‘public rites’.†[/blockquote]
Will someone please explain why “orthodox” or “Windsor” bishops in the TEC have not declare a state on impaired communion with the […] Bishop of California. This is truely a statement worthy of the Father of Lies.
RSB
[i]edited[/i]
How do you get from [blockquote] bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention [/blockquote] — the language of Windsor and Dromantine — to this latest action by Bishop Andrus and the Diocese of California? The one simply does not fit with the other. I just hope that somebody clearly recognizes these facts.
Give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile. They are pretending that the Primates’ request extends only to officially authorized liturgical forms. The Primates meant any same-sex blessings, and the Dar es Salaam statement made that very clear. This is sophistry.
The “Windsor Process” and the “Spirit of Winsdor” are phrases we could do without.
The good Bishop is either out of his mind or he thinks we are.
The Schhh…You Know What Private Pastoral Rite
Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here hopefully out of the sight of the Primates [Honor be upon their Spirit]…
If these are not public rites, I don’t know what is.
For that matter, just what is a “private rite?” Aren’t all rites to be celebrated publically?
Bp. Andrus’ failure to understand plain English calls to mind Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi’s [url=”http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10749″]rebuke of Peter Lee[/url]:
[blockquote] I must object, in the most strenuous terms, to your characterization of Rev. Ashey’s decision to resign as a Missioner of the Diocese of Virginia as a renunciation of his holy orders. I have seen his letter to Bishop Jones. Even those of us for whom English is a second language understand his plain English to mean that he has resigned from the staff of the Diocese of Virginia, but not from his priestly orders. [/blockquote]
Do U.S. Episcopal Bishops take a drink of something that befuddles them when it comes to the English language?
[blockquote] For that matter, just what is a “private rite?†Aren’t all rites to be celebrated publically? [/blockquote]
I wonder if there is any intention to “Publish the Banns”
[blockquote]I publish the Banns of Marriage between N.N. of ____________ and N. N. of ___________ . If any of you know just cause why they may not be joined together in Holy Matrimony, you are bidden to declare it. This is the first (or second, or third) time of asking. (BCP 437) [/blockquote]
IMO, +Andrus is simply carrying forward the homosexualist agenda he was elected to support. Think of this as his honouring his campaign pledges.
I do not really see why folks are up in arms over this action.
Nothing that +Andrus is doing, is either unclear, or unexpected. It is all consistent to the new thing that TEC has adopted and being as the good bishop is in charge of DioCA, headquartered in San Fraqncisco, what else would (or could) be expected.
The GS primates are fully aware of this open push to advance that which they have asked TEC to not advance. They are aware that this push is fully within the strategy of TEC in the current & future changes they wish to impose.
The only ones who are fooled by +Andrus’ are those who:
1) willingly chose to be fooled, or 2) Those who accept the lies in order to keep some strength in their political strategy of holding together two bodies in separate orbits.
All others are completely aware the program going forward here. You either support it or resist it. From that decision, the dichotomy is formed and the two pathways (orbits) are illuminated.
This guy’s been smokin’ hash too long!
That, my friends, is what you call straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.
The most important resolution as definitely the one related to light bulbs. I do hope they spent an adequate amount of time considering all the implications.
At this point, surely by now, this reflects more on “us” than it does on “them.”
I would not have expected anything different from Andrus. I’d love to crawl into the Alice in Wonderland world the rest of you apparently live in if you did expect something different.
You all are awaiting an AHA! moment that quite frankly will never come.
The new Epsicobabble codeword: “pastoral care.”
Used to cover over a multitude of sins (literally), along with the Episcobabble words “baptismal covenant.”
More “living into” Episcopal apostasy.
It’s called “Obfuscatory Episcobabble.”
How many TECies does it take to change a light bulb? Apparently a whole convention!
#6 – R S Bunker wrote:
[blockquote]Will someone please explain why “orthodox†or “Windsor†bishops in the TEC have not declare a state on impaired communion with the […] Bishop of California.[/blockquote]
Indeed! A very good question. I have no idea of the ecclesiology involved, but repudiation of heresy and heretics is indeed warranted.
I am not surprised that Andrus approved these rites. What I am surprised about is his lamer then lame attempt to claim that this “honored the spirit of the Windsor Report and subsequent requests from the primates of the Communion to not develop ‘public rites.’” Does he really think anyone is fooled by this?
He would have been better off to openly challenge the HoB statement, the Windsor Report and the primates. At least then he would be seen to be an above-board and honest advocate for public rites for SSB’s. This way, he suggests that the HoB statement was made in bad faith and suggests that the HoB tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the primates by defying them in practice while pretending they aren’t. I really don’t see how this statement helps Andrus or the HoB.
There have been very open, very elaborate homosexual ‘weddings’ at Grace Cathedral, San Francisco for many, many years. The Bishops of California (the diocese actually encompasses only the City of San Francisco and parts of a few adjoining counties) have condoned this for all this time.
The sickening part is that NO Bishop of California has ever been brought up on charges for allowing them!!! It all goes back to our cowardly HOB, which refuses to discipline each other for ANY bad behavior or statement. The HOB has betrayed all of us, and truly, the millstone is around their necks.
Windsor and Dar both specifically upheld Lambeth I.10. No reasonable reading of those statements is consistent with what Bp Andrus’s diocese is doing. Bp Andrus knows this and is therefore being unambiguously disingenuous.
And he will get away with it: see my post #25. Disgusting.
#26, in politics, if you don’t win, it’s all a waste of effort. If you don’t go all-in to win, you’ld best not get up in the morning.
He is not being unambiguously disingenuous, he’s playing politics.
His actions are like the stump politician who steals the baby’s lollipop while kissing him. As such, IMO, he is being deliberately mendacious in such a way that he can deny the reality, for he said the opposite.
You know, plausible deniability.
#25: It was arguably a former Bishop of California, the infamous James Pike, who first started TEC on its slippery slide back in the Sixties.
[blockquote]#25: It was arguably a former Bishop of California, the infamous James Pike, who first started TEC on its slippery slide back in the Sixties. [/blockquote]
Pike was one of the arsonists, to be sure, but let’s not let the fire department off the hook….they decided to sit that fire out, and now it’s engulfed the entire Communion.
Jim, we may agree about many of Bishop Pike — at least later in his life. Many of his earlier books were and are excellent.
But it wasn’t Pike’s actions that ‘started us down the slippery slope’. No, the blame again is square upon the spineless HOB. Even as Bishop Pike spun out of control (and his alcoholism became more and more apparent), they refused to discipline the man. The HOB refused to defrock him, even when his statements and actions had become a terrible embarrassment to the Church (and to himself).
The troubles in TEC today can all be traced back to the squishiness of its HOB, and their refusal, time and again, to hold each other accountable.
#30: When I first drafted my #29, I had discussed that, but then took it out. Yes, the failure to take steps to depose and defrock Pike demonstrated there was no ability to enforce Godly discipline, and opened the doors for everything else. Unfortunately, Pike ultimately met a fate that was entirely consistent with what Scripture teaches. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:31
I’m not predominates here: intellectual dishonesty—or cheek.
Little Cabbage, this disgusting situation stems from one thing: episcopal “collegiality. You know the mantra: “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch your back.” Heretic bishops don’t tell on each other; neither do they discipline each other. What they do with their errant brothers who are of the reasserter variety, however, is a different story altogether…….as we know so well.
The mendacity is breathtaking.
What price is he asking for the Brooklyn Bridge?