Index Post: General Convention: Rites of Blessing for Same Sex Unions Passed

18 comments on “Index Post: General Convention: Rites of Blessing for Same Sex Unions Passed”

1. Karen B. says:

   July 10, 2012 at 9:21 pm

   Nice work Elves. You rock!
   I know just how much work it is to put together such compilations, AND how useful and important they are. Really appreciate those of you who have had time to work on this.

   Sorry I’ve not been available most of the GenCon to help you all!

2. c.r.seitz says:

   July 10, 2012 at 9:33 pm

   I do hope delegates from CFL, Dallas, SC and elsewhere will press the Chair for a ruling. Is a provisional rite pursuant to Art. X’s wording and logic? Can the rubrics of the BCP be set aside for occasional rites of any kind? It’s time to memorize Art. X and put the matter firmly. It is one thing to introduce liturgical anarchy and another thing to pretend you are not doing so when you are. There is a constitution. Demand that those who wish to set it aside admit they are doing so. The time will come and is now here where conservative dioceses will want to be able to make the strong case that they are constitutional Episcopalians. This is sloppy work by progressives. They don’t want to do the hard work of changing the constitution. They want to create new categories altogether and pretend order. It is important to have the terms of what is happening made very clear. It is very disappointing the Bishops failed to clarify how a ‘provisional rite’ is not against the rubrics of the BCP as Art. X makes clear cannot happen.

3. MKEnorthshore says:

   July 10, 2012 at 9:49 pm

   Just spent an hour switching between the HOB/HOD. Talk about stand-up comedy….

4. Matthew says:

   July 10, 2012 at 10:11 pm

   Does anyone have a list of how each of the bishops voted?

5. Karen B. says:

   July 10, 2012 at 10:49 pm

   Just came across the text of The Rev. David Thurlow’s [clergy, SC] minority report about the SSB Resolution, published in the Living Church article linked above.

   [blockquote]One member of the committee, the Very Rev. David Thurlow of the Diocese of South Carolina, submitted a minority report recommending rejection of the resolution.

   “Whereas, for two thousand years the Church has had clear teaching regarding Christian marriage and Biblical norms of sexual behavior; and has upheld a standard consistent with God’s Word as taught by Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” he wrote.

   Thurlow added: “And whereas, through previous statements and resolutions the Church has pledged itself not to make any change to this traditional teaching until such time as the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and other ecumenical partners have reached a consensus on the subject in accordance with Holy Scripture and guidance of the Holy Spirit;

   “And whereas, Resolution A049 is a clear break and departure from ‘the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them’ (BCP, p. 526) introducing and acting upon a new theology of human sexuality inconsistent with the clear teaching of Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer, the Constitution & Canons of The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion and the wider Church,
   I recommend rejection of this resolution.”[/blockquote]

   South Carolina has a great tradition of taking a faithful stand via Minority Reports. I wonder if this was a “Minority Report of One”, like [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070217132636/http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?page_id=14219]Kendall’s famous Minority Report from GC003[/url] when he became a household name among all of us conservative Episcopalians?!

   (I highly recommend re-reading Kendall’s 2003 Minority Report which I’ve linked above from the old T19 archives.)

   Thanks Kendall+ and David+ and all the SC deputies for your faithfulness in standing for Biblical Truth!

6. Scatcatpdx says:

   July 10, 2012 at 11:03 pm

   2 John 1 4-11
   4 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father. 5 And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. [b] 6 And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.[/b] (note I been listening to reform sermons: what being say is no to support The TEC in their cause or give a base when they can operate from)

   That my feeling about the TEC, to be pray for that they repent but treated with respect but no different the any false teacher or unregenerate.

7. MKEnorthshore says:

   July 11, 2012 at 1:05 am

   I see that there is no cross on or above the “head table,” only those horrible flags, representing Mrs. Schori’s “see.”

8. Karen B. says:

   July 11, 2012 at 2:42 am

   Just saw on the live Twitter feed that the HOD is near voting on the SSB resolution (A049, I think?) It will be a vote by orders, so there will be the chance to know how each delegation voted. Good.

9. c.r.seitz says:

   July 11, 2012 at 2:53 am

   Why can’t someone simply ask the Chair for a ruling on whether this ‘provisional rite’ is in accordance with Article X of the Constitution? It is too complicated politically to ‘refer it back to SCLM’ — that failed. It would good to have it in the record how the chair responded to the constitutional question.

10. Stefano says:

    July 11, 2012 at 3:17 am

    What was that prayer addressed to? The Great Spirit? Jupiter? And whatever happened to ‘a language understood by the people’?

11. Karen B. says:

    July 11, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    The news has made the front page of BBC home page world news headlines. It’s a pretty well-written story by the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18792315

12. TomRightmyer says:

    July 11, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    I was glad to see that more than 20 per cent of the dioceses’ clergy and lay deputies opposed approval of the same-sex proposal. More than 7000 have not bowed the knee to Baal.

13. A Senior Priest says:

    July 11, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Why this grasping at straws and quibbling over canonical wording. Inasmuch as TEC is and always has been an oligarchy (however much one might wish to see it otherwise), the only difference between then and now being that in the past the oligarchy accomplished their desires through the traditional structures which sufficed their needs. Since today the “new” oligarchy which has replaced the old in their offices finds the former canonical bounds too restricting, they must needs find ways around the canons in order to accomplish their goals. Unfortunately, today TEC’s ruling oligarchy does not understand that their subversion of the canons is a principle cause of the erosion of their credibility and authority.

14. Sandy Riley says:

    July 15, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    The resolution explicitly allows bishops who do not approve of same-sex relationships to prohibit their priests from using the liturgy. It calls the liturgy “provisional,” saying it will be re-evaluated in three years. It also does not refer to the liturgy as a marriage rite, calling it instead “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant.”

15. spoon says:

    July 21, 2012 at 6:52 am

    the passage of A049 was egregious enough! what is going to happen when national starts trying to enforce implementation – the actions they took against falls church were machiavellian. now i’m hearing they are selling 815 and possibly relocating to virginia. at this point there is no going back – all the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not put humpty dumpty back together again.

16. SC blu cat lady says:

    July 23, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Spoon,
    General Convention has agreed that the selling 815 is ok with them (the delegates at convention). Whether 815 Second Avenue will ever be sold remains to be seen. I have not heard news about relocating to Virginia. What was the reasoning for that decision? Do you know the source of this information?

    Humpty Dumpty (ie TEC) is still an whole entity. Parts have broken off but it still exists. A very broken and divisive entity in many ways but it is still an entity. No one has dissolved the union of diocese that has become TEC. Don’t misunderstand me. I, too, have written that I would like to see TEC dissolved. I doubt it will happen but it would the honest way forward IMVVHO. Let the dioceses stand on their own and be recognized by WWAC for what they are. FWIW, my diocese (South Carolina) may be one of a few TEC dioceses that are recognized by every province in the WWAC.

17. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) says:

    July 25, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    “This is sloppy work by progressives. They don’t want to do the hard work of changing the constitution. They want to create new categories altogether and pretend order”.

    Well, yeah, that’s how the mob does it, especially when it’s wrong.

    (Aside: My sarcasm does not mean I’m happy about it or dismissive of it; I’m not–I think it’s appalling, and it’s what happens when the inmates wind up running the asylum.)

18. MichaelA says:

    July 26, 2012 at 6:59 am

    Communion Partners web-site has an item about a congregation in Kentucky that has publicly ratified the Indianapolis statement.