Being Discussed are these three resolutions by The Council of the General Synod :
Resolution Number: A185
Subject: Voting Requirement for Resolutions A186 and A187
Moved by:
Seconded By:
Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.
BE IT RESOLVED:
That resolutions A186 and A187 be deemed to have been carried only if they receive the affirmative votes of sixty percent of the members of each Order present and voting, and if a vote by dioceses is requested, only if they receive the affirmative votes of sixty percent of the dioceses whose votes are counted.
————————————————————————————————-
Resolution Number: A186
Subject: Blessing of Same Sex Unions – Core Doctrine of ACC
Moved by:
Seconded By:
Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.
BE IT RESOLVED:
That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of The Anglican Church of Canada.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Resolution Number: A187
Subject: Blessing of Same Sex Unions
Moved by:
Seconded By:
Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.
BE IT RESOLVED:
That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions.
How are they not defining a new doctrine if they do this? The words and vocabulary are breaking down here somehow. The word “doctrine†is being given so many meanings as to add confusion rather than clarity to the debate.
On the live feed there was a woman who asked that the Synod consider changing the words “consistent with” in A186 as that terminology does not allow for disagreement. I have to agree that it is wrong to define this as something “in line” with the doctrine of the Church.
It is absurd to be voting on this. Benedict XVI is correct. It is core to the world and individualism not the Christian Faith. It is hard to continue with this argument. Did I say absurd?
The changing of the meanings of words is part of the strategy to redefine the faith. In a recent round-table debate I realized that while I was using the same words as a priest on the other side of the issue, we were speaking different languages. For him holiness seemed to equal self-actualization and a sense of high self-worth. My definition was quite different, and yet we used the word in similar sentences, e.g. “God calls us into holiness…”
Did A185 and A186 pass? When will the vote occur?