Many observers, both conservative and liberal, say the 2006 moratorium has been essentially overturned by the new resolution.
[Henry] Parsley disagrees.
“My view is that it doesn’t overturn the resolution from three years ago,” Parsley said. “It reminds the larger church where we are in terms of valuing the gifts of all our members.
“This does not repeal the moratorium; it says we’re open to all people. It affirms our relationships with the Anglican Communion and acknowledges that there are many who don’t agree. It’s very respectful. We continue to seek the mind of Christ.”
The new (small g) gospel = let my yes mean no, let my no mean yes….do these people really, truly believe what they are saying? I truly hope they KNOW
OOPS – they are spinning….
Perhaps the book of Jude was referring to him? And much of the existing TEC hierarchy as well? (I’d encourage you all to read it, it’s short and may be perfectly appropriate to our existing situation).
ya they are spinning – go to http://www.dioala.org and clik on Bishops Pages – Henry Parsley to read the letter to the diocese …
Terribly misleading.
Ed+
Deja-moo (I think I have heard this bull before….)
Upon being asked to review a particular physics paper, Wolfgang Pauli is reported to have said, “This isn’t right. This isn’t even wrong.”
The day will come that these false prophets and apostles will answer for both their actiions and their words. And spin will not be allowed on that great day. Feel sorry for these men and pray for their conversion to the Risen Lord.
How can we be open to consecrating partnered same sex bishops and have a moratorium on consecrating partnered same sex bishops?
What sauce!
This might make sense to someone who refuses to read the two resolutions.
😉
Poor episcopal bishops, so misunderstood.
Parsley’s not a bad guy, he just doesn’t get it. Technically he’s right: B033 was not explicitly repealed and you *could* interpret this as maintaining the moratorium. But it doesn’t matter. In 2007 -right or wrong – TEC was given a pass with the clear, albeit unstated, understanding that they would make no move toward the cliff’s edge. Instead, they ran head-long toward it. Claims that they didn’t outright jump over miss the point – indeed, considering the circumstances they amount to pure sophistry. TEC did exactly what they were asked not to do, knew it (pretty much all those voting against and many of those voting in favor understood what this was signalling), and so can’t complain when the rest of us aren’t impressed with their word parsing. Frankly, I feel sorry for the man – he probably really knows not what he did.
I think the Anglican Fudge is running just a bit too thin. I suppose only time will tell, but if and when a homosexual is nominated by a diocese to be bishop, I’m not wagering money they the House of Bishops will not vote to seat him or her in the HOB.
I say this because we’ve come full circle in the self-justifying reasoning. When that happens, a lot of these bishops will go back to the “well, a diocese has a right to have whomever as its bishop” and can just point to this resolution. “Well, we followed the canons and rules, so we have no right to interfere.” And they can just wash their hands of affirming another Gene Robinson, and basically blame it on the individual diocese.
It is sad to see a church completely lose sight of truth and reality. They have compromised, bent, whittled, hedged and edged away from the truth little by little year by year. Now they cannot even see or perceive the truth. They can only tell and believe lies and their own cococted ideas. They are drunk and disoriented on their own irrational baseless rationalizations and spin to explain and defend their words and actions. They do not know the Living Lord, will not submit to or abide by the unchanging God-written Word and Law of Truth, Love and Life and they have not believed or experienced the Gospel of Repentance, Redemption and Resurrections.
Technically, B033 did not spell out a moritorium and such resolutions are non-binding, anyway. However, many in TEC and many in the AC argued that the words of restraint did create a binding moratorium. With B033 being a resolution produced by GC, this was thus a de jure moratorium.
Given this history, D025 addresses the very same subject as B033, is a more recent resolution of GC on the topic, and omits the words of restraint. I think many are reasonable in relying on consistency in construction and viewing D025 as effective in overturning any moratorium construed from B033.
One of the primary arguments emerging is that the de jure moratorium of B033, even if overtaken by the more recent D025, somehow survives until violated in a de facto manner.
This is misplaced. The notion of a moratorium arises from a legally instituted pause in pursuing a legal right, as with a pause in collection from a debtor. A moratorium does not arise simply because creditors volunarily refrain from pursuing their legal remedies, or take some time getting around to it.
Prior to B033, all were free to exercise restraint or not, and that is where we are today. No bishop may now refer to B033 or D025 and make a credible argument that because of either resolution, they should exercise restraint.
Prior to GC2009, bishops had that ability.
Of course, we should note also that C056 sanctions informal SSBs as a pastoral response. Also emerging is an argument that without GC approved liturgies, SSBs simply cannot exist.
🙄
“This does not repeal the moratorium; it says we’re open to all people. It affirms our relationships with the Anglican Communion and acknowledges that there are many who don’t agree. It’s very respectful. We continue to seek the mind of Christ.”
Parsley said he hoped the denomination would abide by its previous call to refrain from ordaining any more openly practicing homosexuals as bishops, for the sake of Anglican unity.”
How can these people even look themselves in the mirror after saying things like this? What courage! Well, Bishop Parsley, something tells me that you’re going to have a chance to test this formula real soon, and I don’t think the Integrity crowd has the same read on this that you do.
If D025 does not repeal or repudiate B033, why was it adopted? And why all the debate surrounding it?
Repealing a resolution is a specific legislative act. D025 did not repeal B033. However it’s statement that every order of ministry is in fact open to all the baptized (including partnered gay men and women, as we already know) supercedes the request to bishops and standing committees not to consent to the election of partnered gay bishops.
One cannot consistently claim that the Episcopal Church is open to the consecration of partnered gay men and women as bishops and that it has has a moratorium on consecrating partnered gay men and women. One or other of the claims is not true. I think I know which.
In other words D025 reasserts the status quo prior to B033. Partnered gay men and women may be consecrated bishops.
It was this very status quo that lead the Windsor Report to request TEC to effect a moratorium on electing and consecrating partnered gay bishops.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Re #11: Parsley IS a bad guy, precisely because he does get it, and portrays not getting it.
bl