{"id":33663,"date":"2012-07-20T18:07:00","date_gmt":"2012-07-20T18:07:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/127.0.0.1\/site\/2017\/2\/1985\/aci_same_sex_blessings_what_did_general_convention_do\/"},"modified":"2012-07-20T18:07:00","modified_gmt":"2012-07-20T18:07:00","slug":"aci_same_sex_blessings_what_did_general_convention_do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=33663","title":{"rendered":"[ACI] Same Sex Blessings: What Did General Convention Do?"},"content":{"rendered":"

***We conclude: taken as a whole, Resolution A049 is not just a legal nullity and theologically incoherent, although it is that. It is also profoundly unconstitutional in that it purports to do something General Convention is not authorized to do and encourages clergy to violate the canons, the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and their vow to conform to the worship of the Church***<\/b>
\n
Some extracts From here<\/a>:-<\/p>\n

…….But there is a more ominous aspect to these resolves. They clearly purport to \u201cauthorize\u201d\u009d something General Convention has no jurisdiction to authorize, thus usurping the authority of the very bishops they purport to authorize. And they invite (using the permissive \u201cmay\u201d\u009d) bishops to use or adapt this rite in \u201ccivil jurisdictions where same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal.\u201d\u009d This calls on bishops to ignore both the rubrics for marriage (including civil marriage) defining it as between a man and a woman and the marriage canon, which as the resolution itself acknowledges \u201capplies by extension.\u201d\u009d The House of Bishops was expressly advised that the intention of this resolution was to encourage clergy to perform same sex marriages.<\/p>\n

One diocesan bishop has already reversed his position and will now allow clergy to perform same sex marriages, concluding \u201cwe are left with a situation in which the mind of this recent Convention appears to be to allow such services. However, The Constitution and The Book of Common Prayer still say something else.\u201d\u009d For him \u201cthe mind of this General Convention\u201d\u009d trumped both of these foundational instruments.<\/p>\n

The incoherence of this position is demonstrated by the liturgical materials that were approved, which simultaneously opine that the rite can be used in connection with civil marriages and that \u201cA bishop, priest, or deacon who violates the rubrics or the Canon risks disciplinary action under Title IV.\u201d\u009d…
………………………………
\nEvery bishop, priest and deacon undertakes at ordination \u201cto conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.\u201d\u009d The recent action by General Convention purporting to authorize bishops to authorize a rite for blessing same sex couples raises in an acute way the question of what exactly is the worship of The Episcopal Church to which all clergy promise to conform. We look carefully at this question below. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201d\u00a2\tThe authority to define the worship of the Church is spelled out with precision in Article X of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

\u201d\u00a2\tSubject to the exceptions in Article X, the worship of the Church is that found in the Book of Common Prayer, which is to be used \u201cin all the Dioceses.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n

\u201d\u00a2\tGeneral Convention has authority only to amend the Book of Common Prayer or to propose revisions to the BCP and authorize them \u201cfor trial use throughout the Church\u201d\u009d \u201cat any time\u201d\u009d \u201cas an alternative\u201d\u009d to the standard Book of Common Prayer.<\/p>\n

\u201d\u00a2\tDiocesan bishops, not General Convention, have authority to permit supplemental forms of worship under defined conditions.<\/p>\n

\u201d\u00a2\tThe proposed rite was not conceived as a revision to the Book of Common Prayer and therefore General Convention had no authority to authorize its use by any majority or supermajority vote.<\/p>\n

\u201d\u00a2\tThe action of General Convention was theologically incoherent in that it assumed that God\u2019s blessing can be invoked provisionally and in some dioceses but not others.<\/p>\n

\u201d\u00a2\tThe resolution passed is unconstitutional because it exceeds the authority of General Convention and invites clergy to violate BCP rubrics.<\/p>\n

\u201d\u00a2\tBishops cannot constitutionally permit use of this rite in connection with civil marriages.<\/p>\n

We conclude: taken as a whole, Resolution A049 is not just a legal nullity and theologically incoherent, although it is that. It is also profoundly unconstitutional in that it purports to do something General Convention is not authorized to do and encourages clergy to violate the canons, the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and their vow to conform to the worship of the Church.
\nBut this is only one instance of the proliferation of unconstitutionally authorized liturgical materials for a church in liturgical, theological and canonical chaos. General Convention itself has called attention to this problem and concluded \u201cit is time\u201d\u00a6to honor the spirit of the prayer book rubrics.\u201d\u009d We agree.<\/p>\n

Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

***We conclude: taken as a whole, Resolution A049 is not just a legal nullity and theologically incoherent, although it is that. It is also profoundly unconstitutional in that it purports to do something General Convention is not authorized to do…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":832,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,73,661,172,66,378,371,34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anglican-episcopal","category-anglican-analysis","category-gen-con-2012","category-ecclesiology","category-episcopal-church-tec","category-general-convention","category-tec-polity-canons","category-theology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33663","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/832"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=33663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33663\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=33663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=33663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=33663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}