From a comment on Stand Firm<\/p>\n
For the record only (as it won\u2019t actually matter, given the status of C\/C).<\/p>\n
129 votes is not the number required but well below it, according to the rules for voting a Trial Rite.<\/p>\n
One needs a majority of all those entitled to vote \u201d\u201d and that means, all retired Bishops, assistant Bishops, etc.<\/p>\n
This was also pointed out in 2012. The Trial Rite vote technically could not have been achieved, and so the \u201d\u02dcprovisional rite.\u2019<\/p>\n
I mention this not because it will have any effect whatsoever. It won\u2019t.<\/p>\n
But anyone reading the c\/c on the votes required for passing a Trial Rite will immediately see they did not get the necessary votes. Indeed, given the laxity now prevailing, no one even went to any effort to worry about the quorum.<\/p>\n
When it is full steam ahead, it is full steam ahead.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Read it all<\/a> and see also Vote by Roll Resolution A036 – Amend Canon I.18 Marriage <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
From a comment on Stand Firm For the record only (as it won\u2019t actually matter, given the status of C\/C). 129 votes is not the number required but well below it, according to the rules for voting a Trial Rite.…<\/span><\/p>\n