**Important*** New Text Version of Same Sex Blessing Resolution A049 (as Amended in Commitee)

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 77th General Convention commend "Liturgical Resources I: I Will Bless You and You Will Be a Blessing" for study and use in congregations and dioceses of The Episcopal Church, with
the following revisions:

Throughout "I Will Bless You and You Will Be a Blessing" change "same-gender" to "same-sex"; BB p. 184 (Te bendecire pdf, p.1): change "Resources for Blessing Same-Gender Relationships" to "Resources for The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant" BB p. 240 (Te bendecire pdf, p. 83): Add rubric after first rubric, stating: "At least one of the couple must be a baptized Christian." BB p. 240 (Te bendecire pdf, p. 83): In paragraph 2, line 1, delete "at least one of whom is baptized,"
BB p. 241 (Te bendecire pdf, p. 85): In Presider's address to the assembly, delete "come what may," (paragraph 1, line 9) BB pp. 241-242 (Te bendecire pdf, p. 85): In Presider's address to the assembly, delete all of paragraph 2 ("Ahead of them...calls us all to share.") BB p. 242 (Te bendecire pdf, p. 85): In Presider's address to the assembly, change "let us pray, then," (paragraph 3, line 1) to "Therefore, in the name of Christ, let us pray"
BB p. 245 (Te bendecire pdf, p. 90): After the bidding for peace in their home and love in their family, add the following bidding: “For the grace, when they hurt each other, to recognize and acknowledge their fault, and to seek each other’s forgiveness and yours: Lord, in your mercy (or Lord, in your goodness) Hear our prayer.”
BB p. 246 (Te bendecire pdf, p. 91): Change rubric that begins “After a time of silence” to the following: “The leader may add one or more of the following biddings....”

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)General Convention --Gen. Con. 2012Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion)Same-sex blessings* Christian Life / Church LifeLiturgy, Music, WorshipParish Ministry

Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:40 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. c.r.seitz wrote:

Has it been determined whether the necessary supermajority of 153 votes was received in the HOB? How many Bishops are present and voted? If 175 are present, e.g., only 23 would need to vote No.

July 9, 1:06 pm | [comment link]
2. Cranmerian wrote:

#1, Prof. Seitz,

I was wondering if the change of language from “trial” use to “provisional” use will affect the supermajority stipulations regarding trial liturgies and their adoption at GC.  This certainly gives every indication that this is a work around to the above mentioned stipulation and more evidence of the depths that those willing to push this agenda forward will stoop to in order to see this rammed through GC.  If that is in fact the case, this should have no problem passing the HoB.

Fr. Will McQueen

July 9, 1:38 pm | [comment link]
3. Henry Greville wrote:

With reference to the GLBT self-identification code, will either the terms “same-gender” or “same-sex” make sense when and if one or more T’s are seeking the church’s blessing of an intimate union? Just asking.

July 9, 1:48 pm | [comment link]
4. c.r.seitz wrote:

#2—if this is correct, is TEC seeking to find a way to avoid Article X in its entirety? That is, creating a liturgical life without any canonical warrant whatsoever? I understand that in some respects this is already the case and one could really pile-on the sarcasm. But it is a different matter I think to seek to avoid Article X in such a premeditated way, if that is what is happening with minor language changes (not ‘trial’ but ‘provisional’), so as to avoid needing to satisfy the canons whose sole purpose is to regulate this important aspect of our Common Prayer life. Do the Bishops want to see this outcome, genuinely?

July 9, 1:56 pm | [comment link]
5. Michael S. Mills wrote:

#4—“Do the Bishops want to see this outcome, genuinely?”  That’s the real question, isn’t it?  Which outcome the Bishop more want to see.  Given the immediate reward of expansive inclusion and the more remote possibility of abuse of such tactics, my guess is that the bishops will decide with their parlimentarian that “eligible to vote” means “present at the convention.”  The fact that no one will actually be included, and that the tactic will definitely be abused will play little if any part.  One should note, however, that the same supermajority is needed, I believe, to depose a bishop, and that such a precedent would be remembered.

July 9, 4:00 pm | [comment link]
6. Jill Woodliff wrote:

Prayers for General Convention.

July 9, 4:30 pm | [comment link]
7. James Manley wrote:

I believe the precedent has been firmly set that “a majority of bishops eligible to vote” actually means “the majority of bishops present,” on the grounds that only those present are eligible to vote.

Not that I buy that argument, I’m just saying that that seems to have become the interpretation of the canon.

July 9, 5:26 pm | [comment link]
8. c.r.seitz wrote:

#2 It was explained that ‘trial’ was swapped out because it is in Article X and implies en route to BCP revision. So it appears TEC is carving out some space that the canons don’t regulate. Liturgical on-the-ground-ism. Bishops didn’t need supermajority because this is not a trial use in accordance with Art. X. We are entering the liturgical twilight zone.

July 9, 6:36 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): New Version of Structure Resolution C095 (as Amended)

Previous entry (below): General Synod of the Church of New Zealand is “Unable to adopt” Anglican covenant

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)