[sitetest]

Dear McGavin999,

Yeah, especially after reading the fire-breathing denouncement that the Presiding Bishop just gave down in Texas.

This one looks like the ECUSA caving. Look especially #3:

"Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly."

I'm not sure, but I THINK this means that the House of Bishops is agreeing not to confirm any more homosexual bishops. Thus, if the Diocese of California elects a homosexual bishop in the months leading up to the 2006 General Convention, thus requiring a vote accepting that election by the General Convention (as it was explained to me) does that mean that these folks are pledging to reject that bishop?

I'm confused. 8-p


sitetest

[Raycpa]

Its a ban on all consecrations, liberal, conservative and homosexual.

[sionnsar]

This one looks like the ECUSA caving. Look especially #3:
"Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly."

I'm not so sure. Two points, one already made in this thread:

1) It looks like nobody gets consecrated. What was the jurisdiction that recently said that if gays can't be married nobody gets married, until it's all sorted out?

2) I keep wondering about the phrase "Those of us having jurisdiction pledge..." -- but it's been a long day, I am tired and about to go offline and rest.

[RonF]

The way I read this, the members of the HOB is not going to consecrate ANY bishops, homosexual or not, until after GC2006.