1979 BCP Thrown Under the Bus With Bishop Love

“Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed."- Richard Neuhaus 

Revisionists and progressives are jumping for joy after the Episcopal Bishop of Albany William Love was found guilty of violating the organization's canons when he forbade priests in his diocese to perform blessings of same-sex marriages. 

The decision may be found here. I present the summary opinion which basically throws the 1979 Book of Common Prayer under the bus.

The panel claims in a unanimous judgement that Bishop Love, 

" ...violated Canon IV.4.1(c) in that his November 10, 2015 Pastoral Directive violated the Discipline of the Church, as Resolution B012 was properly constituted and passed as an authorized revision to the BCP as expressly provided for in Constitution Article X (b), thus requiring that all Bishop Diocesans permit their clergy the option to utilize such rites. "

This is outrageous. A resolution becomes an "authorized revision to the BCP". The rules regarding Prayer Book revision are much stricter than that.  

TEC has further met its burden of establishing that Bishop Love’s Direction also violated the Discipline of the Church in that it violated Canon I.18. The canonical legitimacy of Resolution B012 rendered Canon I.18 mandatory, requiring adherence by Bishops Diocesan in permitting their Clergy the option to perform same-sex marriage rites.

Who needs bishops anyway? The General Convention rules now.

TEC has also met its burden of establishing that the Direction violated the Worship of the Church in that Resolution B012 added canonically-authorized same-sex marriage rites to the Worship of the Church pursuant to the BCP. Therefore, Bishop Love’s argument that abiding by Resolution B012 would put him in violation of the Discipline, Doctrine and Worship of the Church fails in each assertion. Resolution B012 effectively added rites of worship to which paragraph one of “Concerning the Service” regarding “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage” and “The Blessing of a Civil Marriage” (“commentary to Concerning the Service”) at 422 of the BCP, describing marriage “as between a man and a woman,” does not apply.

Wow! That is classic revisionism at work. 

Second, Resolution B012 does not create a conflict between the Discipline and Doctrine of the Church where a portion of the Catechism, BCP at 861 refers to marriage in which “the man and a woman enter into a life-long union. . .”. The Rubrics to the Catechism make plain it is merely “an outline for instruction” and is “not meant to be a complete statement of belief and practice.” BCP at 844.

More classic revisionism. 

Nor can Bishop Love defend his actions under the Albany Canons where Resolution B012 was canonically authorized and TEC’s accession clause provides that diocesan canons must accede to TEC canons.

"Must accede to TEC canons" but that does not mean one must accede to General Convention resolutions!  What a kangaroo court.

Finally, Bishop Love’s defense that he cannot violate the Worship of the Church where Resolution B012 was extra-canonical, fails because Resolution B012 was properly constituted to render marriage rites as canonically authorized revisions to the BCP.

Again, to revise the BCP is a much more complicated process than simply passing a resolution of the General Convention.

Episcopalians by the hundreds of thousands have seen this kind of thing coming and have left the denomination. 

Let's hope the people of the Diocese of Albany can escape from the tyranny of the Episcopal organization and find a faithful spiritual home where they can actually believe the words they read in their Bibles and teach them to the next generation.