Canterbury Releases Lambeth Video Launch

I’ve listened to the q&a;and am struck by the ABC’s unflinching kindness and benefit of the doubt, in spite of great evidence, towards TEC.  I’ve also noticed an unflinching disregard for the Primates who have extended a safe haven for those who, in good conscience, cannot support the innovations (or new things) of TEC.  For the latter group he refers back to the Windsor Report ad nausium; for the former group he simply refers back to his desire to think the best of the individuals or the HOB as a group.

I am very concerned that ABC may use his strict interpretation of the Windsor Reports concerns about cross-border interventions to withdraw Bishop Schofield’s invitation to Lambeth.  I was shocked to hear that he would wait to see what TEcorp’s HoB did about that situation before he decided anything about that invitation.

As JAC+ above notes, the double standard regarding “assuming the best” of TEcorp bishops against the stricter interpretation about crossing borders is telling.  Withdrawal of Bishop Schofield’s invite will doom Lambeth and, likely, the Communion.  Allowing Bishop Schofield to attend will beg the question . . . so . . . what about CANA and AMiA?  Not to mention that +Schofield’s attendance will really set TEcorp on its ear.

One more rock-hardplace for +++Williams to negotiate.  Wonder how that will be done . . .

I   think it’s time for me to post the cafe’s theme song again.  Bob says it better than I can. 

bb

Good videos - shame about the unplastered walls. 

The elephant in the room remains the total failure to provide for the persecuted US conservative Anglicans - we have seen a resumption of the Terror this last two weeks.  That is, um…disappointing!

Can anyone tell me when the House of Bishops as a whole have stated that they regret having participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson? I think the ABofC has stepped in something smelly on that comment of his!

How could he withdraw +Schofield’s invite unless he also withdraws ++Venables?  Looks like he could get himself into an unpleasant domino game once that silliness starts.

Did you say domino?

#8…Thanks for the chuckle!

The archbishop has released a transcript of these videos on his own (newly redesigned and much better on first impressions) site. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1539.

Question: Archbishop, have you considered going really radical and inviting everybody, so Martyn Minns and Gene Robinson;

ABC: The answer to your first question is yes of course I’d consider it, but, among other considerations I thought it best to stick fairly closely with what the Windsor Report recommends - that we should see this as an event for those who have accepted the general direction of the Windsor Report and haven’t flown in the face of its recommendations. So, considered, but not gone with.

I could not but help thinking of Canada, today’s report from that Virginia committee etc. as I read this.

Actually, I have now re-thought my previous comments (#2 above).  While I don’t want to fall into any “rose-colored glasses” trap, I think I see the logic behind +++Williams’ invitation strategy.  I don’t agree with him, but I see the consistency now.

Basically, he didn’t invite VGR because his consecration was “irregular” and not consistent with the WR.  He is inviting the consecrators though.  He is not inviting AMiA, CANA, etc. bishops for the same reason . . . those consecrations (in the ABC’s mind) are “irregular” and not consistent with the WR.  However, the GS primates and bishops who set up AMiA, CANA, etc. are invited.

The invitations go out to all bishops who were “regularly” consecrated regardless of whether their behavior is Windsor compliant or not.  According to WR . . . VGR should not have been consecrated . . . and neither should Minns, Guernsey, etc.  Therefore, until the Communion as a whole recognizes those consecrations (or one set or the other), they cannot be invited.

But the bishops who did the deed were regularly consecrated and recognized.  Therefore, they are invited.

The logic makes some level of sense, but then this doesn’t really address the Cavalcanti (Reciffe, Brazil) issue, and it creates a sticky situation with regards to +Schofield of San Joaquin.

Anyway, like I said, I disagree with the rationale, but I can see some consistency in what the ABC is doing . . . as long as he sticks with the consistency and doesn’t figure out some way to sneak in VGR in some way or another.

It would also be nice if we knew that Lambeth would make some determination as to what to do with errant bishops.  I would hope that the TEcorp bishops could be disciplined and the GS bishops forgiven on the basis of acting pastorally in an emergency.  But, I’m not holding out hope for that.

#5—One Day Closer.

That comment about the HoB apologizing for consecrating VGR also struck me as odd.  I don’t remember that happening either.  Where did the ABC get that info, and why would he have said that?