The Windsor Continuation Group Report to the Archbishop of Canterbury

i have been getting a bunch of emails from people who haven’t seen this or who can’t find it. Please take the time to read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, --Proposed Formation of a new North American Province, Anglican Church of Canada, Anglican Primates, Anglican Provinces, Archbishop of Canterbury, Common Cause Partnership, Episcopal Church (TEC), Primates Meeting Alexandria Egypt, February 2009, Same-sex blessings, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion), TEC Conflicts

2 comments on “The Windsor Continuation Group Report to the Archbishop of Canterbury

  1. robroy says:

    I wrote this on a different thread, but I am still appalled at the cluelessness of those in the WCG and this part pertains to the report.

    The WCG report states,
    [blockquote]WCG believes that the advent of schemes such as the Communion Partners Fellowship and the Episcopal Visitors scheme instituted by the Presiding Bishop in the United States should be [i]sufficient[/i] to provide for the care of those alienated within the Episcopal Church from recent developments.[/blockquote]
    I find this more than a little irritating. Gary Lillibridge was on the WCG and is a CP bishop. He knows full well that the CP “plan” offers basically diddly to those in revisionist diocese. I would also add that it offers very little to those in CP dioceses – an exchange of emails between diocesan bishops and foreign primates and a promise for primatial visits. Sorry if I am underwhelmed. And the mention of Ms Schori’s Episcopal Visitor plan is really galling. This half-bake scheme was simply a ruse to distract when the Episcopal HoB flipped off the AC in rejecting DeS. The “visitor” bishops didn’t even know about it. How many participants does it have presently, a year and a half after it was hastily tossed out? Zip. Nor will it ever. Yet, these two schemes were held up by the WCG report as being sufficient? C’mon Gary Lillibridge.

    The WCG report also talked a great deal about the [strike]Panel of Reference[/strike] Pastoral Forum. No mention in the report that Rowan was to have appointed members by last October. History repeats itself or at least Rowan Williams does, having done the same stall in naming Panel of Reference members. Rowan plays us for fools by regurgitating the Panel of Reference and the WCG plays along with the game. But the Panel of Reference was a big success for Rowan. With his delay in appointing the ineffectual Peter Carnley and the usual delay for committee meetings and fact finding, there was a time period of about two years before the first reports came out, copies of which Michael Ingham’s parakeet is still pooping on. Bird cage lining is the destiny of the WCG report.

    What an embarrassment. To think the members of the WCG actually affixed their names on this folly of a report. Perhaps, the group needs to rename itself to the WPCAIG, [i]Windsor Process Continuation Ad Infinitum Group[/i]

  2. nwlayman says:

    “The Anglican Communion, which has evolved in recent generations, represents a model of reformed Catholicism which may yet make a distinctive and necessary contribution to the life of the wider church.”

    To which any thinking human can only reply: “Huh?”

    Utterly meaningless. It means **SO** much more to be out of communion with this thing than it does to be in communion with it.
    No wonder the “Wider church” (Is that what it means when an Episcopalian is ordained a priest in the “Church of God”?) has so little to do with it. How would you know you were talking to an Anglican if you wanted to? How does it differ from talking to an unbeliever?