Note the question the PB was answering. David Virtue referred to the PB withdrawing ecumenical reps and the PB was correcting Virtue, viz, ‘We were not asked to withdraw…The ABC removed the ecumenical visitors, without consultation.’ She is correct. Why, however, she volunteers a comment about the ACC is unclear, unless she was just confused. I suspect it is a follow up in her own mind about the previous question concerning Douglas and her representation on the ACC. The letter Conger refers to in his CEN piece had to do with Standing Committee of AC and Primates Meeting. We at ACI remain of the view that the shifting of Douglas from presbyter to bishop rep cannot simply happen without repercussions for his standing on the SC (and is questionable on its own face). But that will be for the ACC to decide.
What does “we” mean? Is “Anglican Consultative Council the same as the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion in her view? Wasn’t the suggestion that SHE not attend (which itself is different from withdrawing)? This could have been a much more specific denial. Instead she shut down the questions.
On second read, Virtue appears to be responsible not only for the wrong verb (withdraw) but also the context (ACC). Ecumenical reps are unrelated to the ACC. Sadly, this has created confusion X 2.
Note the question the PB was answering. David Virtue referred to the PB withdrawing ecumenical reps and the PB was correcting Virtue, viz, ‘We were not asked to withdraw…The ABC removed the ecumenical visitors, without consultation.’ She is correct. Why, however, she volunteers a comment about the ACC is unclear, unless she was just confused. I suspect it is a follow up in her own mind about the previous question concerning Douglas and her representation on the ACC. The letter Conger refers to in his CEN piece had to do with Standing Committee of AC and Primates Meeting. We at ACI remain of the view that the shifting of Douglas from presbyter to bishop rep cannot simply happen without repercussions for his standing on the SC (and is questionable on its own face). But that will be for the ACC to decide.
What does “we” mean? Is “Anglican Consultative Council the same as the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion in her view? Wasn’t the suggestion that SHE not attend (which itself is different from withdrawing)? This could have been a much more specific denial. Instead she shut down the questions.
Thanks to T19 for altering their headline. I think the AAC should consider this as well. “We didn’t withdraw — the ABC removed” would be better.
On second read, Virtue appears to be responsible not only for the wrong verb (withdraw) but also the context (ACC). Ecumenical reps are unrelated to the ACC. Sadly, this has created confusion X 2.
This seems like both a confusing and a short press conference. I am none the wiser.
Do these people actually speak English? They were smart to shut down the press conference before their incoherence blossomed further.
I don’t care what they say. It doesn’t matter any more.
7, agreed and no matter how phrased David’s question elicited a telling response.
I presume that both of the present “press” at the “press” conference found the experience edifying.
Ridiculous…dishonest, no integrity whatsoever.