q Gene Robinson was not invited but his consecrators were. Why? I faced that question squarely. Some of his consecrators have expressed sorrow and asked for forgiveness; some have retired. The American church through their house of Bishops asked for forgiveness and I sent their letter to each Primate. Just over 50% felt it was an adequate response, as did the Joint Standing Committee. So, they were invited.
q Follow up question: CAPA bishops said they would not come if the consecrators were invited and their voices represent the majority of Anglicans in the Communion. How did you make that decision? I told each of them that their voice matters and we need to hear from them. I can’t invite the bishops of 70 million and not invite the bishops of 2 million. We don’t have that kind of parity or power politics in the Communion. Every voice counts.
“Some of his consecrators have expressed sorrow and asked for forgiveness; some have retired. The American church through their house of Bishops asked for forgiveness and I sent their letter to each Primate. Just over 50% felt it was an adequate response, as did the Joint Standing Committee. So, they were invited.”
WHAT? the HoB asked for forgiveness and expressed sorrow? Since when, they’ve never expressed “sorrow” or asked their own church for “forgiveness”..
I’d like to see that letter, since some 49% of the primates apparently thought it inadequate, someone should be able to share it..
Anyone, know anything about such a thing?
Gloria in SC
Q. What in human sexuality do you believe is wrong in terms of sexual behavior?
A. Any relationship outside a public covenant of mutual love, in the presence of God is outside my belief. I believe that sex outside of marriage is not part of God’s plan. The Anglican Communion has spoken adequately on the issue of homosexuality and I will adhere to those policies and decisions.
What policies and decisions?
The great equivicator has spoken again, and again, most are more confused than before!
[blockquote]Just over 50% felt it was an adequate response[/blockquote]
………which, of course, means that just [i]under[/i] 50% believed it was inadequate. What about them?
the snarkster
I agree with Grandmother:
When did the bishops participating in the consecration express regret or repentance for their actions?
The only statement of regret I ever heard was regret that the rest of the communion was too stuck up to appreciate their great stride forward. Or something like that (regret for the anguish caused to the communion?).
Jim Elliott <><
I LOVE THIS!!!!:
The Ecumenical participants are here and Gene Robinson is not. Why not? [b]The Ecumenical participants are full participants and have not caused a problem within the Anglican Communion. A bishop invited to this meeting represents his diocese and province and is allowed to engage in world-wide fellowship. This privilege must be guarded and protected. [/b]
Heh, his answer indicates he KNOWS VGR is grandstanding for his own self-interests and on behalf of the GLBT lobby.
Regarding the 50 percent who accepted the HOB statements, DO remember that +++Rowan polled ALL of the primates and a whole bunch in the GS refused to send him an answer because they didn’t like the way he phrased the questions. I have been VERY dismayed over the refusal of these primates to participate in the process and I personally feel that they have short-changed the orthodox with their righteous indignation. They’re not there in Canterbury representing us, either. I would never castigate people for their conscience decisions but I wouldn’t expect that after making such decisions, they would complain, either.
From the ABC:
The American church through their house of Bishops asked for forgiveness and I sent their letter to each Primate. Just over 50% felt it was an adequate response
From me: an answer to one of Kendall+’s questions on a previous thread:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/14433/#252695
“I think that the answers to the questions are a little obvious.
This raises numerous questions such as, since the Episcopal Church didn’t do these things why are her bishops present at Lambeth?
The problem with the question is in the statement “the Episcopal Church didn’t do these things.†In regard to the invitations to Lambeth the ONLY person capable of deciding what the Episcopal Church did or did not do is ++Rowan. He has stated unequivocally that TEC has done all that they are capable of doing and he is satisfied with that.
…
We here[sic] these refrains periodically from the reasserters. It is the old “there is only one truth†argument applied to Windsor. Here’s the upshot of that argument: you want to say “At least I follow the truth and hold people accountable,†but you fail to take into consideration reality (alas there are no pragmatic reasserters). Once you factor in reality, the questions become irrelevant. How is this possible? How is that possible? It’s possible because it has happened – past tense.”
The 2 million control the moolah, hence the mullah. Let’s be truthy about it, at least. That and the archepiscopal throne is wobbling both nationallly and internationally, so somebody’s got to support the soon-to-be-disestablished post financially.
*ding* We have a WIN-ner! Pick up your prize on your way out, sonnie!
This is a very helpful report. I agree with some of the sentiments above with respect to ECUSA, yet reserve judgment. All the bishops are in my prayers and I continue to hope for a miracle. We will know the power of the Holy Spirit is working when we see real repentance.
“q Follow up question: CAPA bishops said they would not come if the consecrators were invited and their voices represent the majority of Anglicans in the Communion. How did you make that decision?
I told each of them that their voice matters and we need to hear from them. I can’t invite the bishops of 70 million and not invite the bishops of 2 million. We don’t have that kind of parity or power politics in the Communion. Every voice counts.”
===================================================================
” I can’t invite the bishops of 70 million and not invite the bishops of 2 million.”
This statement by the ABC gave me the greatest pause.
He states that he is obliged to invite the revisionist bishops of a small minority church of 2,000,000 (900,000 ASA?) that is persecuting its minority orthodox Anglicans.
Let’s try and figure this out.
It would be ‘unfair’ not to invite ECUSA’s revisionist bishops who are persecuting orthodox Anglicans, but by doing that he seems to condone (by his very invitation) their blatantly ‘unfair’ persecution of orthodox Anglicans.
This is going to give “equivocation” a bad rep. Some may see this answer as politically astute. Some will surely see it as two-faced.
“Let’s try and figure this out.” I cannot be done precisely because y ou are not SUPPOSED to be able to figure it out. I have read poems by Wallace Stevens that are more straightforward. Perhaps we should change Finnegan’s Wake” to “William’s Wake.” The clarity will be much the same, only Joyce never pretended to be comprehensible. Larry
I was at this press conference. As the full audio and even video of the conference is available online, I would urge readers to check for themselves to see whether the rather brief summary of some questions and answers is entirely accurate.
Simon, where?
ACNS for audio, ENS for video
This is facing a question squarely? Exactly what constitutes mendacious evasion in Canterbury? What squishy nonsense.