Thinking Anglicans

Lambeth invitations: updates

Updated Friday morning

Anglican Mainstream and titusonenine have both published the full text of this week’s Church of England Newspaper letter from Lord Carey, from which I quoted only an excerpt earlier.

To read it in full go here, or alternatively here.

The text of (then) Archbishop Carey’s letter in February 2000 concerning the AMiA bishops, to which reference is made in the CEN letter can be found on ACNS by going here. It really deserves reading in full.

The Church of England Newspaper front page article by George Conger can be read by going to his blog: Fallout after Lambeth Invitations Continues.

There are interesting comments on the Fulcrum forum about both the authorship and the formal status of the CAPA ‘Road to Lambeth’ report referenced by various African primates recently: go here and scroll down.

Bishop Pierre Whalon also has some comments on his blog arising from his attendance at the recent Church of England bishops’ meeting:

…Among the many topics at this year’s meeting was the letter sent to most of the world’s Anglican bishops (well over 800, including eleven women) inviting us to the 2008 Lambeth Conference. While the proceedings of the meeting are confidential, I think I can make a few comments that are pertinent.
First, much has been made of the timing of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter. Clearly he would rather had sent them out after meeting with the American bishops in September, but the need to organize is becoming prominent. The last Lambeth Conference in 1998 has been described as a “organizational nightmare,” and this one seeks to be better, much better. Thus the invitations have been sent earlier than expected.
Second, the letter states that the Archbishop is still taking counsel for one or two cases. This means that no bishops of the Communion has been “uninvited,” yet. I am firmly convinced that Bishop Gene Robinson will be asked to participate. The question is, under what status? That remains to be negotiated. The Windsor Report had mandated that Rowan Williiams not invite him at all. Clearly the Archbishop wants to find a way forward despite that.
Third, the case of the bishop for the Convocation of Nigerian Churches in America, Martyn Minns, was not discussed at all. I did not know that he had not been invited until I was able to get some internet connectivity. This means that he is considered to be in the same category as the bishops of the Anglican Mission in America—validly consecrated but not a bishop of the Anglican Communion…

Pat Ashworth in the Church Times has Ugandan bishops shun Lambeth.

Another report from Uganda is in New Vision Orombi skips talks over gays.

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
16 years ago

One of the problems here, perhaps, is that Rowan Williams makes decisions that become public, but gives no reasoning with them. This leads people to speculate and make assumptions about the decisions so far. Situations are seen to be changable. So we end up looking for clues – most of the blogs and opinions are pretty worthless but obviously one from Bishop Pierre Whalon attending is worth reading. From it is a confirmation really of what seems to be the prevailing view, against that of Reform and friends and their thoughts – that CANA and previous maniestations of boundary crossing… Read more »

16 years ago

Pluralist – more likely is that the ABC makes ANOTHER u-turn to make sure Uganda and Nigeria and their many supporters in the CofE and TEC are at Lambeth 2008.

Remember what he did to J John – when push came to shove, he is not willing to see the AC split to please a tiny minority which does accept the teaching of the AC but demands to stay in it

16 years ago

But is he willing to see the CofE split instead? I don’t think so….the Communion is finished. Its just a matter of when it splits, not if….

16 years ago

But that supposes NP that the Global South will walk, and they have already softened the CAPA approach of Road to Lambeth, and it does not look like they want to play chicken. But it is speculation. I can wait.

Marshall Scott
16 years ago

Having read Archbishop Carey’s original letter, and his brief current letter, I am somewhat confused. His first argument was that the original AMiA bishops violated both the canons of the Provinces within which they were consecrated, and the canons of the Province (the Episcopal Church) within whose environs they intended to function. He was also concerned about establishing a new entity, despite the protestations from the Primates involved that this was to be “a temporary measure,” to await reconciliation with the Episcopal Church. And yet in the new letter he focuses on the change brought about by the consecration of… Read more »

16 years ago

Marshall Scott – I would be interested to see which North American groups and individuals has “assisted” Archbishop Carey since his retirement.

16 years ago

Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
Ephraim Radner

They have a point:

1. The Primates still have warrant to make their appointments to the Pastoral Council. Why have they not done so?

2. The Archbishop of Canterbury still has the authority to make his appointment to the Pastoral
Council. Why has he not done so?

3. The Presiding Bishop of TEC still has authority to make her appointment to the Pastoral Council. Why has she not done so?

4. The Windsor Bishops still have warrant to make their nominations for Primatial Vicar. Why have they not done so?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x