“If the archbishop wants to keep everyone at the table, then everyone should be invited. The unfortunate message this sends is that schismatic bishops and primates are welcome but openly gay bishops aren’t.”

So I guess electing, confirming, and consecrating an openly partnered homosexual as bishop, despite warnings and pleas from the rest of the Anglican Communion, is not schismatic?

as long as the person is democratically elected in accordance with the canons, it can’t be schismatic.  or so goes their convoluted logic…

“If the archbishop wants to keep everyone at the table, then everyone should be invited.”—-Bp. Ingham

I have learned to wince at reappraisers’ use of words like “conversation,” “inclusion,” “listening,” “process,” “prophetic,” “canons,” and “polity.”

Now we have “at the table” (whether for bargaining or eucharist)—-a term all the more ironic when spoken by someone with Bp. Ingham’s record of hard-edged autocracy.

What’s next? Well, there’s “pastoral,” always available to bend ECUSA’s beloved canons so that reappraisers can commit quiet acts of inclusion. (Noisy acts are “prophetic.”) There’s also “sensitive,” indicating due deference to political correctness (e.g., “a sensitive revision of the Prayer Book”).

PS: Perhaps we could use “synthenyms” to refer to words taken over by reappraising PC.

schismatic bishops and primates are welcome but openly gay bishops aren’t

What a hoot.  Just shows how demented and unregenerate are the minds of these bishops.

There is really another reason why +Minns isn’t “eligible”.  He is a “missionary bishop”, Lambeth is supposedly only for “bishops with jurisdiction”, that is Diocesan bishops.  At least that’s how I read it.
Am I wrong?  Is this just like the “technicality” that kept Lawrence+ (that is Bishop-elect Lawrence) from being consented?

I thought that the important questions on who was or was not invited was not so much Minns, but rather Robinson, Ingham and Cavalcanti.  We now hear that Robinson is out (but there is obviously a testing of the wind as to whether to bring him in as a “guest” or “observer”.  Ingham is in, despite his continued defiance of the Instruments of Unity.  Does anyone know about Cavalcanti?

At this point, were I an Anglican bishop I would be inclined not to go to Lambeth as it sounds like a colossal waste of time.  Does anyone think that this might be a powerplay on Rowan Williams’ part to neutralize a potentially powerful Instrument of Unity?  By doing what he is doing, Rowan is all but assuring the complete irrelevance of the Lambeth Conference.

Amazing it was all about Kate at Dar es Salaam and now it’s all about Robbie.  Does this Canadian have any form of his own or is he, as he consistently appears to be, at best a liquid substance able to assume the shape of any container into which it might get poured?

Should openly gay AND schismatic bishops be invited?

Demented, specious, twisted, warped…