This puts the Windsor bishops in a far more positive light than many of the comments here and at SF in the past few days (from people who weren’t in the closed door sessions).

“woulda, coulda, shoulda” doesn’t count for much…....

Quelle coincidence!
I forwarded the link this article to T19 at the exact moment it appeared here.

Well, whatever.

Yes, it does make the Windsor Bishops look better and I am inclined to go with Lillibridge on this one. And not just because he’s the Bishop of my diocese. Look over his previous postings in the diocesan newsletter. He’s low key, cautious, and a straight shooter.

This was encouraging:
‘Fifth, some have asked why the Windsor Bishops have not issued a “minority report.”  After various conversations, we decided to wait for the response to this statement from those who asked the questions.  Over the past several years, the Windsor group has met numerous times.  We have issued signed statements, minority reports, principles, etc . . . and the prevailing view is simply to hear the response to our response.  Another minority report isn’t going to have much effect at this point.  If the House’s response is deemed inadequate, there will be an effort to gather a significant number of bishops to discuss the next steps.  This gathering would likely be larger than previous Windsor gatherings.’
Lillibridge and Reed at least have a plan.  They appear to understand the high degree of angst being felt at pew-level and are at least reacting to it.  Can’t say the same for Howe, Wimberly, Bauerschmidt, Herlong, etc.

+VA’s statement is out now, too:  http://www.thediocese.net/News_services/pressroom/newsrelease42.html

Re #4: I wouldn’t assume that the other bishops you mention are not on the same page as the Bishops of West Texas. The “plan” was developed by all the Windsor and allied bishops, not just those from San Antonio.

#6 - I bring it up because there is no mention of a future Windsor/Camp Allen meeting & response in any of the other press statements or diocesan letters produced by +TN, +CFL, +TX, +Dallas, or +RI, so this is news to those who’ve been waiting for it.

They might have a plan, No.4., the problem is that it is a phenomenally bad plan.  Basically, it’s “we ourselves don’t know if we’ve complied with Windsor, so we’ll let the Primates draw their own conclusions, without any input from us.”  And there is still zero evidence in official form that gets the Windsor Bishops on record as actually being Windsor Bishops.  There is nothing that separates them from the rest of the pack.
That’s not good enough, not by a long shot.

Total Cave.  NOT a plan.  No recognition of the inadequacy of the response.  No Alamo. NO guts, NO glory. 

I am delighted for the WINDsor bishops that they were treated more nicely by the others, but that is no excuse for the total abdication of the alleged goals of the WINDsor bishops.

The Camp Allen bishops apparently completely decamped to parts unknown.  NO sign of them anywhere.  This is NOT a strategic de-camping to attract Santa Ana to his doom.  This is complete abandonment of the Tejas to the occupying force of the Spirit of the Age: American polity.

I have been in the DioWest TExas and the DioTX and I expected better of both.  Alas, the Psalmist had it right: Put not your trust in any man….

#6

It look to me like Lillibridge and Reed are saying yes, the Windsor/Camp Allen groups have run their course. Whether they accomplished what they set out to do is debatable. However, a new and larger ad hoc group animated by the same principles as the Windsor/Camp Allen people (and does he hint a little more teed off,too?) is in the works “if [or more probably when] the House’s response is deemed inadequate”.

Being in W. Texas is somewhat comforting for the orthodox but the problem is that the is no semblance of hope in TEC for those in revisionist dioceses. No one can dispute that the the HOB has shown with the clarity preached by +Alexander and Bruno that there will be no turning back and no regard for those who disagree.” Leave if you don’t agree but don’t take anything with you”. The future plan outlined by + Lillibridge can be of little comfort to those folks…...

#1 writes, “This puts the Windsor bishops in a far more positive light”, and #3 writes, “Yes, it does make the Windsor Bishops look better and I am inclined to go with Lillibridge on this one.”

Lillibridge and Reed set as their measuring rod the March meeting and consider the September meeting more successful because it was more “collegial.” Could we set our sights any lower? Is collegiality the correct measure of success? They state that the so-called Windsor bishops worked very hard and that “Previous editions of the statement were totally unacceptable to many of us.” Thus, may I assume that the the HoB statement is acceptable to you??? They don’t even have the courage to answer the question but leave that for the ABC, and standing committees.

No minority report from those who acquiesce to the majority.

I suggest the bishops look at the AAC announcements which lays out in clear table form, what was asked and how the HoB responded.

Wow.

That’s one heck of a lot of effort to move the HoB only back as far as the line of scrimage.

No wonder the Common Cause bishops have given up on the General Convention Church.