The ABC as quoted by Howe:

Any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such…. I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘National Church.’

Anyone willing to offer an interpretation?

In the copy I was directed to, at
http://1episcopalvoice.blogspot.com/2007/10/bishop-speaks-heres-bishop-john-howes.html
the direct quotations closes at the word “such”, thus:
“Any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.”

Anyone willing to offer an interpretation?

Sure I trust T19 version because there is one one outlier and both Stand Firm also BabyBlue give credit to “via email” instead of another blog, so I’ll presume the email is from DioCFL. Also T19 has earned trust by it’s offer of corrections when an error is found. There is no source document posted at this time. If you want theories to why there is a discrepancy, there could two version sent out, there could be a cut-n-paste error or other. I do not know, however the handling of past discrepancies on T19 the consistency with other sources all crediting an email, I’m inclined to dismiss the version you offered as the aberration.

I have a copy of the original as mailed to diocesan leadership and it has the full quote—or the longer quote—in quotation marks. It is worth trying to track this down further, I think, before anyone draws conclusions.

Apologies to #1—The question you asked is on the quoted text as giving by Kendall, I made an assumption (thus making a you-know-what out of each of us) based on your comment on Stand Firm “Which is correct?” (I was thinking you were asking the same question in two forms on two blogs). I think I’m in error and these are two different questions.

To the one you asked here, I’ll not offer a guess what +Howe has meant because his public observable comments the last three months have been all over the map, which probably means he feels very conflicted inside more than anything else. The same I find with many of the comments from ++Williams.

I am posting this in the comments as well as the original blog entry—

Important Update: I have contacted bishop Howe directly and he has given permission for me to cite his response: “The longer version is correct.”

The ellipsis doesn’t make any sense unless the quotation continues beyond “such.”

An interesting quote, to be sure.  And it raises interesting questions.  Is it not the less-traditionalist who have made the most out of the concept of a “national church” in all it untouchable hierarchical glory?  If the Archbishop understands this (and it would be hard to fathom that he does not), then what is the implication regarding the position of this province and its dioceses within the Communion?  Why do we have a Primates’ meeting if the provinces themselves are an abstraction?  Is this one way of asserting the Lambeth conference above the Primates?  What little hope can a comment like this offer to those like me who are in an “ecclesial identity” at odds with the Communion?  Damned if I stay, damned if I go to Nigeria/Kenya/Uganda/Bolivia/Rwanda?

We remember reading the whole quote on 1epispcopalvoice last night, although it looked like +Howe said the last part….but that was late.  We remember that comments were someone was forwarding it to Thinking Anglicans.  Maybe something got lost in the copy/paste/cleanup.

“Saint Pat’s” quote of a prior e-mail from +Howe promising a pastoral letter said it would be for the congregations on the list.  We were pleased that our priest printed the letter.  When we commented, he let us know that it was meant for diocese-wide distribution.  We have it in written form.  Can only forward a copy of that and we will.  He also gave us a copy of the joint press release.

We visit “Saint Pat” to get a reappraiser in Cent. FL’s point of view.  We urge everyone to take a peak.  Just click on #2’s link.  Make sure you check out the comments in the thread under “Seven parishes to split from Central Florida?  Bishop to send pastoral letter to diocese”.  We urge everyone to visit sites like this and Jake’s, etc., at least once. 

Our prayer remains that all of us listen only to God, and may He be shouting if necessary for us to hear His will.

John #1 asks for an interpretation—

My interpretation is that the ABC is anticipating that TEC as a Province will be ejected from the Communion, but that some special provision—perhaps the Dar “alternate Primatial oversight scheme” or the like—will be made to allow Windsor dioceses (and CCP?) to remain.  This means, however, that those parishes which have seceded from Windsor dioceses pose a relatively complex ecclesial problem for reunification, while the status of parishes leaving non-Windsor dioceses (San Diego, Connecticut, etc.) is more straightforward—I think this is the point of his “primary locus of ecclesial identity” comment.

If so, this is the most hopeful sign from +++Rowan yet for the orthodox.

Kendall, what my priest published is the same as what you have.