Unintended, perhaps, on the part of those Primates who weren't being advised by American dissidents who, one imagines, had ample time to think about the language they required.

I don't think that there is any question that the issue of TEC's relationship to the Anglican Communion will arise in civil litigation over church property. One reality of going to court is you can never be entirely sure of how a particular judge is going to interpret something. I think it is also pretty certain that control of property is at the heart of this dispute. The dissidents have the services of some of the best legal talent in the US. Nothing is being done by accident, but nobody can be sure how it will ultimately play out.

Agree with raspberry rabbit - It may not have been intended by the Primates, but that is why the scheme was put forth and embraced by Duncan and Minns.

But I think the Bishops were given a clear presentation on the intentions and strategy of the Duncanites to "replace" TEC in the AC and take its property, and how the PV Scheme fits nicely into to that plan a la the Chapman Memo.

Once exposed for all to see to together - perhaps the ground shifted. Hence the "overwhelming" passage of the first two resolutions to reject the Primates PV Scheme.

My guess is we will hear a lot more about this soon.

It would not surprise me if the answer to either-or questions was "yes." I believe that the Primates as a group did not intend this; I don't believe the ABC is interested in American real estate--and the headaches that would go with them; but I do believe that since the Key Recommendations were based on the Covenant, and the words and the thinking behind are drawn up by people who also have a dog in the property issues, and have been working hard to legitimize the departing churches, that they were maneuvered into setting up this kind of plan.

Everything in their grand strategy hinges on legitimizing the fiction, created ex-nihilio by the ACI etc., that the Anglican Communion is somehow a Super-Denomination that the TEC (more than anyone) and the rest are beholden to.

This is I think exactly why the previous system that ++KJS proposed was unacceptable in the past - it was canonical and constitutional. The goal of some of those requesting alternative oversight is exactly to be able to argue that they're no longer "under" the canons of TEC.

I haven't read anything yet about which of the Windsor - Camp Allen - Whatever it is today Bishops were not participants at (all of) the HOB meeting. Did Bob Duncan stay the whole time, or not? Anyone know where I can find this? Thanks.

Bishop Duncan was there, but I don't know the extent of his participation. Bishops Iker, Schofield and (I think) Ackerman and Beckwith of Springfield (as opposed to Beckwith of Newark) weren't there. Stanton of Dallas apparently left early because he was ill.

Of the Camp Allen bishops, who aren't also Network bishops, I think all were in attendance. So exactly what that group is going to do next will be intersting to see. I am told that they are meeting again in the last week of April.

raspberry is exactly right. Remember the HoB resolutions are with respect to the primatial council scheme where TEC/PB names a minority of members, and do NOT address the September 30 deadline issues. See +Epting, http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2007/03/22/what-the-bishops-didnt-do/

More generally I think there was concern that formation of the council would make it simple for the AC/ABC to adopt the penalty, at some future date, of switching geographic recognition from TEC to a new US AC denomination created of participants in the primatial council.