"And then he goes on to deal with internal “faith and order groups”. Notice the way he speaks about the Primates meeting:
“I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected.”The “latter two”, the ACC and the Standing Committee, do not meet solely through his invitation. The Primates’ Meeting does. When he says that there will have to “be further consultation as to how they are affected” the “they” in that sentence is again only referring to the “latter two”. What about the Primates’ Meeting? He exercises sole discretion with regard to the guest list. And he, after bringing the entire topic up with apparent purpose, says nothing more about it.
Is this just a simple punt? Could be. But I don’t think so. It wouldn’t make much political sense. Why even bring the topic of “faith and order” groups into the discussion and then go on to implicitly bring to the fore the one “faith and order” group over which you do exercise independent authority, if, in fact, you do not intend to do anything ..."
Read the whole post here, and, I recommend, read the comments also where my colleague Tim Harris adds an underlining comment.