There is a widely-distributed thought that states:
“The Episcopal Church has met all of the Windsor Report’s requests.”

It isn’t true.

“I am a member of the Windsor Report Team, and I do not think ECUSA has even started to apologize for what they have done.”
–Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=9940

Kendall Harmon:
Let us simply state two examples. First, on the asked for moratoria the House of Bishops, which said initially it did not have authority to act on the moratoria at all, acted after the Dromantine meeting of the Primates by putting a moratorium on consents for all Episcopal elections until GC 2006. This isn’t what they were asked to do by the Windsor Report.

Also, if the specific language of the Windsor Report is examined the Bishops have not yet even expressed regret on the terms the Windsor Report asks for.

Those are but two examples–there are others.

Archbishop Eames has said [“The Episcopal Church has met all of the Windsor Report’s requests.”] (Indeed, he goes further). I have refuted Robin Eames argument below:

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=9315

What I find exhausting is the unreality of the Bishops in the Episcopal Church in terms of what they actually believe about themselves. I could try to understand a comment that says “How much we have done what the Windsor Report asks is very much in dispute and many Anglicans around the world believe we have yet responded well so far” or something like that. Until they repeatedly quote Archbishop Gomez and others with whom they differ in their arguments, I will not be convinced they are listening.

Burwell Background

The Windsor Report says in doing what we did (the election of VGR), we breached the proper bonds of affection, and we in ECUSA need to express regret for having elected him.

Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events, and yet also of the imperatives of communion - the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ - we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together. We recommend that:

*the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion”   (paragraph 134)

Here’s how the bishops responded to the above suggestion:

“Moreover, we as the House of Bishops express our sincere regret for the pain, the hurt, and the damage caused to our Anglican bonds of affection by certain actions of our church. Knowing that our actions have contributed to the current strains in our Communion, we express this regret as a sign of our deep desire for and commitment to continuation of our partnership in the Anglican Communion.”

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_56787_ENG_HTM.htm

To quote Kendall: “This is not regret on the terms which were asked for.”