Status of ACNA and Anglican Communion

I have been trying to find out where the ACNA stands with their pursuit to be recognized by the Anglican Communion, but I have been unable to find any news on it. Can someone point me in the right direction?

 

They are not part of the Communion. Many Communion Provinces recognize them but the Archbishop of Canterbury does not.

 

This is the last official news from last year:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/28310

This in effect gives recognition of the existence of the ACNA province of North America, which identically overlaps with the TEC's province.

Also as Hackney said many Provinces already openly accept ACNA and even reject TEC's authority. The GAFCON community of bishops and provinces are an example.

 

So what does ACNA have to do to be accepted in the AC? Is it just a matter of the Church of England accepting them? What is keeping this from happening? Overlapping jurisdictional issues with the TEC?

 

What should the Anglican communion do to be accepted by the ACNA would be a much better question imho. The AC is not a very legitimate organization anyway. It goes against much of what the Anglican reformers fought for ans doesn't exactly appear to be effective at staving off religious crises. Pure Anglicanism existed well before the invention of the AC, so it doesn't depend on it acceptance for legitimacy. Jmo

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But without structure, what is to stop Anglicanism from spiraling into a denomination with a million different autonomous churches all teaching a million different versions of Christianity? This process has already started and it seems to be accelerating. I think the hope was, and has always been, that an Anglican Communion can create consistency, at least to some level. This hasn't happened recently, but it could should the leadership decide to put measures in place that would do the job.

 

Anglicanism is an expression on the Catholic faith which is structured in the manner of the early church, where parishes are administered at the local level by priests, deacons, and a body of elders (vestry), all of which are in communion with one another under the leadership of the of the diocesan bishop, who is himself in communion with all other bishops through the heritage of apostolic succession. Anything more is unnecessary and scriptural imho. What binds us together and generally keeps us honest with ourselves and with each other is our adherence to the bible, the Andrewesian boundaries of faith (1canon, 2 testaments, 3 creeds, 4 councils, 5 centuries), apostolic faith and tradition, the sacraments rightly administered, the historic episcopal, the articles and formularies, liturgical worship through a BCP, and a sense of nationalistic autonomy. To the degree we deviate from these things, we deviate from the Anglican version of Christianity...and no ten year meeting of "primates" will fix what that deviation does. Jmo

 

Well said.

 

You may find this, from the CofE primates of the time, useful:

http://churchofengland.org/media/1389262/gs misc 1011 - acna.pdf

 

This is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you.

 

I personally could not care less if an Anglican body is in communion with Canterbury or not. What I care about is if it's in communion with Jesus Christ and the Biblical faith.

 

I think everyone cares about that as well...but that cannot strictly be the Anglican position, otherwise we ought to simply become non-denominational Christians.

 

I disagree. I don't believe being in communion with Canterbury is what defines Anglicanism.

 

Neither do I...but I do think that being in communion generally defines what it means to be Christian. Schism should be avoided at all costs.

 

The question is simply a matter of avoiding the sin of schism. And the primacy of honor of Canterbury.

 

Not all breaking away is schism. Sometimes the sin lies at the door of those who refuse to leave.

What if Canterbury came out in favor of homosexual marriage and ordination. Would you still be in allegiance?

 

Yes.

 

I would not, and that is why I cannot be in the TEC. The national church has departed the faith. I sympathize with local churches which have not departed the faith, but I have yet to see how it is possible to be a part of a local orthodox TEC church under an apostate bishop.

 

I am from the ACoC, and while I do agree that the highest authority in the Universal Christian Faith is in the bishopric by the Bishop, and then eventually to the Archbishop in the National body, I still find the Anglican Communion a beautiful thing, even necessary, to upkeep our symbolic union with each other in our liturgical worship as standard. The Roman Catholic Church does the same with those of differing rites (such as the Byzantine Catholics, or the Syrian Catholics, or Malankara Catholics, etc.), as well as in the Eastern Orthodox Church (Ukrainian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.).

What is more important to me personally is trying to love God, love yourself, and love others. God is not merely a just Judge, but also our merciful Saviour. Trying to agree to disagree is the best way to assume the Anglican mission and character, and shows how much we can display our Christian love to one another. If we do not love one another despite differences, it would make the Atonement of Christ in His new Covenant in vain.

If you want to worship in an ACNA parish, then go to, and let people worship God in whatever way they may appreciate Him. I think I myself need to spend more time developing my relationship with Christ in the Eucharist and with others, than necessarily butting into other people's way of worship and spirituality. To me, the Anglican Communion is a blessing, and strengthens me to know that Christian love can still be a powerful force of unity with each other.

 

We can and should love each other despite differences, but affirming and celebrating sinful behavior is something we should never do. Any national denomination which affirms homosexual unions and ordinations and denies such central tenets of the faith as the bodily resurrection has departed that faith.