Anglicanism sans Canterbury? A bit like the Old Catholic Church in the Netherlands, perhaps: Catholic without Rome.
And is there something wrong with that? The Old Catholic Church is in communion with the AC after all.
Something wrong with that? Well, that's a matter of opinion. To me, but not it seems to others, to call itself Anglican a church should be a be a member of the Anglican Communion. Yes, of course the Old Catholic Church is in communion with the Anglican Churches. So, I think, is the Church of Sweden. But neither are members of the Anglican Communion. But I don't know if the Old Catholic Church is in communion with Rome. Is it?
Where in the Anglican formularies does it say that membership in the Anglican Communion is required to be Anglican? This is unfounded and arbitrarily exclusive. And, given all the talk of drawing wide circles and drawing even wider ones, comes off as hypocricy feom christian liberals.
Perhaps. Still there are those of us proud to be part of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which I believe is the third largest body of Christians in the world if I am not mistaken after the Catholics of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox.
nobody said one should not be proud to be in the AC, only that it is not the threshold of Anglicanism. It is but one organ of many promoting international institutional unity
OK, so what then is "the threshold of Anglicanism"? And what are the "many" other "organs......promoting institutional unity"? And how do they promote it?