15. Where then do matters currently stand concerning ACNA on each of these three issues, namely relations with the Church of England, relations with the Anglican Communion and the ability of ACNA clergy to be authorised to minister in the Church of England?
16. The Synod motion rightly began by referring to “the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada.” That distress, in which we share, is a continuing element in the present situation and is likely to remain so for some considerable time.
17. Wounds are still fresh. Those who follow developments in North America from some distance have a responsibility not to say or do anything which will inflame an already difficult situation and make it harder for those directly involved to manage the various challenges with which they are still grappling.
A satisfactory statement to make on the road to full recognition and membership. It appears to grant motu proprio recognition of the sacramental status of ACNA clergy, as well.
Interesting to dissect the statement. I note that it asks three separate questions. The second is “How does a particular local Church become accepted as part of the Anglican Communion?”
The Archbishops put forth their view in paragraph 10: “Under the ACC‟s constitution a Church can be added to the ACC schedule of membership by decision of the Standing Committee of the Communion and with the assent of 2/3 of the primates of the Churches already listed in the schedule.” I observe that this seems to indicate that this has superceded the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury by invitation to Lambeth, as described in paragraph 9. But it also seems to suggest that this is what the ACNA needs to be working towards. I would also observe that it raises another question – what if a church has lost the support of more than 1/3 of the primates? Does it cease to be added to the communion, or is removal another matter? That is an interesting position for TEC, which has probably lost that support at this point.
The Archbishops perhaps thought of that, for in paragraph 19 they say “Further,The Church of England remains fully committed to the Anglican Communion and to being in communion both with the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church (TEC)” and in 20, “Among issues that will need to be explored in direct discussions between the Church of England and ACNA are … its relationship to other Churches of the Communion outside North America ….” Not in North America, mind you, but outside.
Of course, it is not the ACNA that has asking for TEC and ACiC to be removed from membership in the Communion, but TEC insistence that ACNA be excluded that forces the issue.
Ultimately, this leaves the future open for the ACNA to be formally added to the Communion or to replace TEC and ACiC. I think this will be an “open-ended” indeed, until one or the other happens. And notwithstanding paragraph 10, is TEC and ACiC really in the Anglican Communion if the majority of Anglicans don’t recognise them as part of the Communion, or the ACNA not in the Communion if the majority of Anglicans recognise them as part of it? What does it mean for TEC to be in the Anglican Communion in a legal but not actual sense? Or for the ACNA for all intents and purposes to be the Communion but not in a legal sense, according to the interpretation of someone who was, we thought, only to be primus inter pares?
Interesting. I wonder if the ACI will weigh in.
All of this being said, I don’t see how TEC has any business in insisting that the ACNA not be admitted to the Communion. And in light of the fact that at least 2/3 of the provinces now recognize the ACNA, is it not true that there now exists a [i]de facto[/i] recognition of sorts among these provinces?
The Archbishops’ report highlights the fact that “membership in the Anglican Communion,” “membership in the ACC,” and “recognition of orders sufficient to allow ministers to be authorized to minister in the C of E” are all different things, with different criteria. Namely:
o Membership in the Anglican Communion is predicated on bishops of that church being invited as full participants to the Lambeth Conference by whomever is Archbishop of Canterbury at the time.
o Membership in the ACC is determined by the schedule of membership, which can be modified by the Standing Committee of the Communion with the assent of 2/3 of the Primates of churches currently listed.
o Recognition of orders requires as a precondition “…that the minister of ordination must be a bishop, himself validly consecrated, the recipient must have been baptised, the right matter must be used which is the laying on of hands, and the right form which consists of words of prayer referring to the special gift and showing the object of the laying on of hands.” Given that, the minister may be authorized to minister in the C of E on a case-by-case basis.
All of which means that the formal matter of ACNA being part of the Anglican Communion or not is murky and complicated.
The de facto state of affairs is that many churches which are part of the Anglican Communion are in communion with ACNA, and many of those churches are also in broken or impaired communion with TEC and ACiC, despite those churches continuing to be full members of the Anglican Communion. Some of those churches seem to be pretty much ignoring the existing Instruments of the Anglican Communion in favor of their own structures, meetings, councils, etc.; to which ACNA is I think generally invited.
So, is ACNA already in communion with most of the churches they would actually want to be in communion with if they were recognized as members of the Anglican Communion? Probably.
Does this make ACNA a de facto member of the Anglican Communion? Depends on a lot of definitions, but you could certainly make the argument.
It actually seems a pretty good response. Better than I had expected.
I think its also as much as ACNA needs.
ACNA isn’t a province yet. It will be, all it needs is time.
Sorry I am unimpressed. To modify Churchill: “Never in the course of human conflict have so many been lied to by so few for so long.”
As a commentator on Stand Frirm put it:
[blockquote] It’s a pity Canterbury didn’t think about that in Feb 2007 when he released the Communion subgroup report or in May 2007 when he contravened the primates’ deadline and issued Lambeth invitations or in 2009 when he appointed an ad hoc group to revise section 4 of the Covenant, rather than the Covenant Design Group, or in Dec 2009 when Janet Trisk was illegally elected to the Standing Committee or in Apr 2010 when Ian Douglas was allowed to continue serving on the Standing Committee in violation of the constitution or in Jul 2010 when the new Articles of Association, inconsistent with the Covenant, are released. This new constitution had been unknown to the Covenant Design Group and the subgroup of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order tasked to review the Communion structures.[/blockquote]
Ross at #4, I would add one more “different thing” to your list:
Paragraphs 6 and 7 provide that whether CofE has a relationship with ACNA is a matter for General Synod. So it is possible for GS to vote to have a communion relationship with ACNA, regardless of whether ACNA is formally part of the Anglican Communion or not.
The Archbishops of course add the rider “the General Synod, which, because issues of theology and ecclesiology are involved, necessarily looks for guidance to the House of Bishops.” That could be taken a number of ways. But ABC and ABY are confirming (as is the case) that CofE can enter into communion with ACNA without any change to the roll of Anglican Communion membership.
I would also add a comment about the recognition of orders: The Archbishops (a) point out that the precondition of orders is extremely wide, and (b) claim that the prerogative to recognise orders rests solely with each Archbishop in his respective province.
Effectively, they are saying that there is nothing stopping ACNA clergy being licensed in England, except the Archbishops’ will. If CESA clergy can be licensed, then surely ACNA clergy can be. A number of factions in CofE may be none too pleased with that reminder. Here is the relevant quote:
[blockquote] “13. Thus, those ordained in other churches which accept the historic episcopate- for example the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church- may be received into the Church of England and authorised to minister, as may clergy from the Church of England in South Africa.
14. Authorisation by the Archbishop of the Province is considered on a case by case basis and will take a number of relevant considerations into account. It is not the case, therefore, that ordination in another Church of this kind confers any entitlement to minister here. But it does involve the conferring of orders which the Church of England is able to recognise and accept.” [/blockquote]