Bishop Franklin very noticeably leaves out the proposed Prayer Book of 1785/86 and its curious history

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1786/preface_1786.htm

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1786/BCP_1786.htm

Bishop Franklin writes:”(and in some nations the Episcopal Church in fact overlaps with another autonomous Anglican province)”
If so, what exactly is TEC’s objection to ACNA?

Moheb, you do ask a very good question.  By what authority do TEC and their Presiding Bishop presume to claim that the ACNA is not Anglican nor has the right to exist in the same territory?  They never have been a so-called “national” Church at all; they’ve simply been the only member of the Communion here in this country.  That doesn’t give them the right to claim that the ACNA can’t.

Puh-leez. When the author pretentiously writes, “The Episcopal Church is no longer a “national church” but is made up of a family of nations….” he refers in fact to an ecclesiastically American power with a few colonial leftovers from a bygone age. Did the HoB fly down to Ecuador en masse to merely provide backup for Mrs Schori to flex a bit of primatial muscle and collectively let off some hot air about global warming? Or was it not also an exercise in asserting that TEC still has some piddling colonies still on its books? The agenda for quite some time has been clear. Kate as Empress over a family of subject bodies. A family of nations, indeed.

Central Ecuador stats (which should be treated as optimistic):
Congregations: 23
Active Baptized Members: 2,153
Communicants in Good Standing: 1,555
Others Active in Congregations: 868
Average Sunday Attendance ASA: 1,323
Church School Pupils: 386
Total Baptisms: 256
Adult: 222
Children: 34
I don’t have its total revenues, TEC subsidy, or the total cost of the HoB meeting there, nor the amount of carbon emissions it generated.

Bishop Franklin makes a valid point to my mind.  Historically, Lambeth has not had the authority of the ancient councils.  Now he seems to take that to show that the Covenant is really, when you get down to the bottom of it, non-Anglican and, hence, a reason to reject it.  But he ignores the facts on the ground.  Historic Anglicanism, at least in the west, is coming apart at the seams because of western innovations.  The covenant is an attempt to preserve what is at risk.  It may be new, but the threat is new.  What is odd to me is that critics of the covenant ignore the problem that the covenant is intended to fix, as if it is not real or serious.

“What is odd to me is that critics of the covenant ignore the problem that the covenant is intended to fix, as if it is not real or serious”.

Yes, the usual:  Pink Elephant 935; Anglicans 0. 

God forbid I compare the secular to the ecclesial, but it’s my understanding that Sarah, who posts here frequently, is a successful corporate consultant.  Perhaps she will weigh in on what ignoring reality and the actual problems ultimately does to organizational health. 

As far as the erudite column above goes, I’d say it’s an academic and referenced way of saying, “We want to do what we want”; which, as usual, still ignores traditional Anglican teaching on, at the very least, the real definition of the sacrament of marriage.  Not to mention that this approach renders all teaching subordinate to Episcopal teaching; which, in my view, is presumptuous and arrogant.

Yeah, western Anglicanism may coming apart at the seams, but this implies that all of it is coming apart, when in fact it isn’t, as shown by the Anglican Church in North America, CANA, and the AMiA; all of whom constitute a dynamic renewal and resurgence of Anglicanism.

“Yeah, western Anglicanism may coming apart at the seams, but this implies that all of it is coming apart, when in fact it isn’t, as shown by the Anglican Church in North America, CANA, and the AMiA; all of whom constitute a dynamic renewal and resurgence of Anglicanism. “
Point well taken.  I was not speaking about the new movements so much as the old establishment, e.g. TEC, the Canadians. 

I hope that you are right about these movements signaling a renewal and resurgence of Anglicanism.  Are these new movements comprehensive enough to take in disaffected Anglo-Catholics, or do these new movements represent for the most part the evangelical wing of Anglicanism?

“...the whole people of God…”

Who is he kidding?

Well, anglicanconvert, I certainly don’t have a problem with “disaffected Anglo Catholics,” since I was once one of them.  I still consider myself Anglo Catholic.  There are a large number of us in the Diocese of San Joaquin, as a matter of fact, and we do have a very sizeable number of evangelicals, who I must say work extremely well with us.  I believe that’s pretty much the same in most of our dioceses…...but undoubtedly there are several where that may not be the case.  I believe that there’s a good balance in our province.

Cennydd13, I did not mean that the disaffection of Anglo-Catholics was with the AMiA, CANA,or ANCA, but rather it is with the TEC.  I don’t really know much about any of these new groups.  My impression has been that they are mostly evangelical rather than Anglo-Catholic.  Historically, Anglicanism has spread a wide enough tent for low, high, and broad churchmanship.  I was wondering if the new movements can and will continue that historic Anglican approach.

I think there’s room for differences, of course, but not the TEC heresies.  They are anathema to us.

anglicanconvert - San Joaquin and Fort Worth both have Anglo-Catholic charism.  The Bishop of the Diocese of Western Anglicans in ACNA is quite Anglo-Catholic.  I believe the evangelical folks and the A-C ones in ACNA (and, I presume, AMiA, too) work together very well.  I think the key is that our charism is not what divides us; we are bound by our orthodox faith.

Exactly!

I may be dumb, but I have never understood why some people think there must be a conflict between being evangelical and being anglo-catholic.

Silly, isn’t it?