They will have their reward: CofE "recognizes" ACNA. CORRECTED

The Church of Ireland News carries this banner news: ACNA recognized by Church of England Synod.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM COMMENTS this turns out to be old news (and not very helpful at that) republished somehow by CIN. The internal clue is in the note that the Synod "invite (s)  the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.”  I thought the glitch was a typo in the article. But assuming it is not a typo it is a clue that this was written a year ago at the last synod meeting. 

Now that this post has been published it will remain, but the content now is of little consequence save to say this:  Why did the Church of Ireland News publish this report now?

I am removing most of what I wrote yesterday and instead ask this.

If the Archbishops were to respond to the request of this resolution from last year at the 2011 Synod, what has been their response?  The answer to this, in part, can be found on Thinking Anglicans HERE. The short answer is not yet but 2011 is young.


  1. This is strange. The resolution looks to be the same (or very close) to the one the General Synod adopted last year. And if the topic had come up at this latest synod, one would expect to have seen some mention of it in Thinking Anglicans or by George Conger in the Church Times or the Living Church. It's hard to imagine what benefit the ABC would have in making a pronouncement one way or the other, and this isn't the time for the ACNA to press the issue either.

    In any case, recognition by the C of E won't make the ACNA a Province of the AC any more than the Church of Sweden is.

  2. The article turns out to be a reprint of a post on Virtue Online from 10 Feb. 2010.

  3. The reactionaries are in such distress they're now reprinting year old news of defeats and trying to spin them as victories.

    One quibble with your analysis, Mark. The actual event (a year ago) was actually a massive defeat for the schismatics. Despite several attempts to restore more robust language, the Synod flatly refused to recognize ACNA as much of anything. It doesn't even affirm their desire to be a part of the Anglican Communion, but merely a part of the Anglican family - whatever the heck that is.

    No less a right winger than Matt Kennedy got it right when he said:
    1. The motion does not "affirm" the ACNA.

    2. The motion does not "affirm" that the ACNA is part of the Anglican Communion.

    3. The motion "affirms" a "desire" . Translation: Ohhh, how sweet that you want to be my boyfriend. I "affirm" your desire.

    4. The motion does not refer to the ACNA as a whole but to the desire of "those who formed" the ACNA.

    5. The motion does not affirm the desire of "those who formed the ACNA" to remain in "the Anglican Communion", but rather, it affirms their desire to remain a part of the Anglican "family". Arguably, anyone who prays with a prayerbook and wears a robe of some kind could be considered a member of the "Anglican Family."

    The most interesting bit is the use of the phrase "Anglican family." The attempt by some to imply that it means the same as "Anglican Communion" are completely false - though some of it may be based on ignorance rather than dishonesty.

    In the Westminster democracies, a standard legal text is Driedger on the Construction of Statutes. Driedger makes it very clear that existing terms and titles have specific meanings. Therefore, logically, if a piece of legislation (and the Acts of the General Synod of the established Church fall into this category) does NOT use the existing term or tilte, then the interpretation MUST assume that the legislation or resolution means something else.

    In other words, if the CofE General Synod in 2010 had intended to recognize ACNA as a member of the Anglican Communion (or even as desiring a place in te Anglican Communion), they would have said so. They didn't.

    I blogged more extensively on this at the time.


  4. Even if this does come to pass, it won't change who TEC is or what our authority or rights under law are.

    Let's not get so upset every time. It plays into the hands of low men.

  5. As, even if the Covenant becomes a reality, TEC will not be expelled from the Anglican Communion, ACNA will have to accept the sacramental legitimacy of the TEC priesthood and episcopacy. If ACNA recognises Canterbury as an instrument of communion then it will have to recognise all those united in communion because of their connection to Canterbury.

    ACNA is asking to be accepted into full communion with a church that they excommunicated themselves from and have no desire to be in communion with again.

    The whole concept is daft and the English Synod wasting so much time on discussing something that cannot legally or logically happen is even dafter.

  6. The website's name is actually Church News Ireland, not Church of Ireland News. It describes its website as being maintained by a small team of volunteers whose advisor is The Very Rev'd Houston McKelvey (the Dean of Belfast). There is no indication that it's an official publication of the Church of Ireland. Since its news isn't always up to date, perhaps we can look forward to an article announcing that the King has abdicated to marry the woman he loves.

    The issue before the General Synod last year wasn't whether the ACNA should be admitted into the Anglican Communion. That would require approval by 2/3 of the AC primates, and like it or not, the votes aren't there (regardless of whether the "GAFCON primates" participate.

    Instead, the issue was whether the Church of England should be in communion with the ACNA. Even if the answer were "yes," that wouldn't make the ACNA part of the Anglican Communion anymore than the Church of Sweden is. The archbishops are supposed to report back to GS sometime this year, but they're not required to give a definitive "yes" or "no" at this time, and I don't see any particular advantage to them to do so.

  7. Ultra-wrong-wing sorts do not react well when meetings do not go their way. As Dublin did not, we can expect more angst and outright dishonesty.


  8. This one is up for derision at both ends of the spectrum - http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27227


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.