The ACC cannot be accused of Donatism as it has never claimed to be the one true church. Instead, it has specifically and repeatedly accepted the APCK and UEC as sister churches and noted its belief that both the RCC and EOC are true Catholic jurisdictions. Indeed, Abp Mark Haverland stated this at the last Provincial Synod, even to the point of calling any claim that the ACC was co-extensive with the Catholic Church preposterous. Given we accept the Catholic bona fides of the vast majority of Christians who claim to be Catholic, any claim of Donatism is undeniably false.
We do question the canonical integrity of the TAC, in much the same way that Rome questions the Lefebvrist SSPX and mainstream Orthodoxy has questioned the status of "non-canonical" churches. Some in the ACC dispute the validity (or more accurately "recognisability") of TAC orders. Others affirm them as certainly valid (like me). Similarly, there has been debate in the RCC over whether SSPX priests can validly give absolution and there is a variety of opinion among EO theologians on the validity of all sacraments in "schismatic" churches. So, the ACC cannot be accused of Donatism without the accusation being vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum.
The claim that the recent agreed statement by the ACC/APCK/UEC groups these three churches together for no good reason is historically indefensible. The original Continuing Bishops and Church named themselves the ACC and agreed on a Constitution at their first synod. At that point they were still united. (There was only provisional acceptance of the Canons then, and Bp Morse abstained from this vote.) Bp Morse soon after withdrew his diocese, which never ratified the first synod's decisions in its own diocesan synod. While the rest of the ACC regretted this and felt it was unnecessary because there was no question of heresy etc., it never excommunicated Bp Morse or declared him schismatic in the proper sense. After all, his diocese had the right not to ratify, which effectively meant it had the right not to remain submitted to and part of the ACC as a whole. The later departure from the ACC of Bp Doren, another of the original bishops, and his formation of the UEC was perhaps more problematic, but mutual reconciliation and intercommunion with the ACC was afterwards re-established. So, there can be no doubt that these three churches derived from that first united body.
As for the ACA, it was established as a jurisdiction de novo in 1991 and consisted originally of the church of an episcopus vagans, Anthony Clavier, and a few bishops who left the ACC under discipline along with a number of ACC clergy and parishes they took with them. Clavier's church, the AEC, was a breakaway from a racist anti-civil-rights church (the Anglican Orthodox Church) established in the '60s. Clearly, the ACA cannot be considered to be in canonical or jurisdictional continuity with the original Continuing Church in the USA, unless one credits the AOC with being the true original Continuers and accepts that ECUSA abandoned Catholicity by racial integration rather than the ordination of women.
What is so special about the churches deriving from that original Continuing Church of St Louis and Dallas, first called the Anglican Church in North America, then the Anglican Catholic Church? They left the heretical ECUSA as soon as practically possible and placed themselves under the protective jurisdiction of an orthodox bishop, as required by Catholic principles and the canon law of Ecumenical Councils. Only one bishop had the courage to take them, Bp Chambers. They received from that bishop, the only North American one who was willing to be orthodox in both faith and practice by supporting the Continuers departure from heterodox jurisdictions, the mandate to take over the jurisdiction of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. That is why they could say, "we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto." This means that once that church was established, assuming it remained orthodox, all attempts to create completely new Anglican jurisdictions in that same territory in deliberate competition were unnecessary and thus, strictly speaking, acts of invasion and schism. Now, we realise that the complexities and confusions since that time mean that the strict approach does not take sufficient account of such factors as the vagaries of human judgement and understanding. Archbishop John Charles' open letter implies this very thing. But we do not think that automatic acceptance of every "copy-cat" establishment of a new Continuing Church after the original one in the same places would be a genuinely Catholic attitude or witness. Apostolic Succession is succession of jurisdiction, not just orders. (If other churches disagree with our position on this issue, then they need to discuss it with us and help us understand why they believed a particular creation of an additional overlapping jurisdiction was justified. We are open to dialogue on this and other issues.)
Finally, there is the repeated claim that the recent agreed statement by the three Metropolitans was not a new step towards unity but merely an attempt to positively exclude one bishop of the APCK and the possibility of the unity with the TAC that he advocates. Now, it is true that the ACC does not want the APCK to split and part of it to leave for another church. And the agreed statement is deliberately discouraging that. But, as I have said in previous comments, this is not about seeking to isolate one bishop but seeking to re-integrate him into collegial cooperation with his brother bishops in the jurisdiction to which he is responsible. More importantly, the interpretation that the statement seeks primarily to paint the TAC as ecclesia non grata and as simply to be condemned and avoided is manifestly false. How can we know this? By the fact that I have noted here before, but many seem to have missed, that the Metropolitical Statement is only half the story. Abp John Charles' open letter to a broader audience, approved by the ACC's College of Bishops, is the other half. Indeed, Abp Haverland has informed me that his statement needs to be read in the context of the letter. (It was his intention that they appear at the same time, but unfortunately this did not turn out as planned.) From the open letter and the use of the words "first" by Abp Haverland and "begin" in Abp Provence's pastoral letter, it is obvious that the ACC/APCK/UEC statement of full communion and commitment to full organic unity, while decrying association with the Lambeth Communion, is seen as a beginning, not an end. If anybody doubts the significance of this agreed statement, they should remember that never before have these three churches all declared in public their state of communio in sacris. The ACC expressed its commitment to these special relationships back in 1995, however, and did so quoting a dictum of Abp Morse about the Chambers Succession. But this is the first time the three churches have all made this clear publicly and simultaneously.