In my post two days ago I was writing in attempt to represent a point of view that had been expressed in comments here, and in some emails to me. I think it useful, considering how much discussion has been generated, to reproduce the following from my own responses in the comment section.
"Every edition of the BCP that was authorized, whether in England, the U.S., Canada, South Africa, or anywhere, was authorized only after discussion and through a legal process. In England it involved both the General Synod, Parliament and the Crown; and in the U.S. it involved, in the old days, the national Church in General Convention (the old American way of saying "General Synod"). So, for the ACC to act in Provincial Synod is quite proper by all the old standards of Anglican Canon Law. We are a church; we are neither an extension of the Episcopal Church nor of the Church of England.
"I have voiced a point of view that is in keeping with public knowledge, there being no dark, deep secrets. The Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) has placed all its cards on the table, without pretense to perfection or claims of infallibility. All over the world, where Anglicans are in a state of emergency and turmoil, the ACC is the best option. We may not be the perfect solution in a perfect world governed by the Ideal of Plato. But, the ACC is the best option on the ground in the real world."
I do not mean to take away anything from the United Episcopal Church North America (UECNA) or the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK). But, the fact is that these are both to be found only in North America, frankly in the United States. An exodus from the Church of England that is taking place at the same time in which the "Traditional Anglican Church" in England (the TAC body there) has voted to go Roman, presents a need that only the ACC can fill.
Also, I want to reproduce this comment:
"I received this, interspersed with other information, from an ACC Bishop:
Authorization of the 1662 book has been proposed to Provincial Synod and has not received a majority in any of the three constituent houses, much less the requisite supermajority in all of them. The English delegates spoke against such authorization more strongly than most...Bishop Mead has asked to hear from anyone who might be interested in the ACC but also wants to use 1662. The notion that failure to authorize 1662 is keeping folk out of the ACC is, I think, just not the case. If it were, Bishop Mead would have gotten a response that he has in fact not received."
Frankly speaking, those who want to communicate with Bp. Mead about the 1662 BCP ought to do so directly. Commenting here is perfectly fine, but it is not the way to open truly effective discussion, and neither is emailing me personally about the matter. Those who have made known their interest in the matter by these two methods, and yet have not contacted Bp. Mead himself, appear to be less than strongly motivated.
What should be clear, from all this discussion, is that the ACC operates according to its Constitution and Canons. That may make some people unhappy, and it certainly cannot guarantee either perfection or infallibility; but, it should indicate stability and therefore provide a sense of security. This matters because of the lawlessness and secrecy that have been characteristic of certain jurisdictions calling themselves "Continuing Anglican," and paying lip service to The Affirmation of St. Louis. It should be clear also that a church that welcomes and gives voice to such priests as Fr. Laurence Wells and me, under the Archiepiscopal jurisdiction of a confirmed Anglo-Catholic (indeed also our Diocesan Ordinary) makes room for orthodox catholic Anglicans without overmuch partisanship.
For all of these reasons, and others, the ACC is the best international option for Anglicans who are displaced by the simultaneous Anglican Communion heresy and TAC Romeward roaming.