Anglican Catholic Church Terminates Communion with UECNA After Archbishop Haverland Rescinds Intercommunion

An analysis of ecclesial rupture and unity

A rupture has opened between the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) and the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA) after Archbishop Mark Haverland, Metropolitan of the ACC’s Original Province, announced the rescission of the longstanding intercommunion agreement between the two bodies. This decision was communicated in a letter Archbishop Haverland sent to Archbishop Peter Robinson on August 1, 2025.

The roots of the intercommunion agreement go back to 2007, when the ACC and UECNA sought to renew or affirm a relationship of “communio in sacris” (full communion in sacred things). In May of that year, Archbishop Haverland (ACC) and Archbishop Stephen Reber (UECNA) signed a pact at St. Stephen’s Pro‑Cathedral in Athens, Georgia, endorsing mutual recognition of sacraments, clergy, and pastoral cooperation. Under the agreement, it was reported that “Members of both churches will be welcomed at the altars of both bodies, and the clergy of both will be available for baptisms, funerals, and marriages as needed. Each church has agreed to consult carefully with the other in all matters affecting the other, including episcopal acts and ecumenical relations with other bodies and churches.”

This agreement, though never eliminating all frictions, functioned as a stabilizing framework for cooperation among “continuing Anglican” jurisdictions, and served as a focal point for hopes of deeper unity which included the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK). Both UECNA and APCK were, like the ACC, descendents from the Denver consecrations in January 1979, after which Bp. Morse separated with the Diocese of Christ the King, and Bp. Doren, after first serving as bishop for the dioceses of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic States in the ACC, separated to form UECNA, with Bp. Mote becoming the Metropolitan of the ACC.

In an essay published in the September-October 2025 issue of The Trinitarian, Abp. Haverland stated that when he and Bp. Reber signed the agreement, there was assurance that there was no significant doctrinal disagreements, and that Bp. Reber had hoped that UECNA would eventually join the ACC. However, tensions and differences — theological, canonical, and institutional accumulated since then. In the letter of Abp. Haverland, which was quickly posted on Facebook and then officially published in the September-October issue of The Trinitarian, UECNA was judged to have diverged from the doctrinal standards embodied in the Affirmation of St. Louis and instead was using “some set of Anglican formularies, distinctives, and theologians” as an interpretive lens.

Notice of the termination of full communion, printed in The Trinitarian, September-October 2015, p. 3

Abp. Haverland has repeatedly affirmed that the Affirmation of St. Louis (1977) is not simply a historic statement but a living doctrinal benchmark for Anglican Catholic identity. His statements place the Affirmation at the center of ACC theology, practice, and inter‑church relations. In a 2015 address to the ACNA and Forward in Faith North America, Abp. Haverland said that the Affirmation of St. Louis “situates us irrevocably within the central Tradition of Catholic Christendom.” He emphasized that it is through the lens of that Tradition that ACC reads and appropriates Anglican formularies. The Affirmation is thus not peripheral but primary. Abp. Haverland has criticized what he sees as “doctrinal ambiguity, comprehensiveness, or the attempt to make our peculiarities decisive and determinative” in parts of Anglicanism that do not hold to the Affirmation’s baseline. Such ambiguity, for Abp. Haverland, threatens what he believes to be essential catholic continuity.

Abp. Haverland positions the ACC not simply as one among many Anglican bodies but as belonging to the “Continuing Anglican” tradition whose identity is preserved by fidelity to the Affirmation. He argues that without that, the ACC would lose its grounding or risk compromising its inheritance. Under Haverland’s view, not all older Anglican documents are automatically binding in all respects. Instead, they are received insofar as they align with the doctrine defined in St. Louis and with the broader catholic tradition. This gives the Affirmation a kind of hermeneutical priority: it is the standard against which other formularies are read. Abp. Haverland’s public statements make clear that, in his view, the Affirmation of St. Louis serves more than a historical or symbolic role: it is the doctrinal foundation of the Anglican Catholic Church. It shapes identity, doctrinal boundaries, relations with other churches, and the way other Anglican formularies are read and accepted. For Abp. Haverland, fidelity to the Affirmation is non‑negotiable: it is what makes ACC’s claim to “continuing Anglicanism” credible. He has used the Affirmation as a basis for evaluating and forging communion and relationships with other Anglican bodies. In the ACC “Statement on the ACA vote to reunite with the ACC,” for instance, Abp. Haverland refers to unity among continuing Anglicans “as described in The Affirmation of Saint Louis.”

In contrast, UECNA presently does not refer to the Affirmation of St. Louis as a doctrinal or confessional standard. In a Facebook post dated June 30, titled “WHAT WENT WRONG WITH THE CONTINING ANGLICANISM – 1. THE AFFIRMATION OF ST LOUIS,” Abp. Robinson takes issue with various statements in the Affirmation, particularly with its statements on Scripture, Tradition, and Sacraments. But the “real time bomb” he says is the section “The Use Of Other Formulae” which says, “In affirming these principles, we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them.” Abp. Robinson complains that this “is nothing short of revolutionary because it requires one to reject the Protestant character and inheritance of Anglican in favour of the Anglo-Catholic reinterpretation of that tradition because it effectively removes authority from the historic formularies of the Church. The Articles of Religion, the Homilies, and the Book of Common Prayer are only acceptable in so far as they are consonant with this modern formulary.”

Therefore, while UECNA acknowledges the Affirmation of St. Louis as a historical document which instigated the events that led to the creation of UECNA, it is rejected by Abp. Robinson for the same reason it is upheld by Abp. Haverland. These fundamentally differing viewpoints of identity and theological principles are in direct opposition, and it should not be surprising that eventually it caused the revocation of an agreement based on hope of unity and “common acceptance of the Affirmation.”

A secondary issue identified by Abp. Haverland in his letter to Abp. Robinson was complaints from ACC bishops that UECNA was “poaching” clergy and parishes from the ACC. These complaints are given in the context of clergy viewing “UECNA developments with growing disquiet.” This is left vague, but it can be conjectured that one issue of concern was Abp. Robinson’s actions with the Evangelical & Reformed Synod. This group was formed in 2023 as a “cultural organization” at the same synod which adopted the name “The Anglican Protestant Church” as an alternative to UECNA, seemingly in direct negation of the name “The Anglican Catholic Church.” This not only solidified the perception that Abp. Robinson was partisan to Reformed theology, but it also raised concerns about integrity of orders. While both UECNA and ACC canons allow for the reception of non-Anglican groups, this is conceived as a corporate act. With the E&RS, it appeared that Abp. Robinson was placing clergy in congregationalist churches which were not members of UECNA.Due to internal opposition to the election of Rev. Erastus Long, a member of the E&R, as Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese of the East, Abp. Robinson decided to consecrate Fr. Long bishop of E&R as an autonomous church. Long was well known on social media for his vociferous opposition to Anglo-Catholicism, calling Anglicans who use the Missal or wear a chasuble as “papists” and compared them to witchcraft. Abp. Robinson’s protection and promotion of Long was troubling for many.

The withdrawal of communion revokes mutual recognition of sacraments and ministries: clergy of the UECNA would no longer be automatically accepted in the ACC, and joint celebrations become irregular.

The intercommunion agreement the ACC also signed with the APCK in 2007 remains in effect, but the basis for that push for organic unity in shared episcopal succession has proven unfruitful. The present Anglican Joint Synods following from the 2017 Atlanta Concordat, which foregrounds shared theological principles and liturgical forms based on the Affirmation, has so far proven to be successful in achieving organic unity. One may conclude the lex orandi, lex credendi is not just a liturgical principle, but also a fundamental basis for the trust and confidence that creates ecclesial unification.