The ACNA is in communion with 80% if the Anglican tradition, you could add another 1-2% maybe for the Anglican Continuum Movement (APA, ACC etc) if you're just counting traditional Anglicans. And sure, the ACNA has the female ordination problem, but that will probably be settled eventually. There was the arian controversy, and Christianity in the time of St. Benedict was largely backsliding or outright apostate. In short, the episcopally governed Church has been through various times of apostasy. The current crises in both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches are nothing new. Personally I find security in any denomination by reading the lives of the saints. Sure, Christians all over the west are becoming apostate, but nobody has tried to poison the one's standing up for orthodoxy (yet). We like to pretend we have it rough, but many saints have been through much worse periods of Christendom.

As I said in the interview, I think keeping it in the realm of what brings assurance and what doesn't is most helpful. I can't comment on the validity of a Presbyterian church, but I can certainly point out that they lack the kind of sacramental assurance that one does in the visible communion of Christ's body.

@@merecatholicity I certainly sympathize with this articulation, but isn't saying "I can certainly point out that they lack the kind of sacramental assurance" simply a form of invalidity? The lack is the invalidity (i.e. not recognized, therefor void in a legal sense). I'm not trying purposefully to invalidate other communions, but it seems it me unavoidable to make some sort of claim about not recognizing another group, therefore deeming them invalid in some sense.

*seems to me

@@SuperBoomer34 I guess the language of "invalid," in my opinion, paints too black and white a picture of an area that is more gray. I don't really know how Christ works outside the visible institutional structures of the Church. I can see fruit that indicates that he does work there. I'm just not sure what terminology I would use to express that. I met Jesus while still an evangelical and was baptized in an EV Free church. I know that was real and true encounter with Christ. However, looking back, I would not see that church as being within the institutional structures that Christ established. What does that mean? I'm not sure, but I don't think invalid is the proper language.

@@merecatholicity I'm inclined to agree with you here: some Roman Catholics will refer to Anglicans as invalid in the sense of being "fake", or "frauds": fake priests doing fake masses. I completely think this conception of invalidity is so extreme and as you said so black and white. At the same time, it seems to me the notion of invalidity as not recognizable is impossible to avoid.

The same word is sometimes used, but the context demonstrates a clear difference in offices between mere presbyters and overseers.