- Separate Corporations: An Archdiocese cannot seize the financial assets of another diocese, nor is it responsible for the debts, bankruptcies, or financial liabilities of individual dioceses.
- No Top-Down Budgetary Flow: The archdiocese does not fund or dictate the operational budgets of independent dioceses. Instead, dioceses voluntarily contribute assessments upward to fund the lean administrative costs of the provincial or national church office.
- For example, in The Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States, the historic Dennis Canon (Canon I.7.4; 1979) states that all local parish property is held in a trust for the national church’s local dioceses and parishes, but it does not interfere with the autonomy of those constituents. The national church body itself does not physically manage or hold title to those properties day-to-day; that legal and administrative stewardship remains strictly at the diocesan level. But, as with the TEC, if a local parish attempts to leave the denomination, the property is remanded to the Archdiocese or presiding Diocese.
- However, TACA is set apart from the above idea of a trust or a helpful fund.
- Traditional Anglican Church of America would not oblige its churches or dioceses to remit their property or “pay back” whatever would be given out of such a trust or fund, not even if a schism or exit occurred out of TACA by a member body. In fact, as of October, 2026, such a church-helper trust or charitable church-aid fund only exists in principle, here. But the terms are herein stated canonically, as they are given forth by the Constitution and Canons of TACA and its principle of Custom and Subsidiarity. Simply put, all churches and dioceses pay for themselves entirely, and are subsidiaries to TACA only theologically, whereas a church-helper trust or charitable church-aid fund is defined as a purely charitable Agape-driven well of no-strings-attached help, with no obligations or conditions attached to it. As TACA grows, such a fund/trust may indeed come into being.
-
Axiom: In Anglican and Episcopal ecclesiology, metropolitans (archbishops) do not have unilateral executive or administrative control over their subsidiary dioceses. Each individual diocese functions as an autonomous legal, financial, and material corporation. The relationship between an Archdiocese (or a metropolitan see) and its subsidiary dioceses is primarily spiritual, collegial, and canonical, rather than a top-down management of local money, material, and property.
4. The Structure of Metropolitical Theological Authority: Custom and SubsidiarityUnlike the centralized structure of the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern-Orthodox churches, Traditional/Continuing Anglicanism operates on a model of provincial and diocesan autonomy: - Financial and Property Independence: Each Diocese holds its own assets, manages its own endowments, and controls its own real estate (parochial properties and cathedrals) through a local diocesan convention, board of trustees, or standing committee. An Archbishop or metropolitan cannot unilaterally sell a subsidiary Diocese’s property, confiscate its treasury, or dictate its local operational budget.
- Theological and Canonical Oversight: The metropolitan’s authority is characterized by metropolitical theological oversight. This includes spiritual primacy, presiding over provincial synods, coordinating the election and consecration of bishops, and acting as a court of appeal for canonical or theological disputes. It is an authority of order and unity rather than administrative corporate ownership.
-
5. Richard Hooker’s Characterization of Theological Metropolitical Rule With Custom and SubsidiarityThe classic theological articulation of this relationship comes from Richard Hooker (1554–1600), the premier theologian of the Elizabethan Settlement, in his monumental work, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.Where to Find ItHooker systematically addresses the power of bishops and metropolitans in Book VII, Chapter 8 of Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (commonly cited as Book VII, Chapter 8, Sections 1–3 in standard modern editions, such as the Keble edition).Hooker’s Definition of the RelationshipIn Book VII, Chapter 8, Hooker defines the role of Archbishops and Metropolitans over ordinary bishops by contextualizing their power as one of order, honor, and unity, rather than absolute dominion over property or local governance.- A Natural Order for Unity: Hooker argues that just as bishops have a “chiefty” over ordinary presbyters, it is naturally necessary for there to be a tier above ordinary bishops to maintain peace, prevent schism, and handle conflicts that arise between different dioceses. He writes that metropolitans exist to remedy “the strife of bishops” and provide a unified voice for the province.
- Honor and Preeminence vs. Absolute Command: Hooker notes that the authority of an archbishop is an extension of ancient church custom and human reason. He characteristically clarifies that an archbishop is prima inter pares (first among equals) in terms of dignity, rather than a monarch over the material goods of other dioceses.
- Delimitation of Power (The Corporate Context): Elsewhere in Book VII and Book VIII, Hooker addresses the nature of church property and the “walls of separation” regarding governance. He asserts that while bishops and archbishops hold spiritual jurisdiction (the power of the keys, ordination, and synodical leadership), the management of the church’s material wealth is bound by the laws of the realm and the consent of the corporate body.
Hooker defends the office of the Archbishop not as a divinely mandated financial manager, but as a practical, reasonable, and historically proven tool of theological order and ecclesial peace. -
“And lest haply it should be imagined that Canons Ecclesiastical we want to make the self-same thing manifest; in the Council of Antioch it was thus decreed:” The Bishop in every Province must know, that he which is Bishop in the Mother-city hath not only charge of his own Parish or Diocess, but even of the whole Province also.” Again: “It hath seemed good, that other Bishops without him should do nothing more than only that which concerns each one’s Parish, and the places underneath it.” Further, by the self- same Council all Councils Provincial are reckoned void and frustrate, unless the Bishop of the Mother-city within that Province where such Councils should be, were present at them. So that the want of his presence, and, in Canons for Church-government, want of his approbation also, did disannul them: not so the want of any others. Finally, concerning election of Bishops, the Council of Nice hath this general Rule, That the chief ordering of all things here, is in every Province committed to the Metropolitan. Touching them, who amongst Metropolitans were also Primates, and had of sundry united Provinces, the chiefest Metropolitan See, of such that Canon in the Council of Carthage was eminent, whereby a Bishop is forbidden to go beyond seas without the licence of the highest Chair within the same Bishop’s own country; and of such which beareth the name Apostolical, is that ancient Canon likewise, which chargeth the Bishop of each Nation to know him which is First amongst them, and to esteem of him as a Head, and to do no extraordinary thing but with his leave.”
TACA’S MODEL OF INDEPENDENCE AND CHRISTLIKE ACTUALIZATION: How Strong Theological Central Leadership Empowers Able Parishes
TACA is a strong Episcopate that gives the entirety of clerical leadership to the individual churches within its framework, to project a tight Reformist-Catholic theological tradition of exemplifying and protecting sound Christian formularies through collective autonomy.
The rule is Augustinian:
“The first and primary purpose for which you have come together is to live harmoniously in your house, intent upon God in oneness of mind and heart… mutually honoring in yourselves the God whose temples you have become.” (Praeceptum; Saint Augustine of Hippo; Chap. 1; Parts 2, 8; A.D. 397).
Congregations and missions, are responsible and free to run their own parish elections, appoint their staffs and ministers, do their own business, pay their own bills, raise their own funds and capital, and thus live according to their own customaries. So long as the theology of each congregation and minister is traditionally Christian, as characterized by being Trinitarian, morally orthodox, Niceno-Constantinoplitan/Chalcedonian, partakes in the Seven Sacraments, and abides the 39 Articles of Religion (1571), and the TACA Constitution and Canons, the Episcopate and Clergy may participate in, bless, and bestow the following forms: Sacraments, ordination, incardination, office appointments, consecrations, church plants, missions,
and all doings of the Word together, by the authority of Christ as represented by our one Diocese.
While the form TACA uses is truly Anglican (both high and low church), Fellowship and Communion are encouraged as true Ecumenism between TACA churches and other traditionalist denominations. Sustaining this ecclesiastical apparatus is the Archbishop and his House of Bishops, men, who, being set apart in Christian virtue, ability, and wisdom, therefore rule by the “Custom and Subsidiarity” doctrine that validates and empowers able ministers to lead their parishes with dignity, courage, and strength.
From the Preamble to the Constitution and Canons of Traditional Anglican Church of America (Part II):
Our Archbishop employs as his Unilateral Rule the principle of Subsidiarity and Custom, by which he accords basic autonomy for every Congregation and Mission throughout his Diocese.
It is through this Archiepiscopi Unilateralis [Μονομερής Αρχιεπίσκοπος] that he ensures that matters are handled per locality, that is, “customarily decided,” Solet Arbitrium [Συνηθισμένη Επιλογή], per the “supplied authority” (suppleam auctoritate [Συμπληρωματική Αρχή]) at the local Parish or Mission level.
We, Traditional Anglican Church of America (TACA), are thus a church of ancient Custom and Subsidiarity (see Article III, Section A, of this Constitution).
Our Clergy and Episcopate are working-class and executive men, married and unmarried, with and without children, civic-minded and religious, homesteaders and urban dwellers, but all always studious men who elect, from among our wise assembly, an honorable and blessed Archbishop, a very great man whose decisions are sovereign in all ecclesiastical matters. As of the Synod of May 2026, the head of TACA is still Archbishop/Primate Rick Aaron Reid.
As God’s ministers, we must endure the reality of Christs message to the Church: “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:29-30). We do have the Bible; it is sufficient for these latter days, because its inspired teachings are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17). What more do we need then? Christ, who said, “be ye perfect, even as your Father is perfect” (John 16:33; Matthew 5:48), has indeed overcome the world so that we can be perfect indeed. Therefore, why would we as deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, ministers, and faithful parishioners of this TACA Diocese need a Constitution and Canons, if all we need is the Bible? The rationale for such need will be explained in the following paragraphs.
The Archbishop’s traditional and charitable intention is that each Parish should hold sway over itself, in a meritorious practicing of subsidiarity, as it is his customary means of consigning governance to able men. We work to support ourselves, as did the saints: Paul of Tarsus, as well as the married couple Aquila and Priscilla, made tents for pay; the people of the Church of Thessaloniki were advised to hold down jobs. As 2 Thessalonians 3:10 exhorts, “If any would not work, neither should he eat.”
All broader decisions concerning the Diocese at large are thus customarily made with the Archbishop, himself a noble man of rigors, acting as presider, always in respectful and discreet consultation with his morally mature, hard-working ministers—men who have lived good Christian lives as family-minded leaders, entrepreneurs, educators, and statesmen, standing in allegiance to his Office (John 19:11). He invokes all votes and choices; his approval ratifies all decisions and actions derived by himself, and by these bishops, presbyters, and their houses, in harmony (Joel 2:11; 1 Timothy 4:14). The Constitution and Canons stand at ready reserve, thereby, as an aid to these good men, in regard to their senior member’s sharing of episcopal sovereignty with lower elders, “since the bishop sits in the place of God” (Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapters 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians, Chapter 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8:1-2).
Since the earliest days of our ecclesiastical existence, this easy but prolific means of governance, by Custom and Subsidiarity, has defined our Common Choice—our Solet Arbitrium—of rule, that is, that the Archbishop, like his TACA predecessors, has always carefully ordained and consecrated morally upright men, brilliant Christian leaders, who can be entrusted to preserve this precious juridical simplicity. A King David must “wait, I say, on the Lord” and must patiently “be of good courage, and He shall strengthen thine heart” (Psalm 27:14).
During various times of momentous growth, prosperity, and tranquility, or even of trouble and tumult, the Archbishop may comfortably alternately proffer the Constitution and Canons as an extension of his sagacious generosity. His office sees his soul, like King David’s, patiently abiding the via media Custom of Church rule, which magnanimously permits each parish to select for itself—according to the needs and desires of its faithful, in unity with the parish priest—Reformist, Orthodox, or Anglo-Catholic varietals of Traditional Anglicanism.
Church of England priest Richard Hooker, one of the most influential theologians of the sixteenth century and arguably one of the fathers of Traditional Anglicanism as we know it today, noted that “Law rests in the bosom of God, her Voice the harmony of all the World,” determining the constituents of both Divine and Natural Law to be “both Angels and men and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy” (Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie; Book I. Chapter 16; Hooker, Richard; 1594). Saint Peter the Apostle—despite his initial cowardice that caused him to deny his Lord (Matthew 26:34,75)—projects such a patient courage that Jesus predicts his redemptive Faith, the latticework of Petrus, a future Archbishop of Antioch and then Rome, such a shepherd whose Sacred Tradition may be bound or loosed in Heaven (Matthew 16:15-19).
By this token, Custom and Subsidiarity reflect the Sacred Tradition passed down from the Apostles. Informed by Sacred Tradition, the Constitution and Canons are the intermediary framework bridging the staff of the Bishop’s rook and the rock of the Church, which is his humble duty to shepherd. The Constitution and Canons, then, are a written instrument of the Traditional Anglican Christian Faith, the foundation for which was laid by the hands of generations of shepherds who came before, and the responsibility for which now rests upon our Archbishop’s humble, courageous, patient head (1 Timothy 4:14, Psalm 27:14).
There is no need, except in their role as a constant semantic resource, that these present goodly articles and strictures, these very Constitution and Canons, ought to be consulted in every given decision; instead, they are available, as needed, to guide the refinement of choices and decisions in matters involving this TACA Diocese. For this work to become worthy of this role, it was necessary for the writer to have received direct and careful consultation with his brethren, the esteemed Episcopate and Clergy of TACA—godly men who astutely exemplify the daily rule of moderateness—and who have expressed the desire for this supplemental resource, so that it can be accessed whenever needed. The writer was both inspired and guided by their good example and guidance. However, this writing could not have come into being had it not been commissioned and desired by the Archbishop himself, by whose authority the Constitution and Canons were able to move forward and take shape.
Aided by this document, all loyal TACA ministers, staff members, officers, and parishioners—in addition to the Episcopate and Clergy—may maintain a firmer grasp of the Archbishop’s authority and benefit from his delegation of leadership (Acts 20:17-38).
Moreover, as Saint Ignatius of Antioch advised, “Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality” (Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 6). Likewise, as it says in the book of Hebrews, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17).
No letter of the law other than the Holy Bible, as it is fulfilled by Jesus Christ, can supersede the authority of our incomparable Archbishop, a rightful man, who has deigned to allow the Constitution and Canons to be to be formulated and practiced. Having been commissioned by our Archbishop and approved by his authority to be used in all parishes within these TACA Diocese, these Articles, Canons, and other written works within the pages of this volume are always subject to his re-implementation and/or revision, however momentously or rigorously executed by him, preserved or amended, while his intentions and all of their semantics must always be in concordance with Sacred Scripture, being that he is our senior interpreter of the Bible and the agent who has authorized and approved the ratification and publication of this work.
The Archbishop may thus, at his discretion, elect to preserve, engage, and/or suspend any rule or directive that could be invoked here—exercising his right as Archiepiscopi Unilateralis—reverting in whatever manner he sees fit back to pure Anglican tradition, and/or to our most favored Customary.
A Bishop so faithful and ready to see God that he insisted that lions eat him, Ignatius of Antioch instructs us all on the importance of honoring the Bishop as a means of honoring God: “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Chris is, there is the catholic [katolicos, universal] Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid” (Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8, J.R. Willis transl.). With the Bishop, therefore, stands the unity, the katolicos, of the Universal Church.
The Constitution and Canons are thus presented to supplement that conventional ancient governance and delegation of duty throughout our Jurisdiction, of our most outstanding, faithful, wise patriarch of Christ, our very learned, pious, and kindly Archbishop, as this Archbishop oversees the unparalleled labor of his Episcopate of dutiful, exceptional shepherds of God; as this Archbishop and these knowledgeable Bishops together manage the Priesthood and the Permanent Diaconate of prudent, sensible, devout clerics; and as this superb Patriarch and his Episcopate and Clergy together guide all the godly ministers, officers, and parishioners of all of our eminent parishes, ministries, missions, deaneries, schools, and diocesan regions—all of these Christians and Offices humbly serving in their respective capacities to apply their Christian discernment, charity, and prayerful integrity to the edification of all who come in contact with them by the grace of God.