It is important to differentiate between communion with Canterbury and communion with Anglicans. Anglican theology and dogma have never been entirely settled, and the communion has often described itself as united primarily through how we worship. Many of the differences with Orthodoxy cited by +Raphael refer primarily to Reformed (Protestant) Anglicanism, which IS heavily (but not entirely) reflected in the Thirty Nine Articles and the Books of Homilies from the time of Edward and Elizabeth. Reformed theology is absolutely inconsistent with eastern orthodox catholocism. Anglo-catholicism, which has been a current of Anglicanism from the time of the reformation, and for example recognizes seven sacraments, is much more consistent with Eastern orthodoxy.
It would be difficult for Canterbury and most of the national Anglican churches to enter into full communion with either Roman or Eastern Orthodoxy without entirely disclaiming all strains of Calvinism, but it is conceivable that some of the continuing Anglican churches could do exactly that.
"It would be difficult for Canterbury and most of the national Anglican churches to enter into full communion with either Roman or Eastern Orthodoxy without entirely disclaiming all strains of Calvinism, but it is conceivable that some of the continuing Anglican churches could do exactly that."
From what I have learned from the noble sionnsar, I agree. I must say though that I have been surprised that such a reunion has yet to take place, but perhaps it needs more time. In the meantime, we see a steady stream of Episcopalians into our parish. We will be chrismating an Episcopalian woman during the Nativity fast.
More like mutually exclusive.