What's Wrong With This...?
Consider the claim:
 We cannot err.
It seems to be a statement that must refer to itself; i.e. it implicitly says something like:
 [i]We cannot err regarding certain matters C, and further [ii] cannot err in saying we cannot err regarding C.
Suppose C is, for instance, stuff to be included in a religious confessional statement.
There is something exceedingly odd about the scope of  read as . It seems, as a glance may reveal, to reach a bit too far and to launch what is, in effect, something of an infinite regress. That is, now  needs to be amended to spell out  so as to clarify [2ii]: we cannot err in saying we cannot err in saying we cannot err regarding C. Off to the races.
And things are not significantly different if  is amended to say [1']:
We are not in error.
Note, on the other hand, if the self reference is removed from , we have in effect :
We cannot err regarding C, though we might be in error about whether we cannot err.
 is right on the edge of intelligibility. Maybe it means So far as we know, we cannot err regarding C, which is something like saying We might be infallible regarding C. One might for example have unerring discernment--which in fact could not be mistaken--without being sure whether or not it was in fact unerring. But it would be odd for such a one to then turn around a make the claim like So far as I know I cannot err.... as we had posited uncertainty.
Which sort of claim is implicit in the Network's new charter? Is it a matter that we should take as prefaced by a We cannot err in the following.... or rather So far as we can tell we cannot err in the following...? Or neither? Maybe we should see instead something like So far as we can tell...but we might be wrong prefacing their confession?
That last one, which admits it might be in error in the very act of making its claim, would model epistemic humility. It would not preclude disciplinary action or taking a stand, but it would imply that the ones taking the stand or taking action are ready to repent and are open to correction. My guess is that the Network's new charter does not model epistemic humilty; we are instead to take it and read it as if it is simply certain--not in error or not capable of being in error. Thus they say:
We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.
The problem is the ambiguity in that last bit. Sure, Scripture might express an immutable standard. But our grasp of it might wax and wane over time. I think the Network implicitly thinks there is no problem about the sureness of our grasp of the imputed immutable standard.
That is, they are unwilling to let Scripture be a final authority; they will smuggle in some merely human X other than Scripture as the interpreter of Scripture so as to say, in effect, X's interpretation of Scripture is the immutable standard. That kind of claim, alas, is unscriptural.
The same sort of problem crops up later in the charter:
6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7) We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.
The Network seems to be sleepwalking through these assertions, inasmuch as it does not see itself as fallible and sinful in the act of asserting them. As if in asserting them the Network was able to cast off fallibility and sinfulness. Magic!