Reading through this short essay I found it rather encouraging.  There are a few spots that give me pause (w/o is going to have to be dealt with at some point), but broadly speaking this represents a big step in the right direction for those committed to remaining Anglicans.  I was particularly pleased by the affirmation (even if only in theory) of the first seven OEcumenical Councils.

Yes I have serious points of difference.  But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  And this is more like a giant leap, in the right direction.

ICXC NIKA
John

I have no problems with these canons, though they do rather strangely seem to omit the Chalcedonian Creed and add the Athanasian as part of the Quadrilateral. On the other hand, that problem is disposed of by the theoretical acceptance of the seven Councils, which greatly pleases me.

As an Anglo-Catholic myself, I am uncomfortable with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with its compromise rite of Holy Communion being proclaimed the gold standard for the new province. The Episcopal Church (U.S.) has enjoyed a much fuller Eucharistic statement in worship since its first BCP and the use of the Scottish canon.

Re #3
Anastasios,
I am not sure there has been a real Anglo-Catholic liturgy since the Uses of Sarum & York (which I would like to see more widely used among Western Rite Orthodox).  But like I said; this is all a move in the right direction.

Under the mercy,
John

Note that approval of liturgies will be up to the local diocesan so long as the overall provisions of the Constitution and Canons are not violated. Therefore, orthodox Anglo-Catholic liturgies could well be used. Our College of Bishops seems well disposed to honor local usage of various orthodox liturgies.

Regarding authoritative liturgies, it is worth noting that the relevant article of the proposed Constitution (Article 6) reads:

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.

Note the phrase, with the Books which preceded it, which would include the more catholic liturgy of the 1549 Prayer Book, with its complete eucharistic canon and epiclesis (admittedly in the western, pre-anamnesis position rather than the post-anamnesis of the East and the Scoto-American lineage of Prayer Books).

#6…tres technical. ‘splain epiclesis, etc. for poor Ricky.  Sounds like a chronic disease or vascular dementia.

Epiclesis

In ICXC
John

7, for example in the 1979 BCP:

Sanctify  them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him.  Sanctify  us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace; and at the last day bring us with all your saints into the joy of your eternal kingdom.

The “books which preceded it” would of course also include the Roman Missal in force under Henry VIII, or even earlier Sarum et al. uses, since there appears to be no terminus ante quem non.  Convocation and the universities rejected the imposition of the vernacular liturgy by the state in 1549, and some have argued that the prayer books therefore lack ecclesiastical legality.  I wonder whether this was a cunning way to justify the use of the English Missal or a mere oversight.