The author is making a key category error - one I and others have also tended to make since this story broke.  She represents the Vatican’s proposal as “an invitation to Anglicans who feel beleaguered by changes in Anglican practice.”  But the whole offer was prompted by the overtures of the Traditional Anglican Communion, which hasn’t been associated with Canterbury for some time (if ever, in some cases).  TAC not only isn’t “beleaguered” by alterations of faith and practice in that Communion, it has no contact with them at all.

I’m not saying there aren’t Anglo-Papalists in the CoE who might also salivate over this opportunity, given the impending dissolution of sacramental assurance by Canterbury; but, we should remain clear that the Vatican is responding to a question by a Continuing Anglican group, not proselytizing the mainline Anglican Communion out of the clear blue sky.

Maggi just doesn’t get it.

“the whole offer was prompted by the overtures of the Traditional Anglican Communion, which hasn’t been associated with Canterbury for some time…. we should remain clear that the Vatican is responding to a question by a Continuing Anglican group, not proselytizing the mainline Anglican Communion out of the clear blue sky. “

Well, that explains the joint press conference of the Archbishop of Westminster and the Archbishop of Canterbury! I wonder why all the press didn’t come from the HQ of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

Obviously, MarkP, the whole thing reflects negatively on the Anglican Communion, as the steady stream of articles documented on this blog make clear.  Canterbury had to try to get in front of that reaction, whether he was principally involved or not.

That seems obvious.  I’m not sure why you felt the need for sarcasm.

“Don’t turn to Rome in anger”

Wise advice. Those who convert in anger may find that the problem has come with them.

This is nothing short of relativism and pluralism in the context of “denominationalism.”

“But anyone who moves from one church to another out of unresolved anger – over women priests, or gay priests, or anything else – then they are almost certain to take their discontent with them, and cause just as much disruption in their new home as their old.”
When in doubt, attack the other’s motives, along with the suggestion that they are psychologically unbalanced in some way (which *I* could never be!).
The therapeutic approach to religious truth is not helpful. Does it not occur to Maggi Dawn that unease (or even anger) over changes in Anglican Communion life could be stirred in part by the sense that these changes are unfaithful to the Gospel? or that large areas of ‘Western’ Anglicanism are rejecting its biblical heritage? or that there has been a signal failure of leadership?
Maggi Dawn sounds like another subjectivist religious relativist from the evangelical stable.

So, abandonment of significant elements of the catholic faith are mere changes in practice... is there a need to read further?

I’m with tired. “Mere changes in practice” didn’t get us here. And if there are those who take up the pope’s offer, I doubt it will be out of mere anger. It will be out of a desire to return to faith. She writes as if it’s all about folks getting put out with liturgical dance or something. Quite shallow.