This isn’t to say that they’re wrong to do so. I’ve held for as long as I’ve been informed about Anglicanism that the “shotgun marriage” between protestant and catholic Christianity within Anglicanism is, ultimately, impossible if one is to have doctrinal and sacramental clarity.
Absolutely right.
As Anglo-Catholics, we simply looked the other way when the XXXIX were mentioned (especially XIX, XXII, and XXV). There was a lot of peaceful coexistence via wilful blindness going on in the pre-2003 church.
Once the cards were forced onto the table by the actions of Vicki Gene and the rest of the far left wing, that sort of polite accommodation could no longer be upheld. So I don't think it's going to be possible for those (like my family) who are nosebleed-high, one-step-from-Rome, ultramontane, or whatever term you want to use, to stay in the same communion with Anglicans who are essentially evangelical and 'low' in their worship forms, and take the XXXIX seriously.
"High" Anglicans will always be welcome on this side of the Tiber. We did not find it difficult to make the change -- in fact, my daughter noted that we had always had a crucifix and palms and holy pictures and rosaries in the house . . . so from her point of view nothing really changed. When we conferred with our new rector, we found the only points in which we differed were the validity of Anglican orders and the supremacy of the Pope . . . and given the horrible mess the Anglican Communion finds itself in these days, I can't really quarrel with the Church on those.
You can read some very good posts by LP at the Midwest Conservative Journal