Fr. Longenecker's article is simplistic and, in many places, deficient.
This was pretty much my exact reaction. Anglicanism and trying to understand its various nuances is quite confusing, even for the lifelong Anglican. Thus, I understand why Fr. Longenecker took this approach, but he really oversimplifies Anglicanism in a way that could lead to misrepresentation.
Given that this article appears to be eleven years old, it is possible his perspective might be a bit different if he were to write a similar article in 2021. First, the three camps of Anglo-Catholic, evangelical, and liberal (I prefer the term progressive) are quite deficient in describing the various camps of Anglicanism. For example, there are progressive camps which are mainline, Spong-like, Anglo-Catholic, evangelical, broad, low, high, and everything in between. Often, even the various progressive camps do not see eye-to-eye with one another. Furthermore, what does "evangelical" mean to the author? Does it mean Anglicans who hold steadfast to a protestant interpretation of the 39 Articles and their authority, Prayer Book Anglicans, charismatic Anglicans, "Baptisty" Anglicans, Reformed Catholics, Anglicans who hold traditionalist views on women's ordination and marriage, politically conservative Anglicans, or something else entirely?
In other ways he overstates the so-called "war" between the camps. I am not going to pretend the traditionalist and progressive views within the larger Anglican community can be reconciled. That said, I am certainly not at "war" and neither is my own tiny continuing Anglican Catholic province at war with what the author calls evangelical Anglicans (whatever that term may mean). I do agree with the author that it is unfortunate, sinful, and sad just how fractured Continuing Anglicanism is, yet many Continuing provinces are on better terms than they have been in quite some time, while others are seeking and achieving greater unity within the continuum and outside of it (Polish National Catholic Church). Furthermore, my own tiny province reaches out to other Continuing Anglican provinces, even those *gasp* who are more protestant (or low church) leaning in their worship and theological orientation. It just isn't a big controversy for many of us if we have a different Mariology than one another, as we are very much united on the essentials of faith and catholic Christianity (if one defines catholicism as what Christians have always believed in all times and places). I am not trying to downplay places where we disagree; however, we are hardly at each others throats! Furthermore, throughout the Anglican Communion, traditional minded Anglo-Catholics and traditional minded evangelicals are often allies and on the same page on issues such as women's ordination and marriage.
Additionally, are disagreements in themselves unusual in the course of early Christianity? Like Anglicanism, the early centuries of Christianity were quite messy and mass agreement and conformity of worship did not exist. In fact, it was impossible for the pope to exert a high degree of jurisdictional authority throughout Christendom (and outside of Italy) until the latter part of the Middle Ages. Thus, the churches spread throughout the various European kingdoms largely acted autonomously and independently, regardless of whether they thought the pope had jurisdiction or not. Additionally, monarch's and powerful lords often exercised the highest degree of authority over these more localized churches. The church in the British Isles exercised a high degree of autonomy for centuries (regardless of whether the pope claimed jurisdiction or not, he could not exercise it) and sent bishops to council (or synod) by the 4th century and evidence of organization and bishops date to the Third century. Furthermore, Irish monasticism had a profound influence on what is referred to as Celtic Christianity and the Celtic monastic institution also greatly influenced mission activity to the European continent, the transmission of learning, and even the organizational structure and learning that developed into the university system in later centuries.
I recount this incredibly simplified history to show the question of Anglicanism, what it is, and its "validity" as an independent branch of Catholicism is much more complicated than a 16th century monarch desiring a divorce and establishing himself as a "caesaro- papalist" head of the Church in England. However, even the idea of "caesaro-papalism" was not an idea dreamed up by Henry VIII and actually has its roots in Byzantium.
Another issue which struck me as deficient at best and maybe grossly inaccurate at worst was his description of traditional Anglo-Catholicism. I am sure his description of traditional Anglo-Catholics as simply being Roman Catholics in all ways with the exception of the papacy might be accurate for a very small amount of Anglo-Catholics; however, Anglo-Catholic theology and practice is much more complex than a desire to copy Roman Catholic theology and practice. Anglo-Catholicism is far from being a monolithic force and is actually quite nuanced in both theology and worship.
Yet another issue I have with the author is his description of the Ordinariate as simply being a life-line to disheartened Anglicans. Maybe the author hoped this would be the case, but many Anglicans who have joined the Ordinariate have found it to be far more Roman Catholic than Anglican in heritage and many have found the problems Rome is experiencing as being even more perilous than what we are experiencing in Anglicanism. Furthermore, how can the author even begin to suggest that this was not an attempt to pillage traditionalist Anglo-Catholics and keep a straight face? Ordinariate Catholics use the term Anglo-Catholic to describe themselves, calling themselves "true" or "real" Anglo-Catholics. Yikes.
Lastly, the author does acknowledge the strife and disagreement rampant in Catholicism, but he downplays this strife by stating they have the authority and true teaching of the Church. Would the author feel so confident to make these claims today? Rather than creating the divisions in the Roman Catholic Church, Francis's tenure as pope has simply brought these issues to the forefront of the Catholic Church, they are not new and they have been festering for quite some time. I don't say this with any sense of satisfaction, far from it, yet to leave the mess of Anglicanism for the mess of Rome is simply changing one mess for another and not really solving any of the real issues plaguing both of our traditions.