"Are you contending, then, that the claims of Rome and Constantinople are false because they are innovations in the apostolic tradition, at some point in time, or that even if such a claim is primordial, it is nevertheless false? Or would you say that up to a certain point in time there was a visible body that could claim to be the 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' or the 'One True Church,' but that at a certain point this was no longer the case?"
Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!
The historical argument for why we ought to yield to Rome (to use the words of Fr. John Hunwicke, words with which I strongly disagree) "a juridical status to which we should be prepared in humility juridically to submit," is wholly unpersuasive, lacking the basis required to make anything a true doctrine: Revelation. The best way to understand revelation is with a hypothetical question: When did God ever say so? That question can never be answered without applying the standard of the Universal Church in accordance with Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; that standard expressed in our own Article VI:
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."
I find it strange that many writers and apologists think that they are true to the Fathers when they require Patristic testimony instead of Biblical teaching, as the test of sound doctrine. It indicates that they have not read the Fathers, at least not very much. From very early on, the "Fundamentalist" approach of our Article VI was the Patristic method. They did not argue from some concept of Doctrinal Development in the flawed sense of that ole' card Newman. They did not build on each other, citing previous Fathers as proof of anything. They quoted Scripture. That is the Patristic method, and it is the Catholic Tradition.
I answered my friend in these words, and "them's fightin' words," I must admit (but all is not lost; we must think of that last scene in The Quiet Man, the drunken calm after the storm when John Wayne and Victor McLaglin are pals again).
So, my friend, after all these years, and all the things I have written (especially on The Continuum) you still really don't understand me, or the patrimony that we Continue?
Heresy is false teaching, not dissent from a diocese that claims some God given power to rule everybody from a central location. Heresy voids the authority of any See or bishop. Also, nothing compels us to recognize a doctrine of Manifest Political Unity as necessary to identify the Church.
It seems pointless to fault Anglicans of past generations for creating division, when in fact the Two One True Churches had already manged to create this problem for us when, in the course of human events, the tyranny of Rome under its Spanish masters impelled them to the separation. Not only that, but Rome's practices amounted to heresy in that the people were denied even the clearest understanding of their faith, all things done in a tongue not "understanded by the people," with the very Gospel itself buried under the rubble from centuries of ever-increasing superstition. It had become the false gospel of Rome (Gal. 1:8). Instead of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, most clearly taught by the anonymous writer to the Hebrews, was the spectacle of burdens and "merits" that negated His once for all offering of Himself on the cross. There can be no ecumenical gains without truth taking priority over all other considerations, including whether or not Rome ought to be quite as central an HQ as it claims to be.
For the rest, I will let my colleague, Fr. Kirby speak for all of us. See the link.