Firstly, while the Note makes positive reference to the phrase "reunited but not absorbed", the posited reunification is in fact an absorption, since it involves not re-establishing communion with pre-existing continuing Anglican bodies, for example, but dissolving them and having Rome create new jurisdictions for them ab initio. And these "Personal Ordinariates" will be subsumed in the Roman Catholic "Latin-rite" national churches. This offer involves a presumption that it is certain that no Anglican church interested in reunion exists as a "particular Church" presently (as otherwise something like a uniat-style solution would have to be on the table which respected present jurisdictional structures) and thus does not really involve corporate ecclesial reunion. That this is inevitable because of the present Roman position on Anglican Orders brings me to the second problem.
Throughout the Note there is a careful and pointed adherence to terminology which implicitly denies Anglican Orders, despite the fact the some former Anglican clergy have been re-ordained sub conditione by the Roman Catholic Church in the past. It is always "Anglican clergy" as against "Catholic priests". They are even careful to call our non-ordained folk "faithful" rather than laity, as the latter of these might be taken to imply the other class was not laic. The one apparent exception to this is very carefully phrased: "some Anglicans have abandoned the tradition of conferring Holy Orders only on men by calling women to the priesthood and the episcopacy". The insertion of the words "the tradition of" and the use of the words "calling ... to" emphasise that Anglicans, from this persepctive, could only "call" to Holy Orders, and could not abandon "conferring Holy Orders" itself (as they purportedly never have so conferred), but only the tradition of limiting Orders to men. This is a problem for two reasons. One, it is of course a continuation of the unnecessary and untruthful derogation of our Orders, which are in point of fact valid, as I and Fr Hart have argued at length here and elsewhere before. Two, it undermines the claim that this is a compassionate and courageous act by the Holy See. Why? Because either Rome is still sure Anglican Orders are invalid as a matter of infallible teaching, or it is not. If the latter is true, then the language of the Note is offensive without reason, and necessarily involves knowing and accepting the plausibility of Roman and Anglican defences of our Orders but pretending these are irrelevant and sending the message that all Anglican priests would be ordained absolutely rather than conditionally anyway. If the former, then honesty and charity would seem to require that Rome demand of these "converts" immediate cessation of all "mock" sacraments with their risk of material idolatry in Eucharistic Adoration and false assurance in absolution, for example, and would also demand ex fide repudiation of their previous claims to valid orders and ecclesial reality so as to ensure orthodoxy.
Please note that I am not saying the motives of those making the offer were bad or insincere. But there does seem to be some internal inconsistency, especially as very positive reference is made in a general way to ARCIC documents, despite these including the argument that the Roman rejection of Anglican Orders should be revisited and reviewed, and despite the fact that the CDF was very critical of ARCIC in the past.
Fundamentally, for those like myself who accept that the Anglican Churches remained, despite their faults, the native Catholic jurisdiction of the British Commonwealth and colonies and mission zones until their definitive defection from Catholic Faith and Order in the late Twentieth Century, and who believe that the Continuing Churches, particularly the ACC, APCK and UECNA, were and are the legitimate and canonical successors to the jurisdictions thus abandoned, our duty is clear. We must remain faithful to our Churches, since they remain orthodox particular Churches within the Catholic Church with not only valid orders but valid jurisdiction over us. The way forward ecumenically is to maintain our corporate identity and fidelity, and so engage in dialogue with fellow Catholic Churches from a position of both moral and organisational strength.