One is Fr. Kimel's continuing assertion of Anglicans' essential non-catholicity. (Wherin he continues his synecdochical broadsides against J-Tron, and Aff Cath's catholic aesthetics disguising a protestant core.)
The other is more on P.Ben's life preserver, such as it is: RC Archbishop Myers of Newark. First posted by Fr. Harmon.
My problem with Fr. Kimel's argument is that he picks out those elements of Anglicanism which are essentially protestant and declares them to be essentially Anglican. He has not, so far as I am aware, addresses the traditional Anglo-Catholic claim that Anglo-Catholicism is THE true and proper expression of Anglicanism. Such a claim makes the contemporary situation, at least in ECUSA, rather like the situation in Constantinople during much of the 4th century, the situation in which St. Gregory Nazianzus emerged as "the Theologian". The extent to which Anglicans are not Anglo-Catholics is the extent to which they are bad Anglicans. And I don't mean that the extent to which Anglicans do not "self-identify" as Anglo-Catholics is the extent to which they are bad Anglicans. Rather, the extent to which they depart from the coherent and contiguous teaching of catholic Anglicanism from Henry VIII and Richard Hooker, through the Nonjurors and Caroline Divines, the Tractarians, to Charles Gore and Michael Ramsey, is the extent to which they are bad Anglicans.