Huh? You mean we were right?

Anglicans acknowledge that that Catholic teachings on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into heaven are consistent with Anglican interpretations of the Bible.

To my Pisky friends - and you know who you are - kind of sorry about copping that snarky attitude about Mariolatry now, aren't you?

Oh, and I've got two words for you - "Papal Supremacy."

Get used to it.

Update: Midwest Conservative Journal, who I believe is on the crypto-calvinist side of the Anglican communion, seems to support my observation in the comments that the report will probably be irrelevant to ecumenism or the Anglican church. He also points out that it's interesting that the Anglicans moved toward "Rome", not vice versa, because:

Because Canterbury needs Rome much more than Rome needs Canterbury and I think both know that. So Rome doesn't have to concede anything. I can't conceive of the Pope, whoever he is at the time, allowing Anglicans to ordain women as long as they acknowledge his supremacy. And I also can't conceive that western Anglicans would ever be even remotely willing to give up female priests.

MCJ seems to think that this may be part of a strategy based on "Benedict know[ing] that over the next several years, a large number of Anglicans will swim the Tiber regardless of what any Anglican-Roman Catholic commission does or doesn't decide." (You can see this in Dave's comments below the post that hint at a scheme to grab the Anglican "global south".)