Why not Rome?

The writer says there could be a bloodbath in the Church of England. For the life of me, I cannot understand why those who can't deal with female clergy and want to give the Archbishop of Canterbury pope-like power don't just cross the Tiber. Do those dissatisfied Anglican clergy have ambitions on the office which might be possible in England but not in Rome? Do they believe they can perpetuate the patriarchy for their own benefit? Have they ever studied the Gospels?

I believe the men who preach against women and LGBTs do not understand Jesus at all. They are pretenders concerned with the interpretations of the "law" which benefit themselves and their peers. I seem to have read something about that this morning as I was the EM. They corrupt the people in their parishes by preaching that the Trinity must be worshipped. But to them the Holy Spirit died on Pentecost. Scripture contains the exact words we need to follow. (No matter who wrote whatever in whichever language in a setting which we can mostly only speculate about and has little relevance today.) Well, some scripture is no longer relevant but they get to choose.

No, I would not separate from those who believe they are right and righteous, who tell me I'm going to hell because I don't accept every jot and tittle of their beliefs. I can't and won't tell anyone that my faith is one they should accept. They might study it but they probably aren't interested. They don't care if it works for me. It is unforgivable sin and/or heresy and that is that. They don't want me in "their" church. I welcome them, however, to share the eucharist with me in whatever church. It is not my table.

Jesus told us to love Godde and love each other and be servants of each other and leave judgment to Godde. What else do we need? What is so difficult about that message?