"For the first time," Times (of London) religion writer Ruth Gledhill believes "that schism might actually be a possibility."
It seems to be that Anglican leaders are gearing up for possible schism, but also letting Ecusa [i.e. the Episcopal church] know this in what might be a game of ecclesiastical brinkmanship. Maybe, by spelling out how serious things have got, Ecusa might do more than 'regret' and rediscover what it means to 'repent.' It is the season for it, after all. So publicly, Lambeth Palace is playing down talk of schism, hence this comment, regarding the meeting of 24 April: “As you would expect, this meeting is by no means the only consultation that is happening; there is at the moment a considerable amount of thinking and talking, consulting and listening going on, with the emphasis firmly in favour of listening. The meetings that will be taking place over the next weeks and months are intended to provide as wide a range of views as possible in order to gain a proper perspective into the challenges and possibilities for the future of the Anglican Church here and elsewhere.” But maybe schism is the wrong word I am using here. If for example Ecusa as it presently is was expelled or invited to leave after the ACC amended its rules, presumably another body such as the ACN, held to be representative of orthodox Anglicanism in the US, could then be invited in. So that wouldn't really be schism, just 'realignment'...As for the material resources held by Ecusa, they don't count anyway, as they would all disappear in the ensuing court battles over pensions and property."Keep an eye....