Kolokotronis, it's way too late in my day to give this proper answer, but I am thinking upon this.
By your Orthodox standards we Anglicans are still a new church and still finding our way. We do not have in our church your extensive Orthodox history of the introduction of heresies and your church's subsequent corrections. You say, "at other times heresy took root and it took decades to root it out" -- why do we Anglicans not get the same accord you accord your Orthodox forebears? If you all were so diligent, how did one or more heresies even take such a deep root? But what is clear is that the Orthodox have developed an "immune system" that works, and that is good. (And I, at least, am willing to learn.)
We Anglicans have not been down this road before, and though we have the guidance of your experience, some of our experience makes us slower to pull the trigger -- today. We (I am speaking for worldwide Anglicanism, and I'm not sure I am qualified to do so) are on new and unfamiliar ground.
I have no doubt but that if Anglicanism survives this crisis (and by survive I mean the world-wide Anglican Communion, because IMHO if it does not survive we will be little more than another Protestant sect), we will have new safeguards, new guidelines, a new immune system and faster (if not yet Orthodox-lightning-quick) triggers.
If Anglicanism doesn't survive... well, I will quit posting here. Because I won't be an Anglican anymore. Fair enough?
"You say, "at other times heresy took root and it took decades to root it out" -- why do we Anglicans not get the same accord you accord your Orthodox forebears? If you all were so diligent, how did one or more heresies even take such a deep root?"
Imperial (Eastern or Holy Roman) support for, or even insistence upon the heresy. It is a wonder, and I suppose a sign from God, that we even survived such things as Arianism or Iconoclasm, or, dare I say it, the filioque clause. In each event, though, the persistence of the heresy was due to Imperial involvement of one sort or the other. Without that suypport heresy was stomped on quickly, at least for the times. None of us have that excuse anymore and haven't for a very long time.
As for experience with heresy, well aren't the founding documents of Anglicanism in part a catelogue of Roman heresies? I think its simply that heresy doesn't have much meaning in at least 1st world Anglicanism and that in great part can be traced to the compromises I mentioned in the earlier post. Apparently Orthodoxy and orthopraxis just don't have the value for Episcopalians which they do for Eastern Orthodox people. You say you've not been down this road before, but you have, many times, and have avoided the issue for reasons which were sufficient for the church at the time.
" If Anglicanism doesn't survive... well, I will quit posting here. Because I won't be an Anglican anymore. Fair enough?"
Why am I sure, noble sionnsar, that you'll have plenty to post about, the future status of the Anglican Communion notwithstanding? :) We can say bad things about the EP, the Pope and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, chuckle over which one of us gets to stand on their shoulders and then discuss pneumatology!