You misunderstood the import of my post. I accept, if I do not understand, the Entish ways of the Anglicans because you and others have told me that's just the way it is. What I do not understand after three years of honestly trying is the tolerance for heresy that scenario #2 bespeaks. Its one thing to never give up hope, as scenario #1 indicates, though to my mind that is both scripturally and patristically flawed. It is quite another to agree to accept ongoing aggressive heresy at the same altar table with you while you try to bring the heretics around.
The Latin Church and Orthodoxy, while pretty much having moved away from damning each other as heretics, are in deep and extensive dialog about reunion, but our hierarchs do not concelebrate the Eucharist, do not receive the sacraments from each others' hands (and we believe them to be equally efficacious)and we, the lower clergy, monastics and laity don't, at least de jure and in virtually all places, either. We don't because our hierarchs are in neither direct nor indirect communion and we are in that situation because we do not believe the exact same things as a matter of dgmatic truth. The day may come when we do believe the exact same things and that will be the day for reunion and communion but not until then. Communion is a symbol of unity of dogmatic faith. The AC is in a far more dire situation. Within the Communion people do not believe the exact same things as matters of dogmatic truth. There is some dialog, but mostly mini schisms and lawsuits. And yet what seems to be of paramount importance is not the preservation and advancement of the Truth, which is of necessity indivisible within a church or Communion, but rather the preservation of a symbol of a non existent unity. That, S, is what I don't understand.
So much of this has its roots in the Elizabethan settlement. Even within the old Church of England prior to the AC, there was a diversity of dogma which went beyond the interpretation of the 39 articles. By Orthodox standards, the Church of England never should have been in communion with itself, but was as the result of a political, rather than a theological settlement. We all got used to taking communion with who might not exactly share our theology, but it is one thing for an evangelical to take communion with a Catholic and another thing to take communion with a Wiccan!
As you know, being Anglican has never been entirely about theology, but a lot of it has been about (small "t") tradition. The tradition includes a highly effective global mission and ministry (hence the very existence of the AC and its high numbers in the Global South), combined with a literary/liturgical tradition that is second to none.
There is a desire to save the communion because there is a recognition of its strength, even in the current situation, and of its potential should it be restored. Sadly, much of the impetus to preserve the communion may be simply political as well.
K, I do not accept scenario #2. I will make a guess that the author was trying to reach a solution to the problem (in an Anglican fashion, if you will) without thinking it through. I have been reading his blog for years and this surprises me.