One of the errors, it seems to me, facing the church regarding schism and reconciliation is one of time and our perception of the same. For example, take the particular schism begun by Luther, founding the Lutheran communion split from the Roman church. How many of Luther’s original objections to the church Catholic remain today? Indulgences and preaching in the native tongue have long since fallen, and the Catholic church has adopted the Lutheran position. One question might be, is that whether the Catholic church might have adopted the major pieces of these objections sooner if the split hadn’t occurred. In Luther’s case, he himself was not, expecially at first, considering leading a split or schism. That came his way, in a large part because of political and ecomonic conditions between Church and State in Germanic territories in his age. But that point is one to take as well. How often are political, economic, or social influences behind what should be theological issues. How much of the Anglican split is really about US and the global South attempting to exert control over the larger Anglican communion.
Political, economic, or social issues such as those behind today’s Anglican crises or the original East/West split are/were likely major factors behind the split. But those factors are temporary. They don’t survive for centuries.
In the intervening 500 years give or take, could it be said that one of the primary ecclessial causes of the split where in some sense a result of impatience on both sides. The insistence of settling these issues now, and in one’s lifetime made split necessary? Consider the split in the Anglin church today largely over sexual issues. If, both sides just kept talking and instead of pushing for changes today, but instead figured that timescales of centuries works better for a community with two thousand years of dealing with these same issues. It is the hyper-sexualization of society which arguably is a primary driving force behind the gay/woman priest issues and the blessings of same sex marriage. This sexualization of modern society is quite likely a termporary social swing, which in a century or two will have run its course.
Could it be better if we attempt to take our questions of church and theology out of time during our debates and discussions, and not try to force a conclusion in our lifetime? The presumption that problems require prompt solution what I am putting to the question. It seems plausible that the Luther/Roman split was not one that was theologically necessary, as essentially all the theological/ecclessial issues have been resolved in the meantime. Could that argument be useful when we consider continueing splits today?