C. B. raises a good point in the comment box a couple of items down blog:
"The property issue clearly was a factor in the Bishops thinking. The NY Times reports:
Several bishops also said in interviews that they believed that the pastoral council arrangement was intended to strengthen the position of conservative parishes or dioceses that want to leave the Episcopal Church and take their property with them. The breakaway parishes could claim that they came under the new pastoral council guided by the primates, and that the council was the highest authority in the Episcopal Church’s hierarchy.
Bishop Mark Sisk, of New York, said in an interview, “The concern is that that would indicate we are, in some sense, subservient to the primates, rather than simply a church in fellowship with them. And that could have significant legal implications.”
Which leads me to wonder whether these implications were an unintended consequence of the Primates' communique --I think that is entirely possible. The thing was put together under duress and on deadline--or an attempt by the Communion, supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acquire some American real estate.