By way of further thoughts…
Forward in Faith see a distinction between order and office. That is, someone can carry out (truly and legally) the office of a Bishop even if she is not – because cannot – be a member of the order of Bishops.
This means, at present, under the five guiding principles, the Church of England envisages Diocesan Bishops not sharing in the shared sacramental life of all their clergy.
I do not understand how the more Catholic members of the church can accept this.
Making Catholic order optional paves the way for lay presidency. It also radically undermines those for whom Catholic order is important but who accept the decision of the Church of England on women’s ministry.
There is, as Martyn Percy originally argued, no integrity here. It’s taken me a while to fully catch up with the implications of his argument. I don’t like what they are.
Yet another voice in my mind simply says ‘whatever’. Are we simply arguing over custody of a corpse?
Alternatively – from a rather different perspective we have this commentary from the Bishop of Maidstone “What is being required is assent, not agreement.” (http://www.bishopofmaidstone.org/assent-to-the-five-guiding-principles/). An effective acquiescence rather than agreement opens up a number of possibilities.
Now I’m not keen on a number of those possibilities and mere acquiescence, rather than agreement, is perhaps a little concerning with respect to other things that CofE clergy are expected to assent to.