What if one gets in the wrong line or sits to the wrong kind of Anglican in the pew? Yes, good idea there ought be certain sections with prefered seating going to the first place winner of the Selective Scriptural Spelling Contest (always a standard of excellence amongst purists)!

I think a woman priest should sneak in and consecrate all the hosts in that "other" ciborium while no one is looking.

James Holloway

Apparently, no one at Blackburn Cathedral heeds the theological point that consecrated elements are unaffected by the person doing the consecration.

Hey, maybe we could adapt this system to deal with our own issues on our side of the pond! When the celebrant is a gay or lesbian priest (or bishop), have a straight priest consecrate some additional elements, and then identify two lines at communion: "No Gay Cooties" and "Gay Cooties OK."

Until +Rowan and +Tom Wright get the CofE's ducks in a row, they should just shut up about how we deal with our issues in TEC.

Dr. Good,
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the thrust of your comment, and if so, please correct me. But, I think you have misconstrued the position of those who do not wish to receive communion consecrated by a female priest. I assume you are referring to Article XXVI of the Thirty-Nine, on the unworthiness of the minister. But the folks who don't wish to receive female-consecrated communion would, I believe, argue against the relevance of this article in this case. Many (most?) would argue that women simply cannot be made priests; a female priest, for them, remains, at most, a deacon. When it comes to the difference between laypeople and deacons versus priests, the identity of the person doing the consecration certainly does matter, certainly does affect the validity of the consecration: laypeople and deacons cannot consecrate, and these folks regard female priests as being really only laypeople or deacons and would argue that the elements remain unconsecrated. I disagree strongly with this belief, and fully affirm that women can and should be priests. But I don't think the defense of the ordained ministry of women is served by misunderstanding the views of those who oppose it.

Respectfully, one biblical scholar to another.

Dr Gilders,
Thank you for your good point. I was indeed trying to understand the views of those who won't receive communion from a woman priest. Canon Sue Penfold is identified as Residentiary Canon of Blackburn Cathedral as well as Diocesan Director of Ministry. Her appointment to the positions on the Cathedral Staff is as an ordained woman. See:
http://www.blackburncathedral.com/levels.asp?level_id=53
I should have clarified my assumptions that those opposed to receiving communion from her in the Cathedral just won't receive communion from an ordained woman.

Dr. Good,
Thanks for your response to my post, and your clarification. For me, it's certainly a problem that there are Anglicans who reject the possibility of the ordination of women to the priesthood. It is probably an even worse problem if we have people who accept that woman can be priests... but who won't accept communion consecrated by such priests. That's where we get into into the "girl cooties" to which some responses the the Blackburn situation have alluded. It would be helpful if we could know what the motivations are of those who are wanting this two-track communion.

Let me see if I undestand this. Extraordinary pastoral provisions on the progressive side (blessing same sex unions, communion of the unbaptized, unauthorized liturgies, changing the BCP to suit your own understanding, etc.) are OK or at least tolerable.

Extraordinary pastoral provisions on the conservative side (such as understanding that there are still those in the congregation that believe what the Church believed until recently regarding the ordination of women) is bad and to be laughed at?

While I support the ordinaition of women, I also understand that there are valid reasons that some do not. Why is that so hard to understand?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Out of your laundry list of allegations, Phil S, I'm only going to deal with "blessing same sex unions", as it's the only one that pertains.

You want to know the difference?

Maybe you ought to look into the meaning of that word, "progressive"?

It is progress---following Christ, Our Head, as inspired by the Holy Spirit---to UPLIFT more persons in the Sacraments of the Church (via the usual means of discernment for such sacraments: whether marriage or ordination).

Show me the progress in demeaning the priesthood of the Rev. Sue Penfold, and maybe I'll get your point that "apples = apples."

From my POV, it appears to be bad theology, driven by bigotry, and little else. [Appeals to a recently-invented "Tradition" of all-male priesthood---confusing coincidence w/ cause much?---aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Misogyny can go back to the Hell it came from!]

JC Fisher