[Huber]

How can those Seceders of 77 (love that phrase) so attached to historic catholic order be in any kind of communion with those who ordain women?

That is the crux of the matter, isn't it. They can't unless they come out and say that thew were just kidding in 77.

[PAR35]

The continuing folks were probably not invited because the participants knew that they would be an impediment, not an asset at this stage. There are those who oppose ordination of women present, but they have shown that they can work in a system that will accommodate their beliefs. At this point, a strong united front is needed - not endless debate over a problem that can’t be solved at this point. That’s why I still think the real sticking point is the interchangeability of clergy.

[AnalogReigns]

I believe that on ordination of women, the classic theological distinction between error and heresy must be made.

Although some of the biblical hermeneutic (or lack thereof...) used to get there is the same, there is a categorical difference between the error of womens’ ordination—as serious as that error is, especially in ultimate future implications, and the rank heresy of denying the standards of sexual behavior in the bible.

Sexual sin is mentioned in the 10 Commandments, correct roles of leadership amidst God’s people are not. An unrepentent homosexual in leadership is denying the gospel of Jesus Christ—and His good news to change people, a woman mistakingly taking on leadership—while disordered, and unbiblical, and untraditional—is not per se, in rebellion of morality—except in polity—hence she does not by necessity destroy the gospel.

This is a long way of saying that since the wrong of womens’ ordination doesn’t fall to the depths of rank heresy, whereas promoting sodomy as a new work of the Holy Spirit does.... Many conservatives on women’s ordination can work with those not yet convinced, whereas working with the promoters of perversion is out of the question.