From a (Roman) Catholic point of view, what particularly interests me is the fact that the whole debate highlights just how different Anglican ecclesiology and sacramentology (for want of a better word) is. There doesn't seem to be a coherent or common understanding of what a Bishop is or from where he derives his power. (This, of course is nothing new - I've commented previously on the Jerusalem Bishopric controversy.)
In this post we are linked to this article from yesterday's Times of London. What surprised me most about the article, however, is the following quote:
The Diocese of Sydney is expected shortly to vote through “lay celebration”, permitting the celebration of Holy Communion by non-ordained lay people. Although apparently not as sensational as the ordination of practising homosexuals, lay celebration is in “ecclesiological” terms an even more radical development.Now, I can understand why the evangelicals mightn't get particularly worked up by that proposal, but I'm surprised that the High Anglicans aren't making more of a fuss.