I am always a bit anxious about describing Anglkcan clergy as "priests", it is not just Apostolicae Curiae saying their orders as being "absolutely null and void" because in the late 1920s many Anglican bishops introduced "the dutch touch", Old Catholic bishops laying on hands, to confuse matters, so now Apostolicae Curiae is perhaps less secure than it was when it promulgated in the nineteenth century.
The problem is more the intention with which orders are giving and received in the CofE. Most Anglican bishops would say they intend to create "Catholic Priests" when they ordain but the problem, as we have seen over the last few days, is what Anglicans mean by both "Catholic" and "Priests".
We Catholics understand "Catholic" to mean those in communion with, and recognised as being so by the Bishop of Rome, the geographical adjective such as Roman, Greek or Ukrainian designating which Rite these particular Catholics use. Personally, I prefer (Latin or) Roman Rite Catholic, to Roman Catholic. Anglican seem to use "Catholic" in the sense of "universal". The ordination of female presbyters made it difficult for them to use the term to mean what Anglo-Catholics had understood by it: an Anglican who in some sense is faithful to "Catholic" tradition, in the same sense that we might understand the Orthodox or other ancient Churches to be "Catholic". The ordination of women, in fact did so much to damage to the notion that Anglicanism has anything in common with the ancient Churches that although Anglicans might use "catholic" in the Creed it as void of meaning as it is in the mouth of any other member of a Protestant sect. The presence of female "priests" rather undermines the argument the CofE is "both Catholic and Reformed".
The word "Priest" too is so vague, there has been no mention of Bishops as being "High Priests" in any of the discussions before or after the Synod debate. Administrators, senior management, chief executives, pastoral workers, carers have all figured but nothing that is specifically "priestly". Being a priest is even necessarily about "presiding" over the liturgy both deacons and lay women can do that. Priesthood is about offering sacrifice, a propitiatory sacrifice. Despite the Oxford Movement's attempt to reconcile the 39 Articles with Catholic doctrine Article 31 in its plain meaning will always present difficulties for Anglicanism.
Article xxxi.—"The sacrifices (sacrificia) of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did offer CHRIST for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits (perniciosae imposturae)."Anglicanism is built on the repudiation of priesthood and sacrifice. With the severe weakening of the Anglo-Catholic faction in Anglicanism, few in today's CofE will speak of "priests", male or female, in terms of offering Christ for the "quick and dead". The most sacral argument might suggest that a CofE "priest" is a preacher, or teacher, a pastoral worker or even a head of a local Church. Catholics will have no real problem with these functions. Women have done these things in the Church down the ages, just think of medieval abbesses.
The majority of Anglican's might not actually share this Anglican clergyman's disbelief which appears on James Preece's blog, but it seems to be growing part of Anglicanism. Don Cuppitt's "Sea of Faith" movement and similar groups are able grow unhindered. There was a rather staggering survey of Anglican clergy, such a large proportion denied the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ, the veracity of scripture, the Resurrection of Christ and of the dead that one really is forced ask quite what being a Christian means in today's CofE, the survey showed women clergy are weaker in their belief than their male counterparts. One is almost forced to say there are deeply committed Christians within Anglicanism but left wondering about whether Anglicanism is actually Christian or merely springs from a once "Christian ethos".