Hermeneutics and Ecclesiology: A Question for Fr. Kennedy

By Fr. Jeffrey Steel I have a tendency to agree with the questions that Fr. Matt Kennedy raises in his recent post over at StandFirm. What I do not understand is why he does not see the correlation between the hermeneutics applied in SS unions to those applied in allowing for women's ordination. Must the Church revisit Nicaea every time some modern group goes around using a C19 bankrupt hermeneutic to justify women's ordination? Must we blatantly deny the teaching of Holy Scripture and Tradition on this issue every time we want to push the egalitarian argument for the novelty of this practice? These questions are not to be rude to Fr. Matt and I ask them here so that I do not get banned for bringing it up there on StandFirm as an issue off topic. But, that is the question, isn't it? Isn't the question of hermeneutics the same in both instances? If not, can we be shown the hermeneutics for the one issue of SSU and that of Women's Ordination and how they differ? Fr. Matt writes, Must the Church "reconsider" Nicea every time a false teacher with a following arises advocating a new form of Arianism or Docetism? Must the Church "reconsider" the Resurrection, the Virgin birth, and the Ascension simply because some modern day gnostics employing bankrupt 19th century hermeneutics suggest that these events did not occur? Of course not. So why must we be open to the reconsideration of a teaching just as firmly articulated in scripture and affirmed in Tradition as those named above? In any case, the question that I have been meaning to ask--the one I mentioned above--arises because it seems that one necessary if implicit assertion of the position articulated above is this: The Canterbury centered Anglican Communion has the authority to revisit and overturn the established apostolic doctrine of the Church universal. OK! Fair questions! Why is this not also a fair question to ask those who support women's ordination? Are not these "discrepancies" between the two issues a result of the nominalistic affects of the sacramental theology and ecclesial ordinances of Anglicanism which are shaped within a cultured ambiguity? What does priesthood mean to Fr. Kennedy? Is it anything more than a descriptive term? Is there any insistence upon any theological content? These are serious questions posed here and not ones simply to stir Fr. Kennedy. I ask them in sincerity. More imortantly I ask this question to Fr. Matt and those who share his view of WO? Is the Anglican Communion THE Church so that it can go ahead with issues like this on its own? Would these conservatives accept this ruling against WO, coming unanimously from the Church Catholic, as definitive and seek to conform themselves to it or would they continue to resist Catholic teaching believing it to be in error?