Before anyone tells me, I'm fully aware that I am interpreting his statement (in connection with non-episcopally conferred orders - the parallel itself is instructive) in a somewhat different way than he may have intended, but it did give some small degree of momentary comfort as things Anglo-Catholic come to their denouement - depending on your point of view, ruin or fulfilment:
" ......In other words, though real ministries within the universal Church, they may still not be ministries of the universal Church with a commission from the whole fellowship to all its members."That's a fair summary of our own perception of precisely where we are now, hence the total willingness of clergy going to the Ordinariate to accept ordination in order to minister in another, and wider, context - that of the universal Church.
Of course, Temple goes on to say this:
"Our claim [as Anglicans] is that where a living Church acts through duly consecrated Bishops we have assurance that there Christ bestows His commission to act on behalf of the universal Church. If some part of the Church refuses to recognise it, that will constitute a defect in the effectiveness of the commission, but it will not destroy it as a commission of the universal Church......"But in the contemporary situation, in the light of Anglican decisions since 1991 (in the U.S.A. really, 1974 - 76, and certainly since 1989), that begs quite a few questions, I think, for those of us who do not accept that the ordination of women is, in fact, in that highly questionable, if not actually mendacious phrase, now the basis of the new orthodoxy in many Anglican provinces, "consonant with scripture and required by tradition" . For many of us, it's more difficult now, to say the least, to maintain that Anglican episcopal or priestly orders (a source of division even within the Anglican Communion) are either "duly conferred" or a continuation of the 'historic' ('apostolic') ministry of the universal Church.
Of course, and it's necessary to repeat this ad nauseam, the ordination of women is the presenting symptom rather the disease itself. It remains a visible reminder both of the need for a true locus of authority not subject to constant synodical revisionism, and also the end of the possibility of Anglicanism as a whole pursuing a "catholic" ecumenical vocation. Some might say, whatever they may have previously believed, that it does indeed destroy even the possibility of Anglican orders being regarded as acting "as a commission of the universal Church......" Where it does leave them it's not so easy to say.... Perhaps it's not necessary to say anything.