Lay Celebration of the Eucharist

[higgs2]

Would this be a threat to ecumenical talks with RC's, EO's etc.?

 

[TomUK]

Undoubtedly yes, but i think it would be far more damaging than simply threatening relations.

 

[JasonV]

Is this another Apostolic Succession thread?

 

[higgs2]

No, I don't think so Jason. I'm just curious, as the Sydney Anglicans have been promoting lay presidency, and are aligned with the high church forward in faith crowd through Gafcon. Maybe they will have lay people celebrate the mass in latin and call it good?

Somehow I doubt it though.

 

[Colabomb]

No more than women's ordination or laxer views (even amongst conservatives) on homosexuality.

 

[Secundulus]

Would this be a threat to ecumenical talks with RC's, EO's etc.?

What is Lay Celebration of the Eucharist? I have never heard of that.

Is it a complete Eucharist without any priest?

If so, from a RC and EO point of view, I don't think they would consider it a Eucharist at all. I think they would view it the same as they view other Protestant communion services.

As far as ecumenical talks go, if Anglicans begin to promote a Lay Eucharist, wouldn't this mean they have developed a view of the priesthood contrary to the historic Anglican and catholic view? I imagine that this new view on the authority and function of the priesthood is what would be damaging to ecumenical talks.

 

[JasonV]

What is Lay Celebration of the Eucharist? I have never heard of that.

Me neither.

...wouldn't this mean they have developed a view of the priesthood contrary to the historic Anglican and catholic view?

Our friend Albion has claimed that this view is incorrect. I'm still waiting for his data though.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I have never heard of Lay Celebration happening here in the CofE, though I suppose it may have been attempted. It just seems to be a non-issue here in the UK.

 

[ebia]

I have never heard of Lay Celebration happening here in the CofE, though I suppose it may have been attempted. It just seems to be a non-issue here in the UK.

It seems to be a non-issue just about everywhere except the Archdiocese of Sydney (and perhaps N.W. Australia and/or Armadale). On the other hand if those go ahead and authorise it it does become an issue for everyone else.

 

[norbie]

It seems to be a non-issue just about everywhere except the Archdiocese of Sydney (and perhaps N.W. Australia and/or Armadale). On the other hand if those go ahead and authorise it it does become an issue for everyone else.

Exactly right, Sydney, together with a handful at the most in Australia, are the only issue. Well we all know that Sydney doesn't represent Australia, it would be very, very sad for our Anglican Community here in Australia. Sydney got plenty of money because mostly of tradishional church goers, like ex-Priminister Howard who goes Sunday to church and kills thousends of innocent people in Iraq in the other six days. Also Sydney will not accept our two woman Anglican Bishops - were the rest of Australia are proud of them!
But back to our topic, there is Lay Celebration in our Diocese, mainly because of not enough clergy. What happened there is that the clergy on Sunday service consecreted the Holy Elements and with the special permit from the Bishop Chalic Assistants can serve the Holy Elements in secondary servises like healing service, old age hostels and so on.
Lay Celebration will be a future of the Anglican church if we will survive, there are not enough clergy, most of them old and won't let go. So it is also very hard to become a Missionary Church, were lay people go out in the world - because of to much controll from old thinking clergy.
Yes, Lay people have and should come in, have some training and bring our Gospel out in the market place.

 

[JasonV]

norbie,

Should'nt the Bishop be ordaining Deacons for the reserved Sacrament? In my Episcopal Parish, neither of the two Priests (or our Deacon) ever went to Seminary. They were chosen by the congregation and after a 5 year "training" period, they were ordained. No formal Seminary, no leaving town or their families, they were called and chosen.

I would think that would be preferred, and less controversial, over simply having lay-people administer the reserved sacrament (Although I'm sure there is a canon somewhere granting economy to do this.).

 

[ebia]

norbie,

Should'nt the Bishop be ordaining Deacons for the reserved Sacrament? In my Episcopal Parish, neither of the two Priests (or our Deacon) ever went to Seminary. They were chosen by the congregation and after a 5 year "training" period, they were ordained. No formal Seminary, no leaving town or their families, they were called and chosen.

I would think that would be preferred, and less controversial, over simply having lay-people administer the reserved sacrament (Although I'm sure there is a canon somewhere granting economy to do this.).

In my experience in the CofE and Australia the reserved sacrament is widely distributed by lay people, as is leading "communion by extension" in the UK. There is little or no tendancy to ordain deacons for this role.

 

[JasonV]

In my experience in the CofE and Australia the reserved sacrament is widely distributed by lay people, as is leading "communion by extension" in the UK. There is little or no tendancy to ordain deacons for this role.

I'm not very familiar with that practice, but again, economy and the canons likely permit it. Just offering a potential alternative that would not cause as much controversy.

 

[ebia]

I'm not very familiar with that practice, but again, economy and the canons likely permit it. Just offering a potential alternative that would not cause as much controversy.

There doesn't seem to be any controversy to speak of about who distributes from the reserved sacrament here or in the UK. Communion-by-extension (the UK practice where by communion is fully celebrated in one centre in a multi-centre benifice, and then that taken to services in the other centres where it is distributed as part of a lay-led service) is a bit contraversial in principle, but that controversy centres around whether it's a satisfactory idea at all, not around who leads the service. So I don't see how ordaining deacons to the task would help.

What Sydney wants to do is to have lay people actually preside at full eucharistic services - again, ordaining deacons doesn't really help.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

In my experience in the CofE and Australia the reserved sacrament is widely distributed by lay people, as is leading "communion by extension" in the UK.

Yes, and this poses no problem.

What Sydney wants to do is to have lay people actually preside at full eucharistic services - again, ordaining deacons doesn't really help.

This is the problem.

 

[Colabomb]

I lean toward the belief that the Sacrament is communal and may be properly administered without the authority of a bishop. However, I will say that causing disruption to put your will over others, can be sinful in itself.

I believe that while we may properly administer the sacrament without the Ordination process, that it is often unwise to do so, and for the sake of the community we should do what the Church has always done in order to avoid unnecessary schism.

 

[Secundulus]

I lean toward the belief that the Sacrament is communal and may be properly administered without the authority of a bishop. However, I will say that causing disruption to put your will over others, can be sinful in itself.

I believe that while we may properly administer the sacrament without the Ordination process, that it is often unwise to do so, and for the sake of the community we should do what the Church has always done in order to avoid unnecessary schism.

It has to do with the Anglican Church's claim to be Catholic. This claim begins to wear thin as more and more ancient Catholic beliefs are abandoned.

 

[Colabomb]

To me it is an issue of unity. There is no need for lay presidency as we have more than enough bishops to go around (some would argue too many), so lay presidency seems to me at this point to be a political move.

Even if their theology is sound, it is unwise to make changes like this for the sake of change itself.

 

[JasonV]

It has to do with the Anglican Church's claim to be Catholic. This claim begins to wear thin as more and more ancient Catholic beliefs are abandoned.

Well technically the early church operated on a method very similar to this Lay Presidency deal. So the Anglican Church's claim to be Catholic is not in danger here.

If you haven't, pick up some of Bradshaw's texts on early Christianity. He is the leading scholar in what was and was not done in the early Church, and has taken up Dix's text and moved it forward.

 

[ebia]

To me it is an issue of unity. There is no need for lay presidency as we have more than enough bishops to go around (some would argue too many), so lay presidency seems to me at this point to be a political move.

Sorry - I don't quite follow how the number of bishops available affects the answer.