bb
Reader - a CofE ministry allowing a person to participate in services (parts of the Eucharist liturgy, morning and evening prayer, family services), preach, and occasionally bury people - presumably ones who are dead. Also a bit of pastoral stuff too.
Parish Evangelists - er, evangelists who work in the, er, er,....parish. They often do work with baptismal preparation.
Pastoral Assistants - look, I'm not your mother. Work this one out for yourself.
Perhaps this should be opened up a bit - how do people find the relationship between orders (ministers, priests/deacons) and lay workers (in whatever context)?
After my dad died, my mom decided to do something about this since she knew there were other people in the parish in the same position that she and dad had been in. She became a licensed lay Eucharistic minister, and she now takes communion to the sick and shut-in every Sunday. Two other members of the parish, who hadn't even realized that lay people could do this, also became licensed lay Eucharistic ministers. This is a wonderful example of lay ministry at its best.
Chris
bb
J. H. N.
quote:
In the PCW lay workers of all descriptions are welcomed with open arms. There is a shortage of ministers, and without the lay preachers etc many services would just not take place.
There is a shortage of anyone in the PCW. Even when there is a lay preacher, there may not necessarily be anything in the pews to preach to.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan Henrietta Newperson:
The lay readers sit with the priests during the service but have no real role. Occasionally one will read the gospel but preaching or leading a service in the main church building are virtually unheard of. The readers lead a lot of services outside of the church but I think it is a shame they have such a low profile within it. Many people simply wonder why they are dressed up and are sitting at the front.J. H. N.
That's outrageous! The primary purpose of a Reader is for preaching. As a Reader, I preach about every 5 weeks, lead Evenson at least once a month and often fulfil the role of Deacon during the Mass
There's much more fun to be had in the CinW, babybear. Come home!
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
A Lay Reader should never read the Gospel at masss as this task is reserved for those in at least deacon's orders.
Really? I read the Gospel most weeks and the roof hasn't fallen in yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
There is a shortage of anyone in the PCW. Even when there is a lay preacher, there may not necessarily be anything in the pews to preach to.
It tends to be that the Welsh-language churches in the middle of no-where have rather low attendance rates, but in towns it is a lot better. My church is part of a joint pastorate (2 churches). My church has ~120 adults, and 30-50 children. The other church is a bit smaller, and normally has congregations of 100.
quote:
There's much more fun to be had in the CinW, babybear. Come home!
Oooh, soo tempting, but "coming home" would mean Church of Scotland, which is another Presby Church.
I was at an Anglican communion at the weekend, and quite frankly, (and with no disrespect to other peoples chosen style of worship) I couldn't not be faffed with all the upping and downing. My knees were screaming at me after I struggled up from the altar rail thingy.
bb
Confused person from low church tradition asks what is 'the role of deacon' that you fulfil as a Lay Reader, Spike?
Our Lay Readers (three of them) seem to do pretty much everything but consecration.
Moreover, I regard the increasing tendency in the Roman and Anglican Churches to use readers - be they called layreaders or parish assistants or worship leaders or whatever... - as a thing to be deprecated.
Possible exceptions: a)a server reading the daily office on weekdays while the priest is vesting for Mass and b) for a handful of long-serving male servers to act as subdeacons when a third priest is unavailable.
The reason for my worry ? The more laypeople are given sacerdotal roles, the less incentive there is for them - or anyone observing them from the pews - to consider Holy Orders as a vocation. The blurring of the lines between things sacred and secular is a root reason for much of the disorder and schism and scandal in our Church today.
By all means encourage young men to act as acolytes, servers, crucifers, thurifers, boat boys, banner-bearers and masters of ceremony. And young women to act as beautifiers, designers, conservers and cleaners of the Sacred vessels, altar cloths and similar adornments and vestments. May both become involved on vestry, in fund-raising, in prayer and in all aspects of parish life and community service.
And let young men be encouraged to discern a possible vocation as priest, or an alternative vocation as permanent Deacon, or an even more unworldly calling as monk. Let young women be encouraged to consider taking the veil, or taking up the ancient and honourable work of a deaconess.
But let the priest preside and rule his household, the Parish Church, using his thorough grounding to be the authority whose evident love for his people, devotion to prayer and sacrament and model life make his rule the velvet glove not the iron fist. And let his parishioners support him and cherish him - and obey him.
As a reader, I do everything except consecration. I actually took a communion service ( with pre-consecrated elements ) just before the summer.
It doesn't stop members of the congregation from seeking ordination or readership. I am one of 2 new readers, and one member has just started her curacy ( yes her ).
We have no intention, oldlccboy, of turning the clock back in our parish by 30 years, as you seem to suggest we should do. We cannot afford to, either financially or in terms of responsibility to the members of the congregation.
Not so in urban South Wales where most presbyterian chapels are derelict, the few remaining old ladies having removed to the Scout hut next door.
quote:
Originally posted by oldlccboy:
I agree with Fiddleback re a layman reading the Gospel. It cannot be.
Why ever not? Where has this idea come from? Is it CofE tradition, or is there some passage in the Bible that deals with it?
bb
I agree with Fiddleback. Lay readers have no business reading the Gospel.
And as for preaching -- I like a good sermon. And I don't think that one need be in orders to transform oneself into an accomplished homileticist (one need only look at the number of people in orders whose sermons are dreadful to see my point). However, unleashing enthusiastic amateurs into the pulpit vaguely disconcerts me.
With all due respect to the accomplished lay readers who participate here,
HT
God provokes people to ministries of the word who having tested their heart do not feel called to the role of priest, or minister of word and sacrament, or whatever we call it. The church recognises this and creates ways of training people and supporting them in such ministries. God does not call priests/ MW-Ses to be all round fab beings whose presence holds up the church in every way. Some priests read the Bible (yes, even the Gospel) out loud badly, some are fantastic at sermons but hopeless at pastoral care, the inverse is often found too. Now, the fact that God doesn't equip priests to act as the whole body, but as an elbow, or a toenail or perhaps a lung, and does give people gifts to act as complimentary parts of the body without a calling to the ministry of the priesthood might suggest that God doesn't hold with a priest-only model.
quote:
The more laypeople are given sacerdotal roles, the less incentive there is for them - or anyone observing them from the pews - to consider Holy Orders as a vocation.
'frin
HT
quote:
However, unleashing enthusiastic amateurs into the pulpit vaguely disconcerts me.
By "amateur" do you mean people who are part time and unpaid who spent three years part time studying Theology, Doctrine, Preaching,Church History and Liturgy? Does this also apply to Non Stipendiary Priests who undergo similar training?
[tidied ubb]
[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
And as for preaching -- I like a good sermon. And I don't think that one need be in orders to transform oneself into an accomplished homileticist (one need only look at the number of people in orders whose sermons are dreadful to see my point). However, unleashing enthusiastic amateurs into the pulpit vaguely disconcerts me.HT
HT, given that you a) don't think one
has to be a priest to give a cracking sermon and b) don't agree with amateurs doing it (however enthusiastic) then one would assume you would require some sort of training and apprenticeship without the need for ordination - rather like that which lay readers undertake?
I'm not sure I understand the use of your word 'amateur' in this situation.
clare
PS. Am I allowed to read the gospel to myself at home? In a bible study group? I'm with babybear on being completely confused by this prohibition.
Bene
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
However, unleashing enthusiastic amateurs into the pulpit vaguely disconcerts me.
HT
I agree. Let's keep these clergy out of the pulpit. Leave it to those with at least degrees in theology, and preferably PhDs.
BB - this is sort of CofE tradition. It has no biblical precedent. Fortunately not in any CofE church I have stepped into.
It is also termed Arrogance, and gets me SO mad.
Sometimes this comes down to preference. I am a cathedral worshipper by preference. Otherwise I seek out large urban parishes. I am not used to the active ministry of lay people in Eucharistic services.
I am quite certain that in some places the ministry of lay readers, pastoral assistants or lay leaders is not only beneficial but in fact necessary.
However, I am quite certain that the kind and understanding Christians posting here wouldn't want to impose upon me practices in worship that make me uncomfortable.
HT
Yes, clare, of course you can read the Gospel at home. You can also read it during Mattins or Evening prayer in my church.
When does an enthusiastic amature become a professional lay-person?
bb
1. I've never understood why a Reader (or a priest come to that) who has no role in the liturgy should choose to robe and sit in the chancel. He or she should be in the congregation playing a full part there and not proclaiming his or her status. And a Reader who appears sometimes active in the congregation and sometimes robed and active in the chancel symbolises well his or her calling to an accredited lay ministry which by definition has a foot both sides of the chancel step.
2. The general Notes at the beginning of Common Worship Holy Communion sets out what a ministry of a deacon might include at such a service (including reading the Gospel) and then adds 'The deacon's liturgical ministry provides an appropriate model for the ministry of an assistant priest, a Reader, or another episcopally authorized minister in a leadership ministry that complements that of the president.'.
3. In the Anglican diocese of Lincoln we have authorised Lay Ministers (trained over three years in teams from parishes) a few of whom have been ordained as Ordained Local Ministers, as well as Readers, and ordained Non-Stipendiary Ministers. We've got over 800 trained and authorised ministers of which the paid Vicars and Rectors make up only just over a quarter. Two thirds of our paid Vicars and Rectors are now working alongside at least one person in one of these forms of trained authorised ministry, so the single handed parish priests ploughing solo furrows are now the unusual ones. (To answer the question which began this thread: sometimes a collaborative team like this works well and sometimes there are just the sorts of problems your original post suspected; the most difficult time is often when a new Vicar or Rector is appointed and hasn't been used to working alongside others in the same way.)
4. Contrary to what one earlier post suggested, a significant proportion of our vocations to full-time ordained ministry come from among those who have been engaged in trained and authorised lay ministries, and a number of transfers have happened from Ordained Local Ministry and ordained Non-Stipendiary Ministry to full-time ordained ministry.
As I understand it, the reason deacons read the gospel at the Eucharist is because that act in symbolic of the deacon's role as a mediator between the church and the world. Deacons are called to bring the church to the world and the world to the church -- to be bridgebuilders of a sort. Proclaiming the gospel and leading the intercessions, and well as doing the biddings, etc., are liturgical signs of this diaconal role. Of course all Christians are called to do this, but it is the particular vocation of the deacon to model this, lead it. In most parishes in the US, deacons are in charge of outreach programs, soup kitchens, drug counseling and referral programs, and activities of this sort.
BTW. Has the diaconate been revived in the C of E as a distinct order, or is it still just a stepping stone to priesthood?
Lay people can preach in this diocese, but they must be trained and licensed, and the testing is rather rigorous before one can be licensed. One test is to preach a prepared sermon in front of the class on the proper for a given day, which is standard enough. Another test is to preach a sermon without notes on 5 minutes notice. That's scary! Along with this are the traditional courses in scriptural exegesis, etc. Most licensed lay preachers I know are better preachers that most priests and deacons.
Chris
quote:
Originally posted by Br. Christopher Stephen Jenks, BSG:
As I understand it, the reason deacons read the gospel at the Eucharist is because that act in symbolic of the deacon's role as a mediator between the church and the world. Deacons are called to bring the church to the world and the world to the church -- to be bridgebuilders of a sort.
Chris
As indeed are authorised lay ministers. I've got a certificate and licence From the Bishop to prove it 
In fact, I see the role of Readers being an even more prominent go-between than Deacons because to many people anybody with a dog collar is a "Vicar".
quote:
BTW. Has the diaconate been revived in the C of E as a distinct order, or is it still just a stepping stone to priesthood?
Still a priests L plate - it was looked upon as a permanent ministry for a while when women could be ordained as Deacons but not Priests and there was discussion at the time among some people about reviving a perpetual diaconate, but now it has gone back to the one year as deacon before priesting.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by oldlccboy:
Moreover, I regard the increasing tendency in the Roman and Anglican Churches to use readers - be they called layreaders or parish assistants or worship leaders or whatever... - as a thing to be deprecated.
Well, that's one way to kill a church in one easy step...
I am not ordained or a reader. I have regularly preached, led services, you name it in my (large urban C of E parish) church over the last few years.
And before you all get too mad at me there's nothing particularly 'illegal' about this, nothing going on that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself didn't encourage in the 1996 report 'Youth Apart'.
The fact is we need to be a lot more flexible over these things or its the end of the line for most of our churches. We're already in decline, if we don't start using the gifts of all the people in our churches in worship then there's probably not much of a future.
dave
Apparently in Bristol readers are not allowed to do funerals but in other places it is the norm.
Personally I see no problem with unlicensed people preaching reading the Gospel praying reading the Epistle since I have not been struck down it must be all right. Why should a former Baptist minister in an Anglican church spend three years in training to preach?
We in the Anglican church are so wound up over authorisation training to the extent that it prevents the Gospel being spread.
Anyone can visit some one with a tract and talk about Jesus on the door step but to give out communion you need permission from the Bishop.
quote:I smiled wryly when I read this, as Orthodox baptism came to mind. The baby boy is taken in and shown around the sanctuary to say, 'This is where some day you might be a priest', but the baby girl is left on the step. I'm not sure what the message is for her, possibly, 'This is where you will clean'.
oldlccboy:
By all means encourage young men to act as acolytes, servers, crucifers, thurifers, boat boys, banner-bearers and masters of ceremony. And young women to act as beautifiers, designers, conservers and cleaners of the Sacred vessels, altar cloths and similar adornments and vestments. May both become involved on vestry, in fund-raising, in prayer and in all aspects of parish life and community service.
Btw, Perth diocese has a permanent non-stipendiary diaconate.
First, of course there may be unusual situations in isolated communities or due to a temporary illness a layperson might of necessity perform an act normally reserved for those in Orders. But this should not go so far as to perform every element of the Mass except the Prayer of Consecration - not when Matins, the Litany and Ante-Communion are all available.
Frin, I tried to give many examples of how laymen and women are called to non-sacramental ministries - both those which adorn worship and those which are essential such as visiting the sick and ministering to the poor. But to arrogate to oneself some right to do more than that - when one isn't ordained - is not only wrong, it is misleading: it blurs the lines between the Ministry of the People and of the Priest, which are distinct, just as in a biological sense are the roles of father and mother. Neither is superior; each is different. How Frin suggests that laypeople doing what laypeople should leave someone who has rejected ordained ministry feeling he has "nothing to do" is beyond me !
The purpose of ordination is, IMHO, two fold: the Church ensures that the person being ordained has been equipped for ministry with the best possible training. (Of course this does not guarantee his possessing a meliflous reading voice, an uplifting sermonic ability, a honed sense of beautiful liturgy or indeed even personal gifts in dealing with the faithful.)
Second, in Ordination the power of the Holy Spirit commissions and hallows this mortal to overcome the defects above-enumerated, to which all humanity is inherenly subject, allowing grace to be "stirred up" in him and human faults to be overcome by Ghostly Strength, one of the gifts of that Spirit.
The example given by PMM in the Diocese of Lincoln resonates with me to the extent that individuals, properly trained, are then ordained vocational deacons or non-stipendiary priests. Those positions - which differ in function but not in substance from the transitional deaconhood or "full-time" ministry of a priest - are greatly to be preferred to allowing readers to function in sacredotal roles. Nor should "convenience" be the issue.
And forgive me, Spike, but the ignorance of individuals who assume anyone in a collar is "Vicar" is not a cogent argument for preferring the Ministry of Reader to that of Permanent Deacon.
Wibblethorpe uses practical arguments: if we don't accept such lay ministries we are dead. That is neither accurate nor is it couched in theological terms. To make just one argument, the Church's witness does not depend on popularity. If the trend of the Church to conform to the world were a guarantee of approval, then attendance and membership in ecclesia anglicana (N America and England) would not have slumped so dramatically.
Nor is Amos convincing with his genuine testimony of the helpfulness of his Parish's Reader to his formation. No one is decrying the sincerity or goodness of the individuals, any more than I doubt the same qualities in female ministers. But personal worthiness (or unworthiness) has nothing whatever to do with how the Church understands the Sacrament of Orders.
Isn't it interesting how many of us have entirely different perceptions of the Church ?
Steve rebukes me by saying that ministry "at the front" "empowers" the ordinary people." But the point of Orders, and indeed of any role in the Church, is not "empowerment." That is the world's language, Steve, the aggressive clamour of civil rights and feminism and right to life and....(am not judging the causes, merely commenting on their diction which of course underlies their political tactics.")
Surely the way a Christian is "empowered" is through the Sacraments, of which Orders is one. Also through prayer, penance and humility. Also through accepting the mind of the Church interpreted by the Scriptures, reason and tradition. It is not "empowering" to dress up in vestments and act as though one were ordained. (It may, to use the world's language, be gratifying to the ego, the senses, the ambition and all sorts of other elements in human nature. Which is the problem !)
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I was trying to reply to many previous posters.
I am also baffled as to why people sit in the sanctuary who are not taking part in leading that particular service. Even if they do so sincerely, the symbolism of so doing suggests "I am important. Look, I'm up here". WE should avoid suggesting that in our worshipping.
The congregations who take their gospel less seriously when the priest isn't the reader are totally off on the wrong track, IMO. The symbolism of the Gospel procession is, I assume, something about proclaiming the gospel to the world - hence facing the big doors. This is something we are all called to do. We don't get to overlook it if there isn't a priest threatening to throw his hat at us (or somesuch).
'frin
quote:
Originally posted by oldlccboy:
Nor is Amos convincing with his genuine testimony of the helpfulness of his Parish's Reader to his formation.
His formation? Is there something you've not been telling us Amos?
quote:
Originally posted by oldlccboy:
Nor is Amos convincing with his genuine testimony of the helpfulness of his Parish's Reader to his formation. No one is decrying the sincerity or goodness of the individuals, any more than I doubt the same qualities in female ministers.
Spike beat me to it, but I had to laugh over this.
Since Amos is a lady vicar, oldlccboy presumably applauds her sincerity and goodness but doesn't find her any more efficacious than he does Lay Readers!
HT
This church of yours, if you're claiming it is the historic church tracable to the NT, took on worldly structures - episcopos (over-seer), diakon (servant) - used imperial clothing to clothe its ministers, formulated its services to look like the rituals of court and magistracy and enjoyed all the benefits of mediaeval worldliness. For one ecclesiology to accuse another of being "worldly" smacks of hypocrisy - words such "pot", "calling", "kettle" and "black" spring to mind. I do hope you are not a hypocrite, old'boy - I would be grateful if you could convince me otherwise.
You did indeed list things that the laity could do - the men can do the visible acts while the priests do all the talking, and clearly the women would have to do all their activities outside the church service, because clearly it would be rude to do those things during it. And of course you fail to give any justification for your division of labour. Where do you get this from?
From what you have written (here and elsewhere) it seems you have no respect for the experience of anyone other than those who fit into your little theological framework. You are not God, old'boy, you are not our spiritual guardian. We are not here simply to make up the numbers when your blessed priests are off sick. You may wish to pursuade me otherwise, but at present all I can conclude is that you have contempt for women and the laity. I have been reading through Luke and Acts this week - I do not recognise your vision of Christ's ekklesia, I'm afraid.
You seem to have a strange idea of the qualities of a priest - you seem to think it doesn't matter that s/he has no people skills, cannot conduct decent services and is rubbish at teaching. Given that these appear to be the main public functions of a priest, I'd say that people who aren't very good at this sort of thing are precisely the sort of people you shouldn't be having as priests.
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
and clearly the women would have to do all their activities outside the church service, because clearly it would be rude to do those things during it.
I believe that sorts of things that oldlccboy has in mind are arranging flowers, polishing plate and needlepointing cushions -- all those nice domestic things for use during a service. So in that sense, I suppose, you could say the fruits of this feminine labour are at work in the service.
Now. I find it very odd to be on the same side of a debate with oldlccboy, as in most areas I find his views to be (to put it mildly) reactionary.
But I have a genuine question. If lay people can read the Gospel, read the words of the absolution (presumably swapping "us" your "you"), preside at a Eucharist of the pre-sanctified, stand in the pulpit, provide care and outreach, visit the sick and bury the dead, what does one need a priest for at all?
That sounds flippant but I am serious. Wouldn't it be more economical to just have the bishop sanctify a pile of Host every Saturday, and then the lay readers could collect it that evening and serve it up on Sunday during so many masses of the presanctifieds?
What's the point of having vicars at all?
HT
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
But I have a genuine question. If lay people can read the Gospel, read the words of the absolution (presumably swapping "us" your "you"), preside at a Eucharist of the pre-sanctified, stand in the pulpit, provide care and outreach, visit the sick and bury the dead, what does one need a priest for at all?
Maybe you don't. Now there's a shocking thought.
First, I am not your or anyone else's "spiritual guardian." That role is for the Holy Guardian Angels and perhaps a Spiritual Director, in addition to one's conscience. I merely express where my reason and experience have led me, just as you do. But I don't accuse you of attempting to be my spiritual guardian ! Seems a bit of a double standard here.
Second, I am well aware that the early Church took some of its trappings from the culture of the age in which it was born. But it took its faith from Christ, as further revealed and explained and amplified by tradition, reason and experience. That these differing discernments have led you and I to differ in some particulars of the way we see the Ministry is not a sign of weakness or hypocrisy (again, you use frightfully pejorative words) but of the differing perceptions that humans, given the gift of free will, enjoy. That God will in the end judge the right from the wrong, the trivial from the substantial - in our conversation reassures us, and gives us the freedom to continue them, in charity, one would hope, as each of us strives towards Heaven.
How could I have contempt for laity when I am one of them ? I think I have a healthy regard for my own limitations. Perhaps I unfairly impute them to others.
Of course I would wish for the priest to have the skills you mention. But God works through the priest's imperfections, too. And I was merely trying to refer to the Article of Religion which makes the point about the unworthiness of the Minister (surely all of us) not affecting the efficacy of the Minister.
In charity and respect for our separate sincere points of view - LCCOB
The church has developed a faulty theology of the sacred and the secular in church everyone has there proper place moving in the right place bowing in the right place in church. It can only be built on a theology of maintenance keeping things in there right place as it always has been done. I suppose we have to thank Cyprian for this or not as the case may be.
Outside where the Gospel is spread anyone can do anything. Some one does not need bishops permission to tell some one about Jesus but would do so to to give them communion. To lead a bible study no permission to do so to read the bible in church they would.
I found myself in hospital the other week chatting to one of the chaplain's and I almost signed up to become a hospital visitor no need for Bishops permission or anything the chaplain though I was a good egg all I needed was approval from the Hospital.
HT why does the Bishop have to bless the bread and wine? surely it should be the leader of the local church community what ever title they happen to have
Oldcc: one problem I think Dyfrig may have been alluding to is that you do not seem interested in discussion. A lot of the posts I have seen have been along the lines of "this and this should be so" with no argument. So you think as female I should stick to flower arranging rather than thurifing? Well, I disagree with you, and we could have an interesting discussion were you presenting your ideas in an "I think... and the reasons are..." format. As it is, they tend to be presented as "this is the case - ko amere Adonai", which does not open up discussion and leads me at least to find the post mildly ridiculous and not worth engaging with. I am not saying change your thoughts, but to present them in a way that treats people who think differently from you with respect rather than what can come across as arrogant contempt. This is something I myself have had to learn, and still catch myself acting as if my opinion were the yardstick of truth: I find opening my ideas up to discussion can be very unsettling, but in the end is infinitely more rewarding.
But are you being as charitable as you claim? Is it truly charitable to tolerate women and lay ministry on the grounds of necessity? Isn't this damning with faint praise? Is it not simply another way of saying, "Well, they'll do - in the absence of a male priest", as if they were less than the image of God, less capable than an ordained man?
Equally, have you noticed the way you assigned the roles between men and women - men the significant, visible roles, women the menial tasks (cleaning, knitting, washing). Is that charity? How is it charitable to force a talented, God-inspired preacher who happens to be a woman to arrange the flowers? How is charitable to a congregation to impose on them as, say, a Deacon, a fool and a bigot, just because he happens to have a penis? We will not agree on these things, I know, but I am curious as to why you hold the beliefs you do.
, a very interesting question.I've spent the last 3 or 4 years learning hwo to see the organic link between the NT and the historic Church, trying to drop all the Evangelical baggage that saw the Early Church as just a prototype Reformation. And now, as I read that part of Holy Tradition bequeathed to us in the book of Acts and in Paul's letters, I find a strange thing - a body whose roles seem to revolve around oversight, teaching and service, which appears to suggest that the answer to your question is "We don't" - we need good adminstrator, good teachers and willing servants. Does there need to be a distinction between laity and clergy at all? Or was St Peter wrong when he called the body of Christ a priesthood in its own right?
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Or was St Peter wrong when he called the body of Christ a priesthood in its own right?
The Church is a Priesthood - doesn't make us all priests. The Churches corporate Priesthood requires representation by ordained Priests.
Maybe.
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
The Churches corporate Priesthood requires representation by ordained Priests.
Why representation by "priests"? Why not representation by representatives? Christ is already our Priest, in that as perfect human he acted as the true Israel and the truly obedient human. He has "priested" the human race. The ekklesia that gathers in his name "priests" the world to God and God to the world. Do we need a separate "order" to "priest" God to God's ekklesia? Or do we actually just need someone to keep a bit of order so that everything gets done?
These eggregious creatures are even MORE of an expense upon the church, what with their bloated salaries, expensive palaces and all that money expended on mitres and such tat.
Nightlamp suggests that anyone could regularly consecrate the elements and a bishop would not be needed even for this.
And assuming you could say that St Paul's epistles suggest bishops can go as well, then I have to ask you if we should also dispense with that most obnoxious symbol of hierarchy and backwardness, the Archbishop of Canterbury?
And if you throw His Grace upon the dustbin of history, how are we to then know that we are Anglicans at all?
Tricky Hooker
Or is the dispensation of the clergy part of the master plan for world ecumenism?
In our parish since a layperson can, with the permission of the rector, do anything a layreader can do -- no lay readers. Why bother. (But note that in Canada, layreaders can only read lessons, preach under the guidance of the rector, lead a service and serve communion).
In our parish the preacher reads the gospel -- if a lay preacher, then a lay gospeller. The point is to strenghten the link between the reading and the sermon that comments on it and teaches about it
Hooker's Trick made a comment in connection with sermons that may have implied a position with which I am familiar that says only the ordained can preach -- laity give homilies. Today I believe the distinction is meaningless -- unless lay preachers are going to read from one of the two Books of Homilies. He also may have implied (sorry if I have drawn the wrong conclusion) that lay homilists are likely to be bad preachers, presumably because they are not ordained. In fact, in my experience, lay preachers are just as likely as the ordained to have received careful training in preparing and delibvering sermons, and are more likely to be people who have the gift of preaching, since they are being called to it, not doing it as part of a larger package.
Finally, on priests -- one English word translating two vastly different Greek words. In Hebrews, Jesus is said to be the "hieros" for us -- in the place of the sacrificing priests of the old dispensation. No one else does that now. When we talk about priests today, we are using an English word developed from the Greek word "presbyteros" or Elder, which would be an equally valid English equivalent.
But those who read some of the connotations of hieros into the word priest today are running outside the way the office developed.
John
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
So Dyfrig, would your reading lead you to believe that we could dispense with bishops as well?
No it doesn't - and you know that. However, you and I are using "bishop" in different ways. You are using it in terms of some ontological office - me, knowing that you need people to take decisions and carry cans (I work in local government) see Paul recognising a need for people within a community (any community, not just the Church) to do the same. Of course you will need an overseeing role. But that role derives from skills, abilities, pastoral care and general wisdom, not simply from the name of "bishop".
These eggregious creatures are even MORE of an expense upon the church, what with their bloated salaries, expensive palaces and all that money expended on mitres and such tat.
Given that I didn't mention the money at all, I find this a strange argument. You asked if we needed "Vicars". And my answer is no we don't - we need able people who are close to God who can lead people closer to God. ("Vicar" is just a functional title inherited from Roman society. It has no Christian meaning in and of itself.)...these are the criteria for both the diaconate and the episcopacy in the NT - Godly people who could do the job. The label for the job follows from the job. You seem to think that the application of "bishop", "vicar" or "deacon" makes someone these things - this is wrong. When I was admitted as a solicitor this did not change any ontological "solicitorness" within in - rather it recognised the study and training I had understaken - neither does the word protect me in future: I still have to work at the solictoritudidousness.
Nightlamp suggests that anyone could regularly consecrate the elements and a bishop would not be needed even for this. It is the community that consecrates - you should know that. And if the community has at its president a non-cleric who fulfils the criteria for an episcope, what does it matter? Seriously, what magic is there in the consecration of a bishop?
And assuming you could say that St Paul's epistles suggest bishops can go as well, then I have to ask you if we should also dispense with that most obnoxious symbol of hierarchy and backwardness, the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Ooh, let's see - couldn't possibly be Jesus Christ, could it? 
Again, you're missing the point - there are lowerarchies of service, that's patently obvious. This discussion is not one about whether you can dispense with a system - rather upon the setting up of that system, just because we've always done it (well, we've done it since the 3rd century and we'll broadcast our version of church order back into the NT even if it kills us). There is much criticism of "modern" (I always find if funny when the Church is described as "modern" - trans. it means the Church has picked up the ideas that were around 20 years ago) methods: but we have always done this. The difference being that the rate of current change makes it obvious that we do, whereas in slower times it was as clear the Church had borrowed most of its structures and administrative attitudes from secular society.
And if you throw His Grace upon the dustbin of history, how are we to then know that we are Anglicans at all?
So you define your spiritual life in relation to the Church structure as opposed to God, do you?
Or is the dispensation of the clergy part of the master plan for world ecumenism?
A cheap shot. Given the words and actions of Jesus Christ (remember him? Bloke with a mission from God, you know, the Saviour and everything?) I think it perfectly legitimiate to ask the question "do our structures reflect his gospel?" And, call me picky here, then if they don't then the problem is with the structures, not the people in them. I don't have a problem, as I've said, with a professional role within the Church - what I do have a problem is vesting within one particular group within that Church all the functions (and, in some extreme cases, vesting all the ontological nature) of the Church itself.
Whilst it is admirable that we have symbolic action - after all, church liturgy is meant to enact in symbol a pre-existing state of affairs, i.e. the presence of God with his people - there seems to be a slight naivety here about the power and effect of symbolism.
Symbols don't just mean what the person who defines the symbol wants them to mean. The locus of meaning (and, as a side issue, the locus of God's activity) happens not just because I, or the vicar, or HT say "The gospel is red by the priest because it symbolises the proclamation of Jesus Christ". The meaning and effect of the symbol occurs also in the viewer/listerner/congregant. So whilst we may , with the best will in the world, define our actions as open, life-giving, gospel-vehicles, it is hubris of the lowest order to think that our definition is the only possible one (otherwise why would we accept at least four ways of reading scripture?). To one set of people, those in the know and the professionals, symbols may mean "good" and produce good fruit - to others it may mean control, denial of God-given freedom, even oppression.
The effect of a symbol (e.g. an ordained person doing everything in a service) therefore should not just be considered from what the actor intends it to mean - reflection must also be given to hwhat it actually does. Let me give you two examples, one general, on personal.
Apartheid. It's just a word. I think it means separateness. Those who supported it - and FW de Clerk still holds this view - so this not as a policy of oppression, but of "separate development", the argument being that you shouldn't force two peoples at such different perceived levels of development to live together in a modern democracy. Part of the argument (in the same way that people have argued for control-mechanism throughouthistory) is that apratheid was "good" for the black majority and eventually they weould benefit from it. However, to be on the receiving end of it was not such a good thing: lack of participation in society, poverty, lack of accessm to amenities we would take for granted. So, depending on where you are in the pecking order of society the word "apartheid" has different effects and meanings - thus we must be very careful of any symbol which claims to be "good". It must held up to the light of the gospel and interrogated.
The other example arises from the nature of disability. People like helping - and they will help if you want it or not. The effect of some acts of charity is, far from assisting the development of an integrated personality, is to disable someone even more. Thus, the powerful person's concept of what is good for the weaker is not always the correct measure. Judgement starts with the Church. If it wants to be seen to be doing its job properly it will carefully consider how its structures actually do in serving Jesus Christ, rather than peddle the li(n)e that they are good in and of themselves.
bb
How are you using the word "priest" here, S3? Do you mean a community of people, all of whom are regarded as having a part in the priestly role? In which case, I won't argue with you. Or are you using it to define a group within that community? In which case, that is not a "church of priests", because the church is more than just the "professional" priestly caste. It smacks of the old fashioned way of looking at ordination - "entering the church", as if to imply that entry into God's community happens at Ordination rather than Baptism/Confirmation/Appropriate initiation ceremony.
Whatever the head minister is is what people will emulate, and a Priest is a very different thing to a Leader.
Well, let's work this out. Are you saying people will emulate someone's holiness or God-centred life? Well, the people who've influenced me most in that direction haven't been "priests" in the professional sense at all. And I seek to follow our clergy's good examples because they are attempting to be Christ-like, not because they are professional priests. Examples of piss-poor Priests are as easy to find as abusive Evangelical leaders.
So it seems to me that we're actually arguing not about the subbstance of someone's life, but rather the label. You may call someone who mediates God to you a "priest" - I would probably do the same. But it is not the same as saying someone who is a professional priest mediates God - to think that all pro-priests are actually "priests" in the true sense is naive. It's like the differnece between John XXIII and Innocent III (see Today in History) - both were Popes, but whilst the former fulfilled the theoretical office admirably, the latter introduced the yellow star for Jews to wear. Both were professional priests - one exuded the love of Jesus Christ, the other was a tyrant.
One of the problems I have encountered with "lay ministry" (in charismatic circles) is that the oportunities often go to the boldest and loudest. I often felt myself wondering "why is that person doing that job?". Have others had that experience? The other issue is that i found that other members of the church would start to imitate the various leaders in clothing, and even accent. This is yet to happen in my moderately anglo catholic parish ..
I know the experience you mention - that's the other extreme of the same issue. The question of ministry and the power to grant or deny the opportunity to exercise is very delicate. That is why a community has to be self-aware and self-critical as how and why it does it.
Suitability for the Ordained Ministry is discerned by the Bishops as part of their teaching and jurisdictional roles. It is of necessity limited to the few. After all, the priest stands in the place of Christ when he offers the Holy Sacrifice and remits sins in Penance. The Scriptural warrant for this surelt originates when Christ gave Peter his Church to build.
A much wider net is available to all the people - who are called to office, so to speak, in their Parishes - either by their Rector or the vote of Vestry ? Inevitably there may not be the luxury of making a discriminating choice - so if old Joe or Marg has been serving the mass or reading the lesson forever, there probably will be little disposition to disallow them from continuing to do so no matter the fumbling of the cruet or the inaudibility of the lesson that results.
In this bifurcated ministry, then, do we not see a place for everyone ? a small company called to ordained ministry (which indeed may be non-stipendiary and part-time), complemented by a host of the faithful who take Martha's part ?
And does this not reflect the most ancient of Biblical tales, that of God giving each creature his name through Noah ? And is it not further reflected in the Great Commission Christ gave the company of Disciples ?
In the same way, through his Bishops and his people, God gives divers functions to each of us. Old Tusker may not have chosen to be an elephant, but is well suited to be so. Just like old Joe and Marg and you me, who may not have chosen to be flower-arrangers and coffee-makers and lesson-readers and bulletin-duplicaters, but have been chosen to do so, and thus take up our commissions, and occupy our unglamorous but not always uncongenial places in the Divine economy !
I hope, dear Dyfrig, this contains enough argument not to make you feel I am arrogantly asserting a side. Your comment stung, as I believed I had backed up most of my posts with argument. I am sorry that you or anyone else took conciseness of expression as anything other than conviction, of which there seems to be no shortage on this Board - though I had not taken anyone's opposing views as arrogant, only sincere, even when I thought them mistaken.
However, any person who posts on the debate boards of this Ship must be prepared to substantiate a claim - especially when that claim has a view of the church where priests may perform, laymen may assist and women can do the cleaning.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by oldlccboy:
Well now we agree, Dyfrig -
On what? Your view of who or who may not minister is entirely at odds with mine. I do not think we can be further apart on our conceptions of the Church. You don't even believe I have a valid role of service in the church, either as licensed Reader or as lector - you described it as "a thing to be depracated", "an irregular situation" and something that "cannot be".
You're only concession to me is if a priest is putting his clothes on or if there isn't an ordained sub-deacon.
You may not consider yourself to be arrogant - and perhaps you are not, and I am misreading you, for which I apologise - however you have very politely said that any inclination I have about a role of service in the Church, my vicar, fellow-congregants, seven persons appointed by the diocese to act in a discernment role, and my tutors are all wrong according to your theological outlook. And woe betide me if I were I women and I heard any calling other than to the veil or the duster.
but does your argument about the community giving Ministry with care not support the notion of distinctly different callings between the Ordained Ministry and that of the People ?
If the various "ministries" (I'm loathe to use that word as it's usually preceded by the word "My" from the lips of odd people) and gifts that the same Lord, the Holy Spirit, gives to the various People were properly recognised and legitimated by the Church (in the way the apostles blessed the work of the 7 chosen from amongst the people....interestingly, by the people as well) then this would make sense - however, all we have at present is the ordination of certain roles, who are set over and above rather than within that community.
A much wider net is available to all the people - who are called to office, so to speak, in their Parishes - either by their Rector or the vote of Vestry ?
But this is not so - there are two roles in your view of the church. Priesthood, which is powerful, and non-priesthood, which is not. That's it. Your offer of the work available to women are ... well, I cannot find the words to express my exasperation at such a limited view of the role of women in God's world. I shall refer you to the "...Genitalia" and "...Plumbing" threads in the Archive for my views on this.
In this bifurcated ministry, then, do we not see a place for everyone ?
No, we don't.
a small company called to ordained ministry (which indeed may be non-stipendiary and part-time), complemented by a host of the faithful who take Martha's part ?
A curious analogy to draw - after all, Mary was criticised for being a woman who dared to sit at a teacher's feet. Remember what Jesus said to her - it would not be taken from her. Yet, you seem hell-bent on taking away the right to sit at Jesus' feet that He has called many others (men and women) to do.
And does this not reflect the most ancient of Biblical tales, that of God giving each creature his name through Noah ?
Well, no it doesn't because I think you're thinking of Adam - and Adam at that point was alone (neither male nor female) so it is clearly both that the priestly role is both sexes.
Furthermore, I don't actually know what you're talking about - are you referring to human beings' creative power in naming the world around them? Well, on that score the Church can call it's ministers whatever it wants.
Or are you suggesting that the Priest represents Adam and the rest of us a mere animals to be labelled by him at his whim?
And is it not further reflected in the Great Commission Christ gave the company of Disciples ?
And yea and verily - er, no. So Jesus told the eleven disciples that he had left to go and teach and baptize. They weren't priests, either. They were apostles. And - brace yourself here - they hadn't been ordained in accordance with the formularies of the Prayer Book.
In the same way, through his Bishops and his people, God gives divers functions to each of us.
But the church does not recognise those functions - and you appear to be claiming some ontological reason within the Godhead that women can only do the washing up.
Old Tusker may not have chosen to be an elephant, but is well suited to be so.
He's only an elephant in the human conception - and then only in certain languages. But this is not about us choosing roles for ourselves - it is about being chosen by God to do things.
quote:
Originally posted by oldlccboy:
After all, the priest stands in the place of Christ when he offers the Holy Sacrifice and remits sins in Penance.
Funny, I thought the Holy Sacrifice was offered up on the cross 2000 or so years ago. Thank you for clearing this up for me, oldlccboy. 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Funny, I thought the Holy Sacrifice was offered up on the cross 2000 or so years ago. Thank you for clearing this up for me, oldlccboy.
me2
quote:
oldlccboy said After all, the priest stands in the place of Christ when he offers the Holy Sacrifice
This is doctrine is held by the Roman Catholic's but only those who have never heard of Vatican II actually agree with it.
Could you please explain this sttement?
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
However, you and I are using "bishop" in different ways. You are using it in terms of some ontological office
Now you see, this is me being silly again and getting caught up in nonsense like Pentecost. I should know better than to get sidetracked by the Holy Ghost into flights of fancy about ontological office.
quote:
- me, knowing that you need people to take decisions and carry cans (I work in local government)
I also work directly for a University and indirectly for the Commonwealth of Virginia. So I agree with you. However, I have never been under the impression that the Commonwealth was founded under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost or that my University is the Body of Christ.
quote:
(any community, not just the Church) to do the same.
Except that the Church is not "any community" with managers and committees and policy manuals. At least, I would be awfully sorry to discover that people made no distinction between the Church, the Rotary Club, and the Local Authority.
quote:
Of course you will need an overseeing role. But that role derives from skills, abilities, pastoral care and general wisdom,
That's funny, I thought it derived from the Holy Ghost, but as you see above, I am apparently deeply confused about the efficacy of the Third Person of the Trinity.
quote:
Given that I didn't mention the money at all, I find this a strange argument.
Apologies. You seemed to be making a functional argument, which I assumed was at least in part financial.
quote:
("Vicar" is just a functional title inherited from Roman society. It has no Christian meaning in and of itself.)
Now now. You know as well as I do that "vicar" shares its latin root with "viacrious" and means to "represent".
I'm sure that you and I agree in our disdain for the doctrine of "in persona Christi", but however you look at it you can't escape its Christian meaning.
quote:
When I was admitted as a solicitor this did not change any ontological "solicitorness" within
Well, presumably the Holy Ghost wasn't actively involved in that process. If, in fact, in my absence from England our solicitors are now visited and inspired by the Holy Ghost, my apologies in this matter.
quote:
It is the community that consecrates - you should know that.
Very well.
Shall we then talk about the equally exclusively sacerdotal function of absolution?
Presumably you don't think the community also pronounces absolution over itself?
quote:
Seriously, what magic is there in the consecration of a bishop?
If you seriously believe that the Church of England ought to commission its "ministers" through a process of examination and appointment much as we do civil servants, and that this mortal function without the symbolic or real assistance of the Holy Ghost is sufficient for the Church that is Christ's Body, then indeed I appreciate your view but we have nothing more to say on the matter as I will not, and indeed cannot, agree with it.
I wrote then I have to ask you if we should also dispense with that most obnoxious symbol of hierarchy and backwardness, the Archbishop of Canterbury?
And Dyf replied
quote:
Ooh, let's see - couldn't possibly be Jesus Christ, could it?
You got me. Are you saying that Our Lord is an obnoxious symbol of hierarchy and backwardness?
quote:
There is much criticism of "modern"
I was going to remind you that anything after 1662 is modern to me, but you probably already know that.
quote:
So you define your spiritual life in relation to the Church structure as opposed to God, do you?
See, it's that inconvenient Holy Ghost thing again. I keep getting confused about God being IN the Church.
quote:
A cheap shot.
Apologies.
quote:
Jesus Christ (remember him? Bloke with a mission from God, you know, the Saviour and everything?)
Actually, some of us call him God. You know, us Christians.
quote:
"do our structures reflect his gospel?"
Ah. This is what slays me. Because we're back to selective literalism. I'm quite certain you wouldn't want, say, our Cosmology to reflect the Scripture. But administration, oh yes, well definitely.
"The Second Lesson is from the Org Chart According to St Paul"
Now go and check reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Org Chart,HT?Is that the same as a flip chart?
Org, as in Organization Chart. Used to show who reports to whom, and who has a dotted line to someone else to show that they provide some service to that person, despite not being a direct report of that person, etc etc etc.
Oops.
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
The problem with your view tho' HT is that it fails to take into account one problem - the HS, being God, cannot err.
Hmm, think we've missed the boat on this one. I don't believe the Holy Spirit is limited to the church - if anything scripture contrasts the uniqueness of Christ to the universality of the holy spirit.
However I do believe that the church is the way it through a process of mutual evolution with God.
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
Hey, hang on...
You mean oldlccboy is actually being serious? I was unde the impression he was some radical postmodernist doing a parody.Oops.
oldlccboy being serious? I still find it hard to belive, but he seems to think he was. But he was probably just having a laugh. If he knows how to.
postmodernist? Definately not. Pre-modernist possibly.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Hooker's Trick made a comment in connection with sermons that may have implied a position with which I am familiar that says only the ordained can preach -- laity give homilies. Today I believe the distinction is meaningless -- unless lay preachers are going to read from one of the two Books of Homilies.
This is a bit old, but I wanted to make a short comment because small details thrill me. That being, historically only priests with degress were permitted to preach ie. give sermons from their own material. Priests without degrees were allowed only to read from the Book of Homilies.
[The development of this thread is making my poor little poppet head spin. Where's the tat and historical minutiae?! I'll trade you an advowson for a brass mushroom]
People on the Lay Ministry thread are declaiming the importance of the priesthood/threefold order.
Anyone up to defend the same?
There again is the issue of "well, it'snot in the NT therefore we don't need it".
And the "priesthood of all believers".
I've already written a post telling them what I thought about lay pres, and the danger it holds for the Ang Church, but I was effectively put in my place and told "Your reaction might be valid, but its in your situation, and doesn't apply to the CofE."
Help?
Maybe we should all of us 3-fold orderers be volunteering for the dinosaur part of the local museum?
Or quietly allow ourselves to be squashed out of the church...
Of course Dyfrig and his friends are right. Of course the threefold order is irrelevant. It's not biblical and excludes the gifts of many. And of course the Holy Spirit can't be in a hierarchical church which has proven itself not to be infallible. Let alone a church which prefers its ministers to be educated in their ministry... Isn't that the antithesis of "Spirit-led"?
Allow me to apologise and go back to quietly sipping my gin as I wait for the Museum to call to confirm my inclusion in their collection.
Let the work of continuing to reform the church continue, with the vision of the Reformers as its aim and goal - aw sorry, should that be Christ? sorry for my dyslexia, the two of course mean the same thing, don't they.
Let's do away with unnecessary ceremonial and tat - it's too tied up in the whole "dignity of the priesthood", and is irrelevant to christian ministry today. Away with anything that speaks of a division between clergy and laity - from dress to titles, to who is automatically called on in different situations to lead prayers (eg grace, opening of a PCC meeting etc). Oh, and at that, lets do away with robed choirs. Of course, we can keep the choirs, but oh those robes are so offensive to the notion of the priesthood of all believers; if the choir is robed, we should all be robed in order to offer our "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving". And they shouldn't sit in a prominent place. Let them be scattered amongst the congregation.
But then, why not do away with the music side altogether? (Unless one of our number has a gift for playing the guitar or clarinet or something; then they can get up and contribute to our worship by doing a number...)
Coming to think of it, we will need to knock down our buildings (let's not call them churches, because we know WE are the church), because it is incompatible with a congregation focussed ministry to have a sacntuary out the front and have ministers facing the congregation. Buildings "in the round" therefore should be the norm: everyone is equal, the table is in the centre. We are the priesthood of all believers.
Oh hang on a tick. Isnt the word of God more central to life than sacraments, which are just symbols? We can kind of do away with them. Oh I don't mean fullscale, we might do a Lord's Supper once a year or so, because Jesus did say "Do this in memory of me". But we can commemorate him in so many other worthy ways other than sacraments.
-------
I am dreadfully sorry, but other denominations have already done all this.
Still, I'll take my gin and retire to the lounge room. Oh hang on, the telephone's ringing.
"Hello?"
"Museum here. Is that a Ms Nunc Dimittis by any chance?"
"Yes."
"I'm calling about your application to the dinosaur collection of the Museum. I'd like to inform you that we have too many of your specimens already in our collection."
"Oh?"
"And many of them are more interesting than I am afraid you might be."
"Who do you have there?"
"We have Papasothaurus, Cantuarepiscoposaurus, and many other colourful dinosaurs. Unfortuneately grey species with text written all over them are just not special enough to take up room here."
"What do you suggest I do then?"
"Drink the rest of that bottle of gin?!!"
"OK. Thanks for letting me know."
"Or of course you could just meld into the more contemporary forms of your kind. I understand they make good domestic pets."
"Oh. Thanks."
*click*
*sips her gin*
Nunc, as the last post resulted from things said in the Lay Ministry thread in Hell these comments really should have been posted in Hell.
If anyone would like to join in the discussion in Hell please feel very free. If you haven't posted in Hell for a while please remember to read Hell's guidelines as their guidelines are different from the rest of the boards.
[biretta off]
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
The problem with your view tho' HT is that it fails to take into account one problem - the HS, being God, cannot err. If the Church is the locus of the HS ("where the Church is, the Spirit is") then the Church's actions, guided as they are by the Holy Spirit, must also be perfect.
Dyfrig. You're undone. You and I know that the Church is not synonymous with God. Otherwise we would worship the church and that would make us Ecclesians.
And when I checked my Prayer Book in the relevant part, I found this delightful advice from Archbish Cranmer:
"When the day appointed by the Bishop is come, after Morning Prayer is ended, there shall be a Sermon or Exhortation,
declaring the duty and office of such as come to be admitted Priests; how necessary that Order is in the Church of
Christ, and also, how the People ought to esteem them in their Office."
quote:
Now go and check reality.
Now go and check your BCP. You don't have to have a Prayer Book to have a church, and you presumably don't have to have Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
But ours does.
Finis.
You're the one who claimed the 3-fold order (as opposed to the community which happens to have a 3-fold order) emanated from the presence of the Holy Spirit, not me.
"you presumably don't have to have Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."
Which is what I've been saying for the last three days.
"But ours does."
Fine - no probs with that. If the 3-fold order is effective in being Christ-like, good for the 3-fold order. But it could easily be 5-fold, 7-fold (a more perfect number), or no-fold. The folds ain't the point - its Lord and God is (and its structural way of reflecting the nature of its Lord and God) is.
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
"you presumably don't have to have Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."Which is what I've been saying for the last three days.
"But ours does."
Fine - no probs with that.
Well. That was all very anti-climactic.
Now that we're in agreement I shall go off and discuss some tat.
HT
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Well. That was all very anti-climactic.Now that we're in agreement I shall go off and discuss some tat.
HT
Oh goodie. ( )
See? This is what happens when you pick a fight with an Anglo-Catholic who's Anglo-Catholic parish priest has taught him how to sit very lightly to ecclesiology
When I wrote the Celebrant of Mass offers the Holy Sacrifice (of the Mass) I meant that the Priest stands in the place of Christ and recreates the essential salvific act of History and Faith. This is what I was taught as a boy, and I wasn't aware it was a particularly novel or pre-Vatican II view of the Eucharist; but if the latter, I'd regard it as positive !
If the Eucharist means - more than a pious act of thanksgiving for Christ's sacrifice - more than a memorial of His self-offering - more than the presence and consumption of helpful symbols to inspire us through life - more than the mere repetition of "magic words" uttered by Christ - (not that any of the foregoing as understood by some Reformed Churches are "bad," merely incomplete in their understanding)
then
the "Do this..." surely means that the priest, given the mind of the Church understanding what he is doing, is doing something real, something of substance.
And "this" something can only be the marvelous and mystical recreation of the Sacrifice by which the gate between Heaven and earth is opened as it was at Calvary, and the Divine enters the world under the form of bread and wine, transformed by the whole action and words and understanding of priest and people into the elements of that one all-sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction.
Make sense ? I am not a theologian, just a sinner who loves God and my Church - and the Faith as it has been taught and illumined to me.
Sieg
Out of Interest do you believe that when ever a communion service is held by what ever denomination that this is true?
Since there is no record of the early followers of Jesus being ordained do you consider that they were priests or Bishops?
Quote: "See? This is what happens when you pick a fight with an Anglo-Catholic who's (sic) Anglo-Catholic parish priest has taught him how to sit very lightly to ecclesiology."
Although I have "high" hopes for H.T. and have even branded him a closet Anglo-Catholic, he has steadfastly maintained that he is broad church, and he has never given any indication of that he has been corrupted by the teachings (prima facie false in your opinion?) of any Anglo-Catholic parish priest.
His views seem to me to be rather mainstream Anglican, and in spite of the length and number of your posts, I am (probably through my own denseness) unable to discern yours.
Perhaps you could provide a concise statement of your ecclesiology?
Greta
Please delete the unnecessary 'of', and also the cheap shot '(sic)'.
Greta
People hold various offices within the church and it is simply functional there is no ontological change in Bishop priest Deacon reader or evangelist ect. These people are gifted by the spirit to get on with various roles with in the church.
People in the congregation might not be Recognised by the structure to carry out various roles but so what ministry should evolve from the bottom up.
Why make such a fuss about roles in worship services when most of the work of the church occurs outside?
We have a certain model of ecclesiology that I live with not because it is the best but because it is what history has provided us with. We read the Bible and see how limited our current model of ministry is and think wouldn't it be great if we got hold of some of that vitality. Ministry has evolved in different ways in differnet places down the years and normally the church hierarchy catches up som time.
You asked "Out of Interest do you believe that when ever a communion service is held by what ever denomination that this is true?" By "this" I am unsure whether you are asking whether I believe their service is a true communion service or that they do "this" as I described "this" which clearly they do not. Is it a true service ? Well, I believe it is truly offered in faith and sincerity. It is insufficient. Is it a means of grace for their faithful ? Probably, not for me but for God to judge.
Then you ask "Since there is no record of the early followers of Jesus being ordained do you consider that they were priests or Bishops?" Had never thought of the question: Peter and the Apostles were Bishops, and there is a clear line of Bishops of Rome in succession to Peter. Beyond that I don't know enough to comment. Obviously the hierarchy of Orders with which Holy Church is blessed today evolved over time, as did the rest of everything in the Church, by God's Grace and the Church Fathers' study based on the Scriptures, Tradition and Reason.
Believing that adult participation was the mature response, I entered the world of "my way or the highway" pastoralism, leaving it only when cynicism threatened to derail my spiritual life. Nothing the most well-intentioned but least well-trained lay person could do from a lectern could possibly be any worse.
Do we need a priest? Of course. To do what? To be our spiritual leader, something we have neither the time,training nor temperament to do for ourselves. But when the priest can't/won't fulfill that function (I have had at least three alcoholic pastors)what happens to that faith community?
Over and over again, I have observed parishes with clout enjoying the benefit of beatific pastoral succession, while the have-nots get leftovers. Are we really so surprised that cynical voices have arisen from the laity?
Must stop,my soapbox is getting slippery,
Mercy Brat
And then, if the office of Apostle wasn't important in some ontological way, why did Peter and co feel the need to elect another to fill the place of Judas, someone "who had been with him since the beginning" of his ministry?
I think we need to think about the importance of laying on of hands, and what this is meant to convey.
Most of us with even a traditional Anglican point of view would say that this is tied up in the descent of the Spirit "Receive the Holy Spirit for the work of a xxxxx". If this is so, doesn;t that mean that an ontological change has occurred? Catholics would say, once priested, always a priest, because it is part of one.
No wonder we've been misunderstanding one another, if we first don;t agree on how the Spirit is peculiarly present in the work and person of the ordained...
Well, firstly the ekklesia is those gathered around Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ radically redefines any claims to power, rule or even servanthood. Therefore any structure must in and of itself reflect this. And I also know that attempts to read back developed ecclesiologies (be it 3-fold ministry, presbyterian, or Restoration interpretations of Ephesians) without acknowledging that they are developed rather than givens leads to anachronism, and eventually disillusion with any claims to authority.
So, what do we see amongst the first Christians, to whom all churches appeal for their model of authority?
Well, we have the "apostles". Now "apostle" of course means someone sent out or away by someone else. The important thing to note is that "apostle", like most words, is not a specifically Christian word - therefore these people were not "apostles" as if that explained everything, but "apostles of Jesus Christ". So we have a category or role of "sent-outness" by Jesus Christ. This role seems to involve basically telling other people about the person who sent them.
However, as the ekklesia that gathers around this proclaimed Jesus Christ increases, certain practical problems entail - brought to a head by the argument over distribution of food between Hebrew and Greek widows. What seems to have happened is that these "apostles" had taken up some of this role too, but had got bogged down in it - therefore (with a little ill-grace, it would appear) they tell the people to find some others who are actually good at administration and service - and 7 are found. Interestingly, the people choose them and they are then blessed by the apostles, which suggests that the appointment was plenary rather than hierarchical. We retain a vestige of this in the selection process and the acclamation at ordination and consecration, but these are ultimate pale imitations of the process - DDO's are always ordained, parish churches are ultimately taken out of the discernment process once a candidate is sent from them, and the ordination service is a virtual fait a complit. The power to ordain to an office is quite clearly with the hierarchy, rather than them acknowledging the choice of the people.
Anyway, I digress. So, we have one group of people sent out by Jesus Christ - apostles - and another "order" which arises out of the practical necessities of a growing community - a "diaconate", a service - but two things are clear:
1. The diaconate is not a stepping stole to "apostleship". They were clearly different things. Therefore, the episcopal churches who claim to have a 3-fold ministry when in fact the diaconate is merely the pre-qualification for priesthood (a bit like me gettig a degree before needing to train as a solicitor) is lying to itself. The Church of England's diaconate is not the diaconate of the early church, and the sooner it notices that the better.
2. Certain people within that diaconate also appear to have had a preaching role - cf. Stephen and the "Philip" who speaks to the Ethiopian Eunuch (is he the Apostle Philip? This is unclear, because prior to this event, when the church is scattered after the death of Stephen, we are told that the apostles remained in Jerusalem, whereas this Philip seems to be part of the diaspora. Unless of course "Apostle" has now narrowed in meaning to Peter, James and John, but I don't know...)
Anyway....where was I?
Oh yes, pontificating.
So "apostleship" isn't the same as "preachign" (clearly there were others who don't appear to be classed as apostles but preached - the four sisters for example.)
Later still, possibly by the 60s (or if Deutero-Pauline, even later) we have a reference to the role of oversight (or, given that "skepesthein" means look, literally "overlook" ). Again, like Apostle or even Diakon, not a specifically Christian word. The Early Church had some ideas about the sort of person this should be (see the Pastorals, 1 Clement and Ignatius which show varying approaches to the point). But this overseeing role appears to arise out, again, out of the practicalities of community life (not specifically Christian life). What is further apparent is that this oversight was not practiced anywhere other than within the wider context of the local community. This oversight role appears to be at a much lower level than later medieaval practice would make it, where it started aping Roman administration and later "lordship" models. (You then reach the lowest point of the Church of England in the 18th/19th centuries where you have loads of bishops in places where people don't live anymore because they're all moving to the big cities during the industrial revolution. Or you have comedy bishops like Benjamin Hoadly, who acquires for himself a few of the richer parish livings, gets himself made Bishop of Bangor and doesn't even come within 3 counties of his see for the rest of his career.)
So we have three words being used - epsicope, apostol and diakon - all of which are in common currency beyond the Church and without specific Christian meaning. Therefore the defining factor of the ekklesia is not the words it uses but to whom the bearers of these titles relate, i.e. Jesus Christ. But interestingly, the only "title" that can be derived derived directly is apostol, which is why we have an "apostolic" Church, i.e. one that has been sent out by Jesus Christ.
Two aspects of the early church are pertinent to this issue as well - firstly, what appears to be a clash of style between the "structural" church of Jerusalem, under James, which appears to be very conservative in its practices, and the "charismatic" form practiced by Paul. There were tensions because of this. (Paul is quite an interesting example of Christian ministry - very soon after his conversion he is preaching, and later, after facing opposition from other factions, has to go and justify himself. He basis his claim on two things - his encounter with the risen Jesus and on the fruit of that encounter.)
Anyway, the second point is the recognition that the Spirit that empowers the apostles and teachers also empowers all the other aspects of the church - from its administration to its preaching. So we see that there are various and manifold roles in a church community, all of which can be seen as the working of the Holy Spirit. Thus it can be said that the church treasurer is "ordained", the person who prophesies (preaches) is ordained. Of course, Paul sees this in a hierarchy - apostles, prophets, teachers, administrators, etc - which suggest not 3 Orders, but manifold orders, all of them recongised by the local church as the work of the Holy Spirit. (Interestingly, he doesn't mentioned "episcoipe" at all in these discussions.) What is further obvious is that the roles of preaching, exhorting, healing, administering were not the sole prerogative of one person. Not all are apostles, not all are healers.
So it's clear we have hierarchies - but Paul throws in a bit of a curve ball at anyone who says that hierarchies and order are the be all and end all. In both Romans and 1 Corinthians, immediately following discussion of church order, Paul goes, "But so what?" - these orders must be done in love. Otherwise they are meaningless.
So what can we say of the Church of England?
It's episcopacy is in the wrong place - there are two few of them and then are at the top of a bureaucratic system which robs them of their role, which is oversight within the local community.
It's "priests" have imposed on them all the roles the Church think it should do - preach, teach, heal, administer - whereas it's clear that the gifting of the Spirit at this level is plenary, not individual. So sole parish priests cannot really carry out this role properly. The Church should aim to return to local presbyteries (Team Ministry, anyone?)
And it's diaconate doesn't exist. The role I'm training for, Reader, is (despite the Church's propoganda) not a revivivivification of the old post of Lector (all he did was read the lesson) but rather an amalgam of many roles: preaching, "diaconal" roles in worship, and a pastoral role. The Parish Evangelist, i.e. the one commissioned to go and tell people (an apostle?) is far down the pecking order comared to Paul's list.
So clearly the CofE's ecclesiology is either (a) skew-wiff and can't really claim any continuity other than in use of words or (b) evidence that the Church has the ability (and it would appear the necessity) of creating new orders and dispensing with old ones as the need requires.
Because, ultimately the words don't matter diddly - you can be bishop, pastor, priest, deacon, apostle or countless other things as far as I'm concerned. But are you a bishop over Jesus Christ's people? Are you an apostle of Jesus Christ? Are you serving the people of Jesus Christ? That's my ecclesiology, CG, an ecclesiology of people gathered around the one who said, "He who wishes to be great must be servant of all", "You should not lord it over each other". Whose brother said that when a rich man came into church in his fine clothes should be told to go and sit at the back. An ekklesia gathered around a Person who's understanding of living for God meant taking the risk that you might end up being destroyed. In one of those paradoxes that abound in Christianity, one of the Church's callings is to do things that might lead to its destruction.
Anyway, that's me done for this place for a while - I have slightly more important things to deal with in the next week
It is this Roman Catholic writer that convinced me of the failings of a high view of the priest ect to the detriment of the rest of the people of God.
HT
[crap typing skills!]
[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]
This failing can be found from the house church with heavy shepherding through to a high Catholic view where Father knows best.
bb
Susanne Pain, Associate Priest at St James' King St uses it whenever she takes the weekday midday HC services, seeing she can only act as a deacon in Sydney. It's a bit weird, but in her case it seems to me she is quietly making a point about women's ordination...
This permits very late risers to attend Mass while the rector enjoys lunch at a decent hour.
Greta
Greta
I've not heard the phrase 'Deacon's Mass', but what people describe is now normal in parts of priestless France (where the call it an 'adap' from the initials for the French for 'celebration in the absence of a priest') and official provision has just been made in the Church of England for a main service at which Communion is brought from a celebration that day either earlier or elsewhere.
Perhsps someone clever could post a link to this new service which is available on the CofE Common Worship web site?
Snappy name for a service, isn't it?
From a quick glance it is very similar to the Hospital Communion service (also from CW) which is often led by a lay person (especially Readers) using Reserved Sacrament.
As a Reader this is a service I lead regularly at one of our local nursing homes.
quote:
From a quick glance it is very similar to the Hospital Communion service (also from CW) which is often led by a lay person (especially Readers) using Reserved Sacrament. As a Reader this is a service I lead regularly at one of our local nursing homes.
Thanks for the link! 
Two major differences are that it provides a full service rather than the edited version you might use in a hospital or home and it is not 'from the reserved sacrament' in quite the same way because, as the snappy title indicates, it is based on a theology of communion by extension (taking the sacremant almost direct from a live celebration) rather thna one of reservation (taking the sacrament put aside at some earlier celebration) - this last subtle distinction was needed for it to be acceptable in parts of the CofE which does not share a theology of reservation.
[tidied code]
[ 12 September 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
