quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
[QB
So if you, Geoff or nicolemrw or any of you others wish to celebrate a heretical and schismatical (for that it what it is) communion service then good luck to you. Just remember that you tread on two thousand years of the practice of the church and count the writings of all the Father and Doctors of the Church, as well as those theologians who have followed in their footsteps, as something which YOU, in your ineffable wisdom, are somehow entitled to disregard.
Post-modernism has truly gone mad and has metamorphosed itself into Humpty-Dumpty belief.
[/QB]

---

Methinks Cosmo, as he always does, over eggs the pudding.

What I stated has some tradition behind it going back some centuries so it's not post modertn.

quote:

---

. Paul didn't even know Jesus, never saw or met him, and yet so many Christians follow his writings and pay more attention to them than they do the Gospels.
[/QB]

---

To the others:
1 No I don't refuse protestants communion. For a start I don't know whether or not they are protestants and, like baptism, it is not up to me to refuse somebody the sacrament unless they are obviously taking the piss. Rather like a murderer coming to confession, confessing without contrition and then expecting absolution. One can withhold but your reasons have to be very good.
2 Mortal sin is that sin which is a deliberate act of sinfulness against God ie placing oneself apart from the saving act of Christ. To deny mortal sin is to deny sin itself and to deny sin is to deny free will.
3 What I am trying to do is not to exclude but to include. Evelyn Waugh wrote an article about the Roman Catholic Church entitled 'Come Inside' in which he stated that it was impossible to recognise the value, comfort and feeling of reconcilation by being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The True Church is Waugh's opinion. I would agree, although expand that to the Catholic churches of Christendom, namely the Romans, Anglicans and Orthodox. Thus I say to those who criticise my opinion from a protestant view, Come Inside. You don't know what you are missing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
Incidentally this thread seems to be getting IMHO somewhat Purgatorial...

---

I agree. It would be very interesting to have this discussion in Purgatory, where there is a wider selection of different church backgrounds.

One of the rules for hosts is that if they are activily taking part in the discussion then they forego hosting responsibilities on that thread. This is to avoid any calls of unfair etc.

As I have been one of the 'main players' in this discussion in the last few days I have effectively disbarred myself as a host.

quote:

---

What I am trying to do is not to exclude but to include... Thus I say to those who criticise my opinion from a protestant view, Come Inside. You don't know what you are missing.

---

Yeah, in the "my way or the highway" sense. Do you really think that by saying "if you don't subscribe to the three-fold ministry" -- which is not, btw, necessary for our salvation -- "you're an unchurched heathen" you're gonna win converts? Good luck, you are definitely going to need it.

quote:

---

Just because you don't believe it to be schismatical doesn't mean that it isn't.

---

You could draw some conclusions about the sacraments and valid consecration from that?

Nonetheless, I'll fight anyone who wants to belong to the Anglican discipline and promotes lay presidency of the eucharist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
I believe the Roman Church conceded there was salvation outside of itself at Vatican II. Which was nice of 'em.

You could draw some conclusions about the sacraments and valid consecration from that?

---

I guess it isn't balanced. We Anglicans are down two bricks to three. That "corruption" brick really knocked us on our fannies.

I am try to consider why "The Priesthood of all believers" is so important to me.

I suppose it is mainly because I am unhappy in situations where the leaders of a christian group
have some kind of claim that aets them apart from the laity.

This can be in a mild kind of way, such as in a college CU where only those
who can agree to the UCCF statement of faith can become leaders,
through the kind of heavy shepherding seen particularly in Chrismatic circles
where the leaders get to make all the decisions and the laity cannot do anything
for themselves. This kind of thing was discussed in the Ungodly Fear board
a while back. Then further to real abuse such as happened in the Nine O'Clock Service
through to the laity following their leaders to suicide as in the Jim Jones followers.

By accepting that all believers are priests they get empowered to work out their
own relationship God/Jesus and can think and act for themselves instead of
waiting to be told what to do by someone who claims to be anything from a special
type of priest to a modern day Apostle.

By the way I hold to the Priesthood of ALL believers not that abhorrant variation
the priesthood of male believers which can also lead to abuse.

Ultimately denying someone the communion elements beacuse there is not a
certain type of person present to bless them smacks of power politics to me rather
than Christian Love.

Presumably a Christian priest is a person called by God and the community, trained by the church and vested with authority in certain matters.

The priesthood of all believers seems to underscore the notion that all Christians have an unmediated relationship with God in Three Persons (though this notion is seriously undermined by the practice of priests alone making communion at the mass, and is somewhat compromised by setting up saints as special intercessors or mediators).

Of course, one could imagine a church without "priests" as a group of individuals supported by the community and invested with authority. The early churches that St Paul founded may have been like this. But by the end of the second century (at least) the church had adopted a system of deacons, presbytyrs and bishops.

In a world where the church must exist, maintain the Sacraments and teachings, surely the church must also support a structure of authority and arbiters of propriety (perhaps we might even say "truth"?).

Yours, getting slightly irritated by this whole game,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
What I do know is that I can trace my orders and that of the Catholic Church back to the earliest apostles (which does not demean anybody else by the way unless you believe that the only valid form of Christian ministry is the ordained ministry) and the early Church and follow the orthodox creeds and doctrine fought over and debated by them.

---

This is pretty much the answer I had asked for earlier. One last clarification--do you personally belive that the only valid form of Christian ministry is the ordained ministry? I've honestly found some abiguity on that in your prior posts. I had thought this was your view, but then in this post I find that perhaps I am mistaken.

I am an Episcopalian. If I truly was anti-threefold ministry I would not be in the ECUSA. That said, I do not agree that churches which do not subscribe to this belief are outside of The Church. I just think it's flat-out wrong to in essence kick people out of The Church because they don't agree with the hierarchy.

[argh! stupid typo]

I am no fan of unchurching anyone, but Fr Cosmo expresses the orthodox view.

Of course, many people are drawn to the Anglican Communion because it is NOT rigidly orthodox (either by catholic or evangelical standards). You may see this as a great cause for thanksgiving or a great shame...

I do agree that ministry is ordained - but choose to differ on the substance of ordination. God performs the ordination of all ministry (note, I'm not limiting this to the activity of a priest or whatever). Far be it from me to drag scripture into this sort of debate, but Paul most certainly recognises a hierarchy of giftedness that is not predicated on a position being set aside to perform certain tasks, but rather on people being set aside by God to perform certain tasks and therefore occupy the position. A subtle but substantial difference in the two positions (as I understand them - if I've misrepresented anything, please say so).

It makes much more sense to me than some (probably historically unviable) claim to direct succession.

Two notions I haven't seen addressed:

1. Evenhanded acceptance of all other viewpoints isn't necessarily tolerance. Believing passionately in something that desperately matters to you, while recognizing the right of another to do the same, probably is.

2. The early Christian church existed within a hostile ambience. "Comunitas" - in the sense of knowing literally who your community was - was critical for survival. Bishops kept lists of both Catechumens and the baptized, which they exchanged with other bishops as a courtesy for travellers. Exclusivity had nothing to do with it.

Have read over your posts several times; no spin, no hyperbole, no dumbing-down, how dare you? You goad me into facing St. Augustine, a chore I've avoided lo these many years.

What's the real Church (capital C), and therefore, I've seen it noted, the Body of Christ? Is the Anglican communion? Roman? Eastern? Someone else?

Which Eucharist is the "valid" one? I can't see that it'd be all of them, as the underpinning beliefs are substantially different. So which is valid and which ones are the "pantomimes"?

Is the Sydney Anglican diocese part of the "Church?". If not, why? If it is, and they allow a lay presidency, why doesn't this constitue the "Body of Christ" deciding who can and can't do it?

As for this thread, have we actually yet addressed the original question posed? Looking over it so far, we seem to have danced around it a bit.

From one point of view, the Church (Body of Christ) are only those spiritual bodies which derive from the early, undivided church, and stand in apostolic succession. These would be the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church(es), the Anglican Communion, (and some Scandinavian Lutherans).

Valid Eucharists would only be those celebrated by the ordained priests of those churches.

A broader view would be to say any church which considers itself apostolic, whether or not it enjoyes the historic episcopate, is a part of the True Church. This would include Lutherans and Methodists and other protestants. This would validate their Eucharists as well, I suppose.

The most liberal view of this matter would be to include anyone in Christ's body who claims to be a Christian. This view discards credal or other faith-statements or definitions of faith as lost in the fracturing of Christ's body.

As I said, all this depends on your point of view. Rome considers everyone outside itself to be schismatics or heretics. The Orthodox church sees Romans as heretics. Rome sees Anglicans as schismatics, and some Anglicans think Rome is the Scarlet Whore, while other Anglicans can't get their birettas off fast enough to kiss the pope's toe. Protestants think Romans are idolaters, and I have no doubt that some Protestants think Anglicans are Roman-wanna-bes.

I agree with Fr. Cosmo, HT and others who have pointed out that the RC, Orthodox, Anglican and some Lutherans are churches that maintain the apostolic succession. Of course, only Anglicans believe Anglicans have maintained the apostolic succession and most Lutherans from Scandenavia I've met really don't care that their church has maintained apostolic succession. It certainly is not a big enough issue for them to break communion with Lutheran churches that have not.

The apostolic succesion was a device used in the early church to verify a person's credentials. It was not seen as some sort of magical device used by the Holy Spirit to impart the power and authority on someone to preside at the Holy Mysteries or any other sacramental act. That authority rested with the local church working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The idea that ordination by the laying on of hands and in the apostolic succession somehow imparted this authority on someone apart from the church itself didn't start developing until much later. This doesn't make the apostolic succession bad. It is a sacramental expression of the calling that all deacons, priests and bishops have to preach and teach the apostolic faith, and I would be quite upset if the ECUSA decided to give it up for any but the gravest reasons.

However, I am really uncomfortable with using words like "valid" and "invalid" with regard to the Eucharist. Who can know whether a Eucharist is valid except God alone. I do think it's legitimate to say that a Eucharist celebrated by someone not in the Apostolic succession within the an Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox etc. context is "irregular." But that is not to pass judgment on its "validity," only on whether it conforms with the practices of the church body in which it is done.

Clear as mud, I guess. It is HOT here today, and I think my brain has turned into oatmeal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Which Eucharist is the "valid" one? So which is valid and which ones are the "pantomimes"?

---

Regarding valid eucharists and consecrations in general: The Anglican Church is a church of the Word and of the Sacrament, and I am not a strong sacramentalist, however worship in reverence and holiness in the Anglican tradition is important to me. I'd like to hear a strong sacramentalist discuss consecration further (perhaps in purgatory?). Why do we need it? Approaching the Lord's Table is as central to my worship as hearing the Word preached - I couldn't give a useful explanation as to why, but I would certainly feel diminished if there was no consecration. Intellectually I am in rebellion with the sacramental emphasis of the Lord's Supper, but there is an awe about it that can only be understood as Cosmo(?) said by 'come inside'. It might just be that I was bonded to it at a formative age... but I'll just smile laconically and say 'It works for me' - even though I don't understand it and consciously find it irrational!

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Is the Sydney Anglican diocese part of the "Church?". If not, why? If it is, and they allow a lay presidency, why doesn't this constitue the "Body of Christ" deciding who can and can't do it?

---

It is inimical to the tradition and character of the Anglican Church to have a eucharist with a lay president. Imo, it ceases to be the 'Anglican Church'.

I am not up on it, but I believe the measure of Anglicanism is if a church is in full communion with Canterbury. Would Canterbury accept to be in full communion with a church that institutes lay presidency of the eucharist?

Division in the Church is a bad thing, QEI knew that... and there are a lot of things that are negotiable - the via media is nice and broad, but if you stretch it too far it breaks. The ordination of women caused some people to break communion with the Anglican Church, while others who were opposed to it accommodated - I would make a distinction between the essence of that issue and the issue of lay presidency. For the priesthood there is a both a calling by the Spirit and a discernment of the Body. (Its roles being central to our discipline).

As a body the Sydney Diocese could make the decision that they will have lay presidents of the eucharist, but imo, they are not free to make this decision if they wish to remain in the Anglican Church.

I contemplate the future of the Anglican Church in Australia with anxiety and sadness. Our Primate is right to call them 'Sydney liberals' - we joke that this is their payback for women's ordination and the move for women bishops. I think the Diocese of Sydney will eventually become the indomitable handful of currently existing anglo-catholic parishes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
Would Canterbury accept to be in full communion with a church that institutes lay presidency of the eucharist?

---

It has always been my impression that the Anglican Communion does not "excommunicate" people. I don't know what the consequences of a lay presidency decision would be, but I don't think Canterbury declares anyone "out of communion".

As to the need for other intermediatory priests - I thnk that we are going to have to agree to differ - but hopefully in love.

quote:

---

Originally posted by astro:

I am try to consider why "The Priesthood of all believers" is so important to me.
Astro

---

The priesthood of all believers is part of the letter to the Hebrews. While Astro looks at from a "politlcs and power" view the real importance at least for me is that a`s Christ has "Gone through the curtain" there is now no need for any intervention other than Christ and the Holy Spirit between me a sinner and the almighty God.

2. WIth all due respect to Cosmo and others, for whose position I have a great deal of sympathy, it is not at all clear that personal and direct succession by laying on of hands really can be proved. Rather, as I think Br. Jenks is trying to say, there is a corporate succession. Certainly there are enough exmaples both from patristic and reformation times where episcopal lay on of hands was not required for a person to exercise prebyterial or episcopal authority in the church to show that we would be better focusing on corporate validity. And, given the Porvoo agreement, at least those of you in the C of E have an interesting time if personal succession is required.

3. On the priesthood of all believers -- someone with more Greek than I should verify this, but my understanding is that this expression refers to "hierarchoi(? -- as I implied, my Greek is not great) -- a term related to the sacrificing prriests of the Jewish and pagan cults. And scripture clearly says that such people no longer exist. "Priests" as Anglicans use the term are in fact "prebyteroi" -- elders in the community, and specifically those ordained by the church to preside at the eucharist.

Ordination is not, repeat not, the same as commissioning. That happens in the Royal Navy or the Salvation Army. It does not happen in the Anglican Church. Neither is the laying on of hands simply the way in which ordination happens to be expressed. If it was, do you seriously think that in our modern-obsessed world it would still be going. In the twenty-first doesn't it make sense, as a previous curate of HTB thought, just do it by fax or an e-mail from the Bishop's office? Perhaps, in view of its importance, a telegram from the Archbish. Or, if you must make some kind of public spectacle of it, do it in a big church but have all different people doing it (after all what's so special about a bishop, somebody who has been commissioned a third time?) going up and down the line like presidents glad-handling. Perhaps it could be done like old Confirmations used to be done in the country churches with all the candidates for 'commissioning' sitting in lines, a board laid over their heads which the Bishop touches and, whoosh!, they're all done. Saves time and effort and means you can get back to haranguing people about the Kuala Lumpur Statement.

Ordination is a sacramental act whereby the candidate is told to 'Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a deacon/priest' not 'Receive the acclamation of me and sixteen busybodies with too much time on their hands to become a professional religious person'. This means, as well as the theology, reason, ecclesiology and history of the Church of England, that lay presidency is totally alien to Anglicanism. It is not good enough to say that if the Bishop licences somebody to say mass then that person can just get up and do it. A sacramental, episcopal church (which, like it or not, the Anglican Church is) does not function in that way. If you don't like it then don't be an Anglican. That's fair enough. But do not try to mangle what little sacramentalism the Anglican Church still possesses just because you think it should be done in a different way. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: 'Never mock the ordination of clergy. Only people who can't get into it do that.'

Yours, brandishing his BCP Ordinal, ASB Ordinal and any other Episcopal Ordinal you care to mention,

the truly sad thing is that some evangelicaly leaning members of the CofE may find the whole thrust of this thread wierd, superstitious and dis-quieting.

i am left wandering that if the "suceed" and the church does fall down this path of modernising and trying to be "accountable" and "in touch" the downward trend in those who are part of the body of christ will spiral. our current difficulties imho are due to the corrupt, idolising and selfish attitude of the people and never has a church flourished ( in numbers ) in this sort of climate.we are called to prophecy not fall in line.

what has survived throught he centuries is the proof against herecy that our tradition gives us. if this current trend towards non-sacrtemantal worship and findind the lowest common factor in biblical exegesis continues then maybe this church needs to go down the plug hole.

please dont take us who cherish the pillars of tradition , doctrine and reason with you.

quote:

---

what has survived throught he centuries is the proof against herecy that our tradition gives us. if this current trend towards non-sacrtemantal worship and findind the lowest common factor in biblical exegesis continues then maybe this church needs to go down the plug hole.

---

Well I'm not convinced there is a trend towards non-sacremental worship, perhaps there was in my parents generation (I'm 25), but in mine the tendancy seems to be towards a higher churchmanship among many. I certainly feel that the Tradition found in Anglo-Catholic circles has a lot to offer young people as long as it is not enforced with the modernist zeal of some Evangelicals (who I also love and value!)

When I receive communion I know why the Priest presiding is presiding. Not because they are the most vocal, gifted or energetic member of the church, not because they are the most controlling or powerful, but because they are ordained priest, because they represent Church, Congregation and (ducks) Christ.

When I look at who "presided" over the house churches I used to attend the same could not be said.

But then the Eucharist is at the very heart of our worship as Anglicans (and it has not always been so), not the Sermon or the Songs we sing. The Eucharist to me is not just recieving bread and wine, or even body and blood, it is the absolution, the peace, the concecration , the post communion meditation. It is a holistic act of worship that spans the centuries.

I have shared bread and wine in many churches, but there is a depth I have found in the Historic christian eucharistic liturgy that leads me to believe that I recieve in a greater part now than I did then. Other people may have different experiences.

quote:

---

While Astro looks at from a "politlcs and power" view

---

I am not really looking at it from a politics and power view - more a you should think things out for yourself view

Can anyone explain why so many anglican evangelical parishes, in their practice, turn to a very magical-medieval-priestcraft view, whatever they may believe in theory about 'lay presidency'? I mean, the fact that they often have a lay president for the whole liturgy except for the eucharistic prayer... the priest is brought in to say the 'magic words'.

If the presider has a true pastoral role within that congregation, let them offer themself for ordination as priest; if the priest has no true pastoral role (either for that or another group of christians) then what is the point of him/her being a priest at all?

They reach their destination. Unfortunately
the landing was more than bumpy and the
priest was killed. In the interim, Earth has
started a very short nuclear war and all
other human life has been extinguished.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:
Now..in the absence of a priest or Bishops to
consecrate same, are these remaining humans to be deprived of the Eucharist until
Our Lord's return ?

---

I think even the RC Church allows that a valid Eucharist may be celebrated without a priest ordained in the Apostolic Succession in extraordinary circumstances such as these, or even less extraordinary, such as the desert island case where there might be a reasonable hope of rescue. I forget where I got this information from, so it might not be reliable, but it seems to make sense.

All the Eucharistic theology that I'm familiar with, both past and present, protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, makes clear that the Eucharist is celebrated by the whole church, not just the celebrant, and not just the people who are present in the assembly in that time and place. The celebrant presides. The celebrant does not do something apart from everybody. Having a priest ordained in the Apostolic succession preside may be the normative practice, and not something to be set aside lightly. But obviously there are circumstances where it may be necessary.

Cosmo -- I agree entirely with you about what ordination does. I was talking about the form necessary for it to happen. You have reacted very strongly to my use of the word "comissioning" without considering how I was using it. If it has a certain connotation for you, okay, but please consider that many of us may use it in a more general sense which includes your definition of what ordination does.

You have still not dealt with why the form of ordination has to be that of the second or third century (certainly not the first) and cannot be changed. (Obviously I am assumeing, what is probably not in the mind of the good folk of Sydney, that the people to be licensed are called by the church and accepted by their communities, and licensed with the intent that they would preside at the eucharist),

For me it is not a quiet resignation that things are so different, but rather a chance to revel in the plurality of ways that are open to us. It is a huge, beautiful garden where the differnt styles, create different vista, fragrences etc. As long as we are aware that *our* way is not the only way to worship or understand Almighty God, then I believe that God takes a great deal of pleasure in this diversity.

I am curious as to why so many people on this and other threads think that being sacramental means non-charismatic. Unless their understanding of "sacramental" (or highc church/anglo-catholic) and "charismatic" is different than mine.

Most of the early teaching and experience I had about charismatic gifts came our of the Roman Catholic renewal movement -- singing in the spirit I first experienced at a meeting of a couple of hundred RCs -- and most of the most active charismatic people I know are also highly sacramental.

Where is the conflict seen to lie?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

I am curious as to why so many people on this and other threads think that being sacramental means non-charismatic. Unless their understanding of "sacramental" (or highc church/anglo-catholic) and "charismatic" is different than mine.

Where is the conflict seen to lie?

John

---

I agree with you John. I find that much of the ceremonial of Roman Catholic, Anglo Catholic, Orthodox etc. churches are merely formalized versions of the spontaneous forms of worship I have observed in Pentecostal churches, particularly churches in the African American tradition. Pentecostal/Charismatic worship and theology has far more in common with the Anglo Catholic worship and theology that I grew up with than the worship and theology of, for example, an evangelical fundamentalist church, including a much higher doctrine of the Eucharist and even devotion to Mary as the mother of God and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. These churches also tend to be far more sensitive to issues of social and economic justice than most Protestant churches I have been to.

What precisely do you mean by "charismatic".