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".