Surely the "orthodox" outcries against this innovation will begin any moment. Won't they?

No, BillyD, they won't. Sydney is a lynchpin in the ultraorthodox movement.

This is a move to enable "plantings" outside of their diocese. They can begin communions without using priests, which bypasses the conflicting status that they came up against in TEC.

It's just another way of keeping the assets whilst running their divergent theology, which still represses women and shows contempt for those who are "not like them". They worship a Jesus that is only for them, and rush to the pulpit to gloat that God is going to condemn and abuse all other souls.

God is God of ALL Creation. They can have their Jesus and their heaven, the rest of Creation is grateful that they only have jurisdiction over themselves and that God does not abdicate covenants of peace and grace, even if some selfish Christians attempt to deceitfully purport otherwise.

I would caution against the use of "orthodox" or "ultraorthodox" as a descriptor for dioceses, parishes or individuals who take particular stands regarding women's ordination or sexuality issues. These are NOT matters of orthodoxy, which are matters of faith restricted to core issues such as those covered in the creeds, but rather of social conservatism. Social conservatives might like to claim the work orthodox as their own, but that is mere spin.

Will this be the long hoped for occasion where the Diocese of Sydney finally trips over its own dink?

Ah yes Sydney, the holier than thou throne of elevation and universal mean Anglican judgment.

Can Sydney have its own special big tent while it systematically trash talks and tears down any possible big Anglican tent that could include the rest of us?

A sideshow, interesting - except for the real, true harm of real, alive people (believers, unbelievers alike?) that will likely be carried out by Sydney in God's name, alas, Lord have mercy.

Oh dear, this is already turning into something that's seen only in political terms, rather than on its own merits.

Jesus is present wherever two or three gather in his name. So when Christians gather, the host or the leader of the group would make a natural 'president' if they wanted to break bread and remember the death and resurrection of Jesus. There are centuries of theological and cultural barnacles all over this one, and if the Sydney action opens up a proper debate in the rest of the church then well done them. It probably needs a church which is on the margins of European Christendom to challenge the clericalisation of communion which we've wrongly accepted as the norm.

(exits to don bullet-proof chasuble)

Both Stand Firm and Virtue on Line ( the voice of Global orthodoxy) are silent!

Sydney Anglican media report:

Archdeacon for Women’s Ministry, Narrelle Jarrett, seconded the motion saying she wanted Synod to understand the way the ministry of deacons – male and female – is currently restrained.

Women can be deacons in Sydney Diocese but not presbyters (priests).

Archdeacon Jarrett said the current situation “seriously diminishes the ministry of women” explaining the right to administer the Lord’s Supper “is forbidden them for entirely unbiblical reasons”.

“Why can’t women deacons administer the Lord’s Supper in a girls’ school or a womens’ prison? Do we really think that a male priest can only administer this Sacrament?”

Archdeacon Jarrett also said the current situation also caused problems in multi-site parishes, when congregations are led by deacons.

A number of new church plants in Sydney Diocese, including some that are extra-parochial, are led by male deacons.

The current policy makes it difficult for these churches to regularly provide the Lord’s Supper to members.

So when will the emergency meeting of the Anglican primates be convened..say an emergency meeting not in Dar Es Salaam but in Llandudno!

Hmm,
I dont like the idea of deacons (non-presbyters) presiding at holy communion. Why can't the bishop just ordain some chantry priests?

This aint orthodoxy at all.
Nor is it Calvinism.
Nor Anglicanism.

This is Anabaptist or Arminian ecclesiology combined with Donatism.

I have noticed that on at least one Anglo-Catholic blog they are blaming the inclusion of laity in the synodical process for this mess. GAFCON has certainly done little but the bring down burning coals up the heads of that little group.

Well, RR, Matt Kennedy posted the Church Times article on the Stand Firm site, with the question: "Why do this now?"And the comments (especially from Anglo-Catholics) have not been exactly supportive of Sydney's decision. So, yes, it could be as you say.

Can we now drop the pretense that the Jensenites are in any meaningful way Anglican?

I think Sydney can argue that it is simply stating its opinion but not yet (officially, at any rate) acting on it -- as if New Westminster had approved same sex blessings in principal but not done it or TEC had said that sexual orientation was not a bar to the episcopate but refused to approve the election of Bishop Robinson (but OCICBW).

>>>(exits to don bullet-proof chasuble)

Just don't wear that chasuble in Sydney. Such vain and superstitious popery is forbidden there.

"Bishop Davies told the Synod that the Archbishop could not prevent a deacon’s “administering the Lord’s Supper”. But the motion, though it also affirmed lay presidency, could not approve lay people’s presiding at Sunday services, as the Archbishop would need to license them, Bishop Davies said. “The Archbishop will not license a lay person at this time.” -
- Statement from Sydney Diocesan Synod -

Of course the Archbishop could not prevent a deacon from 'administering ' the Lord's Supper - anyone may do that, even a lay person - if they have the licence.

BUT 'administering' is not the same as Presiding at The Eucharist. That is, and should remain, the task of the presbyter - That is, of course, if the Archbishoop, Bishops and Laity of the Sydney Diocese want to appear to be *ORTHODOX*.

The question here is Do they? If they go forward with the Lay Presidency idea, they will have put themselves outside the Anglican Communion - even offisde with those Re-Asserters who claim to be part of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

If Sydney, at al, defend this departure from Sacred Traditioon on the grounds of TEC's presumed 'departure from Tradition'; then this is of an entirely different order - that of a basic departure from the 'esse' of Holy Orders.

"A report accompanying the mo tion argued that, because deacons can administer the sacrament of bap tism “in its entirety”, and because “no hierarchy of sacraments is ex pressed in describing the deacon’s role of assisting the presbyter,” deacons are therefore authorised to “administer the Lord’s Supper in its entirety”."

Not only can deacons administer Baptism, but any lay person can. That still isn't an argument for anyone but a priest presiding at the Eucharist, since different Sacraments have different ministers. Because one requires a priest and the other doesn't does not imply a hierarchy. Only bishops can ordain, but that doesn't make Ordination superior to the Eucharist, or Baptism.

"Oh dear, this is already turning into something that's seen only in political terms, rather than on its own merits."

That it *has* merits is a pretty big assumption.

"Jesus is present wherever two or three gather in his name."

Yeess, with you so far...

"So when Christians gather, the host or the leader of the group would make a natural 'president' if they wanted to break bread and remember the death and resurrection of Jesus."

And if that were all that the Eucharist were, you might have a point. As it happens, that's not all it is.

And whatever else it is, it's an action of the whole Church, not just that select group. What you have described, inasmuch as it's a group with a host or a natural leader other than someone set aside by the Church for, among other things, presiding at the Eucharist, is something more private than any Mass celebrated by a lone priest at a side altar attended by a single server.

"(exits to don bullet-proof chasuble)"

What in the world do you want with a chasuble? ;-)

"So when Christians gather, the host or the leader of the group would make a natural 'president' if they wanted to break bread and remember the death and resurrection of Jesus."

If I were a Baptist, I'm sure I'd agree. But as I'm Episcopalian, and ergo Catholic...

I've got to agree with David. The church's restricting presidency over the Eucharist to full priests is a matter of tradition only. It's not scriptural. Sydney merely chose to modify the tradition to suit their own needs.

Furthermore, in a Diocese which doesn't ordain women, allowing their female deacons to preside over the Eucharist is a significant step forward for those deacons.

Remember, Jesus wasn't ordained and he didn't say anything about us having to ordain people.

The Sydney Anglicans have never been happy with the Elizabethan Settlement. I wish we had a bit of it back again, myself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlgtDqMRtxk&feature=related
(even though I know it didn't really happen this way).

… rather than on its own merits.

Merit? A breach of order is a merit?

Well, it would have to be argued Theologically and Biblically first, wouldn’t it? Just like TEC did a few years ago over the inclusion of gays in Setting our Hope in Christ, and just as was done over the ordination of women a couple of decades ago.

“Jesus is present wherever two or three gather in his name.”
This is Church, as I understand it. Not Eucharist, although sometimes heard since the 16th century.

“It probably needs a church which is on the margins of European Christendom to challenge the clericalisation of communion which we've wrongly accepted as the norm.”
As in Sidney? Which didn’t actually do it, it seems…

However, the “clericalisation of Christendom” as you call it, happened around 150 CE. Deacons precisely, became Priests and Bishops. That’s a long time ago.

David

I agree about labels, but what to call them?

Evangelicals? There are a lot of decent kind-hearted evangelicals who don't deserve to have their name sullied by such souls.

Catholic? At least the Pope and Mother Mary might have some objections to that.

Broad tent? Sydney Anglican leaders are very proud of their solo scriptural interpretations and very offensive and belligerent against alternative readings.

Liberal? Well, they are hardly liberal when it comes to women, GLBTs, abuse prevention, concerned for the well-being of the occupants of this planet (particularly the non-male, non-human kind).

Mystics? Hardly, when they are the great proponents that God no longer hands out gifts of prophecy, and that no woman can be a teacher, and any women with such kind of gifts is obviously evil incarnate (after all, they are clear that God is male).

Jesus was annointed to be lord of ALL the earth, for all the peopleS of all the nationS. That means when two or more people gather in Jesus' name, he is meant to be there for them, even if they are not exclusively Christian. (Go look at some countries, many souls claim to have many different religions).

I've personally had a Sydney Anglican tell me that the only legitimate manifestation of Jesus' return is the guy coming down from the clouds and slaying all but the chosen few (he obviously thinking that as a Sydney Anglican he was chosen). Shame on Jesus for allowing that murderous genocidal vision to take such hold. Shame on Jesus for allowing these souls to claim that he is the complete and perfect manifestation of God.

Go back and re-read Isaiah 11, then Ezekiel 26 & 28 for a kick up the pants. Get around to reading Hosea 2, Isaiah 48, 49 & 54, Micah: all these scriptures are unfulfilled. Some can only be done by a woman. And Jesus has failed to acknowledge any woman who has successfully fulfilled these scriptures. 2000 years and he never got around to keeping his promise to the Daughter of Zion and making peace?

The story has just blown on Stand Firm and the Anglo-Catholics are very upset...they don't seem to realise that the Church of England in South Africa ( a Gafcon signatory ) has had lay presidency since 1936.

Indeed a Sydney assistant bishop at the Sydney Synod remarked that diaconal celebration was already occuring in UGANDA.

This IS an interesting moment to make this decision.

We have to remember that preventing proposed changes in eucharist presidency figured as an important sidebar to the deliberations of the Lambeth Commission.

In a reflective piece the Archbishop of Sydney described TEC’s ordination of Gene Robinson as a badly timed “tactic”, and there is some truth in that many within TEC have been overwhelmed by the fierceness of the opposition often from former friends. Perhaps over 30 years of toleration and acceptance of gay people had dulled their senses and blocked out the memory of divinely approved homophobia. Similarly the diocese of Sydney is so comfortable with the thought of lay presidency it has – I believe – completely underestimated the negative reaction this decision will bring this will inevitably put a breaking strain on some newly formed alliances.

The maxim uttered in the Windsor Report

What touches on all must be decided by all

Will certainly be flying around everywhere this week and for a long while to come!

"It probably needs a church which is on the margins of European Christendom to challenge the clericalisation of communion which we've wrongly accepted as the norm." - David Keen -

Yes, David Keen, I do agree. And in the person of the present Archbishop of Sydney we do have a prelate who conforms to that description. The sooner the rest of the Communion recognises his profound unsuitability to remain within its traditional purview, the better.

You, personally, may think the Anglican Communion is mistaken about its fidelity to catholic order -in its retention of the priestly charism which is part and parcel of the apostolic tradition - a charism which, in fact, is one of the true marks of orthodoxy. However, you would probably be in a minority of Anglicans who feel that way.

"They worship a Jesus that is only for them, and rush to the pulpit to gloat that God is going to condemn and abuse all other souls."

A simple question, Cheryl. Can you (or anyone) point us to a sermon either in audio or text form this year from any Sydney Anglican preacher gloating over God's condermnation and abuse of souls?

Just one will do.

For what it's worth, Sydney has done this before. The problem was the Harry Goodhew is a reasonable man and listened to the then Primate (Keith Rayner), who took the view that Sydney's Synod had ultimately acted ultra vires, with the upshot that the Synod legislation was vetoed on that occasion. Goodhew was never forgiven for that, and this is the result. Perhaps we should wonder that it's taken them so long.

This is probably a motion that probably reflects an existing practice. Nevertheless, we can be sure something more formal will be forthcoming in the very near future, and not likely to be stopped by sheer reasonableness.

Aaron -- people have been saying what you've said here for a long time. Doesn't seem to have stopped the troglodytes from impugning the term orthodox with their regressive social outlook.

David Keen and JPM -- it is *theoretically* possible to wear the chasuble in the diocese of Sydney without infringing the diocesan vesture rules. The rule was introduced to reduce controversy over differences in vesture, but has been altered to enable no less a personage than the Dean of Sydney to preach in something other than cassock, surplice and scarf. Up to that point this was taken to be the standard vesture of Sydney clergy regardless of their churchmanship. Of course, stories of Sydney Anglo-Catholic clergy occasionally donning the chasuble abound, but it is not clear whether any parish has tested this by using the chasuble publicly and regularly. Certainly most parishes of that ilk don't tend to invite the diocesan bishops over in any event.

While the role of deacon might well be a worthwhile discussion topic, Sydney is not facilitating things in a productive way. Perhaps this might be the beginning of the (very long) end of FOCA...

Oi Folks..you are being spied on..John Richardson (Reform) is telling the folks on Stand firm to look at how Thinking Anglicans is reacting to the Sydney decision...so as to expose how sacramentalism is wedded to liberalism.

I am now taking bets... will the headline in the Church Times be......

GAFCON primates ask Sydney to step down

Emergency meeting of Anglican Primates called.

jensen called to Lambeth palace.

Crisis moves ftom TEC to Sydney

Forward in faith pull out of Gafcon.

Anglican Province of North America on rocks

Archbishop williams asks Bishop Robinson to chair Commission on lay presidency.

Somehow or other I wouldn't bet on it...By the way this is the same John Richardson who was advocating that conservative evangelicals go under the Anglo-Catholic flying bishops!

What hypocrisy.

I am moved by a strange and unsettling sense of deja vu. A diocese authorises to a ministry those who have historically and universally been excluded from it. They do so with a generous exegesis of an authoratative text, dismissing its plain sense. They conclude by saying that though this is at odds with the practice of the rest of the Anglican Communion they are legally powerless to do anything else.

Who would ever have thought Sydney would adopt New Hamshire's methods?!

Quite frankly, even of the Sydney “Anglicans” were to go through with permitting deacons to celebrate the Holy Eucharist, I would not go on a campaign to expel Sydney from Church or Communion. As a liberal Anglo-Catholic, I would oppose such an innovation; but if others want to experiment, following democratic debate and decision, that’s fine with me. Just as long as they don’t try to shove it down my throat. Too bad these folks don’t live and let live regarding womens’ ordination and gay clergy in other parts of the Communion. They are against "innovation" unless THEY want to do so!

Chantry priests and "deacons" aside, I wonder if the idea of "Canon 8" priests that we've had here in the ECUSA (in our minimally populated dioceses, such as Northern Michigan) may have influenced Sydney. All kidding aside, the outback of Australia is probably similar in demographics to the U.P.

David Ould is quite right...no Sydney Anglican would be that crass and they have a genuine zeal for Our Lord and include not stern Puritan type, but genuine loving people.Indeed Archbishop Jensen is a mild mannered but principled man, with a sharp wit.

For traditionalists there has been lay presidency in the Anglican Communion since the advent of women priests!

However I question the Evangelical alliance with Anglo-Catholics which is totally false and the fact that Anglo Catholic bishops who openly flout the 39 articles are GAfcon bishops...like Schofield and Iker. I asked David to explain this anomaly and he couldn't.In fact my GAFCON posting was removed from the Sydney Forum..as has my latest question on Diaconal presidency.

However I thank Sydney for revealing the other side of Protestant Anglicanism.

"And whatever else it is, it's an action of the whole Church"

Hmm, the first 'eucharist' was a Passover meal, which was something celebrated within Jewish family groups by the head of the family. Sure it linked to the story of the whole people, but then so does the Eucharist by the words we use, and the fact we remember the cross and the resurrection. Does that link to the whole church have to be the priesthood, or is the link the presence of Jesus and the remembrance of the cross?

BTw the chasuble comment was a throwaway one, I don't personally have one!

Just for a bit of context: I'm part of a group from a variety of churches looking at how we plant churches into new housing estates. We haven't got enough vicars to go round (see the CofE stats earlier this week), and our churches have varying views of communion. To bus in a vicar to take a communion service would be inappropriate, the eucharist should sustain and express the life of that Christian community. So do we just say 'sorry chaps, this is how it was in 300AD so you've just got to put up with it'? Or do we authorise someone from within those mission communities to preside at the Lords Supper?

I'm not after an argument with people, I just want something that makes sense both in terms of theology and mission. And probably no chasubles.

""So when Christians gather, the host or the leader of the group would make a natural 'president' if they wanted to break bread and remember the death and resurrection of Jesus."

And if that were all that the Eucharist were, you might have a point. As it happens, that's not all it is."

You got to it before me, BillyD. But this is the point, isn't it? I mean, look at this, that RIW gaffed from Stand Firm:

"to expose how sacramentalism is wedded to liberalism."

You see, for them, sacraments are suspect. If there can be concrete act of the believer, like publically professing one's faith, or piously thinking about something that happened 2000 years ago, then fine. But suggest there is something otherworldly, or mystical about a sacrament and it all falls apart. My gee, you just as well go right off and kiss Peter's toe on your merry jaunt down the road to perdition. It's a soulless, legalistic understanding of Christianity, nearly Arian in its attitude that Jesus is some kind of all powerful buddy, a Divine superhero. Funniest is the fact that they consider "sacramentalism is linked to literalism" to be an indictment of both, since they consider both evil, while I would consider any such link, which I don't believe exists, BTW, to be a sign of the intrinsic good of both, each affirming the other! That some people think that sacramentalism is a Bad Thing is just another piece of evidence that we do actually have different religions.

"For traditionalists there has been lay presidency in the Anglican Communion since the advent of women priests!"

Oh foo, RIW. Just because "traditionalists" (i.e., anti-WO) dislike the authorized expansion of the sacramental priesthood to those made female, is no justification to term these called/formed/ordained PRIESTS as "lay".

We should all engage with David Keen's concerns and dump knee-jerk castigation of Sydney's proposal (still only that) simply because we reject (quite rightly, of course) said Sydney's silly attitudes to gays and can thus 'prove' that we liberal Anglo-Catholics are, on essentials, far more 'orthodox' than they are. My personal view is that 'the Apostolic Succession' is a construct and a construct that must frequently have been sundered in practice. The notion that there can be circumstances where someone in some rather weak sense 'authorised' can celebrate the Eucharist seems deeply Christian and deeply in accord with Jesus' own words.

John: I agree. To that end, I'm reposting part of a comment by Phil Snyder, Deacon in the Diocese of Dallas (Episcopal Church US), originally on the Stand Firm! IMHO he gets at the real issue here:

"I object to this change in who may administer the Sacraments.... [P]residing is not a normal diaconal charism. I have, with the permission of my bishop, presided at an administration from the Reserved Sacrament, but it is not something that is or should be normal for a deacon to do."

What Phil Snyder is licensed to do on occasion is not preside, but administer the Reserved Sacrament. This license presumes that both he and his bishop accept that

1) a change in the elements (the bread and wine) had occurred at their earlier consecration (which was performed by a priest), and

2) this change has persisted in the elements (the Reserved Sacrament) and will continue to persist through their administration by a lay person. Furthermore

3) this change in the elements can only be effected by a priest.

I don't think that the Sydney Anglicans believe any of these things; they take a Zwinglian view of the Sacrament as a memorial only, and reject the Catholic view.

The Elizabethan Prayer Book (followed subsequently by all revisions, AFAIK) gives two formulas for the administration of the Sacrament by the priest. One is Catholic ("The Body of Christ...) the other Zwinglian ("Take and eat this in remembrance..."). Both views of the Sacrament, in other words, have been acceptable within the Anglican tradition since early in Elizabeth I's reign.

But the Sydney Anglicans, known for wanting to return to the more radical Protestant tendencies of Edward VI's reign, seem to reject the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament altogether.

This is an innovation. And a problem.

If I'm wrong in this attempt at sacramental theology, please correct me.

"Hmm, the first 'eucharist' was a Passover meal, which was something celebrated within Jewish family groups by the head of the family. Sure it linked to the story of the whole people, but then so does the Eucharist by the words we use, and the fact we remember the cross and the resurrection."

It is by no means certain that the first Eucharist (notice the absence of scare quotes) took place at a Passover meal. The Synoptics say it did; St. John says that it did not. The Eastern Orthodox are pretty sure that St. John has it right (and if it were a seder, wouldn't we only be celebrating it once a year?). At any rate, the meal at which it took place is not the same as the action itself.

"Does that link to the whole church have to be the priesthood, or is the link the presence of Jesus and the remembrance of the cross?"

No, it doesn't have to be the priesthood. It has to be the episcopate. Since earliest times, the local Church met around its bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. One city, one bishop, one Eucharist. The only reason that priests do it now is because the numbers of Christians grew rapidly, and one celebration per city became unrealistic. Bishops couldn't be everywhere, so with the multiplication of celebrations they delegated priests to be their agents; since priests are ordained by bishops, the link with the bishop and his celebration was maintained. (Don't they read Dom Gregory Dix on the other side of the pond?)

"BTw the chasuble comment was a throwaway one, I don't personally have one!"

Oh, what a shock! No, I rather doubted that you did. :-)

"To bus in a vicar to take a communion service would be inappropriate..."

Says who?

..." the eucharist should sustain and express the life of that Christian community."

Which does not exist on its own. Missions are extensions of the diocesan life of the Church. Having a representative of the bishop (ie a priest) is how that plays out liturgically.

"I've got to agree with David. The church's restricting presidency over the Eucharist to full priests is a matter of tradition only."

Only?

"It's not scriptural."

Since when is sola Scriptura an Anglican concept?

"Furthermore, in a Diocese which doesn't ordain women, allowing their female deacons to preside over the Eucharist is a significant step forward for those deacons."

Yes, it would be - if presiding at the Eucharist were some sort of personal achievement.

"Remember, Jesus wasn't ordained..."

Quite right. And since he wasn't, I'd say that any other human being who was also the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity should also get a free pass on having to be ordained and can do whatever they want to do. All others, please apply to the authority left behind by Christ to act in his name, the Church.

"Lay presidency means that suitable members of our church congregations should be allowed to run the communion service, in the same way that they are licensed or allowed to preach.

"Should the Diocese, or St Pewsitters ever be crazy enough to allow the pewsitter to run communion, I would be happy to. I agree with the Synod that there’s nothing in the Bible to suggest that the communion service is more special than preaching."
- Sydney Diocesan web-site -

This item, presumably by a local lay-person, on the Diocese of Sydney's web-site, shows just how far the Jensen Brother's have influenced the local Church to embrace their own defective view of the place of the Eucharist as the pre-eminent liturgy of the Christian Chuerch community.

Here again is that peculiar biblical-literalism that precludes any theological or spiritual insight into what exactly took place in the Early Church's development of liturgical worship - centred around the Dominical Institution of the Blessed Sacrament. These Latter-day Jensenists are hell-bent on dumbing down the mystical in our understanding of religion. For them, the task of preaching has come to surpass the Remembrance of the Paschal Mystery of Christ in the Eucharist.

This is particularly strange when one considers the dependance of the Re-Asserters on the Old Testament Law and Traditions - which enshrined the priestly ministry as something set-apart by God for special liturgical functions in community.

"The Elizabethan Prayer Book (followed subsequently by all revisions, AFAIK) gives two formulas for the administration of the Sacrament by the priest. One is Catholic ("The Body of Christ...) the other Zwinglian ("Take and eat this in remembrance..."). "

Doesn't it, rather, take those two formulae and wed them into one? It's not as if those distributing Communion get to pick one that best accords with their own private views on the Sacrament.

Sydney Anglicans are true to Cranmer and the Protestant spirit of Anglicanism. Anglo-Catholicism is a nineteenth century aberration.
The early high Church tradition on careful examination is Protestant...Archbishop Laud never prayed to the Saints or for the dead..wore a chasuble or even a mitre. The non-jurors failed to join with the Grek Orthodox because they wanted them to give up transubstantiation and invocation odf Saints.

The Anglo-Catholics re-introduced ritual and Roman Catholic doctrine into Anglicanism...and Sydney stayed the same, vociferously rejecting it. how many reader realise that the chasuble was only re-introduced to Anglicanism in the mid nineeenth century and was illegal until 1964.

As late as the ninteen forties Sydney was prosecuting other Anglicans for introducing high Church illegal prayer Books.

Through the genius of Protestant Irishman and Anglican missionarty to Roman Catholics TC Hamamond, Principal of Moore College , Sydney was preserved for hard line Evangelicalism.
From the thirties, Sydney gave sustenance to the Church of England in South africa..the Evangelicals in South Africa who would not join the Church of the Provice which was Anglo-Catholic.

So Sydney was undermining the Anglican Communion from the nineteen thirties and pulled off an early triumph by getting quasi-recognition for CESA..when the presiding bishop of that denomination was consecrated with the participation of a South African Anglican bishop.

The aim of Sydney and the Gafcon enterprize is to win Anglicanism back to Evangelicalism..which they understand as true Christianity.

Hence my cynicism as they " co-operate " with Anglo-Catholics.."come into my parlour said the spider to the fly."

Oh foo, RIW. Just because "traditionalists" (i.e., anti-WO) dislike the authorized expansion of the sacramental priesthood to those made female, is no justification to term these called/formed/ordained PRIESTS as "lay".

I agree it sounds provocative language - but when push comes to shove I am not sure how else the ministry of women can be regarded by the majority of Christendom - however it is 'authorized'.

Billy,

In Matthew 16, where Jesus allegedly tells Peter that He will build His church on Peter, the Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia". Literally (according to wikipedia), ekklesia meant assembly, congregation or council. That's all we have to go on as far as Jesus (the un-ordained Jewish guy) is concerned. The funky hats, the robes, the incense, the wine and the bread ... all that is tradition.

It's not to be lightly discarded. I knowingly chose to be confirmed in a church whose polity is episcopal. However, let's not place too much weight on tradition. And let's condemn Sydney for their homophobia, not for changing tradition.

David Ould:

I think what some people are trying to say is "it's alright for Sydney to do it's own thing but when TEC and ACofC did "their own thing" we heard nothing but outcries such as apostate and heretics."

Why can one national church, well, not even a church but a diocese do something innovative and it's Okey Dokey but when other national churches open their doors for everyone we hear "they've made a pack with the devil?"

I'm sure this argument isn't going to settled since there seems to be double standards all over the place.

I'm too much of an Anglo-Catholic. I want a proper priest to consecrate the elements. Is mass even valid without a proper priest?

As for those who say Jesus wasn't ordained, early Christianity certainly doesn't look like it does today. If we're going to turn back the clock maybe we should turn it all the way back. Again more double standards.

"... it is *theoretically* possible to wear the chasuble in the diocese of Sydney without infringing the diocesan vesture rules."

Not unless things have changed drastically under +Jensen - which I very much doubt: in the mid 90's all ordinations were subject to the candidate signing an agreement to never wear "a chasuble or any other eucharistic vestment" while in the diocese. An "import" friend of mine trained and ordained elsewhere (a rare phenomena in Sydney) was required to sign a similar statement before being licensed to officiate.

BTW even in those parishes where lay/diaconal presidency is already (illegally) being practised, let's not have anyone kid themselves that this is giving women some kind of equality: most of those places consider themselves enlightened if they let women present the OT reading (but never the Gospel or Epistle) - forget about presiding over anything not involving children's ministry, cooking, or cleaning. The argument that this move will in some way empower women's ministry is so farcical it's a miracle those advancing it can keep a straight face.

David O

Don't play statistics games. That means that 2004 & 2005 weren't that remarkable in terms of natural disasters. The 2004 Tsunami happened 26 December, so missed by 5 days being in 2005, and then there were the blimps in 2005 e.g. the Pakistani quake.

Much more interesting to take a twelve month period e.g. 22 December 2004 to 21 December 2005 and then do a comparison on the blimps.

I'm not looking for new battles, I'm settling old ones. Archbishop Jensen 16 January 2005, Bishop at local minister's ordination February 2005: http://www.wombatwonderings.org/files/peace_in_our_time_sanitised.pdf

Of course, I could go into a church with a wire tap and get more evidence, but can't be bothered. They're still gloating about the suffering of non-Christians and Jesus' plans to assign all non-Christians to hell. It's Jesus' problem that Sydney Christians got so far off the track, and his problem to create suitable parishes that don't insult and abuse. God will provide suitable accommodation for those that Jesus and his disciples have deemed unworthy of hospitality or compassion.

The other thing as Robert W has mentioned before, is that even if the evidence was found, they would delete it. That's been some of the fun of the last few years - proving how much white washing has been done.

Ezekiel 13:10-11 "‘Because they lead my people astray, saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall. ‘Because they lead my people astray, saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall."

"Hmm, the first 'eucharist' was a Passover meal, which was something celebrated within Jewish family groups by the head of the family" -

- David Keen -

Not so! Whichever version of the description of the Last Supper you want to cite as evidence for this statement, David Keen, it won't wash!

Yes, I have heard of certain evangelical Christian communities who have settled for a Seder Meal as a substitute for the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, but no traditional Anglican Church would find this an adequate way of celebrating or commemorating the events in the Upper Room on the night before the death of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus spoke of a 'New Covenant - "in my blood", and the specific offering of bread and wine by the priest (acting as the personification of Jesus), with the words: This IS my Body, this IS my blood; separates the old ceremony of remembrance of the Passover Feast, with the 'anamnesis' (ever remembering) of Our Lord's Passion, Death and Resurrection Event.

The old English word for the Vicar was 'Parson' - the one who personified Jesus - especially in the Celebration of the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

What separates the persona of the presiding priest from the other celebrants at the Eucharist is the fact that he/she is 'set apart' (ordained) for that specific function - to 're-present' the sacrifical action of Jesus, on behalf of the gathered community.

Readers may not be aware that this has all happened before - in the Diocese of Armidale in northern New South Wales. In the early-1990s the diocesan bishop permitted several deacons to preside at communion. When this came to light (much to the shock of many Armidale parishioners) the Australian bishops insisted that he ordain those deacons to the priesthood. This lead to the bizarre circumstance whereby the diocese of Armidale passed the General Synod canon permitting women to be ordained priest for a period of five days, in order to ordain a female deacon who had presided at the eucharist. She continued to work as a priest in the diocese despite the fact that Armidale continues to oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood. What remains to be seen is whether the Australian bishops will pursue similar action with respect of the diocese of Sydney some 13 years later.

It's not clear from the original post or any of the comments: does this ruling allow deacons to consecrate the blessed sacrament or are they only distributing communion from hosts originally consecrated by a priest?

"The only reason that priests do it now is because the numbers of Christians grew rapidly, and one celebration per city became unrealistic. Bishops couldn't be everywhere, so with the multiplication of celebrations they delegated priests to be their agents; since priests are ordained by bishops, the link with the bishop and his celebration was maintained"

So where is the theological problem with extending that principle to lay people, provided they are given their auhority either by a bishop or a priest, so the link is maintained?

"Does that link to the whole church have to be the priesthood, or is the link the presence of Jesus and the remembrance of the cross?"

David, you need to remember that statements such as this make assumptions that are simply wrong. I have no idea as to percentages, but not all Anglicans believe as you do. For many of us, the Eucharist is not merely a memorial in which believers gather to piously meditate on something that happened 2000 years ago. For us, it is 'anamnesis': bringing into being by remembering. So, for us, the actions of the gathered community, which is the local expression of the Church, "focussed" in some sense through the priest, whose priesthood is nothing but a sharing of the priesthood of Christ, brings into being here and now "the memorial which He hath commanded". So, for us, the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ just as they have done for the past 2000 years. It is a mistake to say we believe the sacrifice of Christ to be repeated. Rather, our Elements become the same Bread and Wine that He broke and blessed, so our Eucharist, like all other Eucharists, is the same one He celebrated 2000 years ago, and we are present eating that meal with all other Christians who have ever eaten it, or who will ever eat it. You might not believe this, but don't assume that what you believe is what we all believe. So, yes, we need a priest, we can piously meditate on what happened if a lay person presides, but what that person is presiding over isn't a Eucharist, it's just a pious act of meditation, like the Rosary. The thing is, in Sydney, we are seeing a major change in Eucharistic practice done so as to bolster an "antisacramental" (read, 'antiRoman') attitude that is the opposite of the faith of many of us, and to keep collars off women's necks. Are these sufficient reasons?

"We should all engage with David Keen's concerns and dump knee-jerk castigation of Sydney's proposal (still only that) simply because we reject (quite rightly, of course) said Sydney's silly attitudes to gays and can thus 'prove' that we liberal Anglo-Catholics are, on essentials, far more 'orthodox' than they are. My personal view is that 'the Apostolic Succession' is a construct and a construct that must frequently have been sundered in practice. The notion that there can be circumstances where someone in some rather weak sense 'authorised' can celebrate the Eucharist seems deeply Christian and deeply in accord with Jesus' own words."

Quite right John. The issue is how do we provide ministry and worship in varied settings, whether in rapidly expanding suburbs, or in depopulating rural areas. And we need to recognize that the standard models of parish ministry (salaried, seminary-trained presbyters) are not always the most effective or practical means.

I am a priest on the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland. I currently serve 4 congregations spread over 50 kilometers; I started my ministry here serving 7 congregations along 90 kilometers of coastline. Many of my colleagues cover much larger distances, sometimes without roads. I have some lay readers who are quite capable of leading worship; they take Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer on Sundays when I am in another congregation or on holiday. They could certainly capably preside at the Eucharist, if they were so authorized.

Sydney has come up with one solution, which is consistent with their theology (though not, in my opinion, Anglican) and misogyny.

Northern Michigan has come up with another, which is to ordain persons in each congregation as presbyters to preside when the community gathers, but are usually not authorized to perform other
functions often associated with ordained ministry (pastoral ministry, preaching, educating).

My own view, as an Anglo-Catholic with a healthy respect for Tradition, is the latter approach. Priestly orders have, by tradition, been required to preside at the eucharist, and connect the community to the bishop and the apostolic tradition. But, one need not attend seminary for 3 years to learn how to preside at the Eucharist.

I am a moderate, generally, as my infrequent comments reveal. But in common with many Episcopalians, I am a conservative and catholic when it comes to the sacraments. One has to be a priest to preside. That is why we are not Presbyterians or Congregationalists. We live in San Francisco, Diocese of California, and I doubt that in this liberal area you could find very many regular communicants who would approve of lay or diaconal presidency, even if the Bishop approved, which he certainly would never do.

I'm not surprised that Sydney has acted on its longstanding, if un-Anglican, belied that there is no reason why lay people should not preside at the Lord's Supper.

What I must admit that I do not understand is just what importance they attach to the concept of a "priest" that prevents them from ordaining women.

"This IS my Body, this IS my blood"

Isn't it interesting how those who are very literalist about pretty much all of the rest of the Bible insist that these words are only symbolic? Put bluntly, they are the only words of Scripture some people do NOT take literally. Ya gotta wonder why.

"one need not attend seminary for 3 years to learn how to preside at the Eucharist."

Aboslutely! In fact, it is the tradition in some parts of Greece, I believe, that clergy have regular jobs outside the Church. But their dioceses are, I understand, much smaller, and the need for delegated episcopal responsibility that led to the creation of the prebyterate/priesthood is not as great. They also delegate confirmation to their priests, which has enabled them to avoid the unfortunate separation of Baptism and Confirmation into two separate sacraments that occurred in the West.

"where is the theological problem with extending that principle to lay people"

The problem is for those who have a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. If your belief is that it is nothing more than a pious jogging of your memory, then there isn't an issue. If you believe something like what I laid out above, it is an impossibility. I would not receive elements presided over by a lay person according to Anglican liturgical forms in an Anglican Church. That would not be a Eucharist. In the context of non-Anglicans celebrating their version of the most sacred act of Christian worship, I'd have no problem, since it is not their intent to do what we do. Now, what about the fact that it is not Sydney's intent to do what we do, either?

Ford Elms: my 'statement' was a question, so technically it didn't make any assumptions, but I take your point!! I know other Anglicans don't believe as I do, thankyou for your clear explanation of your position. I do believe we are eating the same meal as Christians of 2000 years ago, and that Jesus is present as we do so. But I'm not convinced that the presence of a priest is the only necessary and sufficient condition for that.

Father Ron: are you saying that the Passover wasn't celebrated by the head of the family? Not with you on that one. The Passover was also a remembrance, where the present day Israel identified itself with the body of people released from slavery centuries before. I'm not sure that this required priesthood to make it work. And there is more than one way to set people apart: e.g. Paul and Barnabas being set apart by the Antiochian church for the work of mission.

Jim Pratt - thanks for that insight into what happens elsewhere, that's very interesting and very helpful. There has to be some constructive engagement between ecclesiology and mission in this debate, I'm not convinced that our traditional ecclesiology is always the Ace of trumps.

[Israel P: the *former*. There wouldn't be too much outcry over the latter, I think]

""Remember, Jesus wasn't ordained..." Quite right. And since he wasn't, I'd say that any other human being who was also the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity should also get a free pass on having to be ordained and can do whatever they want to do. All others, please apply to..."

*LOL* BillyD! :-D

"where is the theological problem with extending that principle to lay people"

Sorry to be so verbose, Erika, but I think we also have to consider motivations behind this. Sydney's case is pretty clear: first and foremost, they HAVE to prevent women from being ordained, as far as they're concerned. Second, and perhaps equally important, they have to distance themselves from anything that even hints of "Popery". I'm thinking of a statement made on another thread, that conservative Evangelicals see sacramentalism linked with liberalism. I found this very amusing, since I am an avid sacramentalist, and it's interesting to contemplate the implications of some of my fellow Anglicans treating with deep antipathy something that is at the basis of my faith. But then, I treat with deep antipathy things that are at the basis of their faith. What's your reason for not opposing it? I'm sure it's neither of the things I mentioned.

Funnier still is the outcry among conservative Anglicatholics about this. What did they expect? I mean, come on, they can't have figured it'd be a happy alliance when some of them pray for "Benedict, our Pope" on the grounds that, despite our disagreements, he is still Patriarch of the West, while others have referred to Benedict and his followers as "subChristians". Did they seriously believe that using the Bible to justify homophobia would cover up that not inconsiderable difference of opinion?

“Anglo-Catholicism is a nineteenth century aberration.” Robert Ian Williams

You know, Robert, your tirades are getting tiring, particularly when it is demonstrated to you that what you assert is simply factually wrong. The High Church tradition existed in both Britain and America long before the Catholic Revival in England began in the 1830s and 1840s.

The Parish of Trinity Church Wall Street, founded by Royal Charter in New York City in 1697, is the archetypical example of the American Episcopal High Church tradition.

Contemporary New Yorkers described the original church building (1697-1776) as being “ornamented beyond any other place of worship among us.” Here, in Catholic practice, the altar, not the pulpit, had the central place of honor. It stood in a spacious, railed chancel, built in the form of an apse, at the “liturgically correct” East End of the building facing Broadway. The domed ceiling of the apse was painted in cerulean blue with gold stars and other heavenly bodies representing the Firmament of Heaven. According to contemporaries the head of the chancel was “adorned with an altar-piece,” or reredos, which was “pretty well ornamented with painting and gilding.”

The altar itself was “set out with all Customary requsites,” including silver communion-plate—the gifts of three monarchs. The altar plate of the period included elaborately worked alms basins, candle sticks, chalices, flagons and patens. Beautifully bound copies of the Bible and Book of Common Prayer rested on tasseled cushions on the north and south ends of the altar between the two altar lights. The whole rested upon a full Laudian altar carpet “made of the best English Crimson Flower’d Damask with a plain silk fringe lining and tassels.” Matching hangings of red, fringed damask were draped from the pulpit and reading desk.

...CONTINUED

The employment of boy choristers to lead the singing at Trinity dates from about 1710, and continued at least until the Great Fire of 1776, which destroyed the First Church building during the British occupation of the City in the Revolutionary War. (The choristers were selected from the children of the Trinity Charity School). Sometimes, on great occasions, an anthem was sung, as at the 1764 funeral of the Rev. Dr. Barclay, where the choristers, dressed in their Trinity School uniforms, strode at the head of the procession singing a hymn. This is supposed to be the first instance on record of a
processional hymn being sung in public in English America.

Some time ago, Robert, you claimed that miters were only used by Anglican bishops in the late 19th century. I explained to you that at least two American Episcopal bishops (Seabury and Claggett) wore miters in the 18th century, and that Seabury may very well have worn a chasuble on occasion as well. I even gave you a web link to view one of these 18th century American miters. And in at least one suburban New York chapel an Episcopal priest was using incense and Latin chants at Christmas and Easter services in the 1820s--years before the Catholic Revival re-introduced these customs in England.

"The problem is for those who have a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. If your belief is that it is nothing more than a pious jogging of your memory, then there isn't an issue. If you believe something like what I laid out above, it is an impossibility"

I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Why is it an impossibility?

I really want to leave politics out of this.
The way this conversation is going at the moment reminds me very much of the early anti slavery/Womens Ordniation/gay debates, where the proponents tried to engage the traditionalists in a proper theological conversation, and the only answer they got was to have their motives belittled, their faith belittled and to be told that it couldn't be done because it had never been done.

So, when David Keen writes "I do believe we are eating the same meal as Christians of 2000 years ago, and that Jesus is present as we do so. But I'm not convinced that the presence of a priest is the only necessary and sufficient condition for that.".... I would really like a proper theological explanation why this should not be the case.

We non-stipendiary priests exist to avoid the sacramental mess that Sydney seems to be in. Priests are necessary in order to celebrate the sacraments. If we thought otherwise we wouldn't be Anglicans, and nor would we need to ordain anyone. Priests do not, however, have to be paid by the Church, or work exclusively for it. Why doesn't Sydney diocese just train up and ordain enough non-stipendiary clergy?

"So where is the theological problem with extending that principle to lay people, provided they are given their auhority either by a bishop or a priest, so the link is maintained?"

To Ford's excellent insights on this, I would also add that the way that this authority is transmitted is by episcopal ordination.

I'm also concerned that by peeling off Eucharistic presidency and applying it, now to deacons, now to lay people, Sydney shows a remarkable downgrading of the Eucharist. It's not just a pious ordinance that can be fobbed off to whomever we find it convenient; it is the heart of the Church's worship. Christians risked (and often suffered) death in order to meet clandestinely around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist week by week. If it were something they could do on their own at home, or if it were preferable so to do, don't you think they would have done it?

I think that we should look at why these traditions get started and the motivation for such. We could probably all agree that the Oxford Movement was a genuine attempt at bringing back much what was lost during the reformation, and give literal color to worship in many questionable neighborhood parishes.

The needs of rural parishes are hard pressed to get a monthly bunch to perform a high solemn, and a sung evensong is a rarety in the U.S. due to declining musical educational standards. But economic hardships have moreso been a fact of life in rural America and the pay standards for priests have caused many a parish to disintegrate into a handful of lay persons.

This isn't a high vs: low church argument, it's what's behind the motivations at the diocesan offices. A reaction to the movement of the Anglican Communion in general, by empowering lay people to stem the tide locally in Sydney, or keep distant parishes alive in the outback? I'm hoping for the latter.

But c'mon, it ain't about churchmanship, it's about another inovation to meet a local need or to take more duped followers (Did I say Pittsburgh?). Take the bible quotations and maniple throwing elsewhere.

"Why doesn't Sydney diocese just train up and ordain enough non-stipendiary clergy?"- Fr. Mark -

Why not indeed? Father Mark, being himself a non-stipendiary priest, obviously has a traditional understanding of sacramental efficacy - which the evangelical promoters of Lay-presidency do not.

If only the leadership of the Sydney Diocese were to value more highly the importance of Sacraments in the Church - especially the Eucharist - then perhaps some of their laity could be encouraged to offer themselves for the ministerial task of the priesthood as non-stipendiary clergy. After all, in certain circumstances, the charism of the priesthood can be practised alongside another professional discipline - teaching, for instance.

As has been mentioned before on this thread, there are Churches within the Anglican Communion which - in situations where there are vast areas to be covered, without the economic means to offer employment in ministry - offer training to a person acceptable to the local community for the task of non-stipendiary priesthood. One such organisation operated in Alaska, under the name of T.E.A.M. - Teach each a ministry. Under this scheme, one person in the group was ordained for ministry in that context, while others were licensed to other ministries. Such a scheme, while recognising the importance of priesthood, did not necessarily require it to be exercised in a full-time, paid capacity.

Sydney's cynical touting of it's opening up of the sacramental ministry to women; when taken with it's opposition to the priesting of women, can only serve to suggest that the office of the priesthood, for them, is more to do with dogmatic leadership than with the celebration of the Sacraments. The words in The Book are to them, seemingly, more important than The Word Made Flesh in the Eucharist.

There remains the important difference between Sydney's understanding of the concept of the word 'Administration' - as applied to the Eucharistic rite. (Licensed laity may currently *administer* elements of the sacrament when duly authorised by their local Ordinary, in other jurisdictions)

Most Anglicans would not confuse that word to relate to the actual priestly *presidency* at the Eucharist - which traditionally is carried out by the duly-ordained priest, or presbyter.

I suppose this basic confusion arises from a lack of understanding of what actually 'goes on' in the celebration of the rite. This fact, together with no understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is the major stumbling block which eventually must confound the hoped for unity among the partners in GAFCON, CANA and FOCA. Certainly the more catholic of the former Anglican diasporic entities will have problems.

"...for them, is more to do with dogmatic leadership than with the celebration of the Sacraments. The words in The Book are to them, seemingly, more important than The Word Made Flesh in the Eucharist."

In saying this Father Ron cuts to the heart of Jensen's understanding of the Priesthood - the role for is him and his followers is one of "chief bible teacher" *All* other facets of ministry - administering the Sacraments, pastoral care, even their much vaunted evangelism - are seen as being secondary to this primary role. Hence the compulsion to devalue the role of the Eucharist (which for most Sydney clergy is effectively understood in purely Zwinglian terms): lay/diaconal presidency is not being pushed to fill any clerical shortage - far from it. Rather it is seen as a means of elevating what they would call "the ministry of the Word", but what others might quite justifiably see as the endless re-iteration of the approved dogma.

"keep distant parishes alive in the outback? "

Here's a map showing the location of the Diocese of Sydney:

http://www.sydneyanglicannetwork.net/images/AboutUs_structure.pdf

It's the smallest Anglican diocese, geographically, and located in a densely populated part of the country. The outback it's not.

"I'm also concerned that by peeling off Eucharistic presidency and applying it, now to deacons, now to lay people, Sydney shows a remarkable downgrading of the Eucharist. It's not just a pious ordinance that can be fobbed off to whomever we find it convenient; it is the heart of the Church's worship"

Yes, and extending marriage to gays devalues marriage and downgrades it. It's the thin end of the wedge just because people want it.....

Please, arguments really will have to be better than this.

Why, when it was possible to allow priests to do what only bishops used to do, is it now absolutely and forever impossible to extend that principle to deacons?

Question. Does Sydney have lay eucharistic visitors? Just curious.

Part of the Sydney agenda is to confine the Lord's Supper (as they almost universally call it) to home-based groups, and to remove it from the Church entirely. I found this in some turgid and ill-argued pamphlet on the Anglican Church League web-site. So you allow house-group leaders to give out little cubes of bread and little thimbles of grape juice (or even blackcurrant juice) to enable everyone to "remember" at the end of the meeting. The Eucharist it ain't in any meaningful sense, unless the church is redefined in terms of its small groups.

And if people are authorised to do this, how does this come about? Through the intensely biblical laying on of hands (in which case, how does it differ from ordination?) or through a letter or e-mail from the Archiepiscopal chancery (in which case it is totally outwith any normal Christian understanding of authorisation of ministry.

It really isn't any good banging on about Catholic order. Sydney is agin that, full stop. For them, catholic=heretic. The truth is that, as my late father often used to say "the opposite of "catholic" is not "protestant", it is "heretic". And a church which is prepared to cut "catholic" out of the creed is, to my mind, exactly that.

Thank you Simon for correcting my typos

Kurt.you miss the point that the High Church tradition and Anglo-Catholicism are two different strands. The High Church tradition which preceded Anglo-catholicism was firmly Protestant.. for instance the Anglican divines of the 17th century made no pretence to offer the sacrifice of the Mass, annoint the sick, pray for the dead or to the Saints...and used none of the panoply of Roman ritual introduced by the Anglo-Catholics from the mid nineteenth century. May I recommend , " Anglican Ritualism in Victorian Britain" ( Oxford University press 2001) , by Doctor Nigel Yates .

Have you seen the picture of Seabury's consecration by Scottish Anglican bishops...all are wearing Geneva preaching gowns, and there is certainly no chasuble, cope or mitre in view.

The ritualists grew faster in the US Episcopal church because the evangelicals seceded en masse in 1873 and formed the tiny denomination known as the Reformed Episcopal Church. Their orders were never recognised by the Anglican Communion but they were at GAFCON.

"Why, when it was possible to allow priests to do what only bishops used to do, is it now absolutely and forever impossible to extend that principle to deacons?"

Helping the bishop to administer the diocese is historically the function of the priests. It was a natural progression for them to step in to represent the bishop. Deacons do not have an administrative or presidential role. And it's not just deacons that Sydney wants to make presiders, but lay people as well. If you really are interested in the subject, may I recommend the first chapters of D. Gregory Dix's _The Shape of the Liturgy_?

The real question is why attempt to change the current system. It's not that there are rules which make it impossible to ordain more priests, as with Rome, where celibacy is cutting into recruiting. I suppose that Sydney's refusal to ordain women to the priesthood might be a barrier - Sydney would rather dowgrade the Eucharist to a lay function than ordain women priests, after all.

"I would really like a proper theological explanation why this should not be the case."

The Church has always recognized a sacrificial component to the Eucharist, and a priest offers sacrifice, not a lay person. The priesthood of the priest is a sharing in the priesthood of Christ, and serves as a "focus" for the general priesthood of the laity. Again, the elaboration of the concept of "the priesthood of all believers" at the Reformation was a misguided attempt to break the power of priests in the Medieval Church, like much of the Reformation it was based in the mistaken belief that what isn't in the Bible is somehow not "true" Christianity. But there are better ways to address power imbalances than redefining something that has been at the core of the faith from the beginning. In essence, Holy Order preserves the transmission of the Truth and of Grace. Not that God is in any way limited by our human need for clarity, and can bestow Grace where He likes, but it's kind of like the Orthodox attitude towards their doctrines, they know where the Spirit is, they do not comment on where the Spirit is not, but why would you diverge from where you know the Spirit is for a place where the Spirit may or may not be? It has been the Tradition of the Church for 2000 years that the issues I mentioned earlier about sharing in the priesthood of Christ ensures the transmission of Grace. It may well be transmitted in a "lay celebrated" Eucharist, but why go from a certainty that has been established for 2000 years to an uncertainty simply because we have some bias against sacerdotalism, whatever past abuses that bias is based on, and an attachment to Enlightenment ideas about the rights of the individual? More about this offline, and I hope I'll be clearer there. Besides that, it makes statements about Eucharistic theology that many disagree with, and that have nothing to do with rights or privelege, but about what we think is actually happening in the rite.

Kurt , Can I also recommend, "The old Anglicanism and the new ritualism " by Frederick Meyrick, 1901.

This shows the high church divines of the 17th century were not Anglo-Catholic.

By the way no one made a fuss within the Anglican Communion when the Church of the Province of Southern Africa abrogated the BCP 1662 preface and now receives non episcopal clergy without re-ordination.

Furthermore both TEC and the Church of England are close to full communion with the major Methodist denominations..and these bodies have had lay celebration since the 18th century.

Also our beloved Queen ( supreme Governor of the C of E) when she stays at Balmoral, is a full communicant member of the Church of Scotland, and she never attends the Scottish episcopal Church.

ANOTHER PIECE OF TRIVIA... the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral has hosted and still has a French reformed and non Episcopal congregation since 1584.

To conservative Anglo-Catholics all this must represent lay celebration.So don't be too harsh on Sydney.

Ford Elms: Golly, what a good explanation of sacramental theology in your last post!

"The Anglo-Catholics re-introduced ritual and Roman Catholic doctrine into Anglicanism" - RIW -

Robert, it really might be best if you - a newly reconstructed Roman Catholic - kept out of the present dialogue on what is happening in the Anglican Communion. This, despite your obvious prurience in wanting to spice up the dialogue with your usually derogatory comments about any claims of the Anglican Church to the ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith.

Your objective on this and other sites, as a former protestant-type of Anglican from the Sydney-influenced Diocese of Nelson, in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/New Zealand, has clearly been to stir conflict between the very different entities within the 'Broad Tent' of the Anglican Communion around the world.

I find your remarks quite often deeply offensive, as obviously do some others on this site, who are more concerned with getting at the 'Truth' than just peddling pro-R.C. propaganda. For this you might better find another site which caters to your 'special needs'.

Sorry to have to say this Robert, but it needed to be said - by someone.

"Question. Does Sydney have lay eucharistic visitors? Just curious."
No, Jay. Reservation of the sacrament is not allowed.
When my mother was dying in 2006, we had to call on a priest (of course a male) whom she only slightly knew to administer communion. The following day a woman deacon, Sue, who dearly wants to be priested and had ministered to Mum for many years came and anointed her which was a beautiful occasion. Apparently now Sue could give communion at the sick bed but I am wondering if the diocese would allow me, an adult male, to be included. My thoughts, if that were the case, are unprintable.
Brian (in Sydney :-()

Erika, in humanistic terms (Ford has covered the theological ones!), I offer the "Crazy Uncle Theory" (for maintaining priestly presidency in the Eucharist):

Say you have a Crazy Uncle (let's call him "Uncle Larry"). Uncle Larry INSISTS on carving the Thanksgiving turkey every year. You're happy to let him continue this tradition...

...because it tends to prevent his craziness leaking into OTHER activities! :-0

It's human nature to have authority figures. When we give those in authority ***specific, them-only duties***, it helps to DEFINE their authority---so they don't try to grab it elsewhere!

I would argue, that "lay-presidency" will go PRECISELY hand-in-hand w/ "Prince Bishops". It's inevitable. The Big Cheese pawns off their specific Traditional authority (episcopal/presbyteral), only so they can exercise POWER-OVER elsewhere (i.e., EVERYWHERE else, except the altar-devalued-to-table)

Let Crazy Uncle Larry---and him alone---carve the Thanksgiving turkey. It's really best for everybody else! ;-)

HTH.

Cryptogram wrote: “And a church which is prepared to cut "catholic" out of the creed is, to my mind, exactly that.”

Sorry? is that on the agenda?

Just for curiosity’s sake, for “unam sanctam et catholicam ecclesiam” w e say in Swedish “en helig allmännelig Kyrka”; “a holy general Church” whereas Romans here say “One, Holy, Catholic church”, stressing “One”. This is it?

Sheesh, Childish really.

Robert Ian Williams wrote: “Kurt, You miss the point that the High Church tradition and Anglo-Catholicism are two different strands. The High Church tradition which preceded Anglo-catholicism was firmly Protestant…”

So? “firmly Protestant”? Explains the suspicions of the 17th century Church of Sweden that Anglicanism was too Calvinist.

Sorry Ron , but you are so wrong. You are judging Sydney by your own self imposed theology. The Anglo-Catholic movement changed much of Anglicanism , because it had a vision of what it wanted to make the Church...and Sydney has also a vision to return Anglicanism to its Reformation roots...which they sincerely believe is the true Gospel understanding of Church and sacraments.

You should read the above books I recommmended, and it may be painful, but honestly face up to your Protestant roots. The high church Anglican tradition before the advent of the ritualists was firmly within Protestantism. This is not Roman propaganda..this is scholarly analysis by Anglican scholars.

Ron as St Paul says, " do I become your enemy that I tell you the truth?"

"The high church Anglican tradition before the advent of the ritualists was firmly within Protestantism."

So your argument is that, given the fact that Anglicanism wandered all over the map after breaking with Rome before settling down into a more or less broad tradition that at least considered it an ideal to value diversity, even if we don't often live up to it, that cuts off an claim to catholicity Anglicans might make? So what do all those abuses of Papal authority, that embarrassing double Papacy, all that stuff, what do they do to Rome's claims of Catholicity? Is there no room for repentance for past mistakes? And remember, for me, the Papal claims are decidedly uncatholic as well, so does the Papal claim to supreme authority, however you want to dress it up, put a crimp in Rome's claims to Catholicity?

@Robert Ian Williams:

"Sorry Ron , but you are so wrong."

Stamp your foot all you want, but I think his observation is spot-on.

That many of the early English Reformers were more "Protestant" (whatever *that* means) than today is hardly news. So what? Luther was a lot more "Catholic" (whatever *that* means) than most modern Lutherans. Again, so what?

What matters is the faith expressed *today*, right now. Otherwise in your zeal to be a good new convert, you're engaging in watered-down Donatism.

Ah Sydney...if they embrace this Eucharistic Heresy - I confess I can only have a grin that they deserve their invalid sacraments - they have certainly earned it.

"that cuts off an claim to catholicity Anglicans might make?"

I believe that's RIW's argument, in a nutshell.

When Rome changes, it's a God-blessed "Development of Doctrine". Any change (or even mere suspicion in the evidentiary lineage) that happens to ANY church not in subjection to the Bishop of Rome, is a catholicity-ending BREAK.

Heads, RIW wins. Tails, Anglicans lose. Got it?

Goran...the Church of Sweden allowed non episcopally ordained clergy to serve in its ranks..and for three hundred years it had no diaconate or "proper" rite of confirmation.

The Church of Sweden is in full communion with the Church of Denmark, which has never accepted an idea of apostolic succession ( and that is its prime reasion for rejecting Porvoo), deriving its orders from an apostate Catholic priest called Bugenhagen.

Granted it had a higher view of Holy Communion than Anglicanism. Lutheran Sweden also preserved a higher degree of ritual. However the Church of Sweden faithful to the Confession of Augsburg still discounted the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass offered for the living and the dead.

There were many Anglo-Catholics who were against full inter-commubion with the Church of Sweden. Nigel Yates mentions this in his book.

"When Rome changes, it's a God-blessed "Development of Doctrine"."

Even when those changes include things like the Vicar of Christ turning the Vatican into his own private brothel, it appears. I mean, if the vagaries of Anglicanism after the Reformation invalidate any claim we might have to catholicity, then the Middle Ages must make Rome absolutely heathen!

@Ford Elms:

Exactly. My goodness, imagine a Borgia Pope with the 1871 version of papal infallibility and supremacy at his disposal. *shudder*

I really don't get RIW's harping on Anglicanism pre-1662. Anglicanism historically always was all over the map, and still is today*. That is hardly news, yet our friend RIW seems to think this is some dirty secret no one is aware of. Really quite baffling.

* - Though it must be said that not even in Cranmer's, Bucer's or indeed Luther's wildest dreams would they have considered what Sydney is doing now...

"I really don't get RIW's harping on Anglicanism pre-1662."

RIW left Anglicanism for Rome. Speaking from personal experience, feeling that your own beliefs and those in the Church in which you were raised have diverged so much that you can no longer be a part of it is very painful. That pain usually find expression in anger, and expressing that anger through snide comments and gloating about one's superiority are long held Anglican traditions! Also, every religion has its foibles. For all his "superior" tone, it's just as easy for an Anglican to point the mocking finger at Rome's foibles as it is for him to do the same to Anglicanism. And we all know the underlying politics. I'm having a chuckle watching the backing and forthing, occasionally taking my part in it, but the only way to get offended by any of it is if somewhere you have the sneaking suspicion the other person is right. I don't think RIW is any righter than us Anglicans, so it's just humourous.

I can't believe that a supposedly "orthodox" diocese would abandon the idea of eucharistic validity. The idea of deacons presiding at Mass is unheard of in two thousand years of church history; it's a far worse heresy than gay marriage.

The Anglican Communion has always had the shakiest of claims to apostolic succession. I guess this is why its clergy overcompensate by tending to be sociopathic bullies. (Sorry, I calls it like I sees it.) Non-presbyteral presidency simply wallows in its own invalidity.

Of course, lay eucharistic presidency would get rid of clergy once and for all, so perhaps there's a silver lining in every cloud. Still, you won't catch me worshiping a cookie. Blessings!