According to the article about the Sydney Diocesan decision to promote lay-presidency at the Eucharist (from a Church Times article quoted at 'Episcopal on line'), it was stated that the reluctance of the Archbishop of Sydney to allow Lay-presidency to happen at present in the diocese - "is believed to relate to Sydney's relationship with the GAFCON bishops".

Well, that's no suprise. And this is precisely why Sydney may just be testing the water. It sees its own bid to challenge the tradition of the Church to be no different from that of the bid to ordain women and gays.

The major difference is: The Sydney proposal is one of basic Church Order; whereas the more pastoral issue of gays and women is one of social justice and the promotion of the Gospel outreach.

This difference in priorities will no doubt be crucial in the minds of those in the GAFCON camp who are concerned with catholic and apostolic retention of the 3 orders of ministry. Now is not the time for the Jensenites to move any further on this particular issue - if they are to retain the interest of the Anglo-catholics at GAFCON.

It should also be noted that many Sydney Anglicans do not use fermented wine but only grape juice at their Communion tables. Sensitive Anglo-catholics should not also enquire as to what happens to the left over bread and wine.

However non fermented grape juice are also served up in many English Evangelical Anglican Churches...and the disposal of the lefover elements is common place.

This is why I am so horrified by Forward in Faith forming an Alliance with Reform. It is sheer hypocrisy. Reform Evangelical John Richardson ( the Ugley Vicar web site) is desperately tring to justify the Sydney decision on Stand Firm... a few weeks ago he was advocating that all Evangelicals should go under the Anglo-Catholic flying bishops..he said better under an Anglo-catholic bishop than a "dodgey" liberal one.

But the maddest thing is that Archbishop Jensen will not license lay celebration as he does nor want to upset GAFCON...but Gafcon has already accepted into membership the Church of England in South Africa (100,000 strong) which has had lay presidency since 1936!

I'm not sure that we folks in FiF have "formed an alliance" with Reform. In my experience there's a certain reservation, and explicit discussion, about the extent to which we can co-operate with them. The clearest areas of difference are the traditional divisions between protestant and Catholic standpoints on the usual sore points such as the Eucharist and Mariology and the rather wearing obsession of some prots with homosexuality. (Note the unwillingness of spikes to join the evangelical anti-Jeffrey John bandwagon.)

We used grape juice at a London church I used to attend, principally because it was connected to an alcoholics rehab project and we didn't want communicants to fall off the wagon. So was that communion or not?

There is a story I have heard-which could well be true-that a certain expert on Richard Hooker gave a lecture on H in the University of Sydney During the questions Dr Jensen, then Principal of Moore rose to make a contribution."Prof X, I want to tell you that Hooker was wrong and Cartwright ( the Elizabethan presbyterian) was right."
Another interesting quote from Kevin Wards A history of Global Anglicanism p285 re Sydney and the rest of Australian Anglicanism "We only remain united by maintaining two denominations in one organisation and allowing members of both to call themselves Anglican...the alleged comprehensiveness of the Church..is a chimera"Anglican Church Record

As an ordained deacon in the Episcopal Church, i am deeply disappointed by the idea of deacons presiding at the mass. They fail to understand the call of deacons and ultimately this will destroy the diaconate where it is practiced.

It is rather interesting how Episcopalians have little understanding as to the Protestant origins and history of the Church of England.....Sydney is being true to its Reformation roots.

"was that communion or not?"

Who was the celebrant? I don't see any sacrament destroying issue in using non-alcoholic grape juice to prevent an alcoholic from relapsing. I'd have to ask though why your parish didn't just encourage alcoholics to receive in one kind. Some people decline to receive from a common cup out of a paranoid fear of contagion. They are not considered to receive limited Grace just because they only receive the Host, so what was the problem with this at your old parish? It would be practically a reflex at mine.

"They fail to understand the call of deacons"

Exactly. Deacons are not priests in training, despite the past several centuries. There were deacons before there were priests, after all, perhaps even before there were bishops in anything like how we'd understand the word, and the order of priests did not arise from the diaconate. Priests are Episcopal delegates, essentially, deacons are different, kind of an ecclesial House of Commons to the priests' and bishops' House of Lords, maybe? We have recently revived a perpetual diaconate here, and I know deacons who are struggling to define their role in the face of a tradition that made their Order some sort of internship for priesthood. It's sad when we are trying to do that to have people on the other side of the globe trying to do the exact opposite. But this is all about two issues: keeping women from having any kind of authority over men as though that were some sort of Gospel imperative, and being as different from Rome as possible. You won't find a high Gospel principle here, just those two rather mundane expressions of fallen humanity.

David Keen: I wouldn't like to pass judgment on anyone else's view of what communion is. Our Blessed Lord, however, did undoubtedly commend the taking, blessing and distributing of bread and (real) wine in His memory, didn't He?

Isn't there something called "non-alcoholic wine" ( with the alcohol somehow removed, I suppose) which the RC Church permits for alcoholic priests? I suggested the use of this when I was asked to celebrate at an ecumenical service with Lutherans, where they had been using grape juice out of respect for alcoholics. I laudedd the Christian concern this showed, but I simply couldn't bring myself to celebrate with grape juice. Now, however, I ask myself: didn't Jesus come to show us that the love of God simply can't be limited by rules and regulations?
OFW

"We used grape juice at a London church I used to attend, principally because it was connected to an alcoholics rehab project and we didn't want communicants to fall off the wagon. So was that communion or not?" - Posted by David Keen

Geez, as if no Anglo-Catholics have ever been alcoholics? :-/ The traditional practice is to receive "in one kind" only (the host only for alcoholics, similarly those w/ wheat allergies receive only the wine).

...that said, I'm all for "the Economy of Grace." God is BIGGER than our human definitions. Ergo, yes, David, you had Communion (the Body & Blood of Our Lord!).

[Same w/ non-wheat hosts, non-grape wine, etc. God incarnates in God's Creation just fine!]

David K.

Of course it was communion! That's the answer you want and it is so, so obviously right. There's this dreadful, dreadful inability - in liberal circles as in ostentatiously 'Catholic' circles - to think beyond the merely incidental to the essential.

You have stirred up a good debate here. You seem to be at various sharp ends. All best.

What is the "Extended Communion" that Bishop Wilson alludes to?

Deacon Mark,

Yes, indeed, it would appear that the Diocese of Sydney does not take seriously the call of the vocational Diaconate, practised in Churches of both East and West. Their recent confusion of the diaconate with the priesthood is just one more piece of evidence that they do not appreciate the original 3 ministerial Orders in the traditional Church. In the Cathedral in Sydney, the Pulpit occupies a more prominent position than the altar, and is more influential.

"Isn't there something called "non-alcoholic wine" ( with the alcohol somehow removed, I suppose) which the RC Church permits for alcoholic priests"

It's called mustum. Here's what I found out about it at catholic.com:

“Any commercially produced grape juice whose fermentation process was arrested, even at a very early stage, may be used for mustum. However, those grape juices which have been pasteurized are not proper matter for Eucharist because such pasteurization removes even trace amount of alcohol produced in the natural fermentation process.”

It sounds awfully fussy to my untrained lay ear. I think that regular old grape juice is acceptable matter for the Sacrament in the Anglican view. The report of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation 2005 to the ACC makes the following recommendations:

“We reaffirm that the normative principle and practice of the Anglican Communion has always been and continues to be the use of the elements of bread and wine at the Eucharist.
We do not think that it is necessary or helpful to define ‘bread’ or ‘wine’ in precise detail. It is enough that the elements should be realistically capable of being called ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ in the context of the celebration of the Eucharist in a particular culture at a particular time.
We note that in some Provinces the Eucharist is celebrated with elements other than bread and wine. This is because it is very difficult for them to obtain either bread or wine, or it is because those particular communities use other elements for reasons to do with local culture or pastoral necessity. We consider these to be exceptional circumstances best dealt with by the Province concerned, giving serious consideration to the effect of such variation on other Provinces..."

"Sydney is being true to its Reformation roots."

Sydney has gone way past the Reformation and straight into Gnosticism.

While Forward in Faith are getting a mention, it might be worth noting that Bishop Glenn Davies of North Sydney, who was responsible for moving the motion for lay/diaconal presidency in the Sydney synod, and who has been a strong advocate of it for more than a decade, also holds the position of Canon Theologian in the ultra conservative Anglo-Catholic diocese of Ballarat, an Australian FiF stronghold.

The appointment, made in 2000 (probably as part of ongoing efforts to develop a united bloc opposing women's ministry in the national synod), appears to be something Ballarat is currently simply hoping nobody notices - when telephoned they made it obvious nobody wanted to discuss the issue.

Yet the question remains begging: if the current divisions really are all about church order and tradition, and not about sexuality and gender, when can we expect to hear FiF rebuking one of their most faithful Australian dioceses for continuing to recognise one of lay presidency's most forceful activists as their Canon Theolgian?

The altar at the Cathedral in Sydney is rolled out of the church except when needed. It is not needed often. Only one "meeting" each Sunday is Holy Communion; that's usually the "early service" at 8:30am. There are 6 or 7 Sunday meetings. Other Sydney churches (with the exception of the few Anglo-Catholic parishes) follow a similar routine. It's hard to imagine that they need to delegate to deacons and laypersons.

"True to its Reformation roots" if you take 1552 as the cut-off date for the English Reformation, ignoring inconvenient glitches like the Elizabethan Settlement, the Civil Wars and Commonwealth, and the Restoration Settlement, T I Williams.

I am sure these are weighty matters beyond my ken but in the great debate about what is supped -

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

I think Swift would have a field day, either way. I just wonder whether he'd be as keen to defend Anglicanism now as was apparently in 1708.

God forgive our petty and ossifying hearts.

But what Ron doesn't tell you, is that the Pulpit was in a more prominent position in Anglican Churches until the Oxford movement....that is along with the Royal Coat of Arms , to affirm the supremacy of the Crown over the Churches of England and Ireland.

Communion services were infrequent and until 1662, the curate could take the left over elements home for his personal use....as ordinary leavened bread was used.

Why pick on Sydney when there are Anglicans all over the world sharing the same ecclesiology and view of the sacraments?

Furthermore no Anglican minister wore a chasuble until the nineteenth century....a vesture illegal in the Church of England until 1964..and still illegal in the Church of Ireland and the Diocese of Sydney.

"There's this dreadful, dreadful inability - in liberal circles as in ostentatiously 'Catholic' circles - to think beyond the merely incidental to the essential"

Beg pardon? This applies as least as well to Conservative Evangelicals, perhaps all Evangelicals. I think the point is that one persons incidental is another person's essential.

"as ordinary leavened bread was used."

I grant you, treatment of the Body of Christ has been only spottily respectful in the Anglican communion, but are you suggesting there is something wrong with using leavened bread?

@Robert Ian Williams:

Ah, the blind passion of the converted. :-P

"Communion services were infrequent"

So? Since when is celebrating the Eucharist every Sunday the gold standard?

"... and until 1662, the curate could take the left over elements home for his personal use....as ordinary leavened bread was used."

You'll find that in the early Church, similar practices were common. People carried bits of the Body of Christ with them, ate it with their meals, and so on. So long as it was not merely disposed of, they were quite casual about it.

"Furthermore no Anglican minister wore a chasuble until the nineteenth century....a vesture illegal in the Church of England until 1964..and still illegal in the Church of Ireland and the Diocese of Sydney."

The Orthodox also don't wear chasubles. So what?

The practices of the modern Roman Catholic Church have also departed from early practice. So what? Do you want to demand everyone celebrate in Koine Greek, too?

"Furthermore no Anglican minister wore a chasuble until the nineteenth century."

And what were the priests who served under Henry VIII - chopped liver?

"I grant you, treatment of the Body of Christ has been only spottily respectful in the Anglican communion, but are you suggesting there is something wrong with using leavened bread?"

It will come as a great surprise to the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.

"The Orthodox also don't wear chasubles." The phelonion, the outer liturgical vestment of Orthodox priests, derives from the same garment as the chasuble, the principal difference being that the phelonion is cut away at the front, whereas the chasuble is reduced to a greater or lesser degree at the sides.

Try this

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/liturgy/docs/ialcreport.cfm

from the Anglican Communion Official Website (on elements for the Eucharist, not lay presidency). I gather the Theological Commission had some things to say on this too and I'm not quite sure what happened to the recommendations.

"The phelonion, the outer liturgical vestment of Orthodox priests, derives from the same garment as the chasuble..."

As does the western cope.

This morning in the daily office lectionary our gospel reading was Luke 11:37-52. It sort of helped put this discussion in perspective for me.

"Luke 11:37-52. It sort of helped put this discussion in perspective for me."

How so? Verse 42 seems to apply, but the rest? This doesn't seem to me to be about ritualism supplanting love, you seem to think otherwise, could you explain?

Regarding "Reformation roots..."

I'm not sure where you'll find Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger or Bucer advocating lay presidency at the eucharist.

Please see this site from Australian theologian the Revd. Dr. Andrew McGowan.

http://abmcg.blogspot.com/

Fact: The Anglican schism with Rome occured in 1535...but full blown Protestantism was not instituted until the reign of Edward the sixth. The Elizabethan settlement which is sold as a Via Media settlement, was in fact Protestant. From 1559 there were no chasubles in the Church of England. This lasted for nearly three hundred years.

The pattern of a weekly eucharist is Apostolic in origin.

The significance of the chasuble is that it is a sacerdotal vesture, as is the stole. Orthodox priests wear a similar sacerdotal vesture.

From 1559 an Anglican clergyman wore a surplice and black scarf.... In the pulpit he wore a preaching gown.

Most Anglo-Catholic rituals and distinctive doctrines were borrowed from the Roman Catholic Church...so anyone fro this grouping ctiticising Sydney for innovation, should take a look at the log in their own eye.

"What is the "Extended Communion" that Bishop Wilson alludes to?"

BillyD, As no-one seems to have answered your query about 'extended Communion', It is a term used, I believe, for any rite of distribution of the Elements of Holy Communion - outside of the actual presidential Celebrationm of the Eucharist.

Thus, it may be used of 'Home Communion', or in cases where the Holy Communion Element(s) is/are distributed from the 'Reserved Sacrament', by an authorised Minister of Communion - a deacon or lay person licensed for this purpose.

Extended Communion is probably the most commonly used means of communicating sick persons, in hospital or at home, when a priest may not be available, or where circumstances do not permit of a full Communion Celebration.

Ah, thanks Fr. Smith - I'm familiar with Communion from the Reserved Sacrament, but have never heard it called "Extended Communion". The American BCP calls it "Communion under Special Circumstances."

My argument is that an innovation charge against Sydney is the pot calling the teapot black.

Sydney have remained true to the Reformation settlement, and have not revived Roman Catholic practices or rituals in their diocese.

There are no prayers for the dead.
There is no Eucharistic reservation.
There is no worship or adoration of the consecrated communion elements.
There is no cultus of the Saints and they are not invoked.
There is no annointing of the sick
Ministers do not wear sacerdotal vestments.
No archbishop of Sydney has ever worn a mitre.

All of the above were revived by the Anglo-Catholics in the nineteenth century.Indeed Evangelicals all over the Anglican Communion fought them tooth and nail..and yes there were several court cases.

Extended communion is only colloquially used for distribution from the 'reserved' sacrament. In theory bread and wine should be taken straight from a celebration of Holy Communion to a person/people who were unable to come.

No anointing of the sick? James 5.14 is a clear positive scriptural instruction - so I'd be surprised if it were banned. There might be some quibble over the oil to be used, though.

R I W wrote: "The Anglican schism with Rome occured in 1535...but full blown Protestantism was not instituted until the reign of Edward the sixth. The Elizabethan settlement which is sold as a Via Media settlement, was in fact Protestant. From 1559 there were no chasubles in the Church of England. This lasted for nearly three hundred years."

In handbooks the year 1563 is given for the birth of Calvinism at a meeting of Princes at Limburg (there are several such ;=) in which the 1540 Confessio Augustana Variata only, was in use.

In Sweden Chausubles were in use (and made) long after the 16th century following the Lutheran principle of in statu confessionis: no piece of clothing is to be claimed Nescessary for Salvation (as Rome did) nor to be forbidden (as some others did).

The Orthodox don't wear mitres.
The Orthodox don't practice Eucharistic adoration.
The role one plays is not dependent on the clothing one wears. Hence "they don't wear chasubles" is a red herring.

So what? Once again you're trying to see everything through a Roman lens and refuse to admit that there is more to Catholic Christianity than whatever it is that one finds in the Latin rite.

Even so, it still doesn't matter what most Anglicans did between 1559 and 1662. What matters is what we do *today*. If you were someone speaking from the Orthodox Church you'd have a lot more credibility, but as a convert to Rome -- what with papal infallibility and papal supremacy, innovations far more serious that failing to wear the right bit of cloth -- you don't have a leg to stand on.

"Sydney have remained true to the Reformation settlement, and have not revived Roman Catholic practices or rituals in their diocese."

Don't look now, RIW, but those aren't Roman Catholic practices. They're Catholic practices (unless you're accusing the Eastern Orthodox of Romanism).

Then again, I don't believe that the Eastern Orthodox practice formal adoration of the Eucharist after the Consecration.

"There are no prayers for the dead."

And you should have heard what the Jensen brothers had to say about the Bali bombings, and the Indian Ocean Tsunami...

"There is no Eucharistic reservation."

And precious little reverence in anything else they do in public worship, sorry, *meetings*.

"There is no worship or adoration of the consecrated communion elements."

So what? It's never been in their way of doing things, but even 1662 requires a certain level of consideration towards any remaining elements at the end of communion.

"There is no cultus of the Saints and they are not invoked."

Ah, but they DO have their own little group of *heroes* who pop up in sermons with fairly reliable regularity, like that flogging parson, Rev Johnson of First Fleet fame...

"There is no annointing of the sick"

But I bet they're not coy about praying for the healing of said sick persons.

"Ministers do not wear sacerdotal vestments."

Apparently very few ministers wear vestments at all, sacerdotal, academic or otherwise.

"No archbishop of Sydney has ever worn a mitre."

But they have all worn distinctive clerical attire with some aplomb, until the current one.

Nothing you've listed demonstrates anything, other than Sydney's distance from what most people would accept as the Anglican mainstream, RIW.

"Most Anglo-Catholic rituals and distinctive doctrines were borrowed from the Roman Catholic Church..."

Blessed Percy Dearmer must be spinning in his grave...

In defence of Archbishop Peter Jensen he spoke up for the Aborigines, castigated the Liberal (conservative) governmment on Sunday trading and their policy towards asylum seekers. Doctor Jensen is a man of integrity, and it is a gross parody to see him as some type of Darth Vader heading an evil empire.

Dear Robert,

I'm sure that Archbishop Jensen would be glad to hear of anyone - especially a Roman Catholic - defending him on absolutely anything he is doing in his Church at this time. Your defence is very nice, but hard to understand from your position.

"And you should have heard what the Jensen brothers had to say about the Bali bombings, and the Indian Ocean Tsunami..."

Yes...?

Today is a Day of Commemoration of the Anglican Divine, Richard Hooker, Priest and Theologian. (We remembered him and his influence in early Anglicanism; through his wellknown support for the 'Elizabethan Settlement', at our Celebration of the Eucharist, today, 04 November).

One wonders if commentator RIW, or the Anglican institution of Moore College, Sydney, have ever heard of this celebrated 'mover and shaker' of Church of England? His reference to the historic understanding of Anglicanism, based on the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, is still held by most Anglicans as the foundation of our polity - though spurned by some as being too inclined towards Tradition and Reason, and therefore unacceptable to the 'sola scriptura' school of theology so dear to the Sydney Bishops.

Robert Ian Williams wrote: "Furthermore no Anglican minister wore a chasuble until the nineteenth century....a vesture illegal in the Church of England until 1964...".

But the Revd Bosco Peters wrote:

"The Book of Common Prayer has, since 1559, had the rubric “such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” Clearly the chasuble is required by the Prayer Book (photo: example of the type worn during the second year of the reign of King Edward VI). Puritans regularly insisted on presiding in their street clothes, or peasant’s jacket. One priest wanted to make his point by wearing his hat during the service. The authorities made concessions, allowing the surplice to suffice, although the rubric was not changed."

http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/sydney/167