Thinking Anglicans

Australian Tribunal ruling explained

The Anglican Church of Australia has published a one page summary of the latest decision of the Appellate Tribunal.

As previously linked, the full documentation – four separate documents – of this case can be found here.

For a plain English explanation of this decision, read Muriel Porter in the Church Times Tribunal rules out Sydney’s diaconal and lay presidency.

THE highest church court in Aus­tralia, the Appellate Tribunal, has ruled that both lay and diaconal presidency at the eucharist are not permitted under existing General Synod canons — contrary to claims by a 2008 resolution of Sydney Synod (News, 24 October 2008).

Since the 2008 Synod, at least one of the assistant bishops in the dio­cese of Sydney has approved diaconal presidency in his area. There is evi­d-ence to suggest that diaconal pres­idency has taken place at some Sun­day services, including pres­idency by women who, although ordained priest in other dioceses, are licensed only as deacons in Sydney diocese…

There is a further article by Muriel Porter, which will be available to non-subscribers next Friday. (Subscribers will find it now at this link.)

12
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
12 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Bill DilworthJCFRobert Ian WilliamsWilliam TigheWilliam Moorhead Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

Muriel’s comment about the Australian Anglican Provincial Tribunal’s findings, which found the Sydney Diocese to be in error regarding their understanding of what constitutes diaconal (or lay) administration of the Eucharist, only serves to prove Sydney’s ignorance regarding the difference between the presiding & administering functions in the Eucharistic service. To the Archbishop of Sydney, and many of his clergy, there seemingly is no difference between these two functions – both being (presumably) equal and complementary functions. Any other Anglican clergyperson and most of the informed laity – outside of the Sydney Diocese – are fully aware of the fact… Read more »

William Moorhead
Guest
William Moorhead

I’m in sympathy with Father Ron Smith’s comment, and pretty thoroughly out of sympathy with the ongoing attempts of the Diocese of Sydney to reinvent the Anglican tradition, but we might want to note that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which I believe the Diocese of Sydney highly venerates (although I’m not sure how much they actually use it), titles the eucharistic liturgy “The Order of the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.” I think thereafter the more common word is “celebration,” and the Bread and the Cup are “delivered.” In the Ordering of Deacons it says,… Read more »

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

I was saddened that Ms Porter scoffed at Sydney only planting one hundred congregations! I repeat Sydney are logical… 1) They do not accept women can be presbyters or Bishops. 2) Therefore they view those women in the above orders as deacons in reality. 3) Therefore women Sydney deacons ( and not to be sexist male deacons ) may preside at communion. Ron states: Any other Anglican clergyperson and most of the informed laity – outside of the Sydney Diocese – are fully aware of the fact that only a legally ordained priest may preside at the Anglican Eucharist Yet… Read more »

Bill Dilworth
Guest

Robert, if the fact that women priests and bishops are not recognized by the Sydney Diocese makes allowing for lay men and women or deacons celebrating the Eucharist “logical,” then by the same “logic” lay people should be able to celebrate Mass in the Roman Catholic Church.

Bill Dilworth
Guest

Ron wrote: “Any other Anglican clergyperson and most of the informed laity – outside of the Sydney Diocese – are fully aware of the fact that only a legally ordained priest may preside at the Anglican Eucharist,” And RIW replied: “Yet Sydney do not regard the women priests in the Anglican Church of Australia as being valid priests or that they are legally ordained.They are allowed to hold this position , as it is a position of integrity in the Anglican Communion.” What a complete red herring, RIW. The position of Sydney has nothing to do with whether ordained women… Read more »

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

Absolutely not Bill, because the Roman Catholic Church teaches that all Anglican orders are not valid, whether they are held by a man or a woman..However in the context of the Anglican Church of Australia, the position of Sydney is logical.

Furthermore historic Anglicanism allowed for the validity of non episcopal orders. Although to exclude Presbyterians this was tightened up in 1662.However even is has been relaxed in recent years , I cite the example of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.

William Tighe
Guest
William Tighe

If one reads carefully such studies as Norman Sykes *Old Priest and New Presbyter* (1960) or the relevant sections of Anthony Milton’s *Catholic and Reformed* (1995) one will easily see that there are two certain and three probable instances of men, foreigners, Scots and Europeans, “non-episcopally” ordained abroad, who were licensed without reordination to function as clergy in the Church of England in the period from 1570 to 1625; and that, on the other hand, Englishmen who were ordained abroad in “non-episcopal circumstances” (like Whittingham, the early Elizabethan Dean of Durham who was ordained in Geneva in the reign of… Read more »

Bill Dilworth
Guest
Bill Dilworth

“Absolutely not Bill, because the Roman Catholic Church teaches that all Anglican orders are not valid, whether they are held by a man or a woman..However in the context of the Anglican Church of Australia, the position of Sydney is logical.” Robert, you are dodging the issue. The Sydney position is not logical within Anglicanism, which in spite of aberrations has never maintained that lay people can preside at the Eucharist. Jensen doesn’t think that it’s the fact that women deacons have been *ordained* that makes them eligible to preside, but rather the fact that they have been *baptized*. In… Read more »

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

Bill, Anglican orders are essential to the Sydney issue,as Sydney derives from that tradition. Anglicanism has never been absolutist in its view of non episcopal ministry, although you like the fantasy of apostolic succession and valid orders, in a roman catholic understanding.

Remember conservative Anglicans see women priests as lay celebrants.

JCF
Guest
JCF

“I take this lovely exchange to be an adumbration of the whole history of “Anglicanism” since 1559.” – Posted by William Tighe

Whereas, William T, “adumbrations” of Romanism were adorned w/ the burning of the losing exchangee? O_o

I thank God that NONE of us have to live in 1559 anymore! Come on into 2010, William: it’s the Year of Our Lord now, too…

JCF
Guest
JCF

I sometimes think that religious extremists take extreme positions, *just to show they can*. (Thankfully, the Australian tribunal has judged otherwise)

Bill Dilworth
Guest

“Anglicanism has never been absolutist in its view of non episcopal ministry, although you like the fantasy of apostolic succession and valid orders, in a roman catholic understanding.” Robert, although the Church of England and other Provinces have occasionally allowed non-episcopally ordained ministers to serve without (re)ordination, at no point did any Province think that it was alright to allow laypeople to preside, as Article XXIII makes clear. And it doesn’t matter what Sydney thinks of the matter; they don’t have the authority to make this innovation. Once again, your argument applies just as much to the RCC as it… Read more »