The priesthood of all believers means that every Christian is God’s workmanship and ordinary people are ordained to do extra-ordinary things in the kingdom of God.Yes some are ordained to be apostles, some teachers, some prophets, some pastors and some evangelists. The point is there is something from everyone to do in the body of Christ. And everyone is honoured. As soon as the priesthood becomes special people, doing special things in special places there is nothing left to honour – apart from themselves.
People are usually better off saying what they believe, rather than attacking what they don’t. In this case, all you say about the priesthood of all believers is good, and no one would disagree. What you seem to say about what I take you to mean as the ministerial priesthood I think is unworthy of the countless ordinary priests who have exercised their ministry, without thinking for a minute they were just honouring themselves.
I have worshiped in an Anglican Church for over 40 years but I would not call myself Anglican. In fact, with many of the Anglican hierarchy ( It is now my considered opinion) not suitable to be shepherds of the flock, I am even less likely to want to be associated with the brand. From the Two archbishops downwards the infiltration of unsound liberal doctrine has dealt a severe blow to the authenticity of the C of E. It is suffering because of this lack of leadership and, I fully expect, it will continue to diminish as the “ managers”… Read more »
It is my understanding that “lay persons” was placed first in the list to reflect the belief that the ministry of lay persons is the most important ministry of the church. The intention is that lay people should be the primary ministers of the church and one of the major roles of ordained clergy is not to “do ministry” but to help lay people discern their ministries and train them to do it. I have been in parishes where this happened — they were very healthy parishes, the lay people were happy and honored to do ministry, parish ministry was… Read more »
Bishops, priests and deacons, archbishops and archdeacons are surely servants of Christ too. Few give themselves status – rather, they humbly accept their calling and the responsibility which it burdens upon them.
Interested Observer
7 days ago
Helen King’s piece is great. Her point about the contradictions between the five guiding principles not being resolved by merely stating they are held “in tension” is well made. Those of you with maths degrees, philosophy degrees, computer science degrees or being of the appropriate age to have “Godel, Escher, Bach” on your bookshelf next to “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance” and a well thumbed copy of “In Patagonia” will be aware of Godel’s Incompleteness Principle. In broad and informal terms, in shows that any system of axioms complex enough to express all true statements about arithmetic, will… Read more »
Your statement about Gödel’s theorem requires a little more nuance, I think. It says that any mathematical system of the sort that you mention will contain statements which, while they are true, cannot be proved true within the system, i.e are undecidable. Thus arithmetic is incomplete. This scuppered Russell and Whitehead’s project in their magnum opus, Principia Mathematica, to establish the whole of arithmetic, starting with a few simple axioms. This had been Hilbert’s challenge to the mathematical community. The system obviously can express false statements, e.g. ‘1+1=3’.
Axioms that generate only “true outcomes” (your last sentence) are the foundation of mathematics. Gödel showed that consistent axioms for arithmetic could never be complete (in the presence of normal rules of inference). You can capture ONLY true statements; you can’t get PRECISELY ALL true statements. (You can get all true statements, but then you get false ones as well).
Julie Rubidge
6 days ago
Ref ‘Formed for Faithfulness’: This silent unrecorded work is and always has been the daily ministry of the laity. When the Church woke up to it they called it ‘Everyday Faith’ and launched it as if it was something new, bringing wry smiles to some of the people in the pews. People do it quietly, we point to Jesus and not to ourselves and so we don’t usually want it recorded, analysed or celebrated as if it is an achievement of the organised Church. Nor does everybody want theological brain work or pressure by the clergy, although some will benefit… Read more »
Allan Sheath
6 days ago
Mark Clavier’s reflections point to the way in which the success of the HTB project, with its indifference to Anglican norms, has coloured episcopal thinking, even if at the cost of their own convictions. Apologists for the non-eucharistic worship beloved of HTB plants have cited our history of diversity in support. But that is to canonise what was always an anomaly. The rubrics of the 1549 Prayer Book were meant to keep the Eucharist as the central act of Sunday worship, preceded by Matins and Litany. But folk used to the mostly non-communicating Latin Mass were loath to change; hence… Read more »
And you might note that evangelical Anglicans at the Keele conference in 1967 repented of their lack of attention to the eucharist. Unfortunately, this did not cash out in widespread acceptance of more frequent eucharists – but it did reflect a rediscovery of evangelical roots in the 18th and 19th centuries. Charles Simeon preached often on the eucharist and its importance.
And a certain Thomas Cranmer clearly thought that Holy Communion was at the heart of worship but somehow it came to be regarded as secondary in many evangelical parishes.
It is my understanding the John Wesley believed in “constant Communion” so that Communion should be taken at least weekly. I don’t know what current Methodist practice is, but in the area in which I grew up, Methodist churches seemed to offer Communion, at best, once a month.
Many years ago during my Anglican Days I spent a year as a Student at the then Methodist East End Mission in Commercial Road in Stepney and saw the Methodist Tradition at first hand, it was very much in the Wesleyan Tradition of Methodism but had been influenced by the High Church Methodist approach of Lord Donald Soper and the West London Mission of having regular Eucharistic Worship Sunday by Sunday, so at the East End Mission, the Eucharist was celebrated every Sunday. The Liturgy used was almost identical with Modern Anglican Eucharistic Ministry. There was lit Candles on the… Read more »
When you get together “do this”; go out and “do that”. Getting together to “do that” misses both points. If the eucharist is not at the heart of our ecclesiology; if the gospel/evangelism is not at the hear of our mission, we are selling Jesus short either way.
Working from memory the 1549 eucharist was non-communicating and left laity searching for ‘traditional Christianity’ as they had known it (processions, saints days, etc). I’ll have to check my copy of Stripping the Altars (E Duffy). Welcome correction. The hard shift toward reformed religion after the death of Henry VIII, and his reflexive traditionalism, is well documented.
In 1548 a rubric in English was inserted into the the Latin Mass exhorting the faithful to receive Communion the following Sunday. Old habits die hard.
I was making the point that, despite the wish of the Reformers for the people to receive in 1548/9, the old practice proved very resistant – otherwise why insert an exhortation to receive into the Latin rite in 1548? I imagine this was read out by the priest.
Thank you for the clarification. I was taking as a point of departure Eamon Duffy’s very detailed account of traditional religion at the period in question. I am leading a retreat in southern France and do not have his work to hand. My memory of his language was that the 1549 left the congregation looking on, rather than participating as theretofore. This is counter-intuitive when seen through the lens of 1552, which is an obviously radical reformed liturgy. He thinks that makes us feel that 1549 was something very special vis-a-vis the people in the pew and the New Religion… Read more »
I lent out my Duffy – enough said! But I share your recollection. As you say, 1552 is far more radically Protestant than 1549, not least in its fractured Canon and its excision of any prayer for the dead, that it’s not hard to envisage the faithful feeling a sense of rupture and dislocation – as borne out by churchwardens’ accounts. Someone, I forget who, described 1549 as ‘a bridge’; one swept away by 1552.
Re the unravelling of our own ecclesiology, there are evangelical churches in the diocese where I live, in which clergy don’t wear vestments for communion, loaf of bread not wafers, single cups for the wine, rather than common cup. In at least two other churches, intinction was the only way to receive the wine, (for many years, long before covid) maybe still so. Another church holds youth events where alcohol is sold in the church without any authority. No episcopal discipline in evidence in any of these instances. I’ve complained about the last example and got a flea in my… Read more »
‘And to take away all occasion of dissension, and superstition, which any person hath or might have concerning the Bread and Wine, it shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten.’
Nothing at all, Janet – although crumbs are a problem. Individual hosts are less than ideal too as they contradict the symbolism of “Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread”. Nun baked concelebration hosts are far better as everyone gets a broken piece. The Poor Clares at Freeland do them.
Nothing. “The crumbs under Thy table” is suggestive of bread. Canon B.17.2 states: “The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour … “.
I believe wafers are invariably unleavened. I have only experienced bread, doubtless leavened, cut into very small cubes. A clear recollection once, many years ago in the Guildford diocese, and less clearly, a vague memory of once in a cathedral midday celebration somewhere and possibly once on board a ship in the Pacific!
Intinction seems to be controversial but, as far as I am aware, not prohibited.
Thank you. That thought had occurred to me although, of course, I was thinking of the prayer of humble access which precedes the distribution and provides the context.
I am wholly BCP but have no problem with the new liturgy quoted by Allan Sheath, Obviously the concept is eternal, but aren’t the words new? I thought for a time we shared them with the RCs, but Pope Benedict made changes and they aren’t in the current rite in English – as always, happy to be corrected.
Fully agreed, and apologies for the ‘senior moment’. I have experienced it hundreds of times in a long life and used to know most of the BCP service by heart. And, of course, immediately before the consecration is more cogent and the point I wanted to make.
It was placed just before the distribution in the 1549 rite, I think (and I think before that as part of the reception inserted into the Latin mass), but moved earlier in the 1552 rite, where it remains in our current English BCP. In 2000, Common Worship returned it to just before the distribution, as an optional response to the invitation to communion.
As a former roving organist I have experienced variations in different churches, and certainly at one the prayer of humble access was always recited by the congregation with the priest. Some printed orders of service based on the BCP contain hybrid elements from other sources (possibly ASB or Common Worship during the decades when I was active).
Common Worship Order II permits what is known as the ‘Interim Rite’ where the BCP Prayer of Oblation and Lords Prayer follow immediately after the Prayer of Consecration, and the Benedictus, Pax and Agnus Dei are added. It was the standard Anglo Catholic use until the mid sixties.
I assume we all now agree that “the crumbs under Thy table”, although having a different scriptural origin, are apposite in the context of Holy Communion irrespective of where the prayer of humble access appears in the different liturgies of the C of E.
Although in CW the Prayer of Humble Access sits awkwardly alongside a set of Eucharistic Prayers (Prayer C excepted) which celebrate how in Christ we have been counted worthy to receive the gift of his risen life. Humility, or an anxious paralysis in the face of the gift?
I am not sure that I would agree with that at all. It is simply that we should come with the same humility and trust as the Syro-Phoenician woman.
If the rubrics are followed, and the corporal is well starched, the host is only ever broken over the chalice, and the chalice is rinsed twice with wine and then wine and water, then there can’t possibly be any crumbs.
“the chalice is rinsed twice with wine and then wine and water” — I haven’t (as a server for getting on towards 60 years now) seen this done for at least a couple of decades. A single rinse, with just water, has been the norm for quite a long time now, in my experience involving quite a lot of priests.
Between us, on what I thought was adequately said in my original reply to Janet Fife, purely in a BCP context (granted some clarification about where the prayer of humble access should sit), we have now ‘fostered’ 18 further contributions, which must be pretty unusual even by TA standards.
Rowland, in Funchal, in February we attended “the English Church” on several Sundays. It was announced, at the start of each service, that “intinction is forbidden by the Bishop of Europe”. Congregation was around 100 each Sunday.
Yes, I should have said “not prohibited universally” (I hadn’t intended to start a new discussion!). There was a lot of debate about the subject, much prompted by Covid, and various pronouncements made but, so far as I am aware, no authoritative decision binding across all of the C of E, nor any Measure proscribing intinction. My visits to the English church in Funchal were last century and I have no recollection of anything unusual then. I was struck by the prayer for the President of Portugal, and I guess that still happens? We are in danger of unduly digressing,… Read more »
What is the reasoning behind barring intinction? I my TEC diocese, intinction is permitted, but only if the chalice bearer takes the wafer from the communicant, dips it into the wine and returns it to the communicant. The feeling is that the chalice will probably be less “contaminated” if only one person does the actual act of intinction (rather than the communicant putting a hand in the chalice, potentially putting the ends of the fingers into the wine and the wrist on the chalice edge) and there is probably less risk of “contamination” with intinction rather than multiple persons putting… Read more »
Intinction, unless closely policed, may and does end up with fingers entering the wine, occasionally hosts being dropped into it. Gluten might be communicated to a coeliac communicant who drinks from the cup. But centrally, how is dipping the bread into the wine and eating it an act of obedience to Christ’s command to DRINK? Communion is faithful action – eating and drinking. One then the other. Should communion be risk-free? Or is it an act of faith proclaiming that even if I do just possibly contract a flu which shortens or afflicts my life, my eternal life is safe… Read more »
In TEC, the usual teaching is that the taking of only element of Communion is a complete Communion. This teaching is called “concomitance.” “An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church” defines this term as follows: “Concomitance [is the] Eucharistic doctrine that affirms the simultaneous presence of Christ’s body and blood in each of the eucharistic elements. It contradicts a narrow identification of Christ’s body with the bread and Christ’s blood with the wine. The doctrine of concomitance upholds the truth that the fullness of communion is available by receiving either the consecrated bread or wine. A Prayer Book rubric concerning the… Read more »
Interesting, thank you.
It would seem to militate against intinction.
If the blood is already in the body you can’t add to that by dipping the bread in the wine, surely?
Surely it would be permissible to offer gluten free bread/wafer to those who need it, and alcohol free wine to those who prefer it rather than just offer one element. I’m aware of local parishes churches that do this.
Church of England canon law is that bread must be wheat (“wheaten”), and that the wine must contain alcohol (“fermented”). Whilst they can be low in gluten and low in alcohol, they are (as I understand it) not supposed to be entirely absent. It’s a separate question as to whether or not this should be the case.
Nonetheless, the Church of England recently (10/02/25) recently issued a press release apparently to the contrary: “Contrary to recent reports following a question asked by a General Synod member, the Church of England is not banning ‘gluten-free’ wafers nor ‘non-alcoholic’ wine at Communion. “Church of England churches across the country routinely offer ‘gluten-free’ bread or ‘non-alcoholic’ wine at Holy Communion.” https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/no-were-not-banning-gluten-free-bread-or-non-alcoholic-communion-wine I did a brief search through TEC’s Prayer Book and Constitution and Canons to see if I could find anything similar to the Church of England canon but I couldn’t find anything definite. The TEC Prayer Book mentions “wine,”… Read more »
Indeed. And that press release makes essentially the same comment as I had implied:
Many professional ecclesiastical suppliers have long provided wine or bread which may contain tiny traces of alcohol or gluten which can legitimately be considered non-alcoholic or gluten free.
In other words, low in gluten and low in alcohol. But not supposed to be, say, rice flour, or unfermented grape juice.
How about this for the communion bread at a local parishes church. The bread is dairy, egg, and gluten free. The ingredients are: Water, Rice Flour, Tapioca Starch, Potato Starch, Rapeseed Oil, Stabilisers: Methyl Cellulose, Xanthan Gum, Yeast, Vegetable Fibres (Psyllium, Bamboo), Maize Flour, Potato Flakes, Humectant: Sorbitol, Sugar, Salt, Raising Agents: Diphosphates, Sodium Carbonates, Fermented Rice Flour, Acids: Tartaric Acid, Citric Acid.
No idea what it tastes like!
Canon B 17 Of bread and wine for the Holy Communion
…
2. The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.
It tastes just like the cardboard discs from the inside of bottle caps
Nicholas Henshall
5 days ago
We need a bit of clarity about the word Priesthood especially in the context of the “priesthood of all believers”. As often noted the Bible uses two very different words for priest. The first – “hiereus” means “one who sacrifices” and is used of the Old Testament priesthood. In the New Testament it is only ever used of Jesus, never of what might call the “ministerial priesthood”. The radical New Testament riff here is the concept of the “Royal priesthood” (basileon hieratevma”) which is not about ministry but about our corporate identity as the people of God. As for that… Read more »
Yes, it certainly looks that way, but with all these words for ministry, it’s really important to note that in the New Testament we are watching things just emerging and in quite a fluid state. And it’s also important to remember that the early Christians are simply adopting / adapting perfectly normal words from their culture. You could have a “bishop” (i.e.overseer or superintendent) of a building site in the Greek world.
Yes. I don’t see any one pattern of leadership/church organisation/ministry as predominant in the NT. Which to me indicates that it’s OK to develop as seems right for our place and time, but a mistake to be too dogmatic about any one pattern being God-ordained. We shouldn’t mistake issues of church order for doctrine.
As far as I can see, the ‘three-fold orders of ministry’ as described in the NT are bishop/elder, deacon, and widow. That doesn’t mean that’s what we have to have now. But, as Simon says below, we’ve had this conversation before.
I fully agree with Nicholas’ comment here that these were common words in everyday use, and we need to go back to how those words were used in the culture of the day, and not unconsciously project back meanings that have grown out of our Christian tradition. Apostle (wandering mendicant in the mystery tradition), disciple (meaning as today, but could be a householder, not necessarily an apostle), priest (various, but commonly a functionary in a temple doing a wide range of duties), Bishop (overseer), Deacon (servant). The key question for me is how bishops and deacons were appointed. It seems… Read more »
The first few posts are about the subject, but the main discussion starts in earnest about 40% down the thread, just after a conversation about the Samaritan woman
Thanks, Simon, for this. Revisiting it reminded me of the Anglican-Reformed’s: “All attempts to read off one divinely authorised form of ordained ministry from the NT are futile.” Rowan Williams has defended the three-fold order on the grounds that it has stood the test of time – shades of Gamaliel’s “if it is of God, it will endure.” Which is not to claim it should be immune to development; women in all three orders being the obvious example. Perhaps today it’s the diaconate – not the presbyterate – that needs attention. We see it as “priests in L-plates”; RCs as… Read more »
I think it is lay ministry that needs attention, training and empowering lay people to be effective and confident leaders within churches which struggle with the constant absence of ordained people, as Anglican Priest described happens in France.
Agreed, and in rural dioceses it’s happening. I’m thinking particularly of 2 lay people who not only lead non-eucharistic beautifully but also have a truly diaconal ministry (in both the servant sense and the John N Collins sense) outside the church door – and all without the grace of orders. This was what I meant by giving fresh attention to the diaconate.
I should add that Collins didn’t seek to play down the servanthood aspect of the diaconate, but to expand its horizon in a more prophetic dimension – reminding the Church about God and his world; the world about God and his Church.
Agreed, Allan, but the diaconate has that “servant” sense which is an incredibly valuable vocation, but not the entirety of what lay ministry can be. I was struck by Nicholas Henshall’s post which started this thread “As for that other word “presbyteros” which we often translate as priest, it just means “elder””. It’s the “just” which I think is telling. “Just” an elder. Right across spiritual traditions, inside and outside Christianity, the vocation of elder is that of a senior and respected leader, chosen for their experience and wisdom, and given authority by the local community. That too is lay… Read more »
I was recently at a Eucharist where the presider had not even the basics of liturgical presidency. It was redeemed by the person signing for the deaf, whose body language brought out the ‘contours’ of the liturgy beautifully. I was going to ordain her on the spot, until my wife reminded me that I’m not a bishop.
I’m with those 7 Christians marooned for months on a desert island who discern which of their number should be their priest and commission him by prayer and laying on of hands. But to argue from the particular to the general?
Years ago a report was published on the ministry of those self-supporting priests who had received less extensive training as they were expected to minister only in their local parish. Some were concerned that this would divide word from sacrament and create a class of Mass priests; others pointed out that ordination is to the ministry of the whole Church (although deployment is within the gift of the bishop). As this report came out at a time when priests outnumbered vacancies – a very different situation from today’s – is it worth revisiting?
Can we learn from the experience of other denominations, such as the URC or Methodists, where an elder can preside at a Eucharist without needing to be ordained. It seems to work well there. This avoids confusing two separate and valued constructs, elder and priest, and respects the role of elder as being distinct and valued.
But surely we do not have lay elders in the Church of England? Indeed we don’t have any office called “elder” at all. I fully realize that some more evangelical congregations do use the term for some of their laity, but it has no constitutional significance, any more than calling someone a server has any constitutional significance. Our elders are the presbyters, ordained and licensed (etc) by the bishop. To introduce another group of elders, and then say that they are not ordained, but can do a lot of what a presbyter does is to massively confuse the issue, I’d… Read more »
Simon, You are right that we don’t have lay elders in the Church of England, but this entire thread, and the one I linked to, discussed the idea that lay elders were important in the early church, and could preside at Eucharist, and questioned the presence of the priest construct. I think that it’s a great pity that the lay elder idea seems to have disappeared from the C of E, but it remains active in other dominations. In these other denominations, and in the early church, then two categories of people could preside at Eucharist, “Holy Men” and elders.… Read more »
And my point was to question what a ‘lay elder’ might have been in the context of the early Church. In what sense were they “lay”, either in their own context or in ours? They were elders, presbyters, the office that directly or indirectly became the professional clergy that appeared not that much later. Were they commissioned by prayer and the laying on of hands? I don’t know, one way or the other.
I agree we don’t know for certain, and I think there was a huge variety of practise in the early church.
You say these elders became the the professional clergy in due course. Which is possible. Although (going back to the use of language) these elders were of course the local bishops.
Philip Sheldrake argues that sometimes change came when communities started to invite mendicant preachers to settle down and become their community leader, in place of the local elder. Which is also possible.
I can’t see how that can help. Anglican experience – see Sydney Diocese – strongly suggests that lay presidency would be schismatic in that fragile coalition we call the CofE.
I’m not sure the traditional three-fold order of ministry has stood the test of time. Obviously it has, in the sense that it still exists in several of the largest denominations – but what fruit has it borne? Has it proved fruitful, and led to healthy churches? That is less certain.
Non-episcopally ordered churches often have a three-fold pattern de facto. Our local Methodist Superintendent Minister was referred to as Bishop Christopher by the Anglican and RC bishops. As a modest man, he played it down, but the epithet was apt in many ways. You ask if it has “proved fruitful, and led to healthy churches?” But how on earth do you measure that? Comparison with the Quakers? Plymouth Brethren?
But Methodists don’t regard holding the office as involving ontological change – when the superintendent’s or chair of conference’s period of office is over they don’t retain the title or status. Whereas Anglicans – officially at least – believe that once you’re a priest or bishop you’re always a priest or bishop.
Baptists, most Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and other denominations don’t have a three-fold pattern.
As for our hierarchical system being unhealthy, we only have to look to the IICSA reports, which identified deference as a key factor in our failures to tackle abuse.
On the 9th March TA thread I quoted from Justin Pottinger’s book, The Bishop and the Baptized, which John Inge says should be compulsory reading for all serving bishops. The author sees the Ordinal’s metaphor of ‘shepherd’ as the model for a relationship in which the bishop is both shepherd and sheep, exercising no authority other than the flock’s willingness to be led. He proposes human-sized dioceses to ‘dilute the institutional authority and prestige of bishops’; even envisaging bishops having a parish so they can inhabit their primary pastoral, liturgical/sacramental role. Pottinger views the bishop’s authority as deriving primarily from… Read more »
The concept of “bishop” seems complicated in Methodism. Wesley apparently objected to use the term for his followers in the USA, but they insisted. In the United Methodist Church in the USA, bishops are definitely called bishops, and even have a Council of Bishops. They are “elected for life and serve in their assignment until retirement.” On the other hand, in the “Central Conferences” (“seven regional, mission-oriented bodies of The United Methodist Church (UMC) located outside the United States in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines”) “bishops are elected for a specific term. If not reelected at the end of the term,… Read more »
In the UK Methodists don’t have bishops; they have, if memory serves me, circuit superintendents, chairs of district, and a president of conference. They also have, at local level, presbyteral ministers.
Although the RC use is not necessarily so surprising when one remembers (as i am sure Nick is aware) that the word ‘priest’ is simply a contraction of the Greek ‘presbyter’ via the Old English ‘preost’. It’s interesting that the Church of England Common Worship Ordination liturgy for priests uses the word ‘presbyter’ in its title as an alternative to ‘priest’ but uses the latter throughout the liturgy except in the Litany where we pray for ‘all bishops, presbyters and deacons’.
Bring back ‘bishops and curates ( as in having cure of souls) and all congregations committed to their charge’ …. Went the way of ‘True and lively word’ though I think lively may be making a comeback, at least with BCP services (As a child I can remember ancient Mrs Awkward laying into a new vicar and informing him that a slug was living but definitely not lively)
Going back to the Greek, church simply means congregation, which obviously doesn’t suit the hierarchy of the C of E and words have been translated to suit the C of E’s practice. How congregations are led is up for debate, but institutionalised hierarchies are slow to react and adapt to change and are generally risk adverse (hence save the parish – which is pretty much dead). They also tend to produce bottlenecks that make growth difficult. Jesus passed on leadership of the church to 12 very young disciples but they had the personal experience of following Jesus not the BCP.… Read more »
The priesthood of all believers means that every Christian is God’s workmanship and ordinary people are ordained to do extra-ordinary things in the kingdom of God.Yes some are ordained to be apostles, some teachers, some prophets, some pastors and some evangelists. The point is there is something from everyone to do in the body of Christ. And everyone is honoured. As soon as the priesthood becomes special people, doing special things in special places there is nothing left to honour – apart from themselves.
People are usually better off saying what they believe, rather than attacking what they don’t. In this case, all you say about the priesthood of all believers is good, and no one would disagree. What you seem to say about what I take you to mean as the ministerial priesthood I think is unworthy of the countless ordinary priests who have exercised their ministry, without thinking for a minute they were just honouring themselves.
Do you accept the three-fold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons? If not, why are you an Anglican?
As the ASB pointed out “Presbyters = Priests”. It’s hardly a new interpretation.
“New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ Large” John Milton, 1645.
I have worshiped in an Anglican Church for over 40 years but I would not call myself Anglican. In fact, with many of the Anglican hierarchy ( It is now my considered opinion) not suitable to be shepherds of the flock, I am even less likely to want to be associated with the brand. From the Two archbishops downwards the infiltration of unsound liberal doctrine has dealt a severe blow to the authenticity of the C of E. It is suffering because of this lack of leadership and, I fully expect, it will continue to diminish as the “ managers”… Read more »
The excellent ‘Outline of the Faith’ in TEC’s 1979 BCP actually recgnises a fourfold ministry:
‘Q. Who are the ministers of the Church?
A. The ministers of the Church are lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons.’
It is my understanding that “lay persons” was placed first in the list to reflect the belief that the ministry of lay persons is the most important ministry of the church. The intention is that lay people should be the primary ministers of the church and one of the major roles of ordained clergy is not to “do ministry” but to help lay people discern their ministries and train them to do it. I have been in parishes where this happened — they were very healthy parishes, the lay people were happy and honored to do ministry, parish ministry was… Read more »
Bishops, priests and deacons, archbishops and archdeacons are surely servants of Christ too. Few give themselves status – rather, they humbly accept their calling and the responsibility which it burdens upon them.
Helen King’s piece is great. Her point about the contradictions between the five guiding principles not being resolved by merely stating they are held “in tension” is well made. Those of you with maths degrees, philosophy degrees, computer science degrees or being of the appropriate age to have “Godel, Escher, Bach” on your bookshelf next to “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance” and a well thumbed copy of “In Patagonia” will be aware of Godel’s Incompleteness Principle. In broad and informal terms, in shows that any system of axioms complex enough to express all true statements about arithmetic, will… Read more »
Your statement about Gödel’s theorem requires a little more nuance, I think. It says that any mathematical system of the sort that you mention will contain statements which, while they are true, cannot be proved true within the system, i.e are undecidable. Thus arithmetic is incomplete. This scuppered Russell and Whitehead’s project in their magnum opus, Principia Mathematica, to establish the whole of arithmetic, starting with a few simple axioms. This had been Hilbert’s challenge to the mathematical community. The system obviously can express false statements, e.g. ‘1+1=3’.
Axioms that generate only “true outcomes” (your last sentence) are the foundation of mathematics. Gödel showed that consistent axioms for arithmetic could never be complete (in the presence of normal rules of inference). You can capture ONLY true statements; you can’t get PRECISELY ALL true statements. (You can get all true statements, but then you get false ones as well).
Ref ‘Formed for Faithfulness’: This silent unrecorded work is and always has been the daily ministry of the laity. When the Church woke up to it they called it ‘Everyday Faith’ and launched it as if it was something new, bringing wry smiles to some of the people in the pews. People do it quietly, we point to Jesus and not to ourselves and so we don’t usually want it recorded, analysed or celebrated as if it is an achievement of the organised Church. Nor does everybody want theological brain work or pressure by the clergy, although some will benefit… Read more »
Mark Clavier’s reflections point to the way in which the success of the HTB project, with its indifference to Anglican norms, has coloured episcopal thinking, even if at the cost of their own convictions. Apologists for the non-eucharistic worship beloved of HTB plants have cited our history of diversity in support. But that is to canonise what was always an anomaly. The rubrics of the 1549 Prayer Book were meant to keep the Eucharist as the central act of Sunday worship, preceded by Matins and Litany. But folk used to the mostly non-communicating Latin Mass were loath to change; hence… Read more »
And you might note that evangelical Anglicans at the Keele conference in 1967 repented of their lack of attention to the eucharist. Unfortunately, this did not cash out in widespread acceptance of more frequent eucharists – but it did reflect a rediscovery of evangelical roots in the 18th and 19th centuries. Charles Simeon preached often on the eucharist and its importance.
And a certain Thomas Cranmer clearly thought that Holy Communion was at the heart of worship but somehow it came to be regarded as secondary in many evangelical parishes.
It is my understanding the John Wesley believed in “constant Communion” so that Communion should be taken at least weekly. I don’t know what current Methodist practice is, but in the area in which I grew up, Methodist churches seemed to offer Communion, at best, once a month.
Many years ago during my Anglican Days I spent a year as a Student at the then Methodist East End Mission in Commercial Road in Stepney and saw the Methodist Tradition at first hand, it was very much in the Wesleyan Tradition of Methodism but had been influenced by the High Church Methodist approach of Lord Donald Soper and the West London Mission of having regular Eucharistic Worship Sunday by Sunday, so at the East End Mission, the Eucharist was celebrated every Sunday. The Liturgy used was almost identical with Modern Anglican Eucharistic Ministry. There was lit Candles on the… Read more »
When you get together “do this”; go out and “do that”. Getting together to “do that” misses both points. If the eucharist is not at the heart of our ecclesiology; if the gospel/evangelism is not at the hear of our mission, we are selling Jesus short either way.
Working from memory the 1549 eucharist was non-communicating and left laity searching for ‘traditional Christianity’ as they had known it (processions, saints days, etc). I’ll have to check my copy of Stripping the Altars (E Duffy). Welcome correction. The hard shift toward reformed religion after the death of Henry VIII, and his reflexive traditionalism, is well documented.
In 1548 a rubric in English was inserted into the the Latin Mass exhorting the faithful to receive Communion the following Sunday. Old habits die hard.
Not sure I understand you comment.
I was making the point that, despite the wish of the Reformers for the people to receive in 1548/9, the old practice proved very resistant – otherwise why insert an exhortation to receive into the Latin rite in 1548? I imagine this was read out by the priest.
Thank you for the clarification. I was taking as a point of departure Eamon Duffy’s very detailed account of traditional religion at the period in question. I am leading a retreat in southern France and do not have his work to hand. My memory of his language was that the 1549 left the congregation looking on, rather than participating as theretofore. This is counter-intuitive when seen through the lens of 1552, which is an obviously radical reformed liturgy. He thinks that makes us feel that 1549 was something very special vis-a-vis the people in the pew and the New Religion… Read more »
I lent out my Duffy – enough said! But I share your recollection. As you say, 1552 is far more radically Protestant than 1549, not least in its fractured Canon and its excision of any prayer for the dead, that it’s not hard to envisage the faithful feeling a sense of rupture and dislocation – as borne out by churchwardens’ accounts. Someone, I forget who, described 1549 as ‘a bridge’; one swept away by 1552.
Re the unravelling of our own ecclesiology, there are evangelical churches in the diocese where I live, in which clergy don’t wear vestments for communion, loaf of bread not wafers, single cups for the wine, rather than common cup. In at least two other churches, intinction was the only way to receive the wine, (for many years, long before covid) maybe still so. Another church holds youth events where alcohol is sold in the church without any authority. No episcopal discipline in evidence in any of these instances. I’ve complained about the last example and got a flea in my… Read more »
What’s wrong with using real bread for communion?
‘And to take away all occasion of dissension, and superstition, which any person hath or might have concerning the Bread and Wine, it shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten.’
1662 BCP rubric. Bog-standard Anglicanism.
Nothing at all, Janet – although crumbs are a problem. Individual hosts are less than ideal too as they contradict the symbolism of “Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread”. Nun baked concelebration hosts are far better as everyone gets a broken piece. The Poor Clares at Freeland do them.
Nothing. “The crumbs under Thy table” is suggestive of bread. Canon B.17.2 states: “The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour … “.
I believe wafers are invariably unleavened. I have only experienced bread, doubtless leavened, cut into very small cubes. A clear recollection once, many years ago in the Guildford diocese, and less clearly, a vague memory of once in a cathedral midday celebration somewhere and possibly once on board a ship in the Pacific!
Intinction seems to be controversial but, as far as I am aware, not prohibited.
“Crumbs under thy table” is surely a reference to Matthew 15.27, not specifically to communion?
(Though it is perhaps not unreasonable to use that verse in a communion context.)
Thank you. That thought had occurred to me although, of course, I was thinking of the prayer of humble access which precedes the distribution and provides the context.
I am wholly BCP but have no problem with the new liturgy quoted by Allan Sheath, Obviously the concept is eternal, but aren’t the words new? I thought for a time we shared them with the RCs, but Pope Benedict made changes and they aren’t in the current rite in English – as always, happy to be corrected.
It does not precede the distribution but is said by the priest immediately before the consecration.
Fully agreed, and apologies for the ‘senior moment’. I have experienced it hundreds of times in a long life and used to know most of the BCP service by heart. And, of course, immediately before the consecration is more cogent and the point I wanted to make.
It was placed just before the distribution in the 1549 rite, I think (and I think before that as part of the reception inserted into the Latin mass), but moved earlier in the 1552 rite, where it remains in our current English BCP. In 2000, Common Worship returned it to just before the distribution, as an optional response to the invitation to communion.
As a former roving organist I have experienced variations in different churches, and certainly at one the prayer of humble access was always recited by the congregation with the priest. Some printed orders of service based on the BCP contain hybrid elements from other sources (possibly ASB or Common Worship during the decades when I was active).
Common Worship Order II permits what is known as the ‘Interim Rite’ where the BCP Prayer of Oblation and Lords Prayer follow immediately after the Prayer of Consecration, and the Benedictus, Pax and Agnus Dei are added. It was the standard Anglo Catholic use until the mid sixties.
I assume we all now agree that “the crumbs under Thy table”, although having a different scriptural origin, are apposite in the context of Holy Communion irrespective of where the prayer of humble access appears in the different liturgies of the C of E.
Although in CW the Prayer of Humble Access sits awkwardly alongside a set of Eucharistic Prayers (Prayer C excepted) which celebrate how in Christ we have been counted worthy to receive the gift of his risen life. Humility, or an anxious paralysis in the face of the gift?
I am not sure that I would agree with that at all. It is simply that we should come with the same humility and trust as the Syro-Phoenician woman.
If the rubrics are followed, and the corporal is well starched, the host is only ever broken over the chalice, and the chalice is rinsed twice with wine and then wine and water, then there can’t possibly be any crumbs.
“the chalice is rinsed twice with wine and then wine and water” — I haven’t (as a server for getting on towards 60 years now) seen this done for at least a couple of decades. A single rinse, with just water, has been the norm for quite a long time now, in my experience involving quite a lot of priests.
Between us, on what I thought was adequately said in my original reply to Janet Fife, purely in a BCP context (granted some clarification about where the prayer of humble access should sit), we have now ‘fostered’ 18 further contributions, which must be pretty unusual even by TA standards.
Rowland, in Funchal, in February we attended “the English Church” on several Sundays. It was announced, at the start of each service, that “intinction is forbidden by the Bishop of Europe”. Congregation was around 100 each Sunday.
Yes, I should have said “not prohibited universally” (I hadn’t intended to start a new discussion!). There was a lot of debate about the subject, much prompted by Covid, and various pronouncements made but, so far as I am aware, no authoritative decision binding across all of the C of E, nor any Measure proscribing intinction. My visits to the English church in Funchal were last century and I have no recollection of anything unusual then. I was struck by the prayer for the President of Portugal, and I guess that still happens? We are in danger of unduly digressing,… Read more »
What is the reasoning behind barring intinction? I my TEC diocese, intinction is permitted, but only if the chalice bearer takes the wafer from the communicant, dips it into the wine and returns it to the communicant. The feeling is that the chalice will probably be less “contaminated” if only one person does the actual act of intinction (rather than the communicant putting a hand in the chalice, potentially putting the ends of the fingers into the wine and the wrist on the chalice edge) and there is probably less risk of “contamination” with intinction rather than multiple persons putting… Read more »
Intinction, unless closely policed, may and does end up with fingers entering the wine, occasionally hosts being dropped into it. Gluten might be communicated to a coeliac communicant who drinks from the cup. But centrally, how is dipping the bread into the wine and eating it an act of obedience to Christ’s command to DRINK? Communion is faithful action – eating and drinking. One then the other. Should communion be risk-free? Or is it an act of faith proclaiming that even if I do just possibly contract a flu which shortens or afflicts my life, my eternal life is safe… Read more »
In TEC, the usual teaching is that the taking of only element of Communion is a complete Communion. This teaching is called “concomitance.” “An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church” defines this term as follows: “Concomitance [is the] Eucharistic doctrine that affirms the simultaneous presence of Christ’s body and blood in each of the eucharistic elements. It contradicts a narrow identification of Christ’s body with the bread and Christ’s blood with the wine. The doctrine of concomitance upholds the truth that the fullness of communion is available by receiving either the consecrated bread or wine. A Prayer Book rubric concerning the… Read more »
Interesting, thank you.
It would seem to militate against intinction.
If the blood is already in the body you can’t add to that by dipping the bread in the wine, surely?
Surely it would be permissible to offer gluten free bread/wafer to those who need it, and alcohol free wine to those who prefer it rather than just offer one element. I’m aware of local parishes churches that do this.
Church of England canon law is that bread must be wheat (“wheaten”), and that the wine must contain alcohol (“fermented”). Whilst they can be low in gluten and low in alcohol, they are (as I understand it) not supposed to be entirely absent. It’s a separate question as to whether or not this should be the case.
Nonetheless, the Church of England recently (10/02/25) recently issued a press release apparently to the contrary: “Contrary to recent reports following a question asked by a General Synod member, the Church of England is not banning ‘gluten-free’ wafers nor ‘non-alcoholic’ wine at Communion. “Church of England churches across the country routinely offer ‘gluten-free’ bread or ‘non-alcoholic’ wine at Holy Communion.” https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/no-were-not-banning-gluten-free-bread-or-non-alcoholic-communion-wine I did a brief search through TEC’s Prayer Book and Constitution and Canons to see if I could find anything similar to the Church of England canon but I couldn’t find anything definite. The TEC Prayer Book mentions “wine,”… Read more »
Indeed. And that press release makes essentially the same comment as I had implied:
In other words, low in gluten and low in alcohol. But not supposed to be, say, rice flour, or unfermented grape juice.
How about this for the communion bread at a local parishes church. The bread is dairy, egg, and gluten free. The ingredients are: Water, Rice Flour, Tapioca Starch, Potato Starch, Rapeseed Oil, Stabilisers: Methyl Cellulose, Xanthan Gum, Yeast, Vegetable Fibres (Psyllium, Bamboo), Maize Flour, Potato Flakes, Humectant: Sorbitol, Sugar, Salt, Raising Agents: Diphosphates, Sodium Carbonates, Fermented Rice Flour, Acids: Tartaric Acid, Citric Acid.
No idea what it tastes like!
Interesting. Compare and contrast:
Canon B 17 Of bread and wine for the Holy Communion
…
2. The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.
It tastes just like the cardboard discs from the inside of bottle caps
We need a bit of clarity about the word Priesthood especially in the context of the “priesthood of all believers”. As often noted the Bible uses two very different words for priest. The first – “hiereus” means “one who sacrifices” and is used of the Old Testament priesthood. In the New Testament it is only ever used of Jesus, never of what might call the “ministerial priesthood”. The radical New Testament riff here is the concept of the “Royal priesthood” (basileon hieratevma”) which is not about ministry but about our corporate identity as the people of God. As for that… Read more »
Thank you, Nicholas. And am I right in thinking that the New Testament usually uses ‘presbyteros’ (elder) interchangeably with ‘episkipos’ (bishop)?
Yes, it certainly looks that way, but with all these words for ministry, it’s really important to note that in the New Testament we are watching things just emerging and in quite a fluid state. And it’s also important to remember that the early Christians are simply adopting / adapting perfectly normal words from their culture. You could have a “bishop” (i.e.overseer or superintendent) of a building site in the Greek world.
Yes. I don’t see any one pattern of leadership/church organisation/ministry as predominant in the NT. Which to me indicates that it’s OK to develop as seems right for our place and time, but a mistake to be too dogmatic about any one pattern being God-ordained. We shouldn’t mistake issues of church order for doctrine.
As far as I can see, the ‘three-fold orders of ministry’ as described in the NT are bishop/elder, deacon, and widow. That doesn’t mean that’s what we have to have now. But, as Simon says below, we’ve had this conversation before.
I fully agree with Nicholas’ comment here that these were common words in everyday use, and we need to go back to how those words were used in the culture of the day, and not unconsciously project back meanings that have grown out of our Christian tradition. Apostle (wandering mendicant in the mystery tradition), disciple (meaning as today, but could be a householder, not necessarily an apostle), priest (various, but commonly a functionary in a temple doing a wide range of duties), Bishop (overseer), Deacon (servant). The key question for me is how bishops and deacons were appointed. It seems… Read more »
Certain conversations come round on a repeating cycle on Thinking Anglicans. The various meanings of the word “priest” is an old favourite.
There is what I thought to be an interesting and constructive sharing of ideas about priesthood on this thread
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/opinion-22-february-2025/
The first few posts are about the subject, but the main discussion starts in earnest about 40% down the thread, just after a conversation about the Samaritan woman
Thanks, Simon, for this. Revisiting it reminded me of the Anglican-Reformed’s: “All attempts to read off one divinely authorised form of ordained ministry from the NT are futile.” Rowan Williams has defended the three-fold order on the grounds that it has stood the test of time – shades of Gamaliel’s “if it is of God, it will endure.” Which is not to claim it should be immune to development; women in all three orders being the obvious example. Perhaps today it’s the diaconate – not the presbyterate – that needs attention. We see it as “priests in L-plates”; RCs as… Read more »
I think it is lay ministry that needs attention, training and empowering lay people to be effective and confident leaders within churches which struggle with the constant absence of ordained people, as Anglican Priest described happens in France.
Agreed, and in rural dioceses it’s happening. I’m thinking particularly of 2 lay people who not only lead non-eucharistic beautifully but also have a truly diaconal ministry (in both the servant sense and the John N Collins sense) outside the church door – and all without the grace of orders. This was what I meant by giving fresh attention to the diaconate.
I should add that Collins didn’t seek to play down the servanthood aspect of the diaconate, but to expand its horizon in a more prophetic dimension – reminding the Church about God and his world; the world about God and his Church.
Agreed, Allan, but the diaconate has that “servant” sense which is an incredibly valuable vocation, but not the entirety of what lay ministry can be. I was struck by Nicholas Henshall’s post which started this thread “As for that other word “presbyteros” which we often translate as priest, it just means “elder””. It’s the “just” which I think is telling. “Just” an elder. Right across spiritual traditions, inside and outside Christianity, the vocation of elder is that of a senior and respected leader, chosen for their experience and wisdom, and given authority by the local community. That too is lay… Read more »
I was recently at a Eucharist where the presider had not even the basics of liturgical presidency. It was redeemed by the person signing for the deaf, whose body language brought out the ‘contours’ of the liturgy beautifully. I was going to ordain her on the spot, until my wife reminded me that I’m not a bishop.
I’m with those 7 Christians marooned for months on a desert island who discern which of their number should be their priest and commission him by prayer and laying on of hands. But to argue from the particular to the general?
Years ago a report was published on the ministry of those self-supporting priests who had received less extensive training as they were expected to minister only in their local parish. Some were concerned that this would divide word from sacrament and create a class of Mass priests; others pointed out that ordination is to the ministry of the whole Church (although deployment is within the gift of the bishop). As this report came out at a time when priests outnumbered vacancies – a very different situation from today’s – is it worth revisiting?
Can we learn from the experience of other denominations, such as the URC or Methodists, where an elder can preside at a Eucharist without needing to be ordained. It seems to work well there. This avoids confusing two separate and valued constructs, elder and priest, and respects the role of elder as being distinct and valued.
But surely we do not have lay elders in the Church of England? Indeed we don’t have any office called “elder” at all. I fully realize that some more evangelical congregations do use the term for some of their laity, but it has no constitutional significance, any more than calling someone a server has any constitutional significance. Our elders are the presbyters, ordained and licensed (etc) by the bishop. To introduce another group of elders, and then say that they are not ordained, but can do a lot of what a presbyter does is to massively confuse the issue, I’d… Read more »
Simon, You are right that we don’t have lay elders in the Church of England, but this entire thread, and the one I linked to, discussed the idea that lay elders were important in the early church, and could preside at Eucharist, and questioned the presence of the priest construct. I think that it’s a great pity that the lay elder idea seems to have disappeared from the C of E, but it remains active in other dominations. In these other denominations, and in the early church, then two categories of people could preside at Eucharist, “Holy Men” and elders.… Read more »
And my point was to question what a ‘lay elder’ might have been in the context of the early Church. In what sense were they “lay”, either in their own context or in ours? They were elders, presbyters, the office that directly or indirectly became the professional clergy that appeared not that much later. Were they commissioned by prayer and the laying on of hands? I don’t know, one way or the other.
Simon,
I agree we don’t know for certain, and I think there was a huge variety of practise in the early church.
You say these elders became the the professional clergy in due course. Which is possible. Although (going back to the use of language) these elders were of course the local bishops.
Philip Sheldrake argues that sometimes change came when communities started to invite mendicant preachers to settle down and become their community leader, in place of the local elder. Which is also possible.
I can’t see how that can help. Anglican experience – see Sydney Diocese – strongly suggests that lay presidency would be schismatic in that fragile coalition we call the CofE.
…..better, surely, to work with what we’ve received – the three-fold order of bishops, priests/presbyters and deacons?
I’m not sure the traditional three-fold order of ministry has stood the test of time. Obviously it has, in the sense that it still exists in several of the largest denominations – but what fruit has it borne? Has it proved fruitful, and led to healthy churches? That is less certain.
Non-episcopally ordered churches often have a three-fold pattern de facto. Our local Methodist Superintendent Minister was referred to as Bishop Christopher by the Anglican and RC bishops. As a modest man, he played it down, but the epithet was apt in many ways. You ask if it has “proved fruitful, and led to healthy churches?” But how on earth do you measure that? Comparison with the Quakers? Plymouth Brethren?
But Methodists don’t regard holding the office as involving ontological change – when the superintendent’s or chair of conference’s period of office is over they don’t retain the title or status. Whereas Anglicans – officially at least – believe that once you’re a priest or bishop you’re always a priest or bishop.
Baptists, most Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and other denominations don’t have a three-fold pattern.
As for our hierarchical system being unhealthy, we only have to look to the IICSA reports, which identified deference as a key factor in our failures to tackle abuse.
On the 9th March TA thread I quoted from Justin Pottinger’s book, The Bishop and the Baptized, which John Inge says should be compulsory reading for all serving bishops. The author sees the Ordinal’s metaphor of ‘shepherd’ as the model for a relationship in which the bishop is both shepherd and sheep, exercising no authority other than the flock’s willingness to be led. He proposes human-sized dioceses to ‘dilute the institutional authority and prestige of bishops’; even envisaging bishops having a parish so they can inhabit their primary pastoral, liturgical/sacramental role. Pottinger views the bishop’s authority as deriving primarily from… Read more »
The concept of “bishop” seems complicated in Methodism. Wesley apparently objected to use the term for his followers in the USA, but they insisted. In the United Methodist Church in the USA, bishops are definitely called bishops, and even have a Council of Bishops. They are “elected for life and serve in their assignment until retirement.” On the other hand, in the “Central Conferences” (“seven regional, mission-oriented bodies of The United Methodist Church (UMC) located outside the United States in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines”) “bishops are elected for a specific term. If not reelected at the end of the term,… Read more »
In the UK Methodists don’t have bishops; they have, if memory serves me, circuit superintendents, chairs of district, and a president of conference. They also have, at local level, presbyteral ministers.
Fascinating thread, Simon; thanks for the link.
Although the RC use is not necessarily so surprising when one remembers (as i am sure Nick is aware) that the word ‘priest’ is simply a contraction of the Greek ‘presbyter’ via the Old English ‘preost’. It’s interesting that the Church of England Common Worship Ordination liturgy for priests uses the word ‘presbyter’ in its title as an alternative to ‘priest’ but uses the latter throughout the liturgy except in the Litany where we pray for ‘all bishops, presbyters and deacons’.
Bring back ‘bishops and curates ( as in having cure of souls) and all congregations committed to their charge’ …. Went the way of ‘True and lively word’ though I think lively may be making a comeback, at least with BCP services (As a child I can remember ancient Mrs Awkward laying into a new vicar and informing him that a slug was living but definitely not lively)
I still use the prayer for the clergy every day, after the collect for the King and before the grace. Old habits and all that.
Going back to the Greek, church simply means congregation, which obviously doesn’t suit the hierarchy of the C of E and words have been translated to suit the C of E’s practice. How congregations are led is up for debate, but institutionalised hierarchies are slow to react and adapt to change and are generally risk adverse (hence save the parish – which is pretty much dead). They also tend to produce bottlenecks that make growth difficult. Jesus passed on leadership of the church to 12 very young disciples but they had the personal experience of following Jesus not the BCP.… Read more »