« A cat may look at a Queen .... | Main | The overtaxed awakening? »
September 24, 2004
When is the Eucharist not the Eucharist?
The simple answer to that is when it is an Agape meal. Worryingly, this seems to be what the Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney, notoriously "Evangelical" and one might even say "Protestant Extremist", is saying. The difference is, of course, in who says the key prayers of institution over the offered elements of the communion.
Ozguru, himself raised in the Baptist and Evangelical Anglican tradition, but now a practicing Roman Catholic, has commented on his blog on the new proposal by the Sydney Archdiocese to use Lay persons to lead the Communion service where there is no priest available. I share his disquiet at this seemingly radical proposal, especially if it is to be a straighforward licencing of lay "Communion Makers".
The Communion is the central plank of Christian Worship, even though there are arguments about what it actually is or represents. It is the one act of worship which our Lord directed that we must all do and share "in remembrance of me". Whether you believe that it is transubstantiated or is in some way transformed to a spiritual "food" is immaterial. Since the earliest days of the Church in the time of the Apostles only a Bishop or a Priest can actually lead the Great Thanksgiving over the elements of the communion - the Body and Blood in terms of the scriptural charge in the Gospels. Bread and wine can be shared in an Agape meal, but it is NOT consecrated, and is simply the bread and wine of fellowship - a meal shared between friends.
The latest version of an authorised prayer book - intended for use by all Christian Churches - called Common Worship, does include a form of service which can be lead by a properly trained "Licenced" lay person, usually a Reader. This does not, however, include the Eucharistic Prayer, merely a shortened form of it which does not include the words of Institution - "on the same night that He was betrayed, He took bread, and after giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to them saying, take, eat, this is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me" .... What it allows is for the pre-consecrated elements, the Body and Blood of Bread and Wine, to be taken from one congregation to another where there is no priest - by a lay person licenced and trained for this purpose. The Lay Person is not "consecrating" the elements, merely bringing them to another part of a congregation remote from the "mother" church.
The problem in the Sydney Archdiocese would seem to be that they have a much wider role in mind - one in which the Licenced Lay Person would be able to perform the act of consecration. For a Church which claims to be "Scripture Based" this would seem to ignore the entirety of the Acts of the Apostles and the evidence of other writers and historians of the Early Church. It will also set them outside of the fold of Anglicanism and essentially ex-communicate all Sydney based Anglicans who don't go along with this. Mind you, having experienced their version of Evangelical faith in some of its extremist forms, I have asked myself before whether the communion is valid if the wine is replaced by fruit juice (not even grape juice) and the words of institution were not fully said. I can normally adapt to most styles of worship, even though they may not be my preferred style or churchmanship, but I fear that this one would be a step far too far even for me.
Let us hope that the leaders of this section of the Anglican Church can be persuaded to sit down and consider the fact that they are a part of a wider tradition, one which has managed successfully until now to embrace a wide diversity of opinion and doctrine. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit can guide them in this.
Posted by The Gray Monk at September 24, 2004 10:00 AM
Comments
“Since the earliest days of the Church in the time of the Apostles only a Bishop or a Priest can actually lead the Great Thanksgiving over the elements of the communion”
I’d guess that the Sydney Diocese is basing their theology on the doctrine of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ and with that understanding would agree with your statement.
My own churchmanship is essentially evangelical Anglican, but at a time when evangelicals within the church feel aggrieved that others are taking unilateral action on issues they don’t approve of, it seems foolish to be doing the same themselves.
Posted by: James F Hamilton at September 24, 2004 02:14 PM