An Anglican judicial panel has disagreed with Sydney’s Synod on the introduction of diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper.
The Diocese of Sydney Synod in 2008 overwhelmingly agreed there was no impediment to persons other than a presbyter administering Holy Communion.
The national church’s Appellate Tribunal – consisting of three bishops and four senior lawyers – has given an advisory opinion both on lay administration, which is not sanctioned in the Diocese of Sydney and on administration by deacons, which is practised.
What is not clear here is whether they mean deacons “handing out” pre-consecrated communion or whether they mean actually “doing the magic” (as it was described by several seminary professors I know.)
I think they must mean the latter. Since even in “normal” situations, deacons and laypeople assist the priest (presbyter if you must) in administering (handing out) the hosts and the cup. But whether Sydney wanted (which I think they did) for deacons (and laypeople) be be able to “confect” the Sacrament.
Re #1
Recchip,
They do indeed mean the latter. But they are Protestants. And Protestants have never been big on Apostolic Succession and a sacramental (catholic) understanding of communion. They don’t believe in it. I don’t understand what the point is in telling people they must do something that they think is silly superstition.
Would anyone with a “catholic” understanding of communion ever take it from someone who denies it? Could a Protestant confect valid communion while not believing in it? That would indeed reduce the sacrament to magic.
Re #2 I think Article XXVI covers the situation well “Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil man.” not that I would for one second believe, that a protestant is evil, for of course the church is both catholic and reformed. See also XXVIII. Sydney has had the more “Catholic” dioceses over a barrel on this by pointing out we Anglicans ought not ‘reserve’ the sacrament either.
Sydney is a paradox; it does not accept the ordination of Women, and yet it has more women in paid positions than any other Australia Diocese.
What I find more amazing is the strange fact that many of our more “Catholic” bishops are screaming liberals in their theology, while at the same time being huge supporters of what Cranmer would call “papist innovations”!
No, Article XXVI doesn’t cover the situation at all. Article XXVI addresses in augustinian terms the moral unworthiness of those who “have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments”.
Article XXIII (Of Ministering in the Congregation) and Article XIX (Of the Church) address the situation. In the latter article, we find that the “visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which…the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance….” And in the former article, that it “is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publich preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.”
According to all the historic liturgical standards of Anglicanism, from the 1549 Book of Common Prayer onwards, only bishops and presbyters may preside at the ministration of Holy Communion, and therefore only bishops and presbyters have been “lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.”
Catholic or Protestant, this isn’t about “magic”. It’s about apostolicity, and the sacramentalism that flows from being apostolic. Bishops and presbyters have received authority (and gifts from the Holy Spirit to support that authority) in ordination, in succession with the apostles (no, I’m not endorsing a necessarily unbroken tactile succession), and that authority includes sacramental presidency in the congregation. Deacons have not received that authority (nor those concomitant gifts) in ordination.
there are no ‘Priests’ in the New Testament Church. There are deacons, but also elders, pastors, evangelists, prophets etc.
Could it be time for a reformation of leadership titles and job descriptions. Much of the controversy about ‘Lay’ administration would go away if we got back to basics.
I guess we’re not in the same church, Glendermott. I’m an Anglican. What are you?