Sydney Synod has overwhelmingly restated its principled support for lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper.
More significantly – in what supporters said is ‘a great outcome’ for women deacons – the motion also ‘accepts’ the argument that there is no longer any legal impediment to deacons officiating at Holy Communion given the wording of The Ordination Service for Deacons Canon 1985 and the repeal of the 1662 Act of Uniformity by a recent General Synod Canon.
However the motion itself does nothing to change the legal situation.
“We don’t make law or change law in a motion,” said the Bishop of North Sydney, Glenn Davies, in moving the motion “we merely express our view.”
Putting aside the question of whether it is at all intelligible for deacons and laypeople to preside at celebrations of the Eucharist (I believe that the notion that they can is no less innovative than the liberal Protestant innovations of TEC), what struck me about this article — in distinction from the earlier one in the Church Times — is the question of legality. I wonder if this is yet another example of incoherence in Anglican canon law? There is remarkable correspondence between this synod’s conclusions and Executive Council’s (and in another place Bonnie Anderson’s) ex cathedral pronouncement that the only entity capable of hermeneutic integrity (apparently on earth) is the General Convention.
Bishop Davies is quoted as saying: “It’s much better to make the diaconate a real diaconate… to allow women to have that fullness of ministry of Word and Sacrament.. that would be a great outcome.â€
Two points:
1) The stance Sydney has taken in re: the diaconate does not make the diaconate into “a real diaconate,” it makes them into priests. Sydney may believe they can find a biblical justification for such a move (when the time seems right to them)– and many Christians have; those who have, though, are usually called “Baptists,†not Anglicans.
2) Does he really think that those who are opposed to WO (even those conservative Evangelicals who don’t believe in priestly ministry as such) will find the tortured reasoning above to be sufficient to answer their concerns?
Point one should concern everybody, point two will concern a great many. Badly timed.
Actually, farstrider, the Baptists of my youth (conservative Southern Baptists) did not allow deacons to preside at the Lord’s Supper. I only ever saw an ordained minister/pastor do that. Deacons administered the consecrated bread and the cup to the communicants, in much the same way that they do in Reformed and Presbyterian, some Lutheran, Anglican and Catholic and Orthodox Churches. (Deacons in these churches were ordained by the laying on of hands of pastors, and occasionally of other deacons as well.)
And Sam (#1) is completely right – this is as much an innovation in praxis as the blessing of same-sex unions and the administration of Holy Communion to the unbaptized, and should therefore be protested against and rejected. Sydney Synod has a fundamental misunderstanding about what holy orders are – and I say that as a oldline High Church Anglican very much amenable to High Church Evangelical Anglicanism of the Wesleyan sort (now there’s an antiquarian specimen for you!) and not as an Anglo-Catholic.
So what will the GAFCON primates do if this is carried into effect?
If there is to be credibility to charges of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s failure to lead, then confessing Anglicans need to take some responsibility for potentially divisive acts within their own ranks. Otherwise, it would seem that we are merely being asked to choose between liberal and conservative federations of Anglican churches.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I see this being as serious as the TEC innovations. It is yet another wedge in a communion split at the grain.
Do we have Catholic holy orders or not. This is more serious than anything else, including inchoate statements about doctrine emanating from the mouths of those who should, but may not, know better.
It’s as if our Anglican identity is being pulled apart in every direction.
This would destroy the “esse” of the church.
“Lay and Diaconal Eucharistic Presidency resupported in Sydney”
What possesses the Sydney Synod to press this issue?
Even if they don’t care about catholic order, you’d hope they’d care about unity among theologically conservative Anglicans.
This is just one more evidence of Anglican theological incoherence that Aidan Nichols described so devastatingly in The Panther and the Hind. It only enhances the doubts I have about the coherence of the CCP and North American Province schemes.
Jeremy Bonner is right – this is an instance that is crying out for the GAFCON primatial council to take action on. If they don’t, then they are just as guilty as Rowan Williams. This is the time for the GAFCON primates to take Abp. Jensen aside and tell him courteously, but firmly, that this is NOT acceptable and that regardless of what he or his Diocese of Sydney think about the issue, they are calling him back to orthodox Anglican doctrine and practice. Mutual accountability in communion, and all that.
I join those who are seriously concerned about this issue and wonder why Sydney would press this matter right now.
Given the fact that I was discipled in Free Church Protestant circles and part of Bible clubs / fellowships where we celebrated Communion without anyone ordained being present, I actually have some sympathy towards Sydney’s position on this matter.
But I find it astounding that they would take unilateral action on this matter when it has been made clear to them in the past (I think it was at the 2002 ACC meeting?) that this would be an innovation that would tear the Anglican Communion just as surely as the blessing of SS unions or the consecration of a gay bishop would?
So, I’m sad and confused tonight and find it hard to maintain hope for unity among orthodox Anglicans.
Todd (#3),
Thanks for your response– and you’re right in re: the Baptist (and most congregationalist) model(s). My response was off-the-cuff and came out of a sense of frustration and disbelief. Nonetheless, Sydney is seriously considering something that can only be called a step apart from historic Anglicanism.
And, as others have written, they seem to be as determined to tear the fabric of the Communion as TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada ever were. If any from Sydney would like to chime in, please do, because it’s looking pretty grim from this side of the world.
Re # 6
Rob K,
[blockquote] Do we have Catholic holy orders or not.[/blockquote]
No. Whatever may divide the Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics, we are agreed on that point. This is just further evidence (if any more were needed) to that end.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox Christianity[/url]: Proclaiming the Truth since 33 AD.
Arrgghh drop “y” in Orthodoxy* above.
Calm down everyone, the Sydney diocesan synod has voted on this before, and Abp. Jensen has simply not signed it off. He is on record as saying although he agrees in principle, he will not allow it because of the impact it would have on the rest of the communion. In the Anglican church of Australia a synod can pass whatever legislation it likes, but if the Diocesan Bishop does not sign off on it, it lapses.
Further, please remember in Sydney there are no Priests simply Presbyters. It is the most thoroughly reformed of all the Australian dioceses
regards,
Jon R
All, I found a comment John Richardson (aka the Ugley Vicar) posted at SF to be really helpful in giving this news some context. Based on what he writes I find it much less troubling than I first feared:
Here’s John’s comment:
——————-
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17283/#294180
Reading through the comments on this post first thing Sunday morning (in fact 6.30am UK time as the clocks went back last night), I have the growing suspicion that a lot of US Anglican orthodox don’t understand a lot of UK Anglican Evangelicals!
Many of us (and I use the term advisedly) stand within the Puritan tradition within the Church of England. It must be remembered that the Puritan separation was (arguably) engineered by the Anglican hierarchy and the State acting in collusion (the one to narrow the boundaries so as to exclude a disputed churchmanship, the other to create law – the ‘Clarendon Code’ – which not only forced ministers out of parishes but attempted to silence their ministry). It thus distorted the church’s life and, incidentally, set an Anglican precedent for dealing with dissent by encouraging departures.
Our view is that of William Fuller, that the church of England was ‘but halfly reformed’ at the Reformation, and that since then reform has proceeded ‘but halfly forward and more than halfly backward.’ I would highly commend Dr Peter Adam’s essay, A Church Halfly Reformed, delivered to an enthusiastic audience of Evangelical Anglicans at St Helen’s Bishopsgate a few years ago.
For me personally, reading Patrick Collinson’s The Elizabethan Puritan Movement back in the early 1990s was a revelatory moment, when I realized that what I believed about church, ministry, sacraments, Bible and so on had a home within Anglicanism. And the struggles with the institution’s resistance to change and to a wholehearted embrace of gospel principles was also ‘normal’ – or at least as old as Queen Elizabeth’s suppression of Puritanism.
I also suspect that US Anglicans may not realize with what suspicion some of their ‘orthodoxy’ would be regarded both currently and historically within traditional Anglican Evangelicalism. I am not picking on the person, but rather the comment, where Phil Snyder wrote, “I have, with the permission of my bishop, presided at an administration from the Reserved Sacrament, but it is not something that is or should be normal for a deacon to do.â€
In nineteenth century England, the reservation of the sacrament in an Anglican church was not merely regarded as unorthodoxy, it was a criminal offence, and some of those clergy who supported these and other violations of Anglican order went to prison as a result. (The book to read is Glorious Battle by John Sheldon.) Thus to this day there are many Anglican Evangelicals for whom sacramental reservation is an anathema – and it is certainly contrary to the 39 Articles (Art 28).
What all this shows, I suspect, is that there is a much greater need to explore the position of others than many have suspected. There is an instinctive sense that we are ‘on the same side’, but that is not the same as having a coherent theological fit.
Two other comments. First, the Sydney Synod is, in my experience, highly trained and articulate theologically. This will be no ill considered rush into unthinking posturing. Secondly, I imagine the timing of this announcement will not have ignored the proximity to GAFCON, where (I gather) things were said and done liturgically which would have raised eyebrows in Sydney parishes. It may well be a way of saying to the parishes “We have not changed,†and to GAFCON, “You need to know where we stand.â€
[36] Posted by John Richardson on 10-26-2008 at 07:08 AM
Jon (#16),
That’s all very well, but one would have hoped that the very aware Synod delegates would be as capable of exercising restraint, for the good of the order, as their bishop. If the Dean of Sydney is unable to suggest that in the current season it would be better not to pass such a resolution, then mixed messages are being sent by the leadership.
I also note the following:
[i]The Rev Dr Tim Foster from Leichhardt sought to delete clause (c): “affirms that the Lord’s Supper in this diocese may be administered by persons other than presbytersâ€.
“It pretends to be innocuous but opens a Pandora’s box,†he said.
Bishop Peter Tasker supported Dr Foster’s amendment saying that he was concerned the motion would impact Sydney’s relationship with GAFCON bishops.
[b]“I am not arguing that we ask GAFCON bishops for permission,†he said.[/b]
“I personally made a commitment… that we would seek to put on paper our reasons for moving in this direction. They simply ask to give them space to read and understand our position before we act.â€[/i]
Well, why wouldn’t one ask permission? Surely, GAFCON affirmed the need for deference to the authority of the Church? Does this mean that Sydney isn’t really committed to such a vision? It all sounds strangely familiar. “Space to read and understand our decision” . . . not “concur with,” but simply “understand.” Isn’t that TEC’s federation model, just with a different theological gloss?
You might want to recall entering into communion with the ELCA where we recognized as valid, priests and bishops who were outside the apostolic succession. I voted against it by the way for the reasons many of you have cited.
Karen B, has to a certain extent hit the nail on the head. When this issue was first raised at General synod, Sydney pointed out, that they had heard rumors of some dioceses in which reservation was a normal practice. As this is against Anglican practice there was a tacit agreement, that public services from the reserved sacrament would cease, and Sydney would not push the issue. Sydney sees no difference between a service using the reserved sacrament, and a communion service led by a Deacon.
From what I have read on this blog and others, I would say the ritual practices of the US church are far more ‘Roman’ than the majority of Australian churches. With perhaps, the exception of one or two of the “inclusive” parishes.
Jon R
That last point is very true. Historically, the high church movement in America carried all before it and the Evangelicals who had been a powerful party prior to the Civil War had largely decamped by the 1880s. There would seem to have been nothing comparable anywhere else in the Anglican Communion.
Alan Guelzo and Diana Butler Bass are both excellent authorities on these matters.
Whatever the feelings of certain Evangelicals to their higher Church brothers in the US or elsewhere, the orthodox are made up of the Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic and Charismatic wings of the Church. If any one of those groups begins to innovate in a way that is destructive to the unity of the whole, pleas to party position can only further divide.
John Richardson is quoted in #17 as saying, “I also suspect that US Anglicans may not realize with what suspicion some of their ‘orthodoxy’ would be regarded both currently and historically within traditional Anglican Evangelicalism”.
The CofE is as much an orthodox conglomerate as the Americans are. In England the three “parties” have managed to unite for the sake of Anglican orthodoxy– high and low are both thoroughly represented from the Diocese of Chichester on the one hand, through Rochester, and on to Lewes. If any English Evangelicals are suspicious of the orthodoxy of their American counterpoints (Common Cause or otherwise), they are strangely unaware of the nature of mainstream orthodoxy in England.
If anything positive has come out of this crisis, it is the strengthening of bonds between the Evangelical, Charismatic and Anglo-Catholic. Anything innovation which undermines that new sense of unity should be dealt with efficiently and with prejudice.
My two cents…
Sorry, the last sentence should read, “Any innovation…”
Re # 22
Farstrider,
I must respectfully disagree with the premise of your post.
[blockquote]Whatever the feelings of certain Evangelicals to their higher Church brothers in the US or elsewhere, the orthodox are made up of the Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic and Charismatic wings of the Church[/blockquote]
How is this possible given that you have radical differences in theology? How can Evangelicals and High Church Anglo-Catholics both be orthodox when they do not even agree on the number & nature of the sacraments? We will for the sake of brevity not go into the charismatics and all of the theological baggage they bring.
It seems that you have set a fairly low bar for achieving orthodoxy. I am guessing it’s a refusal to condone sexual perversion and acceptance of the primacy of scripture (whatever that means).
I would be interested in your definition of orthodoxy for comparison to that of the Fathers.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox Christianity[/url]: Proclaiming the Truth since 33 AD
#3 said “And Sam (#1) is completely right – this is as much an innovation in praxis as the blessing of same-sex unions and the administration of Holy Communion to the unbaptized, and should therefore be protested against and rejected. ”
And, we should remember, neither of these is the official position of TEC (though neither is punished in many dioceses).
Mark.
John,
Given your signature and the tenor of your post (#14) above you will understand if I am unsurprised by your disagreement. However, you need to remember that this is primarily an Anglican and not an Eastern Orthodox forum. While our definitions of orthodoxy may be over-generous in your judgment, we find yours overly narrow (you even judge Rome as “heterodoxâ€).
While significant differences exist between the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings of the Anglican Communion, there is also significant overlap. All are creedally orthodox; all recognize that “there is one body and one Spirit—just as (we) were called to one hope when (we) were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.†All seek to love and obey the Lord and all believe that the gospel includes a call to repentance and to holiness. All seek to grow in the knowledge and in the image of the one who called them.
Do ecclesiological and other differences pose a challenge for Anglicanism? Clearly. Yet each side has a great deal that it can impart to the other. This is as true of Roman Catholicism and non-Anglican Evangelicalism as it is of the Anglican counterparts—I think you understand what I mean, especially given some of the changes over the past few decades. Many evangelical theologians are rethinking the role of Tradition and its relationship with Scripture; many Catholic theologians are rethinking the role of Scripture in the life of the Church and in individual discipleship. Both are re-examining the manifold nature of God’s grace (with a good deal of influence from the Eastern Fathers.)
Perhaps this helps you understand what I (and many Anglicans) mean by “orthodoxy†given our current circumstances. There are things that could be added I am sure, but that’s all I have time to write. And I’m not particularly interested in getting into a debate with you over Eastern orthodoxy. That’s not what this article is about.
Farstrider,
I am not looking for a discussion about the Orthodox Church. Rather I was attempting discern your definition of orthodoxy. I have read your response several times and am unable to find an answer to my question. Perhaps I was unclear in asking the question.
Given that the term orthodoxy means right faith and right worship, what is your theological criteria for orthodoxy? What do you consider to be non-negotiable? You assert that the various wings of of Anglicanism are all creedally orthodox. But are you? Do you all believe everything in the Creed of the Council of Lyons which most Anglicans recite at Sunday services? It claims a One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If you hold that (your oceanic theological differences notwithstanding), you can all belong to the same church, and that it is THE CHURCH spoken of in the creed then what are its boundaries?
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox Christianity[/url]: Proclaiming the Truth since 33 AD
farstrider, any complaint that John may have made about the use of “orthodoxy” is probably right — “creedal orthodoxy” is a ridiculous notion that has no foundation in the fathers; it is orthodoxy itself that gives rise to the creeds. I think that Anglicans should stop using the term. Orthodoxy assumes some kind of mechanism for judgment, and that is precisely what we lack at the moment — at least insofar as we keep trying to do things on our own.
That said, John’s point in #14 is simply untrue: there is no universal East and West view of Anglican holy orders. There is a very clear view from Rome (Apostolica Curae), which is indeed “no.” But the East is not so simple (as I think John probably knows), mainly because the kind of judgment implied could only be made by an ecumenical council, and there hasn’t been one since the 8th century. That doesn’t mean that the East accepts the “validity” (which I think a very Roman term) of our orders — though there are some very interesting examples of Orthodox Churches explicitly doing so! — it simply means that there is no real firm position. The Orthodox don’t really know what Anglicanism is, other than an odd offspring of earlier Western schism.
Putting all that aside, I’m still not surprised by Sydney’s position as discussed here. They at least are consistent. Their problem with TEC is not that it is not Catholic or communal but just that it is wrong — because Sydney knows it is wrong. Sydney believes they are right about this. They do not have any need for other authority. It worries me that other “orthodox” Anglican groups will refuse to see this as the danger that it is. Accommodation to this is no better than accommodation to TEC’s agenda. Talk about “collaboration”!
Re # 28
Sam,
You are correct if (as I suspect) you are referencing several historical dialogues between various Orthodox jurisdictions and Anglicanism. However in each instance these fell through. The most recent flirtations between several of the Greek jurisdictions under the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the early part of the last century ended over precisely the points which you have made in your own post.
Today there is some diversity of opinion within Orthodoxy about the grace of Roman Catholic sacraments as reflected by the fact that the Russians and most other jurisdictions (though not all) generally receive Roman clergy by Chrismation and profession of faith and do not ordain them. That diversity however is is absent on the subject of Anglican orders. No Orthodox jurisdiction accepts Anglican orders on the part of converts.
Your dates for the last Ecumenical Councils are interesting. Do you include the VIIIth and IXth councils?
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox Christianity[/url]: Proclaiming the Truth since 33 AD
John (29); I don’t; I meant the (first) Seven Councils which are universally accepted. I doubt there have been clergy exchanges, but there have been some interesting pastoral directives (encouraging the Orthodox to receive Holy Communion in Anglican churches when no Orthodox available… though this is years in the past!), as well as an explicit recognition of Anglican orders in 1923 by the Orthodox Church of Cyprus. Obviously that didn’t go very far… but the Archbishop Chrisostomos saw fit to bring it up at this year’s Lambeth Conference as a reminder of what could have been if we had gotten our act together.
Anyway, this little tangent has probably already veered off-topic, so let’s leave it there — unless you can think of further how it might be relevant to Sydney.
#28
Hi Sam,
Regarding “orthodoxy†you write:
“I think that Anglicans should stop using the term.â€
I would answer that the Eastern Orthodox have no more of a monopoly on the word “orthodoxy†than Rome does on “catholicityâ€.
You wrote:
“farstrider, any complaint that John may have made about the use of “orthodoxy†is probably right—“creedal orthodoxy†is a ridiculous notion that has no foundation in the fathers; it is orthodoxy itself that gives rise to the creeds. ”
Yes, orthodoxy gives rise to the creeds (and even produces and defines for us the canon of Scripture). The creeds and canon also, from that point on, play a part in defining what orthodoxy is. I am afraid I fail to see how “creedal orthodoxy†is a “ridiculous notionâ€. At no point that I am aware of did Anglicanism break with the Fathers—they, like their Eastern and Latin, brethren believed that they were believing and worshiping in accord with the Fathers. Like their Eastern and Latin brethren, they emphasize different aspects of the Patristic testimony—you see this (imperfectly) in Cranmer and (especially) in Hooker and the Caroline Divines. The Anglicans also defined their position in terms of the Ecumenical Councils—some referencing the first seven, others the first four on the basis that the last three only expand upon the first four (others seemed to specify a five/two ratio).
The essential markers of Catholic faith were maintained, including holy orders and sacraments, although these were generally limited to the two “dominical†sacraments and some things were defined as “sacramental†rather than as sacraments. It might be worth noting here that the seven sacraments recognized by Rome were only ratified in the 12th century. As such Anglicanism has not rejected the witness of the Fathers—there was no consensus within the one, undivided Church.
It is fairly obvious that Anglicanism understood itself in terms of reformed Catholicity (and therefore as orthodox). I would argue that most of the Anglican particulars are thoroughly in line with the Patristic witness. The more Reformed elements may strain that witness to some extent (and recent innovations regarding women’s ordination and lay presidency threaten to break that witness), but some of us hope such a break is not inevitable. Call us naïve, but you’d have to say the same of the minority orthodox who revisited the Arian juggernaut that very nearly did the Church in (but for the sovereignty of God).
Sorry, last sentence again. Should say “resisted the Arian juggernaut…” not “revisted…”
“I think that Anglicans should stop using the term”
Wouldn’t we all like to set the terms of debate.
Irenaeus: Yes indeed. It’s not like I thought anyone would take me up on the suggestion. I don’t follow it myself.
Though it does strike me still as a good idea to try to use “orthodox” in the way that the fathers of the 7th ecumenical council used it. Anyway it seems to me a perfectly good idea to say that the Orthodox have a monopoly on the term. Or at the very least we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to attempt using it without taking them into account (in the same way that it is silly to act as if we can talk about catholicity as if there were no Church in Rome) I think they use it with much, much more theological depth than we do. We use it as a big stick to hammer away at those who we perceive as wrong. For them it’s a whole way of being–it is synonymous with the life of the Church.
So all that was to say, I guess, that this Sydney stuff is illustrative of the incompatibility of various Anglican concepts of orthodoxy.
I had tried to reply to Ad Orientam’s post no. 14, by saying that my question about whether we had Catholic orders or not was meant rhetorically for Anglicans, but, however, I agree with the tenor of his questions to others here. Too bad the non-lasting agreements about the validity of Anglican orders in the minds of some of the Orthodox jurisdictions has come to virtually nothing except expressions of well-wishing. Could someone tell me if one could be “creedally orthodox” without acknowledging allegiance to any ecclesial body? Seems like the definition offered by some would allow for it.
Rob,
I don’t know how one could claim orthodoxy apart from the Church.
Excerpt from the Apostle’s Creed:
“I believe in…
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints…”
I am acquainted with many of the leading figures in FIF/UK, and with the English Anglican situation generally. It is little short of ridiculous to state that Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals in the Church of England share a “common orthodoxy.” The most that one can say is that “Forward-in-Faith/UK” and “Reform” share a common opposition to WO and maintain a degree of liaison with one another. “Reform” is as clear that it regards Anglo-Catholic views on ecclesiology and Holy Orders as errors incompatible with the views of the English Reformers as FIF/UK is that if the Church of England is not historically “catholic” on these matters, then it is nothing at all (recalling Charles I’s statement towards the end of his life that if the Church of England could not demonstrate the succession of her bishops “she should have one less son in me”). The goal of FIF/UK is “reconciliation with Rome” and one of my friend snotes that at its annual assemblies, when “pro-papal” statements are made from the podium during keynote addresses, about 80% of the audience applauds enthusiastically, while 20% sit in silence, with their hands folded.
But if you leave the WO issue aside, and do not use it as a criterion of orthodoxy, then the situation is little better, as you will find some “Open Evangelicals” and “Affirming Catholics” who agree in the “orthodoxy of heterodoxy” and others of both camps, somewhere in between, who agree fortuitously on some issues and agree on others.
The real criterion of differentiation between “Protestant Anglicans” and “Catholic Anglicans” is historical: is the touchstone of “genuine Anglicanism” the 39 Articles as understood and lived during the so-called “Calvinist consensus” (or, a the very least, “Reformed consensus”) of the years from ca. 1559 to ca. 1625, plus the thought of the English Reformers — or is it Anglicanism as the creation of Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes and others in the period from ca. 1590 to ca. 1610, a distinct minority position in that period, but one which came to control the Church of England in the period 1625 to 1640, and which has always exercised a dominant influence on Anglican practice with regard to Holy Orders (a tleast) thereafter?
Put more pithily still, what is the meaning of that Canon adopted by the Church of England in 1571, at the same time that it adopted the final version of the 39 Articles, claiming that those Articles were in accordance with what the “Catholic bishops and fathers” of the Early Church had taught, and demanding that they be interpreted in accordance wit that criterion. As I wrote elsewhere:
“At the same time, however, this same Convocation passed a canon asserting that the Articles were in agreement with the ‘Catholic bishops and fathers’ of the Early Church and insisted that they be interpreted accordingly. This was a remarkable canon, for despite the fact that advocates of all sides to the 16th-Century religious conflict, Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed alike, were given to claiming that their particular doctrinal stances and, in some cases, distinctive practices, were in accord with those of the Early Church Fathers, or at least with those of high standing (such as St. Augustine), none were willing to require, or even permit, their confessional stances to be judged by, or subordinated to, a hypothetical ‘Patristic consensus’ of the first four or five centuries of Christianity. Even in England the canon had very little effect at first, beyond, perhaps, serving as an encouragement to ‘conformist Calvinists’ in the 1570s and 80s who were unsympathetic to the ‘puritan’ campaign to substitute a presbyterian polity for the traditional episcopal order to carry the battle into the enemy’s camp by vaunting the universality and antiquity of episcopacy, as opposed to the novelty of the ‘Geneva Discipline’.”
It was the contention of many of “the Laudians” (although very few were willing to affirm it publicly; Laud, Montague, Cosin and Charles I himself [towards the end of his life] being notable exceptions) that, judged by this “Patristic criterion,” the “Reformed consensus” of the period 1559-1625 required rejection, the views of the English Reformers themselves were as often erroneous as correct (they could be scathing in private, for instance, about John Jewel) and that the Church of England needed, so far as secular political imperatives would allow, to distance itself from the Reformed churches of the continent and to disavow any connection with the views of the continental Reformers (recall the statement of Charles I that I quoted above; that same statement begins with a disavowal of the continental Reformation as having any pertinence to or exemplary authority for the Church of England).
Please note, that I am not advocating here for these views. However, it does seem to me that in this 1571 Canon all of the “Anglican difficulties” which are exemplified in this thread, and in the corresponding one at Stand Firm, have both their origin and the manifest impossibility of ever resolving them. Is “Reformation Anglican tradition” to trump the appeal to the Fathers, where they diverge, or is the “Patristic consensus” to overrule the English Reformers and the “original intent” of the 39 Articles?
A few years ago “I’d Rather Not Say” left a comment here on T19 stating that if catholicity is to mean anything for Anglicanism it must mean that Anglicanism cannot unilaterally alter the faith and practice which it shares with both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It is not sufficient for Anglicanism to achieve a consensus within its own communion. It must remain faithful and accountable to the wider catholic Church. (Can anyone point me to the thread or article where he made this comment?) As I recall, IRNS’s specific concern at the time was the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate, but the principle, of course, has wider ramifications.
Once the churches of the Anglican Communion allowed the members of its communion to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopate, despite the emphatic opposition of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it abandoned all principled opposition to lay eucharistic presidency. At that point the Anglican Communion decided that it would be guided by its own sectarian reading of Scripture, tradition, and experience. All that remains now is prudence, collegiality, and politics.
Why should not Sydney allow laymen to preside at the Eucharist? Can anyone point to a clear and unequivocal New Testament text that states that only the ordained may preside at the Supper? Does the NT even explicitly address this question? And if the NT does not explicitly forbid lay presidency, then how can the Anglican Communion forbid its Churches to do what they in conscience believe they are called by God to do? That was precisely the argument advanced in the 70s in support of women’s ordination, now widely affirmed by so many “orthodox” Anglicans.
ReinertJ #16 – “Calm down everyone, the Sydney diocesan synod has voted on this before, and Abp. Jensen has simply not signed it off. He is on record as saying although he agrees in principle, he will not allow it because of the impact it would have on the rest of the communion. ”
In the linked SydneyAnglicans.net piece, Glenn Davies, Bishop of North Sydney is quoted as follows:
‘Bishop Davies said he believes there is “nothing the Archbishop can do to prevent a deacon administering the Lord’s Supperâ€.
‘But added that via the motion Synod cannot approve lay people presiding at Holy Communion at Sunday services in Sydney Diocese.
‘“It would require a bishop’s licence,†Bishop Davies explained. “The Archbishop will not license a lay person at this time.‒
In short, the only limitation on Lay Presidency in the Sydney Archdiocese is that lay persons may not preside at Holy Communion ON SUNDAYS.
Given the strong control that Jensen exerts over his diocese, Davies’ statement that there is “nothing the Archbishop can do to prevent a deacon administering the Lord’s Supper†indicates that the only control Jensen might intend to exert over Lay Presidency within his Archdiocese is the fig leaf of refusing to authorize Sunday celebrations.
Note also the clear inference – “Why can’t women deacons administer the Lord’s Supper in a girls’ school or a womens’ prison?” – that female laity may only preside at services for women. This is in keeping with existing theory and practice in the archdiocese.
Fr. Kimel – I think I remember IRNS’s statement you refer to. It may have been, though, on his own website. Thanks for your and Wm. Tighe’s posts.
Fr. Kimel asks: “Why should not Sydney allow laymen to preside at the Eucharist?”
Because the Anglican Communion is built upon Scripture and Tradition. I have tremendous respect for you, Father, and have appreciated your thoughts to no end, but there is still “that” in Anglicanism which you believed was there prior to your departure, (weak though “that” may be). The very fact that Sydney’s innovations have raised as much ire as TEC’s innovations is a sign of that orthodox impulse. Some still hold on to hope, which I believe is the right thing to do.
I appreciated Walter Kaspar’s words, which Kendall posted a link to here:
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17372/#more]
I believe that it is possible to work together, and I hope that we may– all of us– be renewed together by God’s grace and our mutual submission to the teaching of the historic Church. There are very serious issues which have yet to be fully addressed within orthodox circles– beliefs which [i]are[/i] at odds with historic Anglican teaching.
I understand that you feel that our position is hopeless… otherwise you would not have left. Respect the fact, though, that many of us are not there yet.
Farstrider, you haven’t given me a reason why Sydney should NOT authorize lay eucharistic presidency. The simple fact that something has not been done before is not, in itself, sufficient reason why it should not be done now.
An appeal to an “orthodox impulse” is hardly persuasive and certainly not compelling. Are we to believe that women may be properly ordained to the presbyterate and episcopate because the Anglican “orthodox impulse” does not object? Does the Anglican “orthodox impulse” enjoy some kind of magisterial infallibility?
I do not know where you personally stand on the question of women’s ordination; but if you support it, then I respectfully suggest that your opposition to lay eucharistic presidency must ultimately give way to Sydney, because you cannot produce compelling and decisive biblical support for your position. It simply ain’t there. If the plain meaning of Scripture is your final authority, on what basis do you oppose the Sydney evangelicals?
If, on the other hand, you oppose the ordination of women, then I acknowledge that you might be able to construct an argument opposing lay presidency. It won’t be an argument that Anglican evangelicals will find convincing, precisely because of the lack of explicit biblical support, but it will be an argument, a catholic argument.
Fr. Kimel,
Thanks for your response. For the record, I am opposed to women’s ordination. While I know that you, in past, and others have said that the only basis for opposing women’s ordination is that of Tradition, I believe that the teachings of Scripture also militate against woman “priests.” Many evangelicals would agree. As for me, I accept the witness of both Scripture and Tradition (with regard to headship and priestly representation), so I am doubly bound to oppose it.
You write: “…you haven’t given me a reason why Sydney should NOT authorize lay eucharistic presidency.”
In fact, I have. I wrote: “Because the Anglican Communion is built upon Scripture and Tradition.” Which is to say, Tradition tells us that this is contrary to the teaching and practice of the Church Catholic. If someone rejects tradition altogether, as Sydney seems to have, then I am sure, given the strength of the Catholic argument alone, they will not be moved. If however they have any sense of what Catholicity means in its broadest sense (meaning with regard to the whole) they must not do this thing. Otherwise they are as schismatic as TEC and Canada. It is on this basis that they must be compelled to back down. If they do not, they cede the right to speak of an Anglican Communion, or to expect that Communion to exercise discipline with regard to other innovations.
The “orthodox impulse” which I spoke of reflects a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo (where everyone does what is right in his own eyes). It is especially evident in those threads where women’s ordination has been discussed– you will have noted, I think, that there seems to be a growing sense of unease amongst the reasserters (including Evangelicals) regarding this practice. This, for me, is a hopeful thing.
I’d just like to point out Dale Rye’s very helpful description of the Australian situation here.
Fr. Kimel is laying out precisely why lay presdidency is a natural by product or consequence of WO. It confirms the abandonment of the catholic understanding of the priesthood and the eucharist that WO began. It is little secret that WO was advanced with the support of Evangelicals who cared little for the sacramental nature of the priesthood.
If Anglicanism is going to have a future of any value it is going to have to address the old wounds and not try to paper over them. Opposition to sodomy is not a sufficient base to form a church.