Lay presidency

What is your opinion of lay presidency at communion?

This is accepted in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia, and I have read that it is growing in England, though illegal.

I'm in favor of it.

 

Completely opposed to it.

 

100% opposed, if even just for good order's sake, and the unity of the body.

Justin Martyr speaks of "he who is the president among the brethren" at the Sunday Eucharist, but this is not necessarily speaking of lay presidency. Every other Father is quick to say that the Eucharist is made and celebrated by the clergy.

 

The Priest acts in "Persona Christi", and has been given the ability by the Holy Ghost in his ordination to consecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am 100% opposed to lay presidency, mostly cause it is a false innovation which has no grounding in Holy Scripture. Also cause I believe in the sacramental and sacrificial nature of the Priesthood.

 

I'm in favor of it because I hold to the priesthood of the believer and because I do not hold to the clergy having special rights and privileges that the laity does not.

I believe that pastors have certain functions, but not exclusively so.

 

I could not accept lay presidency.

We have ample scope in the CofE for lay ministers such as Readers and Local Worship Leaders to preside at non sacramental forms of worship. I would be 100% against this being extended to include lay presidency at HC.

 

It's interesting that your opinion of this comes from your beliefs about rights and privileges. Those who oppose lay presidency at the Eucharist do so for ontological-philosophical reasons, generally. My question would be: if faith in Christ & Baptism confer the priesthood of all believers, what need is there of an Ordination or Consecration at all? Would it not be superfluous, except as a sort of vote?

 

I say this in all sincerity and respect--please worship where you find spiritual comfort.

 

This is accepted in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia, and I have read that it is growing in England, though illegal.

I disagree with it totally. I find your comment above regarding England, surprising to say the least. I have never heard it mentioned even! Further I should like to second our Scot's cousin's heartfelt prayer with a loud Amen!

 

My opinion comes from the teaching of scripture about the priesthood of believers, period.

I'm not saying that the clergy don't have special functions, I'm saying that these are not exclusive to them. I'm saying that when a pastor is not available, on the decision of the church, a lay person could preside at communion or baptize. Or even if a pastor is present, and a child is being baptized, it would be entirely appropriate, if desired, for the parents to join in the baptizing of the child.

Show me anywhere in scripture where the sacraments are exclusive to anyone but the "clergy".

 

The question is not whether or not a believer can consecrate, which he can, these are given in baptism. The question is should he, the Scriptures give a resounding NO. The presbyterate is given clear responsibilities which laymen are not to do.

 

From the ACNA Ordinal

The Bishop then anoints the hands of the new Priest, saying
Grant, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this unction, and by our blessing; that whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified; in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

The ACNA Ordinal means nothing to classical Anglicans. Quote a real formulary.

 

The prayer cited by CatholicAnglican in the ACNA Ordinal is taken directly from the Pontificale Romanum, the Roman Ordinal from c. 1560-1960. It is the height of Tridentine superstition. I am surprised to see this prayer in an ordinal that calls itself Anglican.

"Consecrare, et sanctificare digneris, Domine, manus istas per istam unctionem, et nostram benedictionem. Amen."

Pontifex producit manu dextera signum crucis super manus illius, quem ordinat, et prosequitur:

[the consecrating bishop creates, with his right hand , the sign of the cross over his hands who is to be ordained, and the following is said:]

"Ut quaecumque benedixerint, benedicantur, et quaecumque consecraverint, consecrentur, et sanctificentur, in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi."

Et quilibet ordinandus respondet: [and all those to be ordained respond:] "Amen."

This exaggerated prayer, then, is the ultimate extreme of sacerdotalism in the Eucharist. On the opposite end, I wonder where you, Hackney, find the teaching in the Scriptures that Baptism gives a believer the ability to consecrate the Eucharist.

 

The scriptures do not give any such thing.There is nowhere in scripture where administration/consecration of the elements is restricted to clergy.

 

Where do you find that it does not?

The scriptures say that all believers are priests.

 

Priesthood in the New Testament does not seem to have anything to do with the celebration of the Eucharist, as far as I can tell. Hebrews, the sacerdotal epistle, defines priesthood primarily as a prayer-centered mediation: a priest is an ambassador between God and man. Christ our Lord, the true high priest, has entered the Temple Not Made By Hands, constantly making intercession for us (thanks be to God). The Eucharist does not enter into that narrative.

We are priests by virtue of our baptism into the incarnate life, death, and resurrection of the Lord, of which I suppose the Eucharist is a Mysterious Part. Priesthood is primarily about the mediation, however. Participating in Christ's Priesthood means we are able to intercede for others in prayer, and God hears us because He sees Christ in us (amazing!).

 

There is no instance of laymen distributing Communion in Scripture, the only instances we see are with ordained leaders. Lay presidency goes against the whole ordered ministry envisioned by God in the New Testament.

 

[/Quote]Where do you find that it does not?​

The scriptures say that all believers are priests.[/quote]

Hackney doesn't have to, where in Church history do the laity step in side the presbyter's shoes? In all the long history of our Church, where has it ever been shown that laity and presbyter are one! The Christian Church is the descendant of the Jewish Church! In the Synagogue, the Levites, or Priesthood were set aside and this happened, or continued under the Christian Order! Now why should they be set aside for consecration if anyone, or male one, in the congregation can do just as well?
Further where do the scriptures say that ,'all believers are priests,'? Other that is than the imperial priesthood,' of Peter?

 

To be fair, there is no instance of anyone distributing Communion in the Scriptures, is there? The "breaking of the bread" in Acts 2 necessarily included the Apostles. The description in 1 Cor. 10-11 is not conclusive.

Lay presidency sometimes seems fitting, and sometimes utterly disastrous.