Lay presidency

2 Peter 2:9:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

That is what I garner from this.

 

When I studied for the priesthood, (in the 60s) , while we were taught as you say, somewhat,
the quote you give was pointed out as an indication that to be a Christian at all was to elevate yourself above the mass! Not that it made Christians any better ,but it made them different, in that they took on certain responsibilities, they were responsible for their own behaviour after being taught by the Clergy! In other words they knew right from wrong! Funnily enough, they were no longer innocent! The clergy we were taught had even greater responsibilities.
For an Anglican view of the questions arising from Catholic Priesthood, try reading Bishop Hickes ,D.D.
Two Treatises on the Christian Priesthood & on the Episcopal Order. Bishop Hickes was the Primus of the Non Juring Church and a leading scholar of the late 17th, Century Church.,Dissertation 5. Vol.3 A.C.Library. App.pg,405,c/f.

 

I think each has their proper role in the body of Christ so why confuse them...
I'd say why not someone who does not know how to play the piano would not play it? he has every right but he does not have the formation for it.

 

True enough!

 

I see no problem with having lay servers who administer the Chalice, but NOT the Ciborium or Paten with the consecrated Hosts

 

I personally would like the see the use of the (Houseling Cloth) re-introduced at communion.

 

What is that?

 

A Houseling Cloth is used at the time of Communion, and is a long strip of linen with embroidered crosses on it, and it is used to prevent any Sacred Particles from irreverently dropping to the floor. It is used in some Anglican parishes and Anglican Use Roman Catholic parishes

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pQ94YUm9Rus/TpxStU7cFdI/AAAAAAAAAzU/fP2ebVS332U/s1600/DSCF2023.JPG

 

Ah yes, the Greeks & Slavs still use such cloths.

 

The essence of this discussion seems to rest in our understanding of the priesthood and the sacrament of the Eucharist. In my view, if the Eucharist does not have to be consecrated by a priest, then we have no need for priests. We would still have need for pastors, but not priests.

The priesthood of believers is a separate issue entirely, and a diversion. Do not we all believe in the priesthood of believers? We are ALL priests, prophets and kings.

 

Here are a few words about the Universal Priesthood Doctrine in Protestantism and Classic Anglicanism.

(Retrieved from the wikipedia article Universal Priesthood, 18 December 2012)

Introduction

The universal priesthood or the priesthood of all believers is a Christian doctrine believed by various Protestant denominations to be derived from several passages of the New Testament. The exact meaning varies from denomination to denomination, but generally entails a doctrinal responsibility or right to preach and expound the Christian faith, and this is appointed to every member of the church. It first came to the public eye when Martin Luther and his followers wrote, preached, and sang about a priesthood of all believers.

History Within Protestantism

It is a foundational concept of Protestantism. [1] While Martin Luther did not use the exact phrase "priesthood of all believers," he adduces a general priesthood in Christendom in his 1520 To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation in order to dismiss the medieval view that Christians in the present life were to be divided into two classes: "spiritual" and "temporal." He put forward the doctrine that all baptized Christians are "priests" and "spiritual" in the sight of God:

That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2[:9] says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings." [2] ​

. . .

Priesthood in non-Protestant Traditions

Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and traditional Anglican Christians traditionally believe that 1 Peter 2:9 gives responsibility to all believers for the preservation and propagation of the Gospeland the Church, as distinct from the liturgical and sacramental roles of the ordained priesthood and consecrated episcopate (see Apostolic Succession). They and other Christians also see the ministerial priesthood as being necessary in accordance with the words of the eucharistic liturgy: "Do this in memory (anamnesis) of me" (Gospel of Luke 22:19–20; First Corinthians11:23–25).

Notes

[1] "Protestantism originated in the 16th-century Reformation, and its basic doctrines, in addition to those of the ancient Christian creeds, are justification by grace alone through faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the supremacy of Holy Scripture in matters of faith and order." "The Protestant Heritage" Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Sept. 2007

[2] Martin Luther, Weimar Ausgabe, vol. 6, p. 407, lines 19–25 as quoted in Timothy Wengert, "The Priesthood of All Believers and Other Pious Myths," page 12

 

Opposed. "It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same." (Article 23) One cannot be kind of a priest or kind of a bishop anymore tha n one can be kind of pregnant. You either are or aren't. A priest is as a priest does. If a person is allowed to perform the the functions of a priest, then there's no longer a need for a priest.

 

I prefer to get my doctrine from the Bible instead of man-made rules.

Further, the logic of your last sentence does not stand up. Substitute "pastor" for "priest", and you'll see what I mean. Allowing others to perform a function does not do away with the need for an office.

Apparently, Sydney Anglicans have come to the same conclusion and see no conflict in the matter.

 

Just wondering, how would you reply to people who say that Christ only told the twelve to "do this" in His remembrance, which they say implies an exclusivity in its celebration?

I'm not particularly convinced that lay-people absolutely cannot celebrate. It would be very cruel of God to tell us to "do this" as a perpetual command of obedience and love, but then during times of martyrdom, persecution, and loss take away the clergy who are able to do it.

 

I would say that is a seriously mistaken interpretation -- scripturally and logically.

Your last paragraph is good.