Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Lay Presidency in Sydney
6 years ago  ::  Jun 16, 2008 - 2:46PM #1
Dutch777
Posts: 9,113
[QUOTE=artemis01;566342]I think this might relieve the priests of one of the more repetitive things they have to do - three times on Sundays, sometimes! - and put their focus back on prayer and the life of faith. 

True indeed.  Let's not forget (my constant refrain) community outreach / congregation building, which is, and must  be, a major and continuous function of the parish.

And of course priests have other duties, too - they visit the sick and plan for the life of the parish and keep learning about the faith so they can teach it and etc.  They would still be needed for other things.  But for this?  I don't see why; we don't believe in magic, after all, but in "when two or three are gathered."  In our church, a Eucharist is not valid unless there's somebody besides the priest there.

Well stated and I agree.  The only caveat is the one you raised about proper training and supervision so centrifugal forces don't occur.

And also, this way we could hold Eucharists without having to worry about finding a priest.[/QUOTE]

You've made a good and cogent case.  I wonder if and how the canon-9 program could be modified to accomodate this.   Actually, many aspects of  canon law can be modified to engage current needs.
The Path
To Moon Lake
Doesn't Go
There.

So Walk
Your own Dharma*Path
And Be
Mindful

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 16, 2008 - 2:42PM #2
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,947

artemis01 wrote:

I think this might relieve the priests of one of the more repetitive things they have to do - three times on Sundays, sometimes! - and put their focus back on prayer and the life of faith.

And of course priests have other duties, too - they visit the sick and plan for the life of the parish and keep learning about the faith so they can teach it and etc. They would still be needed for other things. But for this? I don't see why; we don't believe in magic, after all, but in "when two or three are gathered." In our church, a Eucharist is not valid unless there's somebody besides the priest there.

And also, this way we could hold Eucharists without having to worry about finding a priest.



Artemis,

Agreed.  I think the requirement for a second person to be present harkens to what Dutch was saying about the need for a Congregation to Consecrate. Two makes a Congregation. This also would be the argument that we are all priests in Christs Congregation and when 2 or 3 are gathered, Eucharist can happen. Which, again, scares a lot of Priests. I guess many seem to attach their authority to their exclusive ability to say the Eucharist.

I think it gets complicated.:)

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 16, 2008 - 2:42PM #3
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,947

artemis01 wrote:

I think this might relieve the priests of one of the more repetitive things they have to do - three times on Sundays, sometimes! - and put their focus back on prayer and the life of faith.

And of course priests have other duties, too - they visit the sick and plan for the life of the parish and keep learning about the faith so they can teach it and etc. They would still be needed for other things. But for this? I don't see why; we don't believe in magic, after all, but in "when two or three are gathered." In our church, a Eucharist is not valid unless there's somebody besides the priest there.

And also, this way we could hold Eucharists without having to worry about finding a priest.



Artemis,

Agreed.  I think the requirement for a second person to be present harkens to what Dutch was saying about the need for a Congregation to Consecrate. Two makes a Congregation. This also would be the argument that we are all priests in Christs Congregation and when 2 or 3 are gathered, Eucharist can happen. Which, again, scares a lot of Priests. I guess many seem to attach their authority to their exclusive ability to say the Eucharist.

I think it gets complicated.:)

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 16, 2008 - 1:58PM #4
artemis01
Posts: 925
I think this might relieve the priests of one of the more repetitive things they have to do - three times on Sundays, sometimes! - and put their focus back on prayer and the life of faith. 

And of course priests have other duties, too - they visit the sick and plan for the life of the parish and keep learning about the faith so they can teach it and etc.  They would still be needed for other things.  But for this?  I don't see why; we don't believe in magic, after all, but in "when two or three are gathered."  In our church, a Eucharist is not valid unless there's somebody besides the priest there.

And also, this way we could hold Eucharists without having to worry about finding a priest.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2008 - 1:42AM #5
kurnell
Posts: 309
I have just finished a book about the Sydney Diocese, "The New Puritans" by Muriel Porter.
In the book she argues that the real reason Sydney has been pushing for lay presidency for so long is to do with Church order.She shows how over the years Moore Theological College, the diocesan college, has steeped itself in sixteenth century Puritan thinking on doctrine and church order. This has been very Calvinistic and Congregational. Thus, the desire for Lay Presidency is to strike at the heart of Catholic church order which Sydney believes should have been discarded in the Elizabethan Settlement. Their aim is to reform the Anglican Church not only doctrinally but bring in  a congregational form of government as the old Puritans wanted.
This made me think of all the time and effort that ++Peter Jensen and his brother, Dean Phillip Jensen have spent with Anglican leadership from Africa, Asia and Southern Cone.Have they been seeding their views with these leaders?
Is the 'power struggle' that is going on in the AC less about Liberals vs Conservatives and more about extreme Conservatives wanting to alter not only doctrine but the very episcopal structure of the Anglican Church?
Your thoughts?
Treasure your experience of God,however it comes to you.Remember that Christianity is not a notion but a way.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2008 - 8:48AM #6
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,947

kurnell wrote:

I have just finished a book about the Sydney Diocese, "The New Puritans" by Muriel Porter.
In the book she argues that the real reason Sydney has been pushing for lay presidency for so long is to do with Church order.She shows how over the years Moore Theological College, the diocesan college, has steeped itself in sixteenth century Puritan thinking on doctrine and church order. .............................................



Kurnell,

A very interesting subject. I've had numerous clergy express the thought that the idea of lay presidency terrorizes them. So, from their perspective, it would be the collapse of the Communion.

OTOH, I think, no matter what the concerns or consequences, it's coming. Maybe not throughout the Communion, but we will see more of this in the more progressive regions.

I've got more thoughts on this, but I've got to go to Church, where the episcopacy still reigns, at least, for now.:D

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2008 - 10:37AM #7
maplewood
Posts: 4,511
"Is the 'power struggle' that is going on in the AC less about Liberals vs Conservatives and more about extreme Conservatives wanting to alter not only doctrine but the very episcopal structure of the Anglican Church?
Your thoughts?"


I think it IS about extreme conservatives wanting to alter the whole enchilada.

I've come to repent my painting the issue as broadly a "conservative/liberal" issue - there are plenty of "conservatives" in TEC who have no intention of splitting.   

But the extremists want to create a different church structure, no doubt about it.  They do not want a structure that even  would allow the development of a church into what is today TEC.  You can see it by the way they want to restructure the AC charter, as well as the documents they are working on to create their own church.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2008 - 11:03AM #8
Dutch777
Posts: 9,113
The Diocese of Sydney has a long history of smashing-up the furniture; a history which preceeds the Brothers Jensen by many years.

Back in the latter half of the 19th. century there was a split in the Anglican Church of South Africa called The Colenso Affair.  It had to do with the advanced biblical critique and liberal treatment of the natives by Bp. John W. Colenso.  A flap developed between him and Bp. Gray of Capetown who then took the matter to ecclesial court and attempted to excommunicate Colenso.  It was a messy affair.

A number of unaffiliated and disaffiliated, exceptionally low-church Anglicanoid congregations, some of which evidentally grew out of this unpleasantness, banded together in the 1930s to form The Church Of England in South Africa which is NOT part of the Anglican Communion.  In terms of its Puritan ethos and theology it very strongly resembles the Reformed Episcopal Church, USA.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England_in_South_Africa  The connection between the Diocese of Sydney, the CoESA and Puritanism is well established.

I've seen photos of Bp.Jensen and his staff; they don't usually wear clericals but dress in conservative business suits.  They look like a crowd of washed-up insurance salesmen.

The woolies and wackos gravitate towards the extreme ends of any continuum.  Anglicanism has its Anglo-Papals and its Puritan Party.  Sort of like a bunion on the first metatarsal joint; painful but not serious.

For those amongst us afflicted with intractable insomnia or advanced OCD, I've linked to the website of the CESA. cesa.org.za/pages/who_we_are.htm
(Am I boring anyone yet?).
The Path
To Moon Lake
Doesn't Go
There.

So Walk
Your own Dharma*Path
And Be
Mindful

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2008 - 11:45AM #9
Dutch777
Posts: 9,113
I should mention that there is is an extreme low church Anglicanoid sect in the UK called The Free Church Of England.  It is about to shatter over some arcane issue involving ecumenical outreach to other conservative evangelical churches.  Schismatic groups tend to further schism; not unify.

The FCE; the REC-USA; and the CESA are all very similar in outlook and theology.  (I'm even boring myself. Yawn.  Thank goodness it's lunchtime; I'm starved).
The Path
To Moon Lake
Doesn't Go
There.

So Walk
Your own Dharma*Path
And Be
Mindful

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2008 - 1:00PM #10
artemis01
Posts: 925
The thing is, though:  if Jensen et al. should succeed in "striking at the Catholic order" and pushing the  Anglican Communion towards congregationalism - then Peter Akinola would have, literally, nothing to say about what TEC or the ACC does.  Congregationalists are congregationalists, after all - and can do as they please without having to obey anybody else. 

I would be happy with Lay Presidency, though, actually.  Or, rather, with a new sort of rite and/or process that would empower the congregation as a whole to consecrate the elements for Communion.  That way, we could have Communion whenever two or three gathered, without having to have a priest involved.

(Just a wacky and wooley idea I've been turning over in my head lately!)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook