Easter Season Greetings

I am honoured my more light-hearted post has received such a serious treatment. None of the conjectures proposed here has been suggested in comments on the original post. Perhaps the author here has not encountered anti-catholicism. His assumption of a psychological rather than theological issue may or may not be true, just as his assumption about the priest’s gender.

Blessings

Bosco+
[Here called “Peters”]

I'm not at all an advocate of lay presidency, but I see no rubric anywhere that says anything like, "the people must not under any circumstances say with the presider ..."

I've just returned from a conference of those who minister with youth and young adults (including those who themselves are youths or young adults) in which I was asked whether I was in favor of young people memorizing and corporate recounting of scripture. I am, and I don't see the words of institution as something prohibited to cross the lips of laity. Eucharistic presidency is not about (or at the very least not solely about) reciting words, IMO.

Children often mimic the orans position when they see the presider doing it. I suppose a lot of people would use that as an example of why children should not be in the sanctuary during the community celebration of the Eucharist. I think that members of any age in the congregation feeling drawn to move with the presider is an indication of compelling presidency, not a contradiction of (to use a redundant expression) priestly presidency.

I am a lay minister, and am content with that as St. Paul was. If Paul, who was not a presbyter (at least not according to any canonical account) could write the words of institution and anyone who carried his letter to the churches in Corinth (and we have no indication that any of them were presbyters) could read them aloud to the congregation as authoritative teaching, I think I would find it a profound intellectual strain to understand why a congregation could not, decently and in good order, recite the same words along with an ordained presbyter who was presiding at an authorized Eucharist.

It makes my heart sad to think that that "the celebrant says" would be taken to mean that "the people must not join the chorus." All of the saints are in that chorus, and most never wore a stole or claimed a role as presider over sacraments. Personally, I see the role of the presider as inviting the whole gathered people of God to join in worship, with restrictions of speech being guided by what may be done in good order. To steal a phrase from the Pentateuch, would that all God's people proclaim with one voice our scriptures -- including the whole of 1 Corinthians and any set of verses from it!

There are systemic issues glaring, to be sure, in the leadership's insistence that the people be silent at this particular point in the liturgy, despite that (according to the description provided) the congregation's voice is perfectly in chorus with that of the presider. It is a very strange thing indeed to have ordained leadership so adamant that the congregation must not agree vocally with the presider of the sacrament.

In terms of systems theory, would it be better if the congregation used their voices only to disagree or distance themselves from those leading them in worship? Would the presider's role be strengthened by a rubric directing them to plug their ears or mumble something different when the prayers of the people are taking place?

I hope that the formation of clergy in the future would include a sufficient grounding in their own role as presider that they would know that a congregation recognizing the presider's role and adding their voices in chorus does not make Jesus run from the building. If the presbyter's ordination is valid, then the sacrament would be valid even if the congregation joined in belting out "Smells Like Teen Spirit" during the presider's recitation of the words of institution.

I think the congregation's committing to heart these verses from 1 Corinthians is far less disruptive than was the less commendable behaviors of the various Corinthian congregations' behavior to which Paul commended these words. I know those words by heart, but -- in a pinch and for a mezzo soprano -- I can do a decent Kurt Cobain impression if my bishop ever wants me to make clear that I am *not* engaging with the words of institution.

I can also do a voicing of Anglican plainsong in a Kurt Cobain voice if needed. I doubt that it will ever be needed.

Blessings,

Dylan

Generally, Dylan, you know I find your scholarship insightful and helpful. Here, it seems, you have not taken the time to understand the context either of my post, nor of our situation here which must be significantly different to your context.

There is no suggestion that we could not all stand in the posture of orans. That would not be mimicking the presider – it would be our rightful posture as the baptised.

There is no suggestion that people cannot and have not read aloud the letter to the Corinthians.

But please don’t draw from this that Paul’s Corinthian Last Supper account is what is being proclaimed in the Eucharistic Prayer. You are better than that. The Last Supper accounts in the Eucharistic Prayers are not simply replicas of any particular scriptural account. They have their own history.

Nor was the reading of Paul’s account in any sense consecratory – certainly not in his day. Nor is what is being described a proclamation of the Pauline account – that would make some sense in a confused 1662 kind of way.

There is no suggestion that the congregation is forbidden from making the Eucharistic Prayer their own. The vicar (I’m sure he would have preferred being called the “teaching elder”) was not teaching the congregation to join in any and all of the prayer.

What is being done is take the Roman Catholic theology of consecration and priesthood and mimic it mockingly.

If you are not aware of Antipodean tendencies to forbid chasubles and adding water to the wine in the Eucharist merely because these are RC practices, then you don’t understand the context in which the post is written. And you don’t understand the particular energy that is brought to the lay presidency discussion here.

Blessings

Bosco+

Just because something is not strictly forbidden (or not "sacrilegious") does not make it a good idea. I think that is inherent in Bosco's light-hearted titling of his award. He could, after all, have called it the "You're Going To Hell For This" award if that was what he meant. What I take away from "face-palm Jesus" is "why would you want to do something that is so obviously such a bad idea."

I freely admit to a disinterest in arguing the appropriateness of the award in this particular situation from any other standpoint than that of liturgical theology and ritual studies, as I believe that to do so imposes a foreign methodology upon the questions raised.

Michael Harnois

I experienced this in the 90s in my travels about the The Episcopal Church. The service I attended was led by a lay person with clergy present and all read the words of institution - I found it interesting and sort of the far end of the gathering of the people's prayers and the Spirit into the making of Eucharist. I have never been in the NZ context so don't know anything about it. I did grow up in a very protestant Episcopal Church where communion was a duty to be endured. So I am the member of our news team who had mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I am a supporter of the ministry of all the baptized and on the other I am a priest who has made vows around "order." Part of my problem with it is that it makes the priest-y things central and slights the ministry of the baptized - confusing our calls. I don't think it is horrible or that Jesus even cares. Jesus calls us to gather and break bread and go out to serve him in his name. As I say I have mixed feelings about the practice - and would not encourage it. As to this congregation - perhaps a deeper study of liturgy and meaning and why they find it nourishing might be in order. And as Gameliel says - if it is of God it will endure - if not - it will fade.

Here is what +Pierre Whalon has to say on the subject

I am not troubled by people reciting any or all of the Eucharistic prayer with the Presider. And I fail to see how this "mocks" catholicity.

What troubles me is a practice in the Episcopal Church that I have observed with increasing frequency. In Rite II, the rubric at the end of the Sanctus specifies that the people may either " stand or kneel." As either posture is appropriate for prayer this seems a good thing. However I know many presbyters, who when presiding will compel the people to kneel or even worse tell them to sit(!) a posture that implies passive observation of what follows rather than prayerful participation.

It is also significant that according to the rubrics standing is the preferred posture (in Rite II). By standing the people are on an equal footing with the presider which is what I'm sure the intent is.

The Presider's job is to lead the people, not to replace them or act for them. Prior US Prayer Books gave the latter impression to far too many people through their lack of direct participation. Those who are bothered by people actually following rather than meekly watching the priest may have certain insecurities about who they are and what they're called to do.

Deacon Charlie Perrin

If the issue is anti-Catholicism, the bishop needs to tell them to knock it off. It's the behavior of bigots, which they probably don't mean to be.

Anti-Catholicism is the motive for a lot of Protestant behavior. Every time I see a church with a steeple, but no cross on top, I laugh. They're lifting up Nothing to see! But they got the idea that steeples were churchy, instead of what the steeples were for: to lift the Cross above the city and countryside.

TEC and the Anglican Communion have gone through this anti-Catholic impulse too. "If the Catholics do it, we don't want to!"

I don't want to be governed by the pope. His office is meant to be tyrannical, to "preserve the faith" while adding all kinds of inventions to it. But that doesn't mean I throw out bishops, priests or mass on Sunday. This makes me an Episkie by default.

The Presbyterians decided bishops were the problem, so throw 'em out. Then it turned out the presbyteries were just as capable of making messes as the bishops were.

I can only guess what NZ is going through.

Our grandson has memorized the whole service and even at age 8 was reciting all the parts. Would that all could do that.

Bosco+,

I do apologize for the misunderstanding. I hadn't read your post and wasn't criticizing it; I meant only to refer to the Episcopal Café post above, and specifically to the suggestion (not authored by you) that the issue is one of 'jobs' (Holy Orders are too often seen as a job or a set of jobs, IMO) and co-dependency.

What you describe strikes me, in the setting of my armchair in Boston (mileage elsewhere will vary, of course), as an issue of church order as well as liturgical theology.

Forbidding clergy to wear traditional liturgical garments is silly at best, IMO, but flouting one's own canons and rubrics is a matter or church order and discipline (among other things). There's a simple solution available worldwide, so far as I know, to Anglican clergy who don't want to follow orders: renouncing (Holy) Orders, at which point they are free to launch without constraint (except by secular law) their own worship services with any liturgical practice that indulges their ego and their congregation will tolerate.

In short, I believe I agree with you on almost every point. Having now read your post, I do get the impression, though, that you do think it's always a silly or bad idea for the congregation to join with the presider in part or all of the words of institution. I think it depends on the spirit in and grace with which it's done. I've been in a couple of services in my travels in which it was done in an orderly way that I didn't experience as disruptive (and neither did the presider, for whom it was fully expected).

Anglican lay presidency strikes me as an oxymoron. In my liturgical practicum class in seminary, I voiced the whole Eucharistic prayer, and with the gestures priests are to use, with everyone else, but since none of us students were authorized to consecrate elements or preside in Anglican Eucharist, I don't believe I consecrated anything by doing so. It was an exercise ordered in that context for purposes of education and formation, and I think it can in some contexts be OK for a congregation that does not consist of one professor and a bunch of seminary students to do similar things that I imagine should usually be for similar purposes.

BTW, when I saw the expression "face palm" in the post above, I pictured palm fronds and my imagination stuck on that, so I wasn't sure what "face palm" meant. Context is everything, eh?

Blessings,

Dylan

Thanks to those who made the effort to actually understand the issue.

Clericalism is rampant. Clericalising of the ministry of all the baptised and confusing this with the “priesthood of all believers” is so prevalent that many cannot even recognise it when it is challenged. In NZ lay ministry is regularly confused with looking presbyteral and doing presbyteral things in services.

Those here who think the congregation’s reciting of Jesus’ words of distribution is fine and cannot recognise the mocking confusion presumably would also encourage the following scenario:

A congregation is taught by their vicar to wear clerical shirts and collars to services and taught this is their right and expressing their “priesthood of all believers”. People think it is lovely that the children who like to play priest at home can now do it at church too – especially that the girls can! not noticing that this confuses our baptismal priesthood with the presbyterate, and clericalises lay ministry, equating it with church-facing presbyteral leadership.

Like my original post, I would similarly give this community the face-palm award. Others here clearly would not.

FWIW I understand consecration not to be essentially an independent presbyteral power effected between letters of certain fixed words, but the act of God in response to a community’s prayer. That we have always had valid Eucharists which do not even mention Jesus’ words of distribution (here sometimes called “institution”) is recognised by the majority of Christianity, currently and historically.

Easter Season blessings

Bosco+

Thanks to those who made the effort to actually understand the issue.

Clericalism is rampant. Clericalising of the ministry of all the baptised and confusing this with the “priesthood of all believers” is so prevalent that many cannot even recognise it when it is challenged. In NZ lay ministry is regularly confused with looking presbyteral and doing presbyteral things in services.

Those here who think the congregation’s reciting of Jesus’ words of distribution is fine and cannot recognise the mocking confusion presumably would also encourage the following scenario:

A congregation is taught by their vicar to wear clerical shirts and collars to services and taught this is their right and expressing their “priesthood of all believers”. People think it is lovely that the children who like to play priest at home can now do it at church too – especially that the girls can! not noticing that this confuses our baptismal priesthood with the presbyterate, and clericalises lay ministry, equating it with church-facing presbyteral leadership.

Like my original post, I would similarly give this community the face-palm award. Others here clearly would not.

FWIW I understand consecration not to be essentially an independent presbyteral power effected between letters of certain fixed words, but the act of God in response to a community’s prayer. That we have always had valid Eucharists which do not even mention Jesus’ words of distribution (here sometimes called “institution”) is recognised by the majority of Christianity, currently and historically.

Easter Season blessings

Bosco+

If you visit some of the right wing blogs, you will encounter those who think vestments, candles etc are not only Roman but heretical. They claim a Calvinist model of the 39 Articles can be considered a definitive.

FWIW
jim beyer