What if a time of persecution against Christians arose all over the world and great numbers were martyred for the faith, including all priests and bishops? Is there a way that the Christian remnant could still have the Eucharist?
I'm referring rather specifically to those groups and denominations who profess belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I tried really hard to think of a less cruel and violent manner to get priests and bishops out of the picture, in order to ask my purely speculative question, but I could not. God forbid that this should ever happen! No wish-fulfillment involved here, my clergy friends. I love you all and very much appreciate your services to us, especially during this month when we celebrate Clergy Appreciation.
The reason that the question occurred to me is that in the early church, I can't make out which procedures were followed as to deciding who presided at the gathering of the meal in obedience to Jesus' instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me". The ordination process, as we know it today, seemed not to exist. How did it come to be that only those who were validly ordained (and what does that mean?) could pronounce the words of consecration?
Even now, as I type this, I wonder if I should even hit "Publish" for this post, but the question has been simmering for a while, therefore, I shall hit "Publish", for better or for worse.
I like to think that the Holy Spirit would choose to act through non-ordained Christians in such a case. We would then have ordination by the Spirit, just as there is a baptism of the spirit.
ReplyDeleteI think that in the earliest days of the faith, the Presider was the one who was best at a eucharistic prayer. It may be that the owner of the house-church may have been the Presider. And it may have been someone appointed by an apostle.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ruth; the Holy Spirit will choose the persons best to perform this duty. Ordination is simply a method of confirming those who the community sees as having the gifts of the Spirit.
Congregations elect their own elders.
ReplyDeleteWhy was I nervous? So far, so good.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletegrandmere mimi, I misread your post the first time round, sorry. I like your question. I think padre mickey is on the right track. Seems to me that traditions get started and/or someone with special gifts or special power or authority devises a way to keep control and only allow a privileged few to do the newly specialized work going forward. Perhaps that's what "Bible believing" Christians are about. Too much ecclesiastical structure gets in the way of the heart of the message. But, of course, too little structure and the message also gets garbled. Where is the middle ground?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what the current leadership in my denomination would say, but theologically speaking, it's not having an ordained priest that makes the sacrament valid.
ReplyDeleteBut I hear what youi are saying, and agree with Ruth and Padre Mickey. The Holy Spirit would ordain, I think.
I suppose the template is Acts 1: the community suggests individuals, the guidance/confirmation of the Holy Spirit is sought and obtained, and the existing leadership confirms it. And what evidence we have suggests that the practice of the early Church followed along those lines. (So the procedures of the US Episcopal church would be a modern form of the original procedures.)
ReplyDeleteSo if the existing leadership is completely wiped out, then you would still have steps one and two.
And might I suggest that if step three is really essential--that physical ordination by persons themselves already members of the chain of ordination is necessary for a person to actually celebrate the Eucharist--don't you think that God would make sure that some bishops/bishop would survive long enough to ensure the survival of the chain of ordination into the next generation (possibly by secret ordinations and consecrations, with the new bishops left to reveal themselves at a time when it was again safe to do so)? And, contrapositively, if none did, then apostolic succession wasn't really necessary in the first place.
I hope your blog is not picked up by the leaders of the Sydney Diocese. The Synod in the next few weeks will again be debating 'lay presidency'. It is well known that this occurs in parts of the diocese. The only advantage of a 'yes' vote to me would be the ostracism that would occur from the rest of the Anglican Communion. As the matter is often discussed here, I say that I would accept 'lay presidency' if marooned on a desert island or we were deprived of priests in some other way but I will not accept today in my diocese. This diocese has little respect for the sacraments, they are well below preaching in importance. They will not allow women to run a church or preach to men but lay presidency would allow them to preside at communion. To them it is much the same as arranging the flowers and providing the morning coffee. God preserve me from this diocese which is Anglican in name only.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I believe we'd still have the Eucharist, somehow, some way, through the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteFleur, you make a good point:
Too much ecclesiastical structure gets in the way of the heart of the message. But, of course, too little structure and the message also gets garbled. Where is the middle ground?
Diane, many in the Episcopal Church and the RCC would say that it is having an ordained priest that makes the sacrament valid.
Kisnevi, I think that the apostolic line of succession has not been pure for a very long time, if it ever was. We act as if it is, and acting as if can be quite a good thing. Sometimes, it's the best we can do.
Brian, I opened a can of worms for you, didn't I? I'm sorry. I have great reverence for the Eucharist. When I left the RCC, I knew that I wanted a church with frequent Eucharists. That's why I chose an Episcopal Church to visit first. Once there, I fell in love with the liturgy and searched no further. Literally fell in love, and I love it still today.
I'm not speaking of anything like a change to "lay presidency" today, except in extreme circumstances, as in the example above. I have the greatest respect for the sacraments and their true and real efficacy.
Thank you all for your wonderful responses. You've given me food for thought, plus a lovely thread here.
I think we've made the priesthood something it wasn't in the early days. By attaching an M.Div. and a stipend to it, as (usually) non-negotiable components, we've gotten into the strange situation where in our diocese, and many other rural dioceses. you have priests running around trying to care for five different congregations because none of them can afford their own priest. I suspect that in the early days someone in each congregation would have ben set aside as the local leader and presider, and that would be that.
ReplyDeleteI think your post raises some very important issues, Mimi, far beyond the presenting problem - issues of clericalism in the church, of seeing ministry as coming from one paid individual rather than the church as a ministering community - and so on. I'm really glad you raised this.
The phrase that comes to mind is "The Economy of Grace."
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe in a sacramental priesthood. Apostolic succession is not to be poo-pooh'd...
...that said, God would not "leave the building", in the (unlikely) event that all validly ordained priests&bishops somehow were removed from Planet Earth.
In a pinch, resort to "where 2 or 3 are gathered"!
And it used to be that the chalice was covered until the very words were uttered by the priest--then he would quickly uncover the chalice, speak, and then cover it again --so that the Holy Spirit could enter the wine...... we, the Church, had forgotten that the cover was just to keep the flies out.... and the motions of covering and uncovering got laden with all kinds of pseudo-theological meaning.
ReplyDeleteFeh!
I'm with you Grandmere--but don't tell my Bishops! And, it may do your heart good to know that some seminaries do examine the role and function of priesthood in community, and are beginning to taste new wine.
There is a wonderful book, "On the Border of the Holy," by Countryman, that does begin to examine what priesthood has been and might be....
remember--you're an icon, I'm an icon--we are all icons!
I've heard about a type of ordination that is called non-stipendary ordination in other countries and something else here (can't remember what), but the priest's main income is from another job. The priest presides over the Eucharist and does those things that only a priest can do, and the other members of the community take on many of the other functions, such as visitation and counseling, thus, as Tim says, becoming a ministering community.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's what you're talking about, too, Margaret.
JCF, indeed! God would not "leave the building".
Icons unite!
Bishop Alan Wilson's excellent blog from Buckinghamshire had an ordination story yesterday. On closer examination (following the links) it turned out that at least two of the ten candidates were what they call in England 'NSM's' (non-stipendiary ministers) - and interesting stories they had, too!
ReplyDeleteChere Grandmere,
ReplyDeleteThat type of priest you're refering to is a Canon ## priest (I get the number mixed up with Title 9 in school athletics...or is it 10...you see!) This is not a deacon. THe priest is usually only allowed to officiate in one parish and not outside that one unless a bishop allows. It also depends on the diocese. THe Canon ## priest doesn't have to go to seminary; he/she can study with another priest to qualify. Much like the tutoring system in British universities.
amyj
Do tell, Grandmère Mimi, what is it exactly that only a priest can do? Say the magic words?
ReplyDeleteGive me a break. We already have lay presidency. The "priest" leads the congregation in celebrating the eucharist. The priest does not "celebrate." I hope I never hear another priest say that they celebrated the eucharist for someone. EVERY eucharist is con-celebrated by all present.
As for their apostolic succession, well that's a very real thing in the same way that Adam and Eve are real characters in a story. IT'S A STORY. A good story, and part of our tradition. I like the story. But, it's not something that we have to get hung up on. It's just a story. It's only as "real" as you need it to be.
Ordination is just a fancy job certification, like a diploma or a license. It doesn't confer any grace or any authority. Do you really think that God would grant more grace to some than to others? I don't think so. We all get all the grace we need at baptism and in the eucharist.
I have often thought that if we are going to ordain church workers we should also ordain CEO's and engineers, dog walkers and teachers, nurses and everybody else. The case of the late Ken Lay gave me pause in this regard. I wondered, if he had been "ordained" DEO of Enron -- in church and everything -- would he have had a different take on his role as CEO? And how might things have been different if he had?
Every baptized Xian should be taught how to lead the eucharistic celebration. There, I said it.
We are all already ordained, and by a considerably higher authority than a mere bishop.
Linda Diane McMillan
Amy, a Canon 9 or local priest is the closest I could come to an answer. As it was explained to me, the preparation would include taking a number of classes on a part-time basis, nights or weekends, and being mentored by a priest. The candidate would then be ordained for a particular church.
ReplyDeleteLindy, thanks for your thoughtful response. I suppose that I'm inclined to stay with more structure for now, all the while knowing that changes will be forced upon us down the road.
What's killing us in our small church is the cost of health insurance for the rector and his family. But for that, we might just break even, instead of going into the red each year.
What's killing us in our small church is the cost of health insurance for the rector and his family.
ReplyDeleteAnother good argument for clerical celibacy. Clergy families are expensive. And those kids are going to want to go to college too.
Our rector's daughter's grown, but just for him and his wife it costs the earth - not that I'm begrudging them their health insurance.
ReplyDeleteYeah -- I'm not clear when or why the jump from "when two or three ..." to "apostolic succession" occured. Regarding Holy Eucharist specifically, I am offended by the idea that someone "invokes" God's Presence. My sense is that Christ/God graciously arrives but is NOT invoked. So the question does arise why one needs an "invoker".
ReplyDeleteBut then I came to TEC via UCC so I am intrinsically not very hierarchical.
SusanKay, I hear ya. Jesus is present before the words of consecration are spoken - in the gathering of 2 or 3.
ReplyDeleteBut then I came to TEC via UCC so I am intrinsically not very hierarchical.
I came via the RCC, so I suppose I am somewhat hierarchical still. But the RCC was way too authoritarian for a rebel like me to swallow beyond 60 years. I don't know how I stayed that long, because ours was an uneasy alliance for a long time before I left.
In the 1970s, I attended gatherings which called themselves WomanChurch -- Eucharistic gatherings led by women from the RCC tradition (nuns mostly) who felt themselves called to the priesthood, but had no pathway to ordination. They/we celebrated the Eucharist. And felt that we were living inside the contradiction you raise.
ReplyDeleteThe experience confirmed in me a belief that an ordained priesthood, though desirable, is probably not essential to knowing our Lord in the breaking of the bread. I don't feel any need to act on this, but I am sure it is true.
I am late to this thought provoking and wonderful post. A post that I am tempted to share with my theology class regarding sacraments.
ReplyDeleteAs has been said, the Holy Spirit would likely work it all out should the need arise.
And I think regardless of who is or isn't around, the need has arisen.
I loved janinsanfran's comment as I am interested in women's ordination. Not for me however, but for my church indeed!
Jan, I remember reading about those gatherings. How interesting that you were present. During the early 1960s, exciting things were happening in the RCC. I remember the hope and anticipation of Vatican II, but then John XXIII died, and things were not the same. The sense of disappointment and disillusionment after Humanae Vitae was published was huge.
ReplyDelete...knowing our Lord in the breaking of the bread.
That's it.
Diane, many in the Episcopal Church and the RCC would say that it is having an ordained priest that makes the sacrament valid.
ReplyDeleteI guess that makes me a not-so-good catholic (small or large 'c'). Don't get me wrong, I love the clergy at my parish, and others that I've met on-line & off, but they don't make anything valid. That's above their pay grade ;)
The Spirit blows where She wills, and standing in Her way is as ultimately futile as trying to hold back the tide...
(Oh, and I find myself quite appreciating Tim's, Margaret's and Lindy's comments as well. ::waves at y'all:: )
Fran, if you like, share with your theology class. As you see, I was a little hesitant to post, but it turned out beautifully, because it led to this wonderful thread. Thanks to all who weighed in with your thoughtful and stimulating comments.
ReplyDeleteThe Spirit blows where She wills, and standing in Her way is as ultimately futile as trying to hold back the tide...
ReplyDeleteDavid, exactly. That is so true and beautifully said.
Sorry I missed this.
ReplyDeleteProbably in the house churches of Paul, the head of household presided over the meal. How "eucharistic" it was (i.e., how "ritualistic", and ritual is a good thing!) is open to serious question. The radical nature of it would have been that everyone in the household, down to the servants and slaves, would have been welcome at the table, in the name of Christ.
A "blessing" before the meal is a vestige of Roman piety (not necessarily Christian), and is traditionally offered, again, by the "head of household." No doubt the eucharisto was conducted in the same manner. Ordination and "real presence" and all the rest followed as the church moved from individual groups joined by a common interest to an institution allied with the empire (Constantine, and all that).
Would it go away without a priest? Many Protestant denominations accept the eucharist without an ordained leader. Most prefer it, but some consider it either superfluous or "too Roman."
Rmj, you didn't miss it at all. Here you are.
ReplyDeleteThe radical nature of it would have been that everyone in the household, down to the servants and slaves, would have been welcome at the table, in the name of Christ.
Now that's a morsel to chew on.
I've attended communion services at Protestant churches which do not have frequent communion, nor do they emphasize the Real Presence, and I have found them to be, for the most part, quite reverent and even solemn. That Christ was present, I had no doubt.
I like ordination controlling the eucharist if only because it brings a certain order to the proceedings.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, my grandfather was a "lay minister" in the Primitive Baptist church, and probably served "communion" to me on Xmas Eve (sadly, I was young, and don't remember). I'm with you, Mimi--i'm quite sure the Christ was as present in those celebrations as in the services I have presided at, or during Episcopal services.