<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Eucharist? - Pt1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/07/18/eucharist-pt1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/07/18/eucharist-pt1/</link>
	<description>We are Flesh-and-Spirit on a journey to Integral Unity with God.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:07:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Huw</title>
		<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/07/18/eucharist-pt1/#comment-875</link>
		<dc:creator>Huw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/07/18/eucharist-pt1/#comment-875</guid>
		<description>Steve - you foresee where I'm going.  :-)

One thing that many ecumenical dialogues has brought out clearly is that the ministry of Episkope, oversight, is present in all ecclesial communities, even those who do not have "Bishops" by that title. This realisation was best phrased in the &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-Lambeth_Quadrilateral" rel="nofollow"&gt;Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilatera&lt;/a&gt;l as "The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples..."

Equally so there are presbyters and deacons as ministries within the body even when the titles don't exist.

Although this breaks with traditional, sacramental views of ministry by seeing "ordination", if you will, as a realisation of "function" rather than the reverse (where function is a manifestation of ordination).  The latter is where "Apostolic Succession" becomes kind of "magical" in its application.  The former is more localised, however.  

Nowadays, Episkope is basically a function of the senior priest or rector in an area or city or even one specific parish.  Presbyters are under that senior and, yes, are sometimes laity.  Diaconal duties are basically performed by laity in almost all communities - even those that also have "ordained" deacons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve - you foresee where I&#8217;m going.  :-)</p>
<p>One thing that many ecumenical dialogues has brought out clearly is that the ministry of Episkope, oversight, is present in all ecclesial communities, even those who do not have &#8220;Bishops&#8221; by that title. This realisation was best phrased in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-Lambeth_Quadrilateral" rel="nofollow">Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilatera</a>l as &#8220;The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Equally so there are presbyters and deacons as ministries within the body even when the titles don&#8217;t exist.</p>
<p>Although this breaks with traditional, sacramental views of ministry by seeing &#8220;ordination&#8221;, if you will, as a realisation of &#8220;function&#8221; rather than the reverse (where function is a manifestation of ordination).  The latter is where &#8220;Apostolic Succession&#8221; becomes kind of &#8220;magical&#8221; in its application.  The former is more localised, however.  </p>
<p>Nowadays, Episkope is basically a function of the senior priest or rector in an area or city or even one specific parish.  Presbyters are under that senior and, yes, are sometimes laity.  Diaconal duties are basically performed by laity in almost all communities - even those that also have &#8220;ordained&#8221; deacons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Hayes</title>
		<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/07/18/eucharist-pt1/#comment-873</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Hayes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/07/18/eucharist-pt1/#comment-873</guid>
		<description>"in the absence if a presbyter"

Doesn't that beg Huw Raphael's question: a a presbyter is one who presides at the Eucharist, so how can you have one presiding at the Eucharist in the absence of one who presides at the Eucharist?

Either the one who presides is a de facto presbyter (if not de jure), or the de jure ones are unnecessary. 

It reminds me of the South African Anglicans, who, after deciding that deacons were unnecessary, because a lay minister could do everything a deacon did, then decided to ordain women as deacons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;in the absence if a presbyter&#8221;</p>
<p>Doesn&#8217;t that beg Huw Raphael&#8217;s question: a a presbyter is one who presides at the Eucharist, so how can you have one presiding at the Eucharist in the absence of one who presides at the Eucharist?</p>
<p>Either the one who presides is a de facto presbyter (if not de jure), or the de jure ones are unnecessary. </p>
<p>It reminds me of the South African Anglicans, who, after deciding that deacons were unnecessary, because a lay minister could do everything a deacon did, then decided to ordain women as deacons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fr. Ernesto</title>
		<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/07/18/eucharist-pt1/#comment-872</link>
		<dc:creator>Fr. Ernesto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/07/18/eucharist-pt1/#comment-872</guid>
		<description>You might find it interesting to look at two places. One is the lay presidency movement as it exists in Australian Anglicanism. They would argue that presidency at the Eucharist is simply a matter of vetting and nothing else. In fact, in the abscence of a presbyter (they will not say priest) any lay person of good character can be licensed to celebrate the Eucharist.

The other places to look is at the writings of some of the Reformation Lutherans and Anabaptists. There are strains of the priesthood of the believer that declare that because all are priests, all can lead at any time. You find this particularly expressed among some of the Quakers, Amish, Brethren, Plymouth Brethren, etc.

I do believe in apostolic succession, grace of ordination, etc. However, I thought I would pass on some sources for a different (and wrong, GRIN) viewpoint.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might find it interesting to look at two places. One is the lay presidency movement as it exists in Australian Anglicanism. They would argue that presidency at the Eucharist is simply a matter of vetting and nothing else. In fact, in the abscence of a presbyter (they will not say priest) any lay person of good character can be licensed to celebrate the Eucharist.</p>
<p>The other places to look is at the writings of some of the Reformation Lutherans and Anabaptists. There are strains of the priesthood of the believer that declare that because all are priests, all can lead at any time. You find this particularly expressed among some of the Quakers, Amish, Brethren, Plymouth Brethren, etc.</p>
<p>I do believe in apostolic succession, grace of ordination, etc. However, I thought I would pass on some sources for a different (and wrong, GRIN) viewpoint.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
