Who can administer the Eucharist?

Only a duly and validly ordained priest can consecrate the elements at Mass. Lay presiding at the Mass is a sacrilege

 

As the Presbyterians - who make no essential distinction between an ordained and lay person - might ask: "What constitutes a validly ordained priest? There is but one High Priest, our Lord Jesus Christ." Episkopoi, Presbyteroi, and Diakonoi in the Bible are not words for priests, after all.

One thing I don't understand is calling the Eucharist "the Mass". We receive the moniker from "Ite, missa est"; "go forth; you are sent", in Latin. "Mass" may be appropriate if the dismissal is said Latin (since the etymology would be obvious) but if we celebrate in English, why even bother to call it "Mass"? Traditions which have become meaningless cannot really help us.

 

Are you a Presbyterian? Plus you have to remember I am an Anglo-Catholic and we prefer to term Mass cause we believe it is the unbloody Christian sacrifice. Not all Anglicans believe that. But I would hope none would not allow lay celebration either.

 

I am not a Presbyterian, but there are many "Reformed" Anglicans who see the system of Elders as the ideal polity, rather than episcopacy and priesthood. We cannot just assume that everyone believes in the Mass, sacerdotal function, and all that - as you have acknowledged.

The word "Mass" has been applied to the Holy Communion for as long as Old English existed. It was a relatively new term around 1300, when we first find mention of the word "Missal", originally an adjective meaning "of or pertaining to The Mass". The word itself is only a corruption of "Missa", referring to our mission as Christians. The word itself has no essential sacrificial etymology.

Just wanted to ask: is your belief that the Mass is an unbloody (propitiatory?) sacrifice directly connected with your belief that only a validly-ordained priest may celebrate it? There are those who deny a human priesthood in Christianity, but still say that the Eucharist is The Sacrifice: of praise and thanksgiving, demanded by God in Psalm 50.

 

I am Anglo-Catholic, not low church

 

You did not answer my question. I know your religion by your username.

So, do you believe the Mass is a sacrifice in propitiation for our sins, or is it a sacrifice of our praise to God? If the former, is that just your opinion or does it flow from being an Anglo-Catholic?

 

No there aren't.

 

The Mass is a sacrifice,it is the Sacrifice of Christ once made at Calvary and not to be repeated, but we offer it up to God repeatedly.

 

Amen

 

The Bishop as a descendant of the apostles and through the bishop the priest his servant.
As for the sanctuary area? The Servers and clergy!

 

Why need it be any trouble, it is at this time and for hundreds of years past simply a folk custom within the Anglican Church, neither is there any theological difference between the terms simply different usage at different times! It keeps us in touch with our pre-reformation past!

 

Thank you for continuing to post in this thread.

...Scottish Monk

 

A few years ago here in New Zealand my wife and I went to church to hear the banns for our daughters wedding, the lady in charge said they couldn't have the eucharist because the vicar was away for some reason. I remember at the time wondering what happened to the idea of "the priesthood of all believers.

 

It has been jettisoned by most denominations except the Baptists, other "free church" groups -- and the Sydney Anglicans. I hold strongly to it and to "lay presidency" -- and I am an ordained bishop in apostolic succession.

It seems many would like to have the teaching removed from the Bible, like Luther wished he could remove the Book of James.

 

But you are not an Anglican Bishop and indeed as far as I can see you are not an Anglican? is that not so. Apart from Sydney Anglicans, we do not hold to the idea of a Lay Presidency and if I understand the idea aright, it would not be lawful!

 

I was ordained in the Old Catholic tradition by an independent catholic archbishop.

I am a clergy Associate Member of the Anglican Mission in the Americas through their Fellowship of St. Aidan and St. Columba, for those of episcopal rank who identify with the goals, values, and mission of the AMiA and want to express that formally through Associate Membership.

I would say that my theology is mainly a combination of Anabaptism and Anglicanism, with Eastern Orthodox soteriology mixed in.

 

Priesthood of all believers does not mean that anyone can administer the sacrament.

What makes you think that it does?

 

Nowhere does scripture restrict administration of the Lord's Supper to a special clergy class.

The Lord's Supper was a meal. Anytime two Christians are together, they could celebrate the Lord's Supper -- no clergy required. No priestly mediator required.

 

Where does it say that?

 

The Bible says all believers are priests.

Where does the Bible say that administration of the Lord's Supper is restricted to a special clergy class? It doesn't.