Today's question is from Bob Randall and Elizabeth Felicetti who serve on the clergy staff of Old Donation Episcopal Church in Virginia Beach. They ask about a question posed by a member of the congregation who"recently asserted in a meeting that Eucharists must have one lay person and one clergy person present." Bob and Elizabeth replied that two clergy would suffice, but were unable to find a source for either position. They also wonder about an upcoming clergy conference at which no lay persons will be present.
They have managed to touch on an issue that was hotly debated in the mid-16th century. Those who, like most Roman Catholic theologians, saw the celebration primarily in terms of a devout act of prayer to God, reasoned that there was no necessity for any lay person to be present for the Eucharist to be valid. That remains the position of the Roman Catholic Church today, thought the Constitution on the Liturgy adopted at Vatican II (1962-65) said that celebrations with lay person present were to be preferred.
Those who look upon the Eucharist primarily as a proclamation of the deepest mysteries of the faith, as many Protestant theologians did, took the opposite point of view. For them it made no more sense to celebrate in the absence of laity than it did to preach in an empty room. Thomas Cranmer adopted that position in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, adding a new rubric to the conclusion of the Eucharist, directing that "there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper, except that there be a good number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion." The editors of the 1662 version may have no longer trusted to the discretion of the priest to judge a good number, for they set a minimum number at "four (or three at the least) [to] communicate with the Priest."
Americans dropped the rubric in 1789, but not, I think, because there was any great interest in non-communicating celebrations. I think that by that point the idea that parishioners belonged at any celebration of the Eucharist was deeply ingrained. Technically, however, there is no longer a written requirement for lay presence in the American editions of the prayer book.
One could, therefore, argue either way--that we should continue in the spirit of Cranmer's edition of 1552 and not celebrate in the absence of laity, or that technically we are not bound by the English rubrics and can do what we like.
I would argue that Cranmer's emphasis in 1552 on the communal nature of the Eucharist accords well with our contemporary emphasis on the Eucharist as a joint undertaking of the whole people of God and that a celebration without communicants would be incomplete.
I would argue, however, that clergy need to hear the Gospel proclaimed as much--or more--than anyone else and that it does make sense to have a celebration at a clergy conference. There will be a good number to celebrate with the Bishops, but they will just happen to be priests and deacons.
Bob
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't see how Cranmer's rubric could support the position that lay people must be present at the Eucharist. It seems instead to support that there must be a good number of people (of whatever order) together with the priest. And that is quite consonant with your final conclusion as well.
A similar question came up for me at our clergy conference when they chose to have as lectors and leaders of the Prayers of the People the two deacons who were vested with the bishop (no one else was vested). I thought it might be more in line with the honoring of the ministry of the laity to have street clothed members of a clerical order stand in as vicarious laity and fill those roles. I made this assumption on the basis that the old saying, "once a deacon always a deacon" could, and should, be true for all 4 orders of ministry.
i don't think there is any such thing as a "vicarious lay person". if there are no lay people available to read the lessons, then there are none, and changing dress doesn't change that.
but having deacons lead the intercessions is a core diaconal role, so i have no beef with that!
the key diaconal roles are, when no deacon is present, given some to the celebrant, some to assisting priest(s), and some to lay people, but when a deacon is present, it is good for them all to be taken by deacons! (imhmo, of course)
i am no fan of the idea that a priest (once a deacon, always a deacon) should dress as a deacon and act as such. a priest should dress as a priest and act as such, and the rubrics allow a priest to read the gospel--not because she is a "deacon, always a deacon", but because in the absence of a deacon, a priest can fill in. just so, it seems to me, the deacon's responsibility includes the intercessions, but in the absence of a deacon, a lay person can fill in.
so i'm really quite jealous for the central ministries of all three orders!
Post a Comment