I was doing my best to stay out of this discussion, but Eric Griffin's
thoughtful contribution has dragged me out of my corner! :-)
> The very interesting discussion of joint presiders at eucharist is
> completely within my own experience, although I do disagree with it.
> it is not monopolization of the liturgy--for the liturgy is still the
> act of the people; akin to Sunday dinner when someone says
> grace and someone eles carves the roast. Well, on _Leave it to
> Beaver_ any way.
I can't help feeling that we've got a bit confused here over what is
actually going on, and Eric's quotation above brings it back into focus. I
think that it was pointed out earlier that the Church of England's
_Alternative Sevice Book, 1980_ differentiates between the role of
'minister' (- who need not necessarily be in orders) and president (who
must be in priest's orders). And I think that this is a valuable
distinction. It brings the whole of the worshipping community together in
sharing in the dynamics of the Eucharist, compared with the passive role of
the congregation in 1662 BCP Holy Communion.
But it still doesn't mean that you have more than one president at the
service. And this holds true even if the actions are divided up somewhat
differently from the rubrics. The president is _primus inter pares_; the
whole service is the act of the community focussed in the president.
Alan F. Jesson
Honorary Assistant Curate
Fen Drayton with Conington and Lolworth and Swavesey
Diocese of Ely
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|