Chapter 8: The Ministry of the Church

‘For it is not a mere fact, but an institution fulfilling certain purposes. As an institution it was, and is, characterized by succession in two forms: the succession in office and the succession of consecration. And it had generally recognized functions: the general superintendence of the Church and more especially of the Clergy; the maintenance of unity in the one Eucharist; the ordination of men to the ministry; the safeguarding of the faith; and the administration of the discipline of the Church. There have been different interpretations of the relations of these elements in the Historic Episcopate to one another; but the elements themselves are constant. When, therefore, we say that we must insist on the Historic Episcopate but not upon any theory or interpretation of it, we are not to be understood as insisting on the office apart from the functions. What we uphold is the Episcopate, maintained in successive generations by continuity of succession and consecration, as it has been throughout the history of the Church from the earliest times, and discharging those functions which from the earliest times it has discharged.

‘We readily agree that there are other elements in the full life of the Church, and we hold that the episcopate should be “constitutional” in the sense that provision should be made for the due co‑operation of the presbyterate and the congregation of Christ’s faithful people in the ordering of the Church’s life. Indeed, this is already secured in varying degrees in all parts of the Anglican Communion by the revival of Diocesan and Provincial Synods, or by other similar means. We recognize that in this respect we have much to learn and to gain from the traditions and customs of the non‑episcopal Churches. But our special responsibility as an Episcopal Church is to bring into the complete life of the united Church those elements which we have received and hold in trust. Chief among these, in the matter of Order, is the Historic Episcopate.

‘In laying this emphasis on our own inheritance, we emphatically declare that we do not call in question the spiritual reality of the ministries now exercised in non‑episcopal communions. On the contrary, we reiterate the declaration of the Lambeth Conference of 1920, that “these ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace.” But when we consider the problem which must be paramount in all our discussions, namely, the restoration of the broken unity of Christ’s Body and the drawing together of the separated groups of His followers, we realize that one necessary element in that visible fellowship must be a ministry universally acknowledged. Thus considered, there is at present no ministry which fully corresponds with the purpose of God. Yet we are persuaded that the historic continuity of the episcopal ministry provides evidence of the Divine intention in this respect such as to constitute a stewardship which we are bound to discharge.

‘We cannot regard the maintenance of separately organized churches as a matter indifferent or unimportant. The will and intention to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the Body of Christ must of necessity underlie all its organisation; and where that unity has been broken, the earnest desire to restore union makes possible a recognition by the Church, in some respects, of ministries which, in separation, must stand on a different footing. The will and intention of Christians to perpetuate separately organized Churches makes it inconsistent in principle for them to come before our Lord to be united as one body by the sacrament of His own Body and Blood: The general rule of our Church must therefore be held to exclude indiscriminate Intercommunion, or any such Intercommunion as expresses acquiescence in the continuance of separately organized Churches.

‘From what has been already said it will be evident why we hold as a general principle that Intercommunion should be the goal of, rather than a means to, the restoration of union, and also why the general rule of our Church has been, as set forth by the 1920 Lambeth Conference, that members of the Anglican Churches should receive the Holy Communion only from ministers of their own Church or of Churches in full communion with it.

‘But we recognize that the rule quoted above is a rule of discipline, and as such is subject to exception where the purpose of that discipline can thus be better served. We hold that the administration of such a rule of the Church falls under the discretion of the Bishop, who should exercise his dispensing power in accordance with any principles that may be set forth by the national, regional, or provincial authority of the Church in the area concerned. Nor (we hope) will the Bishops of the Anglican Communion question the action of any Bishop who may in his discretion so exercised sanction an exception to the general rule in special areas where the ministrations of his own Church are not available for long periods of time or without travelling great distances, or may give permission that baptized communicant members of Churches not in communion with our own, should be encouraged to communicate in Anglican Churches when the ministrations of their own Church are not available, or in other special and temporary circumstances. We would repeat the declaration of the Lambeth Conference of 1920 that “in cases in which it is impossible for the Bishop’s judgement to be obtained beforehand, the priest should remember that he has no canonical authority to refuse Communion to any baptized person kneeling before the Lord’s Table unless he be excommunicate by name, or, in the canonical sense of the term, a cause of scandal to the faithful”.’^[1]

^[1]Report of Lambeth Conference 1930, pp. 114-117.


	The Ministry of the Church
PREVIOUS 131 NEXT
Title Contents Preface Introduction Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Site Search: powered by FreeFind Copyright & Credit	‘For it is not a mere fact, but an institution fulfilling certain purposes. As an institution it was, and is, characterized by succession in two forms: the succession in office and the succession of consecration. And it had generally recognized functions: the general superintendence of the Church and more especially of the Clergy; the maintenance of unity in the one Eucharist; the ordination of men to the ministry; the safeguarding of the faith; and the administration of the discipline of the Church. There have been different interpretations of the relations of these elements in the Historic Episcopate to one another; but the elements themselves are constant. When, therefore, we say that we must insist on the Historic Episcopate but not upon any theory or interpretation of it, we are not to be understood as insisting on the office apart from the functions. What we uphold is the Episcopate, maintained in successive generations by continuity of succession and consecration, as it has been throughout the history of the Church from the earliest times, and discharging those functions which from the earliest times it has discharged. ‘We readily agree that there are other elements in the full life of the Church, and we hold that the episcopate should be “constitutional” in the sense that provision should be made for the due co‑operation of the presbyterate and the congregation of Christ’s faithful people in the ordering of the Church’s life. Indeed, this is already secured in varying degrees in all parts of the Anglican Communion by the revival of Diocesan and Provincial Synods, or by other similar means. We recognize that in this respect we have much to learn and to gain from the traditions and customs of the non‑episcopal Churches. But our special responsibility as an Episcopal Church is to bring into the complete life of the united Church those elements which we have received and hold in trust. Chief among these, in the matter of Order, is the Historic Episcopate. ‘In laying this emphasis on our own inheritance, we emphatically declare that we do not call in question the spiritual reality of the ministries now exercised in non‑episcopal communions. On the contrary, we reiterate the declaration of the Lambeth Conference of 1920, that “these ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace.” But when we consider the problem which must be paramount in all our discussions, namely, the restoration of the broken unity of Christ’s Body and the drawing together of the separated groups of His followers, we realize that one necessary element in that visible fellowship must be a ministry universally acknowledged. Thus considered, there is at present no ministry which fully corresponds with the purpose of God. Yet we are persuaded that the historic continuity of the episcopal ministry provides evidence of the Divine intention in this respect such as to constitute a stewardship which we are bound to discharge. ‘We cannot regard the maintenance of separately organized churches as a matter indifferent or unimportant. The will and intention to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the Body of Christ must of necessity underlie all its organisation; and where that unity has been broken, the earnest desire to restore union makes possible a recognition by the Church, in some respects, of ministries which, in separation, must stand on a different footing. The will and intention of Christians to perpetuate separately organized Churches makes it inconsistent in principle for them to come before our Lord to be united as one body by the sacrament of His own Body and Blood: The general rule of our Church must therefore be held to exclude indiscriminate Intercommunion, or any such Intercommunion as expresses acquiescence in the continuance of separately organized Churches. ‘From what has been already said it will be evident why we hold as a general principle that Intercommunion should be the goal of, rather than a means to, the restoration of union, and also why the general rule of our Church has been, as set forth by the 1920 Lambeth Conference, that members of the Anglican Churches should receive the Holy Communion only from ministers of their own Church or of Churches in full communion with it. ‘But we recognize that the rule quoted above is a rule of discipline, and as such is subject to exception where the purpose of that discipline can thus be better served. We hold that the administration of such a rule of the Church falls under the discretion of the Bishop, who should exercise his dispensing power in accordance with any principles that may be set forth by the national, regional, or provincial authority of the Church in the area concerned. Nor (we hope) will the Bishops of the Anglican Communion question the action of any Bishop who may in his discretion so exercised sanction an exception to the general rule in special areas where the ministrations of his own Church are not available for long periods of time or without travelling great distances, or may give permission that baptized communicant members of Churches not in communion with our own, should be encouraged to communicate in Anglican Churches when the ministrations of their own Church are not available, or in other special and temporary circumstances. We would repeat the declaration of the Lambeth Conference of 1920 that “in cases in which it is impossible for the Bishop’s judgement to be obtained beforehand, the priest should remember that he has no canonical authority to refuse Communion to any baptized person kneeling before the Lord’s Table unless he be excommunicate by name, or, in the canonical sense of the term, a cause of scandal to the faithful”.’^[1] ^[1]Report of Lambeth Conference 1930, pp. 114-117.
PREVIOUS 131 NEXT