Lay Administration of the Lord’s Supper; or
Lay Celebration of the Eucharist; or
Lay Presidency at the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist

Since a lot of publicity has been given recently to the proposal that in the Anglican Way provision should be made for a layperson be the celebrant at the Eucharist, I thought it may be useful - despite the rejection of the practice by the Archbishop of Canterbury and others – to set out the reasons given by those who energetically commend it.

As far as I can tell those who commend are learned and godly persons, who have a very high view of the Scriptures as the Word of God written, are enthusiastic about the great doctrines and principles of the Protestant Reformation, put great weight on the authority that belongs to the historic Formularies of the Anglican Way, have a sense of pastoral concern for parishes without a resident pastor and do not believe in the ordination of women as presbyters/priests.

In particular, emphasis is placed by them upon the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith together with the doctrine of the priesthood of baptized believers for these together speak eloquently of the equality of all baptized Christians before God the Father and of their common access to him through His Son our Lord Jesus Christ in/by the Holy Spirit.

But before I begin I must say two things.

A. As far as members of the Forward in Faith movement are concerned this
Proposal is already in place in many of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and is so wherever women act as ordained ministers.

B. This Proposal is not commended as the universal norm but as appropriate
in certain circumstances where there is no available resident pastor [priest] in a congregation. Further, this proposal also normally includes a call for ordained deacons to be able in appropriate situations to be the celebrant at the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist.

Now to the reasons:


1. Both a layman and a deacon are allowed to preach if they have a license
from the bishop. Why not extend this provision of a license at least to some lay Readers and some deacons to celebrate when necessity arises (e.g., in a country area where there is no resident pastor or in a situation where the resident priest is sick)?

2. Further, both a layman and a deacon are allowed to baptize under certain
circumstances, usually in an emergency where the child or adult to be baptized is dying. If they can baptize in an emergency why are they not allowed to celebrate also when necessity requires it?

3. Reserving the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper to priests and bishops
alone can give the impression that they are a superior caste to other Christians and that they have an unique ability to dispense grace.

4. Since the ministry of the Word and the ministry of the Sacrament belong
together why should one but not the other be open to the licensed layman and the licensed deacon? As things now stand the impression is made that an improper or illogical distinction is being made between both the means of grace, by Word and Sacrament.

5. The restricting of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to priests and
bishops only leads to wrong ideas about this Sacrament, especially that its value as a means of grace depends upon the status of the person who prays “the Eucharistic Prayer” [Prayer of Consecration].

6. Further, the absolute requirement that a priest or bishop is the
celebrant leads to the idea that Jesus Christ is not the unique High Priest in heaven and not the only Mediator between God and man for he [Christ] needs the help of an earthly mediator as well.

7. In the New Testament there is no specific instruction as to who may
celebrate the Lord’s Supper and in the writings of the early Fathers it appears that the bishop could and did delegate the “presidency” to others, including laymen, on occasion.

8. While it is true that the classic BCP (with Ordinal) of 1662 and the
Canon Law of 1604 make no provision for a licensed layman or deacon to celebrate, neither does it make provision for them to do many other things that they have been allowed to do in public worship by Acts of Convocation and Synod and the like since 1604.

9. Allowing certain licensed persons to celebrate when necessity arises in
no way takes away from the vocation and role of the parish pastor/priest, who is to be seen as the Head of the parish Family, which is a unique calling. It is very odd that a priest will often travel many miles to a congregation to say the Eucharistic Prayer when there are in the congregation godly persons who could be candidates for a bishop’s license to celebrate when the local pastor is sick or away.

10. Good order in the Church, diocese, province, will be preserved in
allowing this development if it is carefully planned, if persons are carefully chosen and if the Bishop only gives licenses to godly and responsible men.

Those Anglicans who oppose the Innovation of Lay Celebration simply argue that over the long history of the Church from the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 to the Religious Settlement of Queen Elizabeth I in 1559 the Celebration of the Eucharist was reserved to the Bishop, who could and did delegate it to the priest, but never to the deacon and never to the layman (even though lay brothers preached much in medieval Europe). Since the 16th Century the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox on one side and major Protestant traditions on the other have maintained the practice of only allowing the bishop, priest, pastor to be the Celebrant. So it is a matter of Order, of what is appropriate and of tradition. Innovation would not be generally helpful.

The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon August 13, 2001