Anglican perspectives on concelebration

[Paidiske]

Does anyone have any resources on Anglican thinking on concelebration (perspectives either in favour or not)? I've had a bit of a search, but haven't been able to find anything specifically Anglican addressing the question.

 

[Philip_B]

My view is it is done in an ad-hoc kind of way, and probably should be thought out more clearly. I see no real reason to do it, or not to do it, in general, however, there are specific times when it might make sense, like inducting a new priest into a Parish it might say something sensible about Bishop and Priest sharing in the ministry in that place.

 

[Paidiske]

It's not something I've ever done, and I've never really been somewhere where it was the done thing. It seems to be something that is growing in this diocese, though, so I'd like to think about it a bit more systematically.

 

[Deegie]

Does anyone have any resources on Anglican thinking on concelebration (perspectives either in favour or not)? I've had a bit of a search, but haven't been able to find anything specifically Anglican addressing the question.

It's a great question. Our 1979 BCP here in the USA has an instruction which reads: "It is appropriate that the other priests present stand with the celebrant at the Altar, and join in the consecration of the gifts, in breaking the Bread, and in distributing Communion." This shows that some type of concelebration was in mind at the time. According to Byron Stuhlman, "verbal concelebration", in which the concelebrants speak the Eucharistic Prayer in unison with the celebrant (whether audibly or whispering), "is a late Roman tradition and not consonant with the tradition of the Early Church of the Orthodox East today." But he goes on to say that it is part of the early Anglican tradition for multiple priests to take different portions of the Eucharistic Prayer, although he doesn't like it since it disrupts the integrity of the prayer. He doesn't give references for any of that, however.

All that said, in my part of TEC, concelebration has entirely fallen out of fashion except at the ordination of a priest or the installation of a rector - and even then they just stand there and don't say anything. Many don't even use the term "celebrant" anymore since the feeling is that the entire congregation celebrates. In my congregation, where we have two priests and a deacon, before COVID we used to have the celebrant in the middle with the other priest and deacon each on one side. But the priest didn't do anything except perhaps hold something during the elevation at the invitation to Communion. During COVID, we left the celebrant at the table alone to promote distancing and we've only brought the deacon back since. So that means the assisting priest doesn't stand at the altar for us. We made that decision intentionally so as to not suggest concelebration.

 

[Paidiske]

Apparently, historically concelebration was a very big thing in this diocese, but when women were ordained as priests (very recently, relatively speaking; I think the first here was 2008), it stopped because so many of the men wouldn't concelebrate with a woman. Our current bishop seems to be wanting to normalise it again, though.

 

[Deegie]

Apparently, historically concelebration was a very big thing in this diocese, but when women were ordained as priests (very recently, relatively speaking; I think the first here was 2008), it stopped because so many of the men wouldn't concelebrate with a woman. Our current bishop seems to be wanting to normalise it again, though.

Oh, my. It seems there is a lot more implicated here than sacramental theology. In your case, it might make a lot of sense to bring it back.

 

[Paidiske]

Maybe. I'm not sure that "we used to do it, and we stopped for bad reasons," is in itself a good reason. Did we do it for good reasons, before we stopped?

I'll admit to not being sure I like the idea, but I'm trying to sort out whether that's just because it's not something that's been part of my normal, or whether there are good liturgical reasons to have reservations.

 

[Deegie]

Maybe. I'm not sure that "we used to do it, and we stopped for bad reasons," is in itself a good reason. Did we do it for good reasons, before we stopped?

I'll admit to not being sure I like the idea, but I'm trying to sort out whether that's just because it's not something that's been part of my normal, or whether there are good liturgical reasons to have reservations.

I agree. Especially if most people don't even know why it stopped or why it's brought back. Perhaps in clergy gatherings or something, in which you might reasonably expect people to understand the reason, it would be impactful. Otherwise, it doesn't really do much unless there is also some education around the practice first.

I'm also with you having reservations about the practice.