So what will happen here?

Do you think the rest of the Anglican Communion is going to go nuts over this the way it has over one bishop and the ordination of LGBT and blessings of their relationships? After all, this is a huge break with 'tradition.'

Sydney votes to allow diaconal and lay presidency at the Eucharist

The Archdiocese of Sydney in Australia has broken with Anglican tradition and voted to accept a report which calls for allowing lay people and deacons to celebrate the Holy Eucharist without a priest present.

The Church Times reports in their article:

"In a motion moved by a Sydney regional bishop, Dr Glenn Davies, the synod accepted arguments that there was no legal impediment to deacons’ presiding, given that, under a 1985 General Synod canon, deacons are authorised to assist the priest in the administration of the sacraments.

A report accompanying the motion argued that, because deacons can administer the sacrament of baptism ‘in its entirety’, and because ‘no hierarchy of sacraments is expressed in describing the deacon’s role of assisting the presbyter,’ deacons are therefore authorised to ‘administer the Lord’s Supper in its entirety’.

Bishop Davies told the Synod that the Archbishop could not prevent a deacon’s ‘administering the Lord’s Supper’. But the motion, though it also affirmed lay presidency, could not approve lay people’s presiding at Sunday services, as the Archbishop would need to license them, Bishop Davies said. ‘The Archbishop will not license a lay person at this time.’"

The article speculates that the reason for Archbishop Jensen's reluctance to license lay people to preside at the Eucharist is that he is concerned about the reaction of the GAFCON leadership. But licensing deacons is, by itself, a departure from the Ordinal and the traditions of Anglicanism.

Hat tip to the Lead.

[later] Your comments prove my point.

My question is did they vote it before the Anglican Covenant was approved (should such a thing happen) thinking that they, too, might fall under the same rubrics of eligibility for admonition and needing the communion's consent to a decision? I cannot be anything but cynical and agree with you good readers — namely, the Covenant is only about queers and nothing else. Sacramental history be damned — if Sydney wants lay presidency that is a far less core doctrine. It's keeping those uppity women and queers out of ordained ministry and preventing the latter from benefiting from the fullness of the sacraments. The HOBD list has been strangely silent.