I am posting this honest question to learn a little more about the history of the CEC. I am wondering why it was the case that the BCP became the standard for CEC worship.

The historicity and theology of the rite and the missal is one that has been a source of contention in the East and West - so I am wondering if it was chosen... Because it afforded a certain amount of flexibility in allowing for how Catholic or how Protestant/Evangelical the worship of the CEC would be?

There are so very many questions to be considered when examining the catholicity of the CEC - but the very question of rite and liturgical books seems to bear a real insight on the identity the of the CEC.

Why the BCP? Why not a pre-reformation Western rite? Why not an eastern rite?

(On a related note... Years ago when I first started getting Sursum Corda - when it was still mailed out as a newsletter - I recall a Greek Orthodox priest having been pictured in clergy photos in Byzantine vestments... Does anyone know who that fella was or if he did or still does celebrate the Divine Liturgy?)

Greetings,

The question of "Which Rite is Right" has been with the CEC from the very beginning. The 1979 BCP was the norm, but other rites were permitted, including the 1928 BCP, the Roman Rite, various Eastern Rites, and, if memory serves, the Anglican Missal.

This being said, I am not aware of any CEC church using an Eastern Rite on a regular basis. Ditto for the 1928 or the Anglican Missal. I served several churches which used a modified Roman Rite. I believe that St. Francis and St. Clare in MO still does. I'm sorta "out of the loop" with regard to Wisconsin -- but unless the two CEC churches here have re-done their customaries, they are still using a modified Roman Rite, most of the time. A few years ago, Davidson imposed the BCP, at least once a month, in the churches of the Central Province. The former Eastern Province used a single customary for all its churches which was essentially BCP in structure -- but with the Eucharistic Prayers reconstructed so as to conform with a higher sacramental theology. The BCP is very weak in that regard.

With regard to ordinations, the BCP was used until the Brazilian Consecrations, at which point the use of the Roman ordination rite was made mandatory -- a promise which the CEC has not kept. This has raised many questions of validity in those members of the CEC who have sought reception into other bodies.

For me, the BCP is very problematic with its theology of the Eucharist. A universal acceptance of the doctrine of Real Presence is, believe it or not, relatively new in the Anglican Communion -- and the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is explicitly denied. I've got a ton of material on this subject, if you're interested.

Blessings,

I'm Interested.
I do not understand how one can come into the Sacraments and not be changed by them.
At some point, it would seem to me, one has to realize, or better, be confronted with the fact of the Eucharist as Sacrifice, Christ’s.

So yes, I would like to see some materials on this.

When I have time, I will convey my first Eucharist and the "event, epiphany, vision, whatever you want to call it" that happened to me when I first took the Body and Blood of Christ into myself.

May God bless you all
In HIM,
Rusty+

I would be intersted in hearing your thoughts and seeing more material on this subject.

I mean, ever notice that things Protestants find obejectionable in Catholocism, many find forgiveable within Anglicanism and (to a lesser extent) Lutheranism? I am no insider, but I can't help but wonder if the BCP had appeal because it was used by the Episcopal Church which many Protestants have always seen as "Our Catholics" "See, you could be pretty much Catholic and still be Christian!"

But my question(s) remain:

1) How was it decided the 79 BCP would be the right rite to begin with?
- Did it have something to do with the ambiguity of it that has allowed centuries of Anglicans to hold competing beliefs while celebrating the same rite?
- Was its established that the BCP was a a happy median between the Protestant and Catholic world?

David,

We have not heard from you - I hope you noticed that there is an interest in hearing more about your thoughts and ideas for the BCP.

This is not to hurry you up, more just to make sure, I AM interested in what you have to offer on this.

Simple

On a related note...

I notice the sponsors of this websites advertising seems to pick up on the text of what is posted....

BCP gave us the following linke to Business Continuity Planning

and Lutheran Prayer Beads

OK that is off topic, but internet technologies that try to target marketing according to what it "proof tects" hehehe.

-Simple

PS - I am always interested in chaplets and the biblical devotions behind them - Catholic or Protestant. So I found the Lutheran Prayer Beads website was fascinating to me.

I'm here -- just still trying to catch up. I'll be posting extensively shortly.

Blessings,

That is funny that you noticed that. It had evaded my attention. :D

It may explain an issue with the ads someone raised months back. :blink:

Actually Ken I always tend to notice that.

There have been ads for a tinry "Historic Reformed Anglican" congergation that pops up from time to time - one that is so very low church and "anti-Romanist", it is ironic when one consideres some of the "Romanitsts" (like myself!) posting in this foum! hhehe

Happy Valentine's Day - as a favor to St. Valentine, lets do our best to be Catholic about it today. One wonders what a saint had to do to get his feast day so very associated with behviors that are not terribly Catholic in thier thinking. Oh the irony.

Simple

Your response deserves a hearty "Amen!". Thanks.

Here goes:

Historically, there seem to be 11 different components in a “classic” Eucharistic prayer. Not every historical prayer contains every component, especially during the Patristic period, but the great majority contain most if not all. The various components are identified as follows:


The Sursum Corda
The bidding which begins the dialogue at the opening of the Eucharistic prayer:

Priest: The Lord be with you.
People: And also with you.
Priest: Lift up your hearts. (Latin, Sursum Corda)
People: We lift them up to the Lord. etc.


The Preface
The proclamation of the mighty acts of God — a term originally used for the Great Thanksgiving:

Priest: It is right, and a good and joyful thing, always and everywhere to give thanks to you, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.


The Pre-Sanctus
A passage describing the worship of the angels in heaven

Priest: Therefore we praise you, joining our voices with Angels and Archangels and with all the company of heaven, etc.


The Sanctus
The hymn based on Isaiah 6 incorporated into the Eucharistic prayer as a congregational song

All: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.


The Post-Sanctus
The portion of the Eucharistic prayer that follows the Sanctus. This can be a simple “link”, a form of brief intercession, or a brief rehearsal of salvation history:

Priest: Holy and gracious Father: In your infinite love you made us for yourself; and, when we had fallen into sin and become subject to evil and death, you, in your mercy, sent Jesus Christ, your only and eternal Son, to share our human nature, to live and die as one of us, to reconcile us to you, the God and Father of all. etc.


The Institution Narrative
The story of the Last Supper, incorporated into the Eucharistic prayer. Traditionally the Western Church has held that these words effect the consecration of the elements:

Priest: On the night he was handed over to suffering and death, our Lord Jesus Christ took bread; and when he had given thanks to you, he broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat: This is my Body, which is given for you. Do this for the remembrance of me.” etc.


The Anamnesis
The word, which is used in the narrative of the Eucharist in the NT, is employed by liturgists for the commemoration of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. . . .The word “remembrance” denotes no mere calling to mind. . .past, present and future are simultaneously involved.

Priest: We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Recalling his death, resurrection, and ascension, we offer you these gifts.


The Offering or Oblation
The offering of gifts to God

Priest: He stretched out his arms upon the cross, and offered himself, in obedience to your will, a perfect sacrifice for the whole world. . .

Recalling his death resurrection, and ascension, we offer you these gifts.


The Epiclesis
The invocation of the Holy Spirit on either the gifts, the worshipers, or both. In certain Eastern liturgies, a consecratory epiclesis is viewed as the moment of consecration, rather than the Words of Institution.

Priest: Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, etc.


The Intercessions
From the Patristic period forward, intercessions of various types were offered as part of the Eucharistic prayer. This was the original location of the Anglican Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church. In the rite under examination, there is no formal intercession within the body of the Eucharistic prayer.


The Doxology
A final statement of praise to God, to which the congregation replies “Amen”.

Priest: All this we ask through your Son Jesus Christ. By him, and with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit all honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father, now and for ever. AMEN.

Traditional Roman Catholic Understandings

As previously stated, the idea that the communion elements did not physically become the Body and Blood of Christ did not become an issue of controversy until the High Middle Ages. In the 9th century a philosophical controversy arose between two monks, Radbertus and Ratramnus, concerning the nature of Christ’s presence in the bread and wine. Neither questioned the presence of Christ, they merely differed on their philosophical understandings as to how the presence was made manifest. However, in the 11th century Berengar of Tours, following the philosophical lead of Ratramnus, was condemned for proposing a theory of the Real Presence that seems to have suggested a spiritual rather than physical presence. He seems to have argued a position that would become familiar to the Anglicans and Calvinists 500 years later, that Jesus cannot be physically present on the Altar, since He is in heaven. Church authorities reacted strongly to Berengar, and most of his writings were burned, making it difficult to establish exactly where the points of contention lay. However, such episodic controversies were rare, and the doctrine of transubstantiation was affirmed at the 12th Ecumenical Council, held at St. John Lateran in 1215. The medieval doctrine was firmly established philosophically by Thomas Aquinas, and the doctrine was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent also resulted in the Missal of Pope Pius V (1566-1572), issued in 1570, and until 1970 was the official Eucharistic Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church — the so-called “Tridentine Rite”. The Missal contained the sum of everything required for a priest to say Mass, and provided options for the entire Church year. There was only one Eucharistic Prayer in the Missal of Pius V — the Gregorian Canon, which purports to date from the time of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604). An English translation of this canon can be found in the Anglican Missal about which more will be said later. The prayer has received criticism in the 20th century for having what some liturgists consider an insufficient Epiclesis, in that the Holy Spirit is not specifically named. Rather, the Epiclesis is directed to the Godhead without attempt to differentiate between the persons of the Trinity.

Which oblation, we beseech thee, O Almighty God, in all things to make blessed, appointed, ratified, reasonable and acceptable, that unto us it may be the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the Real, Physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is made clear, not only in the above passage but in several additional clauses as well. The metaphor of offering is clearly stated in the following passage:

Therefore, Lord, we beseech thee, that thou wilt graciously receive this oblation of our bounden service and of all thy household:

as is the metaphor of sacrifice:

Wherefore, O Lord, we also, thy servants, and thy holy people, being mindful as well of the blessed passion and resurrection, as of the glorious ascension of the same Christ thy Son, our Lord God, do offer unto thy excellent Majesty of thy own rewards and gifts, a pure host, a holy host, an undefiled host, the holy bread of eternal life and the cup of eternal salvation.

Vouchsafe thou also, with a merciful and pleasant countenance, to have respect hereunto: and to accept the same, as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and the holy sacrifice, the undefiled host, that the high priest Melchisedek did offer unto thee.

We humbly beseech thee, O Almighty God, command thou these to be brought by the hand of thy holy Angel unto thy high Altar in the presence of thy Divine Majesty, that as many of us as of this partaking of the Altar shall receive thy Son’s holy Body and Blood may be replenished with all heavenly benediction and grace.

The language used to describe the three metaphors under consideration is clear and straightforward, and represents a consensus of theological opinion in the Western Church since the 6th century. Next, the language used to describe these three metaphors will be examined from an historical Anglican perspective.

Thank you - I am looking forward to the next part.

This is very educational, David Z. Thank you for all the time you're taking to put this together. I, too, look forward to future posts.

Here comes more . . . thanks for your interest!


The Metamorphosis of Anglican Understandings

When King Henry VIII first made the break with the Roman Catholic Church in 1542, establishing the Church of England (with himself as the head), he did not originally plan for a significant theological shift. His Church of England was to be a National Catholic Church. He was not a Protestant, at least not in any manner that would be recognized by the other Protestant churches of his day. However, when Henry died in 1547, he was succeeded by his young son, Edward VI — who had definite Protestant sympathies, largely due to his tutors and regents, (not to mention the developing Calvinism of Thomas Cramner, the Archbishop of Canterbury). Under Cramner’s direction, the First Book of Common Prayer was produced and authorized for use in 1549. Cramner made numerous changes to the text of the Roman liturgy; but in many respects the service was still recognizable as Roman Catholic, at least from a theological perspective. Cramner presented the liturgy in English, rather than in Latin; he replaced the introit at the beginning of the service with the Collect for Purity; and added a collect for the King. However, when the action moves from the liturgy of the Word to the liturgy of the Eucharist, his changes become more pronounced. Cramner added an “exhortation” in which the Sacrament is referred to as spiritual food. Furthermore, the singularity of Christ’s sacrifice is emphasized, the sacrifice presented is that of the “selves, souls and bodies” of the worshipers, and the only sacrifice mentioned in connection with the liturgy is the “sacrifice of praise” also made by the worshipers. There is no epiclesis to be found in this prayer. Finally, the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) is removed from the communion rite and replaced with what is now called a “Fraction Anthem”

Christ our paschal Lamb is offered up for us, once for all, when he bare our sins on his body upon the cross; for he is the very Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world: wherefore let us keep a joyful and holy feast with the Lord.

This is a subtle but definite shift in the metaphor of Real Presence, as well as a not so subtle shift in the metaphors of both offering and sacrifice. Cramner wished to remove, or at least obscure, any notion of physical Presence by emphasizing the “spiritual food” remark during the exhortation, the singular nature of the cross, and the wording of the Fraction Anthem as opposed to the Agnus Dei. However, the 1549 communion service by itself does not suffice as proof of a theological shift significant enough to warrant a breach of communion between England and Rome. In fact, Cramner was criticized because his 1549 liturgy was too Catholic! Because of these criticisms, and to pacify the growing strength of the Calvinists, the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI was published in 1552.

Without a doubt, the 1552 prayer book is a Protestant document. If ambiguities remained in 1549, they did so no longer. From beginning to end, the 1552 prayer book communion service was blatant and deliberate in changing metaphors and redefining meaning. As a partial list:

The Collect for Purity is used instead of the Introit (as in 1549).

The Ten Commandments are recited instead of the Kyrie and the Gloria in Excelsis.

The intercessions are removed from the Eucharistic Prayer and are restricted to “Christ’s Church militant here in earth, removing all prayers for the departed.

The Sursum Corda is removed from the Opening Dialogue, in order to dispel any thoughts of the Real Presence of Christ at the communion service.

The Hosanna and the Benedictus (Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord) are removed from the Sanctus, in order to dispel any thoughts of the Real Presence, or any ideas that the Lord is about to physically come.

The text of the Eucharistic prayer itself is greatly reduced in length.

There is no Epiclesis in this prayer (as in 1549).

The words of administration are changed from “The Body (Blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life” to “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy hearts by faith, with thanksgiving” and “Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.”

The Gloria in excelsis is recited as a post-communion anthem.

Finally, there is the existence of the so-called “Black Rubric” which states “Although no order can be so perfectly devised, but it may be of some, either for their ignorance and infirmity, or else of malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and interpreted in a wrong part. . .Whereas it is ordained in the book of common prayer, in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the communicants kneeling should receive the holy Communion. . .lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or to any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body, to be in more places than in one at one time.”

In this liturgy, Cramner makes his point clear. There is no question that the theology of the Eucharist has been significantly changed. And how was this change accomplished? By the reinterpreting of the Eucharistic metaphors of Presence, Offering, and Sacrifice. If the statements in the liturgy were not enough, the Articles of Religion would continue to clarify the new theology. The Real Presence is denied in the article “Of the Sacraments” which states, in part, that“The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about. . .” and in the article “Of the Lord’s Supper” which states, in part, that

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, cannot be proved by holy writ: but it is repugnant to the plain words of scripture, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. Forasmuch as the truth of man’s nature requireth, that the body of one, and the self same man, cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in some one certain place: therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places. And because (as holy scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the world; a faithful man ought not, either to believe, or openly to confess the real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

These are all examples of a deliberate metaphoric shift. Although many of the same terms are used, they are used and defined in quite different ways. When the metaphor is changed, the meaning is changed. Cramner understood this, and used this principle to alter the theological understandings and perceptions of much of England.

Over the next 110 years, there were great religious struggles in England. Edward VI was succeeded by Mary I (1553-1558), a devout (not to mention fanatical) Roman Catholic. For five years, England was again a Catholic nation. Mary died without issue and was succeeded by her sister. The moderate Protestantism of Elizabeth I (1558-1603) was accepted by a majority of the country, but the growing Puritan party felt that the via media of Elizabeth’s Anglicanism was still not Protestant enough. The controversies between the High Anglicans and the Puritans continued through the reign of James I (1603-1624), and finally culminated in the civil war under Charles I (1624-1648, executed 1649). Power was seized by the Puritan leadership under Oliver Cromwell, who executed the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1645, and the king himself in 1649. The tyrannies of the Cromwell and the Puritans were worse than anything experienced under the Anglicans, and within a year of Cromwell’s death, Parliament begged Charles II, living abroad in exile, to return to England and receive the crown. In 1662, a new Book of Common Prayer was promulgated and has been the official liturgy of the Church of England ever since. Does this prayer book fundamentally alter the Eucharistic theology implicit since 1549 and explicit since 1552? The answer is no.

In the 1662 prayer book, more than 100 years of controversy was brought to a close. Both the High Church party and the Puritans were forced to compromise. The High Church party was not able to obtain the more Catholic understanding which had begun to develop in the beginning of the 17th century, while the Puritans had to accept both the ecclesiology and much of the theology of what had been the status quo. The theology expressed in the 1662 prayer book still represents a moderate Protestant point of view. The service begins with the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect for Purity, followed by the Ten Commandments, as described in the 1552 service. The intercessions still omit petitions for the departed, praying only for the church militant. The Sursum Corda, Hosanna, and Benedictus are still missing from the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer. The prayer itself is extremely brief, following the 1552 service, but the Words of Administration combine the formulae used in the 1549 with the 1552:

The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.

The “Black Rubric” from 1552 is present. However, the petition against the Bishop of Rome and his detestable enormities has been removed from the Litany. What then is the 1662 Book of Common Prayer? How does it treat the metaphors under consideration: Presence, Offering, and Sacrifice? The answer, as the examination of the Eucharistic prayer makes clear, is just the same as in the 1552 book. The existence of the Black Rubric is sufficient by itself to show that any understanding of a physical presence in the communion elements is to be rejected. Christ is not physically present, Christ is not offered, Christ is not sacrificed. Why then, do Anglicans from the mid 19th century onward, again begin to suggest that they are not Protestants, but are, in fact English Catholics?

In 1833, John Keble, Edward Pusey, and John Henry Newman and other Anglican clergymen and academics began writing a series of pamphlets, published under the title “Tracts for the Times”. Although the original intent of the series was to promote the theology of the Church of England, as opposed to Roman Catholicism or various forms of Nonconformist Protestantism, the tracts quickly became seen as a defense of the Catholic faith — and the validity of the catholicity of the Church of England. Over a period of eight years, ninety tracts were published on subjects ranging from the validity of Apostolic Succession, Fasting, and the catholicity (or lack thereof) of the Articles of Religion. The final tract, on the Articles of Religion, was penned by John Henry Newman, and caused such a firestorm of protest, that the series came to a close. Four years later, Newman converted to Roman Catholicism, along with many others. This movement, known as Tractarianism, or the Oxford Movement, led to a revival of interest in traditional, pre-Reformation types of Christianity within the Church of England, effectively dividing the church into two camps. The “Evangelicals” were the “low church” party; holding to a Protestant, and somewhat Calvinistic ecclesiology and theology while the “Anglo-Catholics” were the “high church” party. Although Keble and Pusey did not follow Newman to the Roman Catholic Church, the Oxford movement attracted many supporters. “Anglo-Catholicism” had begun in England. The Anglo-Catholics restored numerous Tridentine practices to their Anglican communion services and popularized many Roman devotions. Emphasis on all seven Sacraments began to develop, rather than the traditional Anglican two. Roman Catholic Eucharistic vestments became popular. The practice of private confession was resumed. Monasticism began to develop. Most importantly, Eucharistic theology turned from the moderate Calvinism of the Articles of Religion; to an acceptance of the Real Presence, and an appreciation for the sacrificial nature of the Mass. These clergy found a unique way of both following the rubrics of the Prayer Book while affirming their new-found Catholic theology. This was effected by using the Prayer Book together with the manual acts and private prayers found in the Missal of Pius V. In other words, they attempted to correct one metaphor by the introduction of another as a corrective. They recognized the deficiencies in the Anglican liturgy, but instead of replacing that liturgy entirely, they searched for ecclesiastical “loop-holes”. These were easy to find, because one of the features of the English Books of Common Prayer was a deliberate lack of rubrics. Anglo-Catholic liturgy is best exemplified in the English Missal, the Anglican Missal, and the American Missal.

Although the Anglo-Catholics only made up a small percentage of Anglicanism, many of their ideas were gradually incorporated into mainstream Anglican worship, both in England, and in the United States. An example of this transition can be seen in the theological shifts in the four different Episcopalian (American) Books of Common Prayer, published in 1789, 1892, 1928, and 1979.

Unlike any of the three English Prayer Books considered, the American books all contain an Epiclesis as part of the Eucharistic prayer. In the 1789, 1892, and 1928 books, the Epiclesis is placed after the Words of Institution, in a similar position as found in Eastern Orthodox liturgies. This is due to the influence of certain Scottish rites on the Episcopal church in the United States; a subject beyond the scope of this paper. None of the American Prayer Books contain anything remotely resembling either the Black Rubric, or the prayer against the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome. However, neither the 1789 or 1892 books make a substantial change to the metaphors of offering and sacrifice found in the English rites. The offering is that of the souls and bodies of the congregation; and the only sacrifice is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. However, by 1892, Anglo-Catholicism was becoming a major force in Episcopal theology (even where it was not accepted), and it was realized that the Prayer Book published in that year would be an interim measure. Theological debates continued for the next thirty plus years, until the publication of the 1928 Prayer Book. More than any book before it; this edition of the Common Prayer showed major theological and metaphoric shifts. Prayers for the departed were added to the intercessions for the first time since they were removed in 1552. But the actual Eucharistic Prayer itself showed little change from the prayers from the two preceding books. Elements removed in 1552 were still excluded. However, the prayer of 1928 became the basis for the American Missal, and was one of three prayers authorized for use in the Anglican Missal. Real theological change, however, did not take place, and the Anglo-Catholics continued to add manual acts and private prayers from the Tridentine Rite in an attempt to “legitimize” the Anglican Eucharist. Before we examine the events leading up to the ratification of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, it is important that we turn again to the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, David, thank you. This is quite interesting and educational. I greatly appreciate it!

Wow, David! You are an amazing scholar! Thanks for sharing this. I remember as a youth I attend an ECUSA youth group and we occasionally shared (though I had to abstain, being RC) "Holy Eucharist". I thought at the time it sounded familiar, but I was uncomfortable with it, almost instinctively.

Thanks to all for the vote of support! Here's more . . .

Metaphoric Shifts in the 1970 Roman Sacramentary

One of the goals of this paper is to try to determine if the metaphoric shifts which seem to have occurred with the publication of the new English language Sacramentary in 1970 serve to bring the Roman Catholic position closer to the Anglican position. Although I accept that shifts have taken place, I believe that these shifts are fundamentally minor, and do not involve the primary metaphors of Presence, Offering, and Sacrifice. Prayer I is the Gregorian Canon, rendered into modern English. As previously noted, the Epiclesis does not directly address the Spirit. In this translation, it addresses the Father through the Son. This is a change, although a slight one; not involving the subject of this paper. The offering language clearly speaks of Jesus as the offering and Jesus as the sacrifice. A congregational response has been added following the Words of Institution. This is another change, not involving the subject of this paper. It is in Prayer II where a real metaphoric shift takes place. The post-Sanctus is minimal, but is followed by an extremely explicit Epiclesis

Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Prayer III states

And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

Finally, in Prayer VI

Father, may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord as we celebrate the great mystery which he left us as an everlasting covenant.

It is clear that an Epicletical metaphoric shift has taken place. There is an increased awareness of the Holy Spirit’s role in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Prayers II, III, and IV seem to have a more Trinitarian focus, rather than a specifically Christological focus. However, in none of these three prayers is there any indication that the belief in the real, Physical Presence of Jesus in the elements has been modified. The same is true with the offering language, and the sacrifice language. None of these changes signify a shift toward a more Anglican understanding of the Eucharist.

The Eucharistic Theology in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer

The 1979 Book of Common Prayer represents a triumph, in many respects, for the Anglo-Catholics. The service contains two rites, one using traditional language, giving an option of two Eucharistic prayers, the second using contemporary (but not overtly inclusive) language, giving an option of four Eucharistic prayers. The changes are many, even in the first traditional prayer, which appears stylistically to be very similar to the 1928 prayer. Note the following points:

The Lord’s Prayer has been removed from the beginning of the service, and the Gloria in excelsis has been restored.

The Sursum Corda has been restored to the Opening Dialogue.

The Hosanna and the Benedictus have been optionally restored to the Sanctus.

The Agnus Dei has been restored as an acceptable option.

Several options for the Words of Administration have been provided.

It seems clear that one metaphoric shift has taken place. The opposition to the notion of Real Physical Presence has been removed, or at least held in check. However, the offering language and the sacrifice language have not changed — not since 1552. Prayer II has the same deficiencies as Prayer I. The Real Presence can be identified, but there is no language suggesting that Jesus is either offering or sacrifice:

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee. . .And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service. . .

In the theology of this prayer, the offering is not Jesus; it is ourselves — and we ourselves are the sacrifice. This concept, in and of itself, is not problematic — except when it attempts to stand alone, apart from the tradition of Jesus as the sacrifice and offering to the Father.

Rite Two is more problematic. As has been briefly touched upon, the order of the various elements in a Eucharistic prayer are important in determining the meaning that is being conveyed. A brief glance at Table Three will demonstrate that there is no internal consistency between the different prayers. While at first glance this may not seem important, especially if these “mixed metaphors” do not directly touch upon the three primary metaphors under consideration; the problem is more serious than it appears. A lack of internal consistency demonstrates a lack of theological consistency. If Anglicans wish for Rome to recognize the validity of their Eucharist, (and many do), it is necessary that a coherent, consistent picture of what Anglicans believe is presented in the various prayers. Although the four Roman Catholic prayers are very different in style, they are organized and presented in a theologically consistent manner. The 1979 book prayers are not. This being said, there is much that is positive about the Rite II prayers. Note the following items:

The Sursum Corda has been restored to all four Opening Dialogues.

The Sanctus is complete with Hosanna and Benedictus in all four prayers.

Prayers A, C, and D all show an understanding of anamnesis that is compatible with Roman Catholic theology.

Although the Agnus Dei is not present, its use is permitted. The language which rejects the Real Presence in the Fraction Anthem has been removed.

The Words of Administration resemble the 1549 book (and the Roman rites) rather than the 1552.

In each of these examples, it is clear that the underlying intention is to no longer deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. One metaphor has been restored; albeit expressed in a different manner than can be found in the documents of medieval Christianity. However, again, as in Rite One, and as in each of the Anglican prayers studied, the metaphors for offering and sacrifice have not been restored. This has been deliberate. During the interim between the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books, a series of Prayer Book Studies were authorized by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Note the instruction from Prayer Book Studies 21 (one of the last of the series):

The anamnesis of the work of Christ in Death, Resurrection and Ascension “until He come”. . .is the most difficult section of the prayer in view of the different doctrinal emphases which are expressed and recognized within the Anglican Communion. The whole concept of anamnesis is, however, so rich in meaning that it should not be impossible to express it in such a way that the needs of everyone are met. Whatever language is adopted should, however, avoid any idea of a propitiatory sacrifice or a repetition of Christ’s sacrifice. The “once for all” character of His work must not be obscured.

Here again is the Protestant misunderstanding of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, first seen in the English church in the 16th century. The Roman Catholic emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is not a “repetition of Christ’s sacrifice” nor is the “‘once for all’ character of His work” obscured. Even in its most recent incarnation, the Anglican Eucharistic Prayer presents real metaphoric differences from any Roman Catholic understanding. Note the sacrifice language from the Rite II Eucharistic Prayers:

Prayer A: We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. . .

Prayer B: And we offer our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to you, O Lord of all. . .

Prayer C: Remembering now his work of redemption, and offering to you this sacrifice of thanksgiving. . .

Prayer D: Grant that all who share this bread and cup may become one body and one spirit, a living sacrifice in Christ, to the praise of your name.

When this minimal sacrifice language is compared to the counterparts in the Roman Sacramentary, the theological shift becomes clear:

Prayer I: We offer you this sacrifice of praise. . .
We offer tp you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice. . .
Almighty God, we pray that your angel make take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. . .

Prayer III: Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. . .
Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. . .

Prayer IV: we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world.
Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church; and by your Holy Spirit, gather all who share this bread and wine into the one body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.
Lord, remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice. . .

There is a major theological difference between the sacrifice metaphor in the Anglican prayers and the sacrifice metaphor in the Roman Catholic prayers.

The ARCIC Discussions on the Eucharist

During the years 1966 to 1970, a warm working relationship was established between a group of Anglican and Roman Catholic theologians who met on numerous occasions to try to produce documents which demonstrated areas of theological agreement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. As suggested in the introduction, this was based largely on the personal friendship and mutual respect between Pope Paul VI and Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey. This working relationship was formalized in 1970 with the creation of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission. Between the years 1971 and 1981, four documents outlining areas of agreement were produced, as well as three “elucidations” responding to criticisms of the documents. The first document produced was the statement on the Eucharist in 1971, which was elucidated in 1979. The commission affirmed that both Anglicans and Roman Catholics accepted the “once for all” nature of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; and affirmed a strong sense of anamnesis. The Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is affirmed, and the doctrine of transubstantiation is seen as an affirmation that a change in the communion elements has taken place, without suggesting how that change occurs. However, the statement was not without its detractors, and the elucidation, published in 1979 is substantially longer than the statement itself. Many Anglicans still criticized the Commission for its views on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, feeling that the “once for all” nature of Christ’s death on the cross was being obscured. These persons felt uncomfortable with what was perceived as the Commission’s acceptance of a Roman Catholic doctrine of anamnesis. Other Anglicans were disturbed by any suggestion that there was any change effected in the communion elements, while still others were bothered by the suggestion that the Presence of Christ resided in the elements themselves, rather than in the hearts of the faithful. As the Final Report indicates, while the members of the Commission were able to reach substantial agreement, many of the Anglican faithful were not able to follow the Commission’s lead. There is still significant theological controversy within the Anglican Communion itself over the meaning of the Eucharist, and many Anglicans of the “Evangelical” or “Low-Church” party felt like the ARCIC document was a capitulation to the Roman Catholic viewpoint.. With the growing apart of the two churches since the mid 1970's, it seems that, short of a miracle, the ARCIC report is a “high water mark” from which the Anglican Communion has chosen to retreat. The theologians on both sides of the Commission made a significant effort to express Eucharistic metaphors in such a manner as to affirm the concerns of the other, but this effort was not seen as sufficient by many from the Anglican perspective.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have attempted to briefly trace the history of the Eucharistic differences between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church. I have isolated what I believe are the most important metaphors in the doctrine of the Eucharist and have explained the differences in position. I have used the word “metaphor” deliberately and consistently to emphasize that as human beings, we are unable to grasp even a small portion of the Infinite, and thus are forced to use language to mediate between the known and the Unknown. In every instance, I have attempted to bring a reasoned, balanced voice to what has frequently been an emotionally charged debate.

However, I am firm in my opinion that as the situation stands at the present moment, the theological gulf between the Eucharistic theologies of the Roman Catholic Church and mainstream Anglicanism remains deep and wide. Inter-communion based on substantial agreement is problematic, and much as it may offend Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, is probably out of reach, at least for this generation. While the metaphor expressing the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has stabilized in a position acceptable to many Anglicans, and most Roman Catholics; the metaphors expressing the concepts of Offering and Sacrifice remain poles apart, based on the unhappy misunderstandings dating from the Reformation.

But for me that Church of which the Pope is the acknowledged head on earth has as chief claim that it is the one that has (and still does) ever defended the Blessed Sacrament, and given it most honour, and put it (as Christ plainly intended) in the prime place. . . . It was against this that the W. European revolt (or Reformation) was really launched — ‘the blasphemous fable of the Mass’ — and faith/works a mere red herring.
J. R. R. Tolkien, in a letter to his son Michael

If anyone is interested in reading the entire paper with footnotes and bibilography, please drop me a line.

I would be very interested in further discussion of this.

Blessings,

Dear David; I am very ill, so this will be very short.
Thank you for the good work, and yes, I would like to have the whole paper.
Next, could you comment on this in relation to Orthodoxy as well?
There is a different understanding of the Eucharist, they claim an unbroken and undefiled liturgy, and I have not had time to research all of that to see what development there has been, how it has happened, twhat the ramifications are, so forth and so on.
Western Rite Missals are of great interest as well.

Thanks guy, you are a great help to all as you share your hard work with us.

in HIM,
Rusty+

Fr. Rusty,

You are in my prayers. Paper to follow.

Blessings,

Fr. David,

Outstanding scholarship and thanks for taking the time to post your paper here. You are clear, concise, thorough, etc. and it is easy and a pleasure to read your work. I would, also, be interested in the entire paper.

Lenten blessings,

Mary Katherine

Fr Rusty

My prayers are lifted for your healing and recovery!

In Him

Roy

David,

I would love to be able to read your entire presentation. Blessings for your willingness to share what you have obviously labored over! Advise on how you would send,.. many thanks!

Roy

David,

You had sent me an e-mail, my Spamblocker had the ISP blocked for some reason, I just removed the block, please try again. Thanks!


Roy

Fr. David,

After reading your 36 page paper, here's an offering of thanks for making it available to us. It has helped me tremendously to put some things in proper historical and theological perspective.

With gratitude,

Mary Katherine

To comment on the original question, why the BCP?

When Christians approach liturgy for perhaps the very first time, they do so with many questions. When evangelicals from a non liturgical background, or certainly when charismatic/pentecostal Christians begin to investigate this thing called historic church, sacraments and/or liturgics, they approach with curiosity, trepidation, some confusion, and many questions. It is good to remember that those from non liturgical traditions may have had education in scripture, homiletics, pastoral care and so forth, but it is pretty safe to assume that liturgics was not a strong suit.

The '79 BCP is simply available. It is easy to find and inexpensive to buy.

For some reason, it draws more interest than the liturgies of the Eastern Rites (too foreign?) more interest than the Lutheran liturgical resources (too unfamiliar or proprietary?)and one can only speculate that perhaps it is seen as "safer" than drawing directly upon Roman Catholic liturgical resources. Perhaps it might simply be explained by the influence of Anglicans generally in culture, ie Packer, Lewis, et al or perhaps because charismatics/pentecostals still may trace their heritage through Wesley and thus back to Anglicanism?

During the late 1980's and throughout the 1990's there was an incredible amount of interest being paid to drama, liturgy, signs and symbols, dance and other worship areas. Adapting the BCP by those tip toeing into liturgics and and integrating new ideas experimentally into previously non liturgical faith communities seems understandable really.

BD75 -

Thanks for your response. What you write certainly does make a lot of sense...

Not to contest what you say or disagree, but I am interested in eharing why you feel that Luteheran rites - so very similar to Catholic (Latin) and Anglican - are possibly considered too unfamiliar or proprietary at first glance. That is interesting and it caused me to think about something I had never thought of before - for all the interest the BCP gets in different communities, I have not yeat been made aware of an autogenic group turning to Lutheran rites when adopting liturgy...