The Eucharistic Theology of the Anglican Church in North America's Texts for Common Prayer (2013) -The Holy Communion, Short Form

By Robin G. Jordan

In my previous article I examined the eucharistic theology of The Holy Communion, Long Form, the eucharistic rite in Texts for Common Prayer (2013) that the General Instructions require to be used at all principle services on Sundays and on major festivals. In this article I take a closer look at the eucharistic theology of The Holy Communion, Short Form, the eucharistic rite the use of which the General Instruction permit at other times.

The Prayer of Consecration in The Holy Communion, Short Form, may be described as a contemporary English adaptation of the 1549 Canon. It is consists of elements from the 1549 Canon, the 1789 American Prayer of Consecration, and other sources. The order in which these elements are arranged is roughly that of the 1549 Canon.

Susum Corda appears to have been adapted from the Preface Dialogue used in the new English translation of the third edition of The Roman Missal:

Celebrant: The Lord be with you.
People: And with your spirit.
Celebrant: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them to the Lord.
Celebrant: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
People: It is just and right so to do.

For comparison, here is the Preface Dialogue from the new English translation of the third edition of The Roman Missal:

Priest: The Lord be with you.
All:And with your spirit.
Priest: Lift up your hearts.
All: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God.
All: It is right and just.

In the 1662 Prayer Book, as in the 1552 Prayer Book, the versicle and response, “The Lord be with you; and with your spirit” is omitted due to its long associations with the Medieval doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation. Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics view this versicle and response as a prayer for the priest for the stirring up of the special grace which they believe that the laying on of episcopal hands confers at ordination and without which the priest cannot cause the bread and wine to turn into the Body and Blood of Christ or cause the water in the font to spiritually regenerate those baptized in it. This belief is needless to say is not consistent with the Bible and the Anglican formularies.

The Preface comes from Eucharistic Prayers A and B in the Holy Eucharist, Rite II, of the 1979 Prayer Book. It is the work of the late Howard E. Galley.

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

Here a Proper Preface is sung or said

Therefore we praise you, joining our voices with Angels and Archangels and with all the company of heaven, who forever sing this hymn to proclaim the glory of your Name:

The Benedictus with its implications of a substantive (or corporal) presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the consecrated bread and wine and its strong associations with the Medieval doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice and Transubstantiation is appended to the Sanctus. The version of the Sanctus-Benedictus used in The Holy Communion, Short Form is the same version as that used in The Holy Communion, Long Form; the Holy Eucharist, Rite II, of the 1979 Prayer Book, and the new English translation of the third edition of The Roman Missal.

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 Benedictus is omitted from the 1662 Prayer Book; it is optional in a number of the more recent Anglican service books in which its use is permitted in their eucharitic rites.

The Liturgy and Common Worship Task Force followed the Medieval practice and labeled the part of the prayer after the Sanctus-Benedictus "the Prayer of Consecration." The opening paragraph is adapted from the 1549 Canon:

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, in your tender mercy, you gave your only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption. He offered himself and made, once for all time, a perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. He instituted this remembrance of his passion and death, which he commanded us to continue until he comes again.

The Epiclesis with its Invocation of the Word and Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine is an abbreviation of the 1789 American Epiclesis.

So now, Father, we ask you to bless and sanctify, with your Word and Holy Spirit, these gifts of bread and wine that we may partake of his most blessed Body and Blood.

“…we may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood…” has been altered to “…we may partake of his most blessed Body and Blood….”

In the 1789 American Epiclesis the wording of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Epiclesis is combined with the wording of the 1662 Epiclesis. The implication that the Invocation makes or changes the bread and the Body and Blood of Christ is avoided—at least when the 1789 American Prayer of Consecration is used in the 1789 American Communion Office.

In the 1789 American Communion Office the rubrics direct the priest to place the bread and wine on the table, not offer up the bread and wine and then place it on the table. Elements implying a substantive, or corporal, presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the consecrated bread and wine such as the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei are omitted. The Prayer of Humble Access follows the Sanctus and the Lord’s Prayer follow the distribution of Communion. The 1559 Words of Administration are used at the distribution of communion. The rubrics at the end of the 1789 American Communion Office include the 1662 Declaration on Kneeling, which denies any substantive, or corporal, presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the consecrated bread and wine.

The 1789 American Epiclesis is not as effective in avoiding the implication that the Invocation makes or changes the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood when used in a rite like the 1928 Communion Office and The Holy Communion, Long Form, in which a number of elements that imply a mutation of the elements and affirm a substantive (or corporal) presence of the Christ’s Body and Blood in the consecrated bread and wine have been added to the rite. Altering the wording of the 1789 Epiclesis to “…we may partake of his most blessed Body and Blood…” further reduces its effectiveness. It also ties Christ’s Body and Blood more closely to the consecrated bread and wine, implying that Christ’s Body and Blood is somehow in or under the forms of the bread and wine.

Historically the 1662 part of the 1789 American Epiclesis has been interpreted to mean that the partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood accompanies the partaking of the bread and wine. The substance of the bread and wine is not changed. Nothing is added to it. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord Supper “in a heavenly and spiritual manner.” The means by which the Body of Christ "is received and eaten is faith" (Article 28). It is entirely a spiritual operation.

The Anamnesis is adapted from the 1549 Anamnesis. The petition for acceptance of “this our sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise” has been omitted. The Anamnesis is followed by a petition for the benefits of Christ’s passion, adapted from the 1549 petition. The petition for worthy reception has been omitted and the oblation of the Church moved to just before the doxology. The oblation of the Church appears to have been added as an afterthought. The petition for union with Christ has been appended to the petition for the benefits of Christ’s passion. The 1549 Anamnesis has no oblation of the bread and wine. With the omission of the petition for acceptance of “this our sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise” the Prayer of Consecration does not admit any notion of eucharistic sacrifice other the Church’s oblation of “ourselves, our souls and bodies.” This oblation, however, does shift the focus of the prayer from what God has done for us—Christ’s offering of himself on the cross for the sins of the whole world—to what we are doing for God—offering our selves, our souls and bodies. The oblation of the Church is more appropriately placed after the meal in which we commemorate Christ’s atoning sacrifice and in which our faith in Christ is strengthened, enlivened, and confirmed.

A Memorial Acclamation, taken from the rites of the Eastern Church, follows the Anamnesis:

Christ has died.
Christ is risen.
Christ will come again.

If the bread is not broken during the Words of Institution, the Breaking of the Bread follows the Lord’s Prayer. It may be followed by a Fraction Anthem that can be interpreted as giving expression to the Lambeth and Medieval doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice.

The Communion Rite of The Holy Communion, Short Form, is identical to that of The Holy Communion, Long Form. It contains a number of elements that imply a mutation of the elements and affirm a substantive (or corporal) presence of the Christ’s Body and Blood in the consecrated bread and wine. They include two optional Invitations to Communion that can be used to encourage the adoration of the sacramental species.

The Holy Communion, Short Form, like The Holy Communion, Long Form, does not conform to the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. In the rite the idea of the Eucharist as a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice or a participation in Christ’s ongoing sacrificial activity is muted but not entirely absent. Its view of the eucharistic presence is realist: Christ is substantively (or corporally) present in or under the forms of bread and wine.

The General Instructions that follow The Holy Communion, Short Form, state:

The Holy Communion, Long Form, is intended for use at the principal service(s) on the Lord’s Day and for other major celebrations. The Holy Communion, Short Form, is intended for use at other times.

Presumably, the rite is intended for use at weekday celebrations of the Holy Communion. The rite is not simpler or less formal than The Holy Communion, Long Form. It contains the same basic parts as the Long Form. A number of its prayers are shorter in length. It has only one Post-Communion Prayer. It is not particularly suitable for informal occasions such as home Eucharists. The Holy Communion, Long Form, and The Holy Communion, Short Form, could have been combined into a single rite with more optional elements.

The ACNA website’s Liturgy page contains a FAQ section. Bishop William Thompson, who chaired the Liturgy and Common Worship Task Force, wrote this section. It is full of erroneous and misleading statements. For example:

Long form of the Prayer of Consecration: Where does this form of the prayer come from?

This form follows the 1928 American BCP and the 1962 Canadian BCP, both of which closely conform to the 1662 BCP.

Invocation: Why include the invocation of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis) in the prayer, and why in the placement represented here?

The prayer reflects the Trinitarian nature of the Deity, and acknowledges that all sanctifying action is by God's Spirit. The invocation is upon both the elements and the people. The placement is true to Cranmerian form and the ancient Sarum usage.

The 1928 American Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, while they may share a number of texts with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, do NOT closely conform to 1662 Prayer Book in doctrine or liturgical usages. The Epiclesis in The Holy Communion, Long Form, contains NO invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the people, only upon the bread and wine. Archbishop Cranmer omitted the invocation of the Holy Spirit and Word upon the bread and wine from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, which represents his mature thinking. It implied a mutation of the elements and affirmed a substantive (or corporal) presence of Christ’s Body and Blood. The Bible also does not support the practice of blessing inanimate objects. The practice in the Bible is to bless people, not things. If you examine the eucharistic prayers in use in a number of the more recent Anglican service books from Anglican provinces that accept the authority of the Bible and the Anglican formularies, they avoid the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine. For example, the eucharistic prayer in the Anglican Church of Kenya’s Our Modern Services (2002, 2003):

Pour your refreshing Spirit upon us as we remember him in the way he commanded, through these gifts of your creation

The Canon of the Medieval Sarum rite has no epiclesis in the Eastern sense, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine.

On the Liturgy page is also a section titled “Reception Process”:

With the exception of The Ordinal, which has been authorized and adopted, and is The Ordinal of the Province, the other materials offered in Texts for Common Prayersare “working texts” approved for use by the College of Bishops. These working texts are not yet finalized, awaiting response from the experience of their wide use in the Church. With that in mind, these rites are commended as appropriate forms for worship in the present season. The Archbishop’s instruction to the Liturgy and Common Worship Task Force was the production of rites that were “so faithful and attractive that the Church would want to use them.” The hope in making Texts for Common Prayers available now is to give evidence that the assignment is well underway, and to invite the whole Body of Christ into the process of receiving and perfecting. Responses can be sent via email to: liturgytaskforce@anglicanchurch.net

Faithful to what? Attractive to whom? If the rites of a church are not faithful to the teaching of the Bible and in the case of a purported Anglican province, to the doctrine of the Anglican formularies, they should not be used no matter how attractive they may be to some people. The rites of the Anglican Church in North America must have more than a pleasing appearance. They must be more than likeable. They must serve the gospel. They must enable the Anglican Church in North America, its congregations, and its clergy to faithfully carry out the great commission.

At this stage North American Anglicans who are genuinely committed to the great commission and to the Bible, the Anglican formularies, and the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration need to share their concerns not only with the Liturgy and Common Prayer Task Force, but also their bishops and the College of Bishops. They need to take steps to ensure that their concerns are heard and acted upon. If the leaders of the Anglican Church in North turn a deaf ear to them and do nothing or make only superficial, cosmetic changes in the rites, they need to reappraise and rethink their options. When Jesus sent out his disciples to proclaim the good news of the kingdom, he instructed them that if a town or village did not welcome them, they should shake the dust off their feet and go elsewhere. The time may be near for these North American Anglicans to move on, to join a church planting network that shares their commitment, or to start such a network.