What ‘s Wrong with the New ACNA Eucharistic Rites? (Part 1)

By Robin G. Jordan

A form of service may have Scriptural content, yet not be Scriptural. This is a major weakness of the eucharistic rites in the Episcopal Church’s 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books. The eucharistic rites in the Anglican Church in North America’s Texts for Common Prayer follow in their footsteps. They contain texts from the Scriptures and prayers reflecting Scriptural truths and principles. Yet at the same time they contain elements that textually express doctrine with no basis in Scripture or which through how and where they are used in the rites give liturgical expression to doctrine contrary to the Word of God.

Such elements must be considered in determining the extent to which the doctrine stated or implied in the rites is consistent with the Scriptures. This includes optional elements.

In Anglican provinces in which a number of disparate theologies are represented, and in which a policy of recognizing a broad range of divergent opinions has been adopted, deliberately ambiguous language has been employed in the eucharistic rites in more recent service books to accommodate these views. Alternately a service book may have several eucharistic rites, each with a different eucharistic theology.

Both approaches have been tried in the Anglican Church of Australia. The problem with these approaches is that the resulting service book may be interpreted to express or may actually express a eucharistic theology that is unacceptable to one or more of the groups that are expected to use the service book.

In recognition of this problem the Anglican Church of Australia has adopted a third approach: individual dioceses may adopt their own service books.

The Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal are the official doctrinal and worship standards of the Anglican Church of Australia. Unfortunately these approaches to prayer book revision weakens the authority of the Anglican formularies in the ACA, except where the language of a particular rite in the service book expresses the doctrine of the formularies or a diocesan service book conforms to that doctrine.

On the other hand, these approaches are preferable to a service book that denies in its eucharistic rites the authority of the Anglican formularies altogether. Texts for Common Prayer is such a service book.

The purpose of this two-part article is to help readers have a clearer understanding of the problem areas and weaknesses of the eucharistic rites in Texts for Common Prayer. The focus of the first part of this article will be the eucharistic prayers, the fraction, and the communion rite of these rites.

Any eucharistic prayer modeled upon the eucharistic prayer in the 1764 Scottish Non Juror Communion Office gives liturgical expression to the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice of that prayer. This includes the eucharistic prayer in the 1928 Communion Office, Eucharistic Prayer I in the 1979 Holy Eucharist, Rite One, and Eucharistic Prayer A in the 1979 Holy Eucharist, Rite Two.

Henry Broxap in The Later Non-Jurors cites Bishop Thomas Deacon’s description of the doctrinal view given expression in the 1764 Scottish Non Juror Prayer of Consecration:

The priest…does as Christ did...he next repeats our Saviour’s powerful words “This is my Body,” “This is my Blood” over the Bread and Cup. The effect of the words is that the Bread and Cup are made authoritative Representations or symbols of Christ’s crucified Body and of His Blood shed; and in consequence they are in a capacity of being offered to God as the great Christian Sacrifice....God accepts the Sacrifice and returns it to us again to feast upon, in order that we may be thereby partakers of all the benefits of our Saviour’s Death and Passion. The Bread and Cup become capable of conferring these benefits on the priest praying to God the Father to send the Holy’ Spirit upon them. The Bread and Cup are thereby made the Spiritual, Life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, in Power and Virtue.

Brian Douglas further examines the eucharistic theology of the Scottish Liturgy of 1764 on his website Anglican Eucharistic Theology.

The eucharistic prayer used in the first American Communion Office is a revision of the 1764 Scottish Non Juror Prayer of Consecration. Certain objectionable features were eliminated. The eucharistic prayer used in the 1928 Communion Office is essentially the eucharistic prayer of the 1789 Communion Office with one major change. The Prayer of Humble Access was removed from its 1789 position after the Sanctus and placed in the 1549 position after the Lord’s Prayer. The latter was also moved from its 1789 position after the distribution of Communion to the 1549 position after the Canon.

The eucharistic prayer used in the Long Form in Texts for Common Prayer is a contemporary language version of the eucharistic prayer of the 1928 Communion Office but this time with three major changes. The first major change is that the salutation “The Lord be with you; and with your spirit” is added to the beginning of the Sursum Corda, or Preface Dialogue. The ACNA’s liturgical commission attributes this change to the influence of the late Peter Toon.

In Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (2006) and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) Toon added this particular salutation to the Sursum Corda. Toon described Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 as a contemporary language version of the services of the 1662 Prayer Book. This description was inaccurate as Toon made a number of changes in the services, including the addition of the salutation at the beginning of the Sursum Corda, and in the process departed from the doctrine and liturgical usages of the 1662 Prayer Book.

In the Introduction to the Order for the Holy Communion in Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, Toon gives his rationale for the addition of the salutation to the beginning of the Preface Dialogue:

...the verbal exchange between Minister and congregation – “The Lord be with you” “And with your spirit” – is not a reeting as such. It is more like a prayer, where the presence of the Lord with his people is affirmed by the Minister, and in turn the people pray that the spiritual gift given to him in ordination will be quickened, so that the Celebration shall be in spirit and in truth.

This is not what Christ meant when he said that God is seeking to worship him a people who will worship him in spirit and truth (John 4:21-24). He was not referring to any spiritual gift given a priest in ordination.

Toon seems to have accepted the Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic notion that the salutation is a prayer for the quickening of the special grace that Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics believe the imposition of episcopal hands confer upon the ordinand at ordination. This special grace, they believe, enables the priest to make or change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharist and to infuse the water in the font with spiritual regenerative powers at Baptism. This belief is associated with the Medieval Catholic and present day Roman Catholic doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice, Transubstantiation, and baptismal regeneration.

Archbishop Cranmer omitted the salutation from 1552 Communion Service due to its association with this particular belief and the doctrines with which the belief is associated. The salutation is also omitted from the 1662 Communion Service.

The ACNA’s liturgical commission gives the appearance of having used Toon’ seeming acceptance of this Anglo-Catholic – Roman Catholic notion to provide a plausible rationale for their addition of the salutation to the beginning of the Sursum Corda and elsewhere in the eucharistic rites in Texts for Common Prayer. Toon’s opinions, even when mistaken, carry weight with the clergy and members of the Anglican Church in North America..

The second major change in the 1928 eucharist prayer made by the ACNA’s liturgical commission is the addition of the Benedictus to the Sanctus. The Benedictus with its implication of a substantive presence of Christ’s body and blood in or under the forms of bread and wine after the consecration of the eucharistic elements was omitted from the 1552 Prayer Book for this reason. It was also omitted from the 1662 Prayer Book for the same reason.

The salutation is also added to the beginning of the Preface Dialogue in the Short Form; and the Benedictus to the Sanctus in that form.

It should be note that the salutation “The Lord be with you” “And with your spirit” is used at the beginning of the Sursum Corda in the new English translation of The Roman Missal. The text of the Sanctus-Benedictus used in Texts for Common Prayer is the same text used in the 1979 Prayer Book, The Roman Missal, and The Book of Divine Worship. The Book of Divine Worship is used by the Anglican Use churches in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.

Frank Bauerschmidt on the Roman Catholic website Pray Tell: Worship, Wit & Wisdom finds the third major change quite remarkable:

One curiosity is the presence of the epiclesis in the Roman position, before the words of institution. While this was the position of the epiclesis in the first (1549) Book of Common Prayer and has re-appeared in this spot in some modern Anglican rites in other parts of the world, no North American Anglican liturgy has ever had an epiclesis here.

In the same post Bauerschmidt refers to the Anglican Church in North America as “the other refuge for disaffected Episcopalians in North America,” alluding to the Anglican Ordinariate.

With these changes the ACNA’s liturgical commission has moved the eucharistic theology of Texts for Common Prayer closer to the eucharistic theology of The Roman Missal.

The epiclesis used in the Long Form is the 1789 epiclesis. It is a compromise between the 1662 and 1764 wording. It tries to avoid the implication that the invocation of the Word and the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine make or change them into the body and blood of Christ. This works as long as the other parts of the service do not imply that this invocation makes or changes the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. Since the adoption of the 1928 Prayer Book the Communion Rite in the American Prayer Book has implied that this happens. It is certainly what the Communion Rite in both forms in Texts for Common Prayer implies.

Stephen Gardiner and Martin Bucer would point out this implication of the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine to Archbishop Cranmer. Gardiner was Roman Catholic in its theological outlook; Bucer was Reformed. Bucer in his Censura would also point out that invoking the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine was not Scriptural. Cranmer had already come to the same conclusions. In the 1552 Book of Common Prayer he substitutes for the Eastern epiclesis of the 1549 Prayer Book this petition:

Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood….

The petition, itself an epiclesis, or appeal to God, conforms to the teaching of the Scriptures. In Corinthian 10: 15-16 Paul states the cup which we use in the Lord’s Supper and for which we give thanks God, when we drink from it, we are partaking in the blood of Christ. The bread we break, when eat it, we are partaking in the body of Christ. In this passage Paul is not inferring that we actually drink and eat Christ’s natural corporal blood and body but that we participate in the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross. This is the eucharistic doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

The placement of the 1789 epiclesis in the Roman position in the Long Form and the abbreviated 1789 epiclesis in the same position in the Short Form in Texts for Common Prayer strengthens the implication that the bread and wine are made or changed into the body and blood of Christ. Christ’s body and blood is substantially present in or under the forms of bread and wine. This is the eucharistic theology of The Roman Missal.

While the language of oblation associated with the act of offering the consecrated bread and wine to God is muted in the Long Form and omitted in the Short Form, both forms contain elements that give liturgical expression to the Medieval Catholic and present day Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice and the Lambeth doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice. Both doctrines are contrary to the Scriptures. They are also not agreeable to the doctrine of the Anglican formularies. See my article, Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Bible, and the Anglican Formularies.

While it may not use the exact same phrasing as another eucharistic prayer, a eucharistic prayer may resemble that prayer in that it contains similar elements to the prayer. In this sense the eucharistic prayer used in the Short Form bears some resemblance to Eucharistic Prayer II in Rite Two in The Book of Divine Worship.

Where the two prayers differ is that Eucharistic Prayer II uses strong language of oblation in association with the offering of the consecrated bread and wine to God and contains supplications for the Church. In the Short Form eucharistic prayer the Church offers itself as a living sacrifice. This is the only language of offering in the prayer other than the reference to Christ’s offering of himself on the cross in what the ACNA’s liturgical commission labels “The Prayer of Consecration,” following Medieval practice. As I note elsewhere, this element appears to have been added as an afterthought. It seems out of place in the prayer.

When the text of a eucharitic prayer does not give liturgical expression to a particular doctrine, a priest who subscribes to that doctrine may use ceremonial with that prayer, which does give liturgical expression to the doctrine. As a eucharistic prayer the Short Form eucharistic prayer lends itself to the ceremonial of The Roman Missal and The Book of Divine Worship. With this ceremonial the priest can compensate for the absence of an offering of the consecrated bread and wine to God in the anamnesis. The rubrics of Texts for Common Prayer do not prohibit the use of this ceremonial with the eucharistic prayers in both forms. This is itself another weakness of Texts for Common Prayer.

Although the use of a text may be optional, the inclusion of the text in a form of service affects the doctrine of the form of service. At the Fraction in both forms of the eucharistic rites in Texts for Common Prayer the text, “[Allelua] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast [Alleluia],” may be used after the breaking of the consecrated bread if the bread is broken after the Lord’s Prayer. This use of this text at this point in the rite gives liturgical expression to the Medieval Catholic and present day Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. It also gives liturgical expression to the Lambeth doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice as Bishop William Thompson, chairman of the ACNA’s liturgical commission, draws to our attention in the FAQ section on the ACNA website’s Liturgy page. As I have previously noted, both doctrines are contrary to the Word of God and are not agreeable to the doctrine of the Anglican formularies.

An element, when it is used in conjunction with a particular set of elements at a particular place in a service, may give liturgical expression to doctrine that it would not give if it was used by itself or in conjunction with a different set of elements at a different place in the service. In the Communion Rite of the eucharistic rites of Texts for Common Worship the Lord’s Prayer, the Prayer for Humble Access, and the Agnus Die follow the eucharistic prayer and precede the distribution of Communion. In this position they imply a substantive presence of Christ’s body and blood in or under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine. They also greatly weaken the attempt of the 1789 epiclesis to avoid this implication.

A text may come from the Scriptures, yet not be used in a manner agreeable to or consistent with Scripture. The text, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world…” in the Communion Rite of the new ACNA eucharistic rites comes from John 1:29 and Revelation 19:9. It is used as an Invitation to Communion in the Communion Rite of various Anglican missals, The Roman Missal, and The Book of Divine Worship, as well as Texts for Common Prayer.

The rubrics of The Book of Divine Worship state:

Facing the People, and showing the Chalice and Host, the Celebrant may say the following Invitation:

The Gifts of God for the People of God.
Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.

The Celebrant may do the same thing in the eucharistic rites in Texts for Common Prayer. In the churches using the various Anglican missals, The Roman Missal and The Book of Divine Worship the priest shows the sacramental species to the communicants so that they can adore them.

From the perspective of the Bible the adoration of the creature in place of the Creator is idolatry of the worst kind. Articles 25 and 28 condemn the practice of adoring the sacramental species as well as the practice of showing the sacramental species to the people for adoration:

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about… (Article 25).

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped (Article 28).

The Declaration on Kneeling at the end of the 1662 Communion Service condemns the practice of adoring the sacramental species:

...no adoration…ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine 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 the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.

The text, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world…,” with its history of misuse in this manner should not have been included in the Communion Rite of the new ACNA eucharistic rites even for optional use. It encourages a practice that is contrary to the Scriptures and which is far from agreeable to the doctrine of the Anglican formularies.

As can be seen from the Communion Rite in The Book of Divine Worship, the text, “The gifts of God for the people of God…,” can be put to the same use. In the Eastern Church it is used in this manner. It also should not have been included in the Communion Rite of the new ACNA eucharistic rites for the same reason.

The rubrics in the Communion Rite in both forms permit the Celebrant to “offer” a Post-Communion Sentence at the conclusion of the distribution of Communion. What Post-Communion Sentence the Celebrant offers is left to his discretion, and may be used to reinforce the eucharistic doctrine of the two forms. No Post-Communion Sentences are provided for the use of the Celebrant.

The General Instructions following the Long Form permit the reservation of the consecrated bread and wine "for future reception in a safe place set aside for that purpose" and, in the absence of a priest, the authorization of a deacon by the bishop to distribute the Holy Communion from consecrated bread and wine. They do not disallow the practice of adoration of the reserved sacrament.

Both the practice of reserving the sacrament for future reception and the practice of a deacon distributing Holy Communion from the reserved sacrament presume a substantive presence of Christ's body and blood in the consecrated bread and wine and give liturgical expression to a particular doctrine of eucharistic presence, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, a doctrine associated with the Roman Catholic Church and condemned by Article 28.

As noted earlier in this article, Article 28 declares that Christ did not ordain the practices of reserving the sacrament and adoring the reserved sacrament. The 1662 Declaration on Kneeling denies any substantive presence of Christ's body and blood in the consecrated bread and wine.

The rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service direct that any consecrated bread and wine that remains after the Communion should be reverently consumed after the Blessing. The Restoration bishops took the position that bread and wine that had been used for sacramental purposes should be disposed of in a reverent manner and not returned to profane use.

Whatever the case the ACNA’s liturgical commission may make for producing and the ACNA’s bishops for adopting eucharistic rites that are a rejection of the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the doctrine and liturgical usages of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, they are taking an opposing position to the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and its call to return to the Bible and the Anglican formularies. The Jerusalem Statement and Declaration and its official commentary clearly emphasize the central place of the Bible and the Anglican formularies in historic Anglicanism and the pressing need for the restoration of the Bible and the Anglican formularies to that place in the contemporary Anglican Church.

The eucharistic rites in Texts for Common Prayer are not rites that Anglicans who subscribe to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican formularies can use without compromising their own beliefs. In using these rites they will be affirming and transmitting beliefs that conflict with their own.