By Robin G. Jordan
Very early in its history with the adaptation of a revision of
the 1764 Scottish Usager Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration the Episcopal Church
began to diverge in its eucharistic doctrine from that of the Anglican formularies.
Among the beliefs of the Scottish Usager Non-Jurors was the belief that the Eucharist
was a reiteration or representation of Christ’s offering of himself for the
sins of the world, which they believed did not take place on the cross but
occurred at the Last Supper. Christ only died on the cross. While the revision
omitted a number of the more radical features of that Consecration-Prayer, it
retained the oblation of the bread and wine after the Words of Institution, the
invocation of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine, and the
oblation of the communicants’ selves, and was open to interpretation as
teaching a doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. The Usager Scottish Non-Jurors
believed that the Words of Institution was the moment of consecration in the
Consecration-Prayer and the priest in offering the bread and wine after the
Words of Institution was offering the sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood to
God. The invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the consecrated bread and wine was
supplemental.
The divergence of the Episcopal Church’s eucharistic
doctrine from that of the Anglican formularies became more pronounced with the
1928 and 1979 revisions of the American Prayer Book. The 1928 revision would
add an oblation of the bread and wine at the offertory, what is known as the
Lesser Oblation, and in doing so would clearly transform the oblation of the bread and
wine after the Words of Institution in the Prayer of Consecration into the
Greater Oblation. This change greatly weakened the argument of Low and Broad
Churchmen that the oblation of the bread and wine in the Consecration Prayer
was an offering of the unconsecrated elements. Anglo-Catholics interpreted the
oblation of the elements to be the offering of Christ substantively present in
the elements to God—the sacrifice of the Mass, and the Anglican missals used by
Anglo-Catholics to supplement the 1928 Prayer Book support this view.
The 1979 revision would favor the Lambeth doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, which postulates that the Eucharist is a participation in Christ’s purported ongoing sacrificial activity. The Post-Communion Prayers in that revision would make no distinction between the elements and the Christ’s Body and Blood, a distinction that the 1928 revision had preserved with the retention of the 1662 Prayer of Thanksgiving. The 1979 revision did not entirely exclude the medieval view of eucharistic sacrifice.
The 1979 revision would favor the Lambeth doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, which postulates that the Eucharist is a participation in Christ’s purported ongoing sacrificial activity. The Post-Communion Prayers in that revision would make no distinction between the elements and the Christ’s Body and Blood, a distinction that the 1928 revision had preserved with the retention of the 1662 Prayer of Thanksgiving. The 1979 revision did not entirely exclude the medieval view of eucharistic sacrifice.
With its two Forms of Holy Communion, Texts for Common Prayer has moved even further away from the
Biblical and Reformation doctrine of the the Anglican formularies. The Long
Form and the Short Form do not differ greatly in content and their doctrine is
identical. In this analysis we will be examining the Long Form, which the Texts for Common Prayer direct should be
used on Sundays and feast days.
1. The consecration in the Eucharistic Prayer in the Long Form
of Holy Communion in Texts for Common
Prayer consists of an invocation of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the
bread and wine and the Words of Institution. It occurs early in the Eucharistic
Prayer before the oblation of the elements. This means that the priest is offering
the consecrated elements. In Catholic theology he is not offering bread and
wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. The prayer does not describe the
consecrated elements as Christ’s Body and Blood at that point but uses more
muted language. However, the use of this kind of language does not affect the
doctrine expressed in this particular arrangement of elements in the Eucharist
Prayer.
2. Archbishop Cranmer dropped the invocation of the descent
of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine from the 1552 Prayer of Consecration
for two reasons: The practice was not consistent with what the Scriptures
taught. Nowhere in the Scriptures is the descent of the Holy Spirit invoked upon
inanimate objects. The invocation of the Holy Spirit’ descent upon the bread
and wine inferred that they underwent a change in their nature. While they
retained the appearance of bread and wine, they became the Body and Blood of
Christ. In other words, the practice gave expression to the medieval doctrine
of transubstantiation.
3. The drafters of the Long Form have added an oblation of
the consecrated elements to the Eucharistic Prayer, which Cranmer omitted from
the 1549 Canon. This oblation, known as the Greater Oblation, comes from the
Latin Mass, and in Catholic theology is understood to be the offering of Christ’s
sacrifice to God. Cranmer eliminated it from the 1549 Canon for this reason.
4. In the 1552 and 1662 Communion Services the distribution
of the communion elements immediately follows their setting apart for sacramental
use. The drafters of the Long Form have inserted a number of elements between
the Eucharistic Prayer and the distribution of the communion elements. Three of
these elements come from the 1549 Communion Service.
In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer moved the Lord’s
Prayer to after the distribution of the communion elements, inserted the Prayer
of Humble Access between the Sanctus and the Prayer of Consecration, and
dropped the Agnus Dei. He concluded that together they not only suggested that
the communion elements had undergone a change in substance and encouraged the medieval
practice of adoring the elements but also delayed the distribution of the
elements. A fourth element comes from the Roman Rite and the various rites
based on that rite. In the Roman Rite and the related rites the priest says
these words while showing the elements to the people for their adoration:
“Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins
of the world. Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the
Lamb.”
While the use of this text in the Long Form is optional, its
presence in the rite and how it is used must be considered in an analysis of
the over-all doctrine of the rite.
5. Cranmer also separated the oblation of ourselves from the
Prayer of Consecration in the 1552 Communion Service and moved it to a position
after the distribution of the communion elements. He did this to remove from
the 1552 Communion Service anything that remotely suggested that the Eucharist
is a sacrifice. In that position it serves as a fitting response to Christ’s
saving work on the cross commemorated and proclaimed in the Lord’s Supper, in
the sharing of the symbols and tokens of Christ’s body that was broken on the
cross and his blood that was shed.
6. The rubrics of the Long Form permit the omission of the
1552 words of distribution from the words of distribution. They do not,
however, permit the omission of the 1549 words of distribution. Cranmer substituted the 1552 words of distribution for the 1549 words of distribution because the latter
inferred that Christ was present in or under the forms of bread and wine. When
the two sets of words of distribution are used together, they do not convey
this inference.
7. The distribution of the communion elements in the Long
Form is followed by two Post-Communion Prayers. The 1552 and 1662 Prayer of
Thanksgiving clearly distinguishes between the communion elements and Christ’s
Body and Blood:
“ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank
thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these
holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of
thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ….”
On the other hand, the two Post-Communion Prayers do not
make this distinction. The first Post-Communion Prayer states:
Almighty and ever-living God, we thank you for feeding us,
in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and
Blood of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ
It follows the wording of the 1549 Post-Communion Prayer.
Cranmer would drop the phrase “in these holy mysteries” from the 1552 Prayer of
Thanksgiving and substitute the phrase, “…who have duly received these holy
mysteries….” This altered the meaning of the prayer. There was no inference
that “holy mysteries” and “spiritual food” of Christ’s Body and Blood were the
same. The second Post-Communion Prayer does the same thing as the first:
“Heavenly Father, we thank you for feeding us with the
spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of your Son our Savior Jesus
Christ….”
The inference is that Christ is present in or under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine.
8. The Exhortation printed after the Long Form includes this
statement:
“If you have come here today with a troubled conscience, and
you need help and counsel, come to me, or to some other priest, and confess
your sins; that you may receive godly counsel, direction, and absolution. To do
so will both satisfy your conscience and remove any scruples or doubt.”
This is a clear reference to auricular confession, which is not what the First Exhortation in the 1552-1662 Communion Service states:
This is a clear reference to auricular confession, which is not what the First Exhortation in the 1552-1662 Communion Service states:
“….let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned
Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy
Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel
and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and
doubtfulness.”
The absolution referred to in this Exhortation is the
assurances of God’s forgiveness of the repentant sinner that the minister shows
to those with troubled consciences from the Holy Scriptures, not priestly
absolution.
9. The General Instructions that follow the Long Form
include this statement:
“If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the
Communion, it may be reserved for future reception in a safe place set aside
for that purpose. Apart from that which is to be reserved, the Priest or
Deacon, and other communicants, shall reverently consume the remaining
consecrated Bread and Wine either after the Ministration of Communion or after
the Dismissal.”
The Declaration on Kneeling and the Thirty-Nine Articles (Article
28) prohibit the practice of reservation.
10. Both forms of Holy Communion in Texts for Common Prayer
omit the Declaration on Kneeling which points out that Christ is in heaven and
is not substantively present in or under the form of the communion elements.
This analysis shows that the eucharistic doctrine of the
Long Form is unreformed Catholic. The Anglican Church in North America’s College
of Bishops in endorsing Long Form have taken an unreformed Catholic position on
eucharistic presence and sacrifice.
My examination of the other rites that the College of
Bishops has endorsed to date shows that they are also unreformed Catholic in their
teaching and practices. For example, the preface to the rite of confirmation
takes the position that the rite is a sacrament instituted by the apostles—a view
which J. I. Packer and others have described as a “medieval mistake” and which
is associated with unreformed Catholic beliefs and thinking.
My examination of the catechism the College of Bishops has
endorsed further shows that it takes unreformed Catholic positions on a number
of key issues, for example, the order of salvation and the sacraments.
In endorsing Texts for
Common Prayer and To Be a Christian:
An Anglican Catechism the College of Bishops is promoting unreformed
Catholicism as the official belief system of the Anglican Church in North
America and is not making any room for the Biblical and Reformation beliefs and
convictions of historic Anglicanism in the ACNA.
No comments:
Post a Comment