The Eucharistic Doctrine of Texts for Common Prayer: An Analysis

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.

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:

“….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.