Why Was the Roman Position for the Epiclesis Adopted in the ACNA Eucharist Prayers?

By Robin G. Jordan

While searching for late Peter Toon’s article, “The Anglican Continuum—Some Thoughts for Its Renewal” on the Internet, I came across Fritz Bauerschmidt’s article, “The Eucharistic Rite of the Anglican Church of North America,” on the Roman Catholic blog, Pray Tell. The title of the article piqued my curiosity. I am interested in how other traditions view the rites and services of the 2019 Proposed Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church in North America since their views are very revealing into the way they understand the doctrine of these rites and services. What particular caught my attention was the final paragraph of the article.

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.

As I have written elsewhere, the adoption of the Roman position for the epiclesis does set the proposed book apart from previous American Prayer Books but not entirely as one comment pointed out. Eucharistic Prayer C of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, Howard Galley’s contribution to that Prayer Book, also adopts the Roman position for the epiclesis. In the comment thread that followed the article a number readers speculated on why the Roman position was adopted for the epiclesis in the ACNA Eucharistic Prayers.

Arnold Klukas, who is a retired professor of liturgics and ascetical theology at Nashotah House and is a member of the Central Committee of the ACNA’s Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force offered this explanation:

As I am the person who wrote the first drafts for all the ACNA Eucharists, I might be able to explain why the epiclesis is at the beginning of the Canon. The ACNA is made up of both Canadian and American congregations, and the initial charter determined that the 1662 BCP was the normative standard of both doctrine and worship. Within the ACNA are Anglo-Catholics [of which I am one], Evangelicals and some charismatics who have discovered their need for tradition and a set liturgy. The Canadian Evangelicals [mostly trained at Wycliffe Hall in Toronto] are comparable to their British brethren who are suspicious of ‘magic’ and ‘ritual’ and have an antipathy to things “american.” The use of the non-juror epiclesis brought to the newly-established Episcopal church by bishop Seabury was an affront to them, and an unknown entity to the charismatics. indeed most of the clergy who left from TEC are too young to know the 1928 BCP or the authentic BCP tradition. The Canadians would not allow the 1928 American canon to be the model for the new rites. The Church of England in Common Worship also had to deal with Evangelicals who wanted to avoid the epiclesis and resolved it by placing it where Cranmer had done in the 1549 Canon. If we were to have an epiclesis it could only go at the beginning–even so, some want to avoid it as they recite the liturgy.

The explanation appeared to satisfy the readers who had posted comments and no further comments were posted. I, on the other hand, found Dr. Klukas’s explanation most unsatisfactory. I thought that it was quite misleading. Since the comment thread was six years old, I saw no point to posting a response to Dr. Klukas’ comment. I decided to write an article explaining why I think that his explanation is misleading.

Dr. Klukas does not identify what “initial charter” recognized the 1662 Prayer Book as “the normative standard of both doctrine and worship” he is referring to in his comment. If he is referring to the ACNA Fundamental Declarations, they recognize the 1669 Prayer Book “as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.” They do not recognize the 1662 Prayer Book as the authoritative standard of doctrine and practice for the province. In their choice of language they suggest that the 1662 Prayer Book is one of a number of standards of doctrine and discipline that Anglicans recognize. The 1662 Prayer Book is also just one of a number of liturgical books that the ACNA recognizes as “the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.” The Fundamental Declartions do not identify the other books and they do not exclude from the list the pre-Reformation medieval service books.

If Dr. Klakas is referring to the earlier statements that the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force issued, they take an ambivalent view of the 1662 Prayer Book. Rather they treat the 1549 Prayer Book as if it is a classical formulary of the Anglican Church.

Dr. Klukas’ reference to Canadian Evangelicals and their British brethren’s purported “antipathy to things ‘American’” appears intended to appeal to the prejudices of his American readers rather to serve as a part of a credible explanation of why the Roman position was adopted for the epiclesis in the ACNA Eucharistic Prayers. One is led to suspect that it may be expressive of his own prejudices toward Anglican Evangelicals.

As for the epiclesis of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office offending the Canadian Evangelicals, it must be pointed out that Archbishop Thomas Cranmer abandoned the Eastern form of epiclesis in the reformed 1552 Prayer Book, which represents his mature thinking and not the 1549 Prayer Book. The reasons that Cranmer abandoned the Eastern form of epiclesis were two-fold.

First, it suggested a change or becoming of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Cranmer understood Christ to be speaking figuratively when he referred to the bread as his body and the contents of cup as his blood. Christ had also referred to the contents of the cup as “the fruit of the vine” after he referred to it as his blood. This reference was evidence that Christ himself understood that the bread and wine had undergone no change. The bread had remained bread and wine had remained wine.

Second, nowhere did Cranmer find in the Scriptures any reference to the invocation of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon immaterial objects. What he did find was several references to the invocation of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon people. Consequently, he concluded that the use of the Eastern form of epiclesis was unscriptural. It was contrary to God’s Word.

The Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book adopt the same position as Cranmer. The Thirty-Nine Articles reject the doctrine of transubstantiation on Scriptural grounds and by implication the doctrine of consubstantiation. The Declaration on Kneeling of the 1662 Prayer Book takes the position that Christ is not substantively present in the consecrated elements. The consecrated elements remain bread and wine. The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Order for the Communion of the Sick and the Catechism of the 1662 Prayer Book take the position that “the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.”

The doctrine of the 1662 Prayer Book, however, is not that the Lord’s Supper is a bare memorial. Its doctrine must be interpreted in accordance with the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The Articles tell us that the sacraments are “sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will toward us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.” They further tell us that “the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.” This is also the position of the 1662 Prayer Book.

The 1662 Prayer of Consecration has an epiclesis as do the 1552, 1559, and 1604 Prayer of Consecration. An epiclesis in its primitive sense is simply a petition to God. The 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayers of Consecration share the same epiclesis.

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….

This epiclesis leaves entirely to God how he will accomplish the miracle of the Lord’s Supper. It does not presume to tell God how to go about it. It simply asks God that a gathering of faithful believers who are sharing bread and wine in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross will be recipients of the benefits of that sacrifice.

While the 1789 General Convention of the fledgling Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA adopted the Prayer of Consecration from the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office at the urging of Bishop Samuel Seabury and the New England dioceses, it made a number of changes to that prayer. The convention took what was an unscriptural prayer, and made it as scriptural as possible. In this regard it was only partly successful since it retained the Eastern form of epiclesis. The wording of the epiclesis was altered to avoid the implication that the invocation of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine made or changed them into the Body and Blood of Christ. The convention also restored the words, “…who made there…” to the Commemoration of Christ’s Sacrifice. The Scottish Non-Juror version of the prayer omitted these words since its compilers believed that Christ offered himself as an oblation for the sins of the world at the Last Supper and not on the cross.

When the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book was compiled Anglo-Catholics wanted to add an Eastern form of epiclesis to the Prayer of Consecration like the one in the partially-reformed 1549 Prayer Book, the 1928 American Prayer Book, the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, and the 1929 Scottish Prayer and to make other changes to the Prayer of Consecration. Evangelicals, on the other hand, wanted to retain the 1662 Prayer of Consecration. A compromise was reached. The epiclesis of the 1662 Prayer of Consecration was retained. However, an anamnesis-oblation was added after the words of institution.

Wherefore, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, we thy humble servants, with all thy holy Church, remembering the precious death of thy beloved Son, his mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension, and looking for his coming again in glory, do make before thee, in this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation, the memorial which he hath commanded; And we entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion; And we pray that by the power of thy Holy Spirit, all we who are partakers of this holy Communion may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction; through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end.

This anamnesis-oblation contained this petition, “And we pray that by the power of thy Holy Spirit, all we who are partakers of this holy Communion may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction….”

A similar compromise may be found in the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer in The Order for Holy Communion Rite A in The Church of England’s Alternative Service Book 1980. In this prayer as in the other eucharistic prayers in that book, the epiclesis occupies the Roman position. An anamnesis-oblation has been added to all the prayers. In the First, Second, and Third Eucharistic Prayers the epiclesis is “…grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit these gifts of bread and wine may be for us his body and blood” or a variation of this epiclesis. The exception is the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer. Its epiclesis is as follows:

Hear us, merciful Father, we humbly pray, and grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit we who receive these gifts of your creation, this bread and this wine, according to your Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of the death that he suffered, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood.

The epiclesis of the First Eucharistic Prayer of The Order for Holy Communion Rite B in the Alternative Service Book 1980 uses similar wording but employs traditional English. Like the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer of Rite A it is also a compromise. The epiclesis of the Second Eucharistic Prayer in Rite B, on the other hand, uses similar wording to the epiclesis of the First, Second, and Third Eucharistic Prayers in Rite A, employing traditional English. What is notable about the variations of the wording, “…be for us his body and blood” is that the original wording comes from the 1549 canon,”…may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ…,” and a variation of this wording is also used in Eucharistic Prayer II in Rite I of the 1979 Prayer Book.

The reason that Cranmer did not use this wording from the 1549 Canon in the 1552 Prayer Book was because he concluded that it could be interpreted to support the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Bishop Stephen Gardiner who was a staunch Roman Catholic had no problem with the wording of the 1549 Canon, claiming that it supported not only the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation but also the Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice.

The reason that I have drawn attention to these compromises and when they were made is that they show that the claims which Dr. Klukas makes are inaccurate if not untrue. While the charismatics who migrated to the Anglican Church in North America from the convergence churches may not have been acquainted with the 1928 Prayer Book, they would have had some exposure to the Holy Eucharist Rite I. Eucharistic Prayer I of that rite is modeled upon the 1928 Prayer of Consecration The 1979 Prayer Book was widely-used in the convergence churches. Eucharist Prayer A in Holy Eucharist Rite II is also a short, modern adaption of the Prayers of Consecration in the previous American Prayer Books and Eucharistic Prayer I of Rite I.

This would also be true for younger clergy who left the Episcopal Church. If they studied the history of the American Prayer Book in seminary, they would have at least a passing acquaintance with the 1928 Prayer Book and the two major Prayer Book traditions—the English and the Scottish-American.

When Dr. Klukas makes reference to “the Prayer Book tradition,” he does not identify which tradition that he is referring to. We are left to draw our own conclusions.

Dr. Klukas does not mention the Reformed Episcopal Church which has permitted the use of the 1928 Prayer Book in its churches for a number of years and has compiled two Prayer Books that incorporate rites and services from the 1928 Prayer Book. I am aware of other ACNA churches that also use the 1928 Prayer Book. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), jointly produced by the Anglican Mission in America and The Prayer Book Society of the USA, includes a modern English version of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration.

Dr. Klukas’ claim simply does not ring true. Among the ACNA’ers who are involved in the Ancient-Future Church movement, one segment is drawn to Eastern Orthodox doctrine and practice. A Eucharistic Prayer that incorporates features from the prayers of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is going to hold more appeal to this segment than a prayer modeled upon the Roman Canon.

At the same time it is quite reasonable for the Canadians to object to the 1928 Prayer of Consecration as the model for the new rites. The Anglican Church in North America is supposed to be a partnership between the clergy and congregations that left the Anglican Church of Canada north of the 39th parallel and the clergy and congregations that left the Episcopal Church south of that parallel. In a partnership each partner has a say in the decisions that affect the partnership. Otherwise, it is not a partnership. From the Canadian perspective the 1662 Prayer of Consecration and the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration would also serve as suitable models for the new rites. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) incorporated all three prayers. Unfortunately it made alterations and additions to them, which changed their doctrine.

The Anglican Church in North America is also supposed to be GAFCON in North America. This means that the province should embody the tenets of orthodoxy identified in the Jerusalem Declaration. Its liturgy should be in line with the doctrinal and worship principles laid out in the Thirty-Nine Articles. It should be an expression of the doctrine of the 1662 Prayer Book. It should respect the liturgical usages of the 1662 Prayer Book. It is entirely reasonable for members of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to expect that any liturgy which the ACNA adopts meets these standards. Among the members of the FCA are Canadian and British Evangelicals.

It is utterly false as Dr. Klukas claims that The Church of England in dealing with Evangelicals who wanted to avoid the epiclesis, as he puts it, resolved the issue by placing the epiclesis in Common Worship where Cranmer had placed in the 1549 Canon. As we have seen from the Alternative Service Book 1980, it occupied that position in all the Eucharistic Prayers in that book. This was not as a result of a compromise with the Evangelicals. It occupies that position in the 1662 Prayer of Consecration—after the Commemoration of Christ’s Sacrifice and before the words of institution. The two superannuated Scottish Non-Juror bishops who compiled the 1764 Scottish Non-Jurors Communion Office moved it to the Eastern position—after the words of institution. The Non-Jurors incorporated a number of Eastern forms into their liturgies.

With the exception of the Order of the Confirmation Common Worship authorizes the use of all the rites and services of the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, including An Alternative Order of Ministration of Holy Communion. In the Prayer of Consecration of the Alternative Order of Communion the epiclesis, which modeled even more closely upon those of the Eastern Orthodox Churches than the 1549 Canon and the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration, is placed in the Eastern position!

The placement of the epiclesis in the Roman position and use of an Eastern form of epiclesis rather than one of the other options that I have described was not something that was forced upon the Dr. Klukas or the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force. It was their decision. The fact that the Anglican Network in Canada’s Reformed Anglican Eucharistic Rite was not given a prominent place in the 2019 Proposed ACNA Prayer Book shows that it was the case. The task force has in compiling rites and services for the Anglican Church in North America consistently moved in one direction—away from historic Anglicanism and toward an unreformed form of Catholicism. Dr. Klukas may write what he wishes but this movement is clearly evident in the rites and services themselves.

In his article “The Roman and Anglican Way Contrasted: Liturgy Expressing Doctrine, but, Which Doctrine?” the late Dr. Peter Toon draws attention to the observation that while the Roman Catholic Church has managed to revise its liturgies without altering its beliefs, Anglicans have used liturgical revision as a subterfuge in order to change the beliefs of the Anglican Church. Dr. Toon acknowledges that that this observation, while it is truth, is not the whole truth, suggesting some deceit may have been involved in the process but  was not systemic.

It may be more accurate to say that Anglicans have seen liturgical revision as an opportunity to change the doctrine of the Anglican Church. In any event they have been careless of preserving historic Anglican beliefs and practices. This was true in the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA in the 1920s and the 1960s and 1970s. It was also true in the Church of England in the 1990s. It is true in the Anglican Church in North America in the first two decades of the twenty-first century.