Case Study 1.42 Catechisms Catechisms

The Reformation brought with it an insistence on religious instruction, which resulted in many new catechisms being written and used (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 249) as an educational tool and method of religious education for both adults and children alike. The word ‘catechism’ itself seems to have been current by the beginning of the sixteenth century with the first recorded use being in 1502, although the process of ‘catechesis’ was of a much more primitive origin, dating from at least the time of Augustine (Parker, 1966: 147). Stevenson (1912: 160) argues that prior to the Reformation there was no set form of Catechism in use in the English Church although various expositions of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments in common use, together with other Reformed catechisms, were in use. These included Marshall’s Primer (published in 1534), the Bishop’s Book of 1537, the King’s Book of 1543 and Calvin’s Geneva Catechism of 1541 (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 250). Injunctions issued by royal authority in 1536 (Gee and Hardy, 1896: 272) and 1538 (Gee and Hardy, 1896: 276), as well as in the reign of Edward VI, ordered that the Curate in each parish should instruct the people on the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed and the Ten Commandments (Procter and Frere, 1929: 599). The catechism became an important means of Christian education for use at the parish level, containing a concise summary of Christian belief. The Anglican Communion since that time seems to have had a continuous history of the use of catechisms for instruction in the faith (Hartin, 1988: 154). This case study will examine various catechisms in use in the Anglican Church since the time of the Reformation and the theology of the Eucharist expressed in these catechisms.

Cranmer had published a catechism in 1548, entitled Catechismus, That is to say, a short Instruction into Christian Religion for the singular commodity and profit of children and young people. Set forth by the most reverend father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury and in this case study known as the Catechism of 1548. Cranmer’s Catechism of 1548 was based on an earlier work of the German Reformer Osiander, published at Nuremberg in 1533 (MacCulloch, 1996: 71, 387) and, as the title indicates, it was intended for the purposes of educating the young in the Christian religion. Cranmer used a Latin version of this catechism, translated by Justus Jonas in 1539, to produce the Catechism of 1548 (MacCulloch, 1996: 387), although it has been suggested that the principal work of producing this catechism, especially the third and subsequent editions, was left to one or more of Cranmer’s chaplains, possibly Becon, Ponet or Taylor (Selwyn, 1964: 87). The Catechism of 1548, in its first two editions at least, had unfortunate consequences for Cranmer due to the theology of the Eucharist it expressed and it caused him the embarrassment of having to defend what seemed like inconsistent eucharistic doctrine (MacCulloch, 1996: 386- 387). It appears there was some rush to finish the job and that in the process “robustly realist language about eucharistic presence” (MacCulloch, 1996: 390) was included. The actual words referring to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist were:

“ … Christ saith of the bread, This is my body, and of the cup, This is my blood. Wherefore we ought to believe, that in the sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of Christ. For God is almighty (as ye heard in the Creed). He is able therefore to do all things what he will.

1 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

And as saint Paul writeth he calleth those things which be not, as if they were. Wherefore when Christ taketh bread, and saith, Take, eat, this is my body, we ought not to doubt, but we eat his very body. And when he taketh the cup, and saith, Take, drink, this is my blood, we ought to think assuredly, that we drink his very blood. And this we must believe, if we will be counted Christian men.” (Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 78-79).

Although this certainly shifts the thought from the more localised view in the Latin original that had said: “Ideo credere debemus, quod vere corpus et sanguis eius sit or therefore we ought to believe that his body and blood are truly there” (Latin version of the Catechism of Justus Jonas, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 78) to that of a more moderate realist doctrine with some reference to the sacramental ministration (‘in the Sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of Christ’), it did not shift it far enough for some, who saw the wording as too realist. The English translation of the Latin, in another place, certainly suggested that the body and blood of Christ were there in the bread and wine, and that they were received with the “bodily mouth” under “the form of bread and wine” (Catechism of 1548, Selwyn, 1964: 79). It also censured those who:

“ … of very frowardness, will not grant, that there is the body and blood of Christ, but deny the same, for none other cause, but that they cannot compass by man’s blind reason, how this thing should be brought to pass.” (Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 79), and then instructed those young readers who were to use the catechism, to:

“ … eschew such erroneous opinions, and believe the words of our Lord Jesus, that you eat and drink his very body and blood, although man’s reason cannot comprehend how and after what manner the same is there present. For the wisdom of reason must be subdued to the obedience of Christ, as the Apostle Paul teacheth.” (Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 79).

For some Reformers all this was too much to bear. John Ab Ulmis, a Reformer and a disciple of Bullinger, wrote from London to Zurich about the eucharistic theology expressed in the Catechism of 1548. He said in a letter dated 18 August, 1548, in regard to Cranmer, “he has lately published a Catechism, in which he has not only approved that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation of the papists in the holy supper of our Saviour, but all the dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently well-grounded, perspicuous, and lucid.” (Letter of John Ab Ulmis to Bullinger, Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, edn. Robinson, 1847: 381). Cranmer’s words in the catechism do not seem however, to suggest transubstantiation, but rather a doctrine of the real presence without any transubstantiation. Cranmer later denied that he had meant to argue for transubstantiation or any Lutheran view and blamed the readers who had interpreted it in this way for their lack of sophistication in knowing how to read ancient authors (Cranmer, Defence, edn Duffied, 1964: 208-209). It seems that advanced Reformers such as Ab Ulmis, interpreted Cranmer’s realist sounding words as implying transubstantiation or perhaps even an immoderate

2 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Cranmer’s view of how Christ was present in the Eucharist was, by the time the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548 were published, was certainly not that of transubstantiation or any immoderate or fleshy notion, but clearly a moderate real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine (see above). What Cranmer meant in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist however, had changed significantly by the time he had written the Defence in 1550. For Cranmer, in these later writings, Christ was present in the ministration or in the receiving alone (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844: 225) – a receptionist doctrine. He completely denied any notion of presence in the Eucharist or in the bread and wine, saying: “for he is not in it, neither spiritually, as he is in man; nor corporally, as he is in heaven; but only sacramentally, as a thing may be said to be in the figure, whereby it is signified.” (Cranmer, Defence, edn. Duffield, 1964: 214). This view seems to be quite distinct from what Cranmer had said in the first two editions of the Catechism of 1548, that is, a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine. The Defence was published in 1550, only two years after the Catechism of 1548, and it seems likely that Cranmer’s views on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist had significantly changed over these two years or else by 1550 he felt confident enough to express what he really thought. Whatever the case, it seems that the moderate realism in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine, expressed in the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548, became a receptionist view in 1550 in the Defence and in the third edition of the Catechism of 1548. In the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548, the wording relating to the significant notion of receiving with the ‘bodily mouth’ had been:

“For he doth not only with his bodily mouth receive the body and blood of Christ, but he doth also believe the words of Christ, whereby he is assured that Christ’s body was given to death for us, and that his blood was shed for us. And he that believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ spiritually.” (First and Second Edition of the Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 83)

In the third edition of the Catechism of 1548, however, this became:

“For he doth not with the bodily mouth receive the body and blood of Christ, but he doth believe the words of Christ, whereby he is assured that Christ’s body was given to death for us, and that his blood was shed for us. And he that believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ spiritually.” (Third Edition of the Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 83)

By the deletion of the words ‘only’ and ‘also’ in the third edition (in italics in the version of the first and second edition above) Cranmer (or perhaps one of his chaplains, as Selwyn, 1964: 87, suggests) had removed the idea of a moderate real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and focussed attention solely on the promises of the words of Christ and the assurance received through them. The third edition removed the suggestion that Christ was present in the bread and wine and therefore received with the ‘bodily mouth’ and as such represented a thoroughly Reformed position in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ was present now

3 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms in the ministration and the receiving only, a clearly receptionist doctrine, not part of the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548. This introduction of a receptionist doctrine is made very clear in a significant alteration of the first and second editions of the catechism in the third edition. Whereas the first and second edition had said:

“Wherefore (good children) doubt not, but there is the body and blood of our Lord, which we receive in the Lord’s Supper.” (First and Second Edition of the Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 85), the third edition of the catechism said:

“Wherefore (good children) doubt not, but in the Lord’s Supper we receive the body and blood of Christ.” (Third Edition of the Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 85)

Whereas the first and second editions had affirmed that Christ’s body and blood were in the Lord’s Supper, the third edition had focussed on the receiving of the body and blood only.

Despite Cranmer’s protestations to correct misrepresentation of his views on the Eucharist and despite subsequent crude attempts to change the wording of the catechism (see above) to less offensive forms in the later editions (the third edition onward), Cranmer’s argument that the theology of the Eucharist presented in the Catechism of 1548 was consistent with his later writings on the Eucharist (see Defence, edn. Cox, 1844: 226), seems unconvincing (Selwyn, 1964: 83) in view of these significant changes in the catechism as they relate to the doctrine of the Eucharist. Although Cranmer admitted that the Catechism of 1548 was his own work, being “translated”, “written” and “set forth” by him (Cranmer, Defence, edn. Cox, 1844: 226), this assertion may only apply to the first two editions of the catechism. This is supported by the admission by Cranmer at his trial that the Catechism of 1548 only went through two “printes” (Cranmer, Trial, edn. Cox, 1846: 218). Perhaps the changes of the third and subsequent editions were made by one of the chaplains in an attempt to bring the catechism more into line with accepted Reformed thinking. This could explain the removal of statements indicating a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine. This view is supported by Selwyn since he comments that Cranmer never even remotely alludes in any of his writings to any changes in the wording of the catechism in later editions (Selwyn, 1964: 86). Even Gardiner was of this opinion since he argues that the work of translation was not Cranmer’s but that of “his man”, and goes on to state that it was “translated into English in this author’s name.” (Gardiner, Explication and Assertion, edn Cox, 1844: 20 and 188). Another piece of evidence presented by Selwyn adds further weight to the view that Cranmer was some distance from the revisions of the Catechism of 1548, particularly in the third and subsequent editions. Selwyn observes that in the Preface to the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548, the work is described as being “overseen and corrected” by Cranmer (Selwyn, 1964: 88), but that in the Preface of the third edition, these words are dropped and the work is described as being “set forth” (Selwyn, 1964: 88) by Cranmer. All that can be

4 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms concluded, it seems, is that considerable uncertainty surrounds the questions of authorship and revision of the Catechism of 1548, even though Cranmer does claim responsibility for the first two ‘printes’ (Cranmer, Remains, edn. Cox, 1846: 218). Despite this doubt, it must be assumed, as Selwyn suggests, that even if Cranmer did not undertake the work of translation and the issuing of later editions, “it is difficult to believe that he [Cranmer] did not supervise the translation”. (Selwyn, 1964: 87). This suggests, and Selwyn agrees, that Cranmer himself was responsible for the changes and approved of them in the later editions, despite what he said at his trial. This conclusion certainly seems to be supported by another letter written by John Ab Ulmis to Bullinger in the autumn of 1548 when the third edition was published. Ab Ulmis says in his letter of 27 November, 1548, that “even Thomas himself … is in great measure recovered from his dangerous lethargy” (Letter of Ab Ulmis to Bullinger 27 November, 1548, in Original Letters, edn. Robinson, 1847: II, 383). Selwyn concludes therefore that despite any statement Cranmer may have made at his trial, “some time during 1548 Cranmer seems to have abandoned the doctrine of the real presence” and that this change was first demonstrated in the Reformed opinions present in the third edition of the Catechism of 1548 (Selwyn, 1964: 89). Indeed it may be possible to say that: “the evidence of the third edition suggests that the earlier period of uncertainty was now at an end.” (Selwyn, 1964: 89).

The words in the Catechism of 1548 as it had originally appeared, in the first and second editions however, were used against Cranmer. Smith for example used the words of the Catechism of 1548 against him, saying:

“Ye now excuse yourself, my lord, for setting out of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament and say that when ye wrote in a catechism by you translated out of Latin into English, that we do receive Christ’s body and blood bodily with our mouths, ye meant by a figure, that is to say, that we do eat and drink bread and wine figures and signs of them. This excuse is not true, for ye wrote so manifestly then of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood both in the sacrament, and also in heaven at once, that nothing might be written more plainly, and that neither ye could yourself, nor none other of your brethren otherwise take it, and therefore perceiving that that doctrine did mislike and offend the rest of your brethren in Christ, ye did shortly recant it, as it appeareth by the setting forth again of that book called a catechism.” (Smith, Confutation, edn. Cox, 1844: 226).

Clearly Smith is both accusing Cranmer of inconsistent teaching regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the various editions of the catechism and in other writings and of changing the wording of the catechism in the third edition to accommodate the more advanced Reformers who objected to Cranmer’s moderate realism present in the earlier editions.

Gardiner also, in written debate with Cranmer, argued that the eucharistic theology used in the 1548 Catechism presented a view inconsistent with Cranmer’s other eucharistic teaching (Gardiner, Explication, edn. Cox, 1844: 226-227). Gardiner thereby attempted to discredit Cranmer and the force of his arguments. At his trial, Martin, one of the interrogators, referred to the Catechism of 1548, suggesting that

5 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

Cranmer was inconsistent in his eucharistic doctrine, arguing in the catechism for a real presence and in other places (e.g. Defence) for a much more Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist (Examination before Brokes, edn. Cox, 1846: 218). The examination noticed, it seems, that Cranmer’s moderate realism of 1548 had become receptionism by 1550.

There seems no easy way of determining what Cranmer’s position really was, or of how his views changed. Doubt must always remain about Cranmer’s views on the Eucharist. What does seem certain is that those who criticised Cranmer were able to use the inconsistencies in his writings to considerable effect.

The difficulty Cranmer experienced with the Catechism of 1548 could explain why it was not included in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and why the theology of the Eucharist remains unexplored in the catechism attached to the service of Confirmation in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Perhaps Cranmer’s views had by this time changed so radically that he could no longer express a realist sounding concept of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (as Selwyn, 1964: 89-90 and MacCulloch, 1996: 391 suggest) or perhaps Cranmer merely wanted to avoid controversy and confusion in his eucharistic projects (Hall, 1999: 220). Whatever the case, the Catechism printed in the 1549 BCP makes no reference to the Eucharist at all (see copy of the Catechism printed as part of the Confirmation service in the 1549 prayer book in Ketley, 1844: 121-124). This situation continued in the 1552 BCP (see Catechism in Ketley, 1844: 369-372) and the 1559 BCP (see Catechism in Clay, 1847: 211-214). It was not until the prayer book was revised in 1604, during the reign of King James I, that additions were made to the catechism that made any mention of the sacraments. These additions will be discussed below, but first some reference needs to made to other catechisms written and used at about the same time as the first three editions of the Book of Common Prayer.

Other Reformers wrote catechisms to assist in the process of educating people in the Christian faith. Some of these have been analysed in depth in other case studies in relation to their expressed theologies of the Eucharist (see the Becon case study - 1.5 and the Nowell case study – 1.11). Both the catechisms of Nowell and Becon expressed a nominalist conception of the Eucharist, arguing that the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist were separate, self-enclosed entities. In both these cases there was no realist identity or instantiation of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist or in the bread and wine.

Another catechism however, was published in 1553, possibly written by John Ponet, the Bishop of Winchester from 1551 to 1553 (Parker, 1966: 149-150). This catechism was said to be “set forth by the King’s Majesty’s Authority” (Ketley, 1844: 485) and so must be assumed to have had credibility at the time. This catechism was intended for use by schoolmasters in teaching the Christian faith to children. Ponet’s Catechism of 1553, otherwise known as the Short Catechism of 1553, since there is some doubt that Ponet actually was the author, made reference to the Eucharist and therefore has relevance for this case study.

The following quotations relating to the Eucharist are taken from Ponet’s or the Short Catechism of 1553:

6 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

“Master. What is the use of the Lord’s Supper? Scholar. Even in the very same, that was ordained by the Lord himself, Jesus Christ: which (as S. Paul saith) the same night, that he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, brake it: and said, This is my body, which is broken for you: Do this in remembrance of me. In like manner, when the supper was ended, he gave them the cup, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood. Do this, as oft as ye shall drink thereof, in remembrance of me. This was the manner and the order of the Lord’s supper: which we ought to hold and keep; that the remembrance of so great a benefit, the passion and death of Christ, be always kept in mind; that, after that the world is ended, he may come, and make us to sit with him at his own board.” (Short Catechism, edn. Ketley, 1844: 516-517).

“Master. What declareth and betokeneth the supper unto us, which we solemnly use in the remembrance of the Lord? Scholar. The Supper (as I have shewed a little before) is a certain thankful remembrance of the death of Christ: forasmuch as the bread representeth his body, betrayed to be crucified for us; the wine standeth in stead and place of his blood, plenteously shed for us. And even as by bread and wine our natural bodies are sustained and nourished: so by the body, that is the flesh and blood of Christ, the soul is fed through faith, and quickened to the heavenly and godly life. Master. How come these things to pass? Scholar. These things come to pass by a certain secret mean, and lively working of the Spirit: when we believe that Christ hath, once for all, given up his body and blood for us, to make a sacrifice and most pleasant offering to his heavenly Father; and also when we confess and acknowledge him our only Saviour, high Bishop, Mediator, and Redeemer: to whom is due all honour and glory. Master. And all this thou dost well understand. For me thinketh thy meaning is: that faith is the mouth of the soul, whereby we receive this heavenly meat, full both of salvation and immortality, dealt among us, by means of the Holy Ghost.” (Short Catechism, edn. Ketley, 1844: 517).

The Eucharist in the Short Catechism of 1553 is seen to be a ‘thankful remembrance’ of Christ’s death. It seems that the remembrance however is that of a past event, that is, the death of Christ on the cross and there is no suggestion of a realist notion of the effects of that sacrifice being active in the present through the Eucharist. All that seems to be required is that people remember the past event with thanks and faith in order to gain the benefits of that past event. The bread and wine are figures of the body and blood of Christ. There is no suggestion of Christ’s body and blood being present in the elements or in the Eucharist itself. Christ’s flesh and blood seem quite distinct from the bread and wine, which only have the ability to represent the body and blood of Christ as figures. The bread and wine sustain the human body, but the body and blood of Christ sustain the soul. These two forms of sustaining seem to be quite separate and self-enclosed entities. The means for sustaining the soul is the

7 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms body and blood of Christ but this is carried out through the mouth of faith, not through any sacramental sign, presence or memorial remembrance. Comparison between the Short Catechism of 1553 and the first two editions of Cranmer’s Catechism of 1548 demonstrates a significant difference in the use of the word ‘mouth’. In the Catechism of 1548, the ‘bodily mouth’ is said to be the means for receiving the body and blood of Christ, but in the Short Catechism of 1553, the ‘mouth of the soul’ is the means whereby the heavenly food is received. Whereas the first catechism uses ‘mouth’ to refer to a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the bread and wine and the means by which Christ’s body and blood is received, the second catechism uses ‘mouth’ to refer only to a spiritual receiving by faith. In the Short Catechism of 1553, there is a clear separation between the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist, each being seen as self-enclosed entities.

It must be concluded therefore that the Short Catechism of 1553 presents a nominalist analysis of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The historic sacrifice and the Eucharist are self-enclosed entities as are the bread and wine of the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ. There is no realist notion of instantiation of either presence or sacrifice indicated in the catechism in these particular questions and answers.

Whilst the Short Catechism presents a nominalist understanding of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, it presents a realist understanding in relation to other aspects of Christ’s presence in the world. When the Catechism speaks of Christ following his ascension it says that Christ performs his work of governing the Church while he is absent from the earth (Short Catechism, edn. Ketley, 1844: 506). The Catechism however, makes the statement that, “Christ is not so altogether absent from the world, as many do suppose.” (Short Catechism, edn. Ketley, 1844: 506). By this statement the Catechism means that although Christ’s fleshy and carnal body is not in the earth, but in heaven, nonetheless Christ’s:

“Godhead is perpetually present with us: although not the subject of our eyes,” and, “Spiritual things are not to be seen, but with the eye of the spirit. Therefore he that in earth will see the Godhead of Christ: let him open the eyes, not of his body, but of his mind, but of his faith: and he shall see him present, and in the midst of them, wheresoever be two or three gathered together in his name: he shall be present with us, even to the end of the world. What said I? Shall he see Christ present? Yea, he shall both see and feel him dwelling within himself: in such sort as he doth his own proper soul. For he dwelleth and abideth in the mind and heart of him which fasteneth all his trust in him.” (Short Catechism, edn. Ketley, 1844: 506).

These statements, while not applying to the Eucharist, but rather to the ascension and continuing presence of Christ with the Church, are realist in nature. Christ is actually present with the faithful in a spiritual and real manner – a moderate realism. The manner of this real presence is not however immoderate in any way since the presence is not a fleshy presence but a dwelling and abiding of Christ in the mind and the heart of the person who trusts in him. While this type of real presence is spoken of at some length in the catechism (extending over several pages), with obvious

8 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms inconsistency it is not used to speak of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Eucharist rather there is a nominalist separation of sign and signified with no instantiation of the signified in the sign. This same inconsistency has been pointed out in Cranmer’s eucharistic theology (Richardson, 1965). Richardson says concerning Cranmer that:

“ … to speak of the body of Christ as only in heaven, and to give this as the leading reason why it cannot be present in the elements, is inconsistent with a doctrine which speaks of us being ingrafted into the body, partaking of its immortal nature, being ‘knit and united spiritually to Christ’s flesh and blood’ (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844: 199), receving ‘Christ himself, whole body and soul, manhood and Godheadm into everlasting life’ (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844: 25), or having Him in us ‘substantiatially, pithily and effectually’ (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844: 166).” (Richardson, 1965: 430).

The Reformation debates of the Eucharist seemed to focus on the inability of Christ to have any bodily presence on earth in the Eucharist, since his body was seen to be in heaven and not on earth, whilst at the same time maintaining a realist view of the incarnation and the ecclesiological theology of the Church being the body of Christ. It must be assumed therefore that some inconsistency is inherent in the early Reformers in relation to the philosophical thinking that under girds their thinking.

The more extreme Reformers, such as Ab Ulmis, in the debates on the Eucharist excluded not only a fleshy presence, but also it seems the idea of a spiritual real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well. This was precisely the difficulty Cranmer experienced in his translation of the catechism of Justus Jonas. Any idea of a moderate and spiritual real presence was immediately presumed by Ab Ulmis to be an immoderate and fleshy presence of Christ (see Ab Ulmis’ letter to Bullinger quoted above where he accuses Cranmer of presenting “that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation of the papists in the holy supper of our Saviour”). The result of this type of condemnation was that all forms of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist were excluded, including the spiritual real presence, and the idea of moderate realism became an impossibility. The notion of a spiritual real presence of Christ is not excluded per se, hence it is discussed in the Short Catechism of 1553 and in Cranmer’s Answer of 1551, in relation to the incarnation and Christ’s presence with the Church following the ascension. The idea of a real presence is however specifically excluded in relation to the Eucharist. This inconsistency seems to be solely in reaction to the immoderate notions of presence associated with some Medieval doctrines of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (e.g. extreme forms of transubstantiation) and the wish of some Reformers, such as Cranmer, to distance themselves from such forms. The result was that any theology of the Eucharist which spoke of a presence of Christ in the Eucharist or in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, both moderate and immoderate, was excluded and condemned.

The Short Catechism of 1553 sees the only means of being present with Christ in the Eucharist as a heavenly presence. The Short Catechism says:

9 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

“So Christ’s body, which at his glorious going up was conveyed from us: which hath left the world, and is gone to the Father: is a great way absent from our mouth, even then when we receive with our mouth the holy sacrament of his body and blood. Yet is our faith in heaven: and beholdeth the Sun of righteousness: and is presently together with him in heaven, as such sort as the sight is in heaven with the body of the sun, or in earth the sun with the sight.” (Short Catechism, edn. Ketley, 1844: 507).

The Short Catechism while maintaining a strict nominalism in relation to the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, inconsistently presents a realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the incarnation and with the Church. It could be that the refusal to consider moderate realism in relation to the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist on the part of these early Reformers, was principally a result of the great Reformation controversies in relation to the Eucharist and in reaction to extreme forms of transubstantiation which included immoderate or fleshy notions of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The additions to the Catechism in 1604 in regard to the Eucharist are usually attributed to Bishop Overall, who at the time of writing these additions was the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, London. The additions seem to have been made at the request of the Puritans who attended the Hampton Court Conferences in January, 1604 and who had requested more detail about the sacraments (Procter and Frere, 1929: 600). Overall seems to have made the additions incorporating elements of the catechisms written by Dean Nowell in the 1560’s and 1570’s (Hartin, 1988: 158). Nowell’s Catechism has been discussed in the Nowell case study.

In relation to the Eucharist the following questions and answers were added to the Catechism of the prayer book in 1604:

“Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained? Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and [1662 BCP adds ‘of’ here] the benefits which we receive thereby.

Question. What is the outward part or sign in the Lord’s Supper? Answer. Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received.

Question. What is the inward part, or thing signified? Answer. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily [1662 BCP adds ‘and indeed’ here] taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.

Question. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby? Answer. The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine.” (Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer).

10 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

The additions to the Catechism in 1604 present some significant differences to the other catechisms discussed above. Not only did the catechism in the 1604 BCP refer to the sacraments, whereas prayer books prior to 1604 did not, but they also make some moderate realist claims for Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. Cranmer’s Catechism of 1548 (in the first two editions at least) had made similar realist claims, but subsequent editions of the catechism altered this realist slant, presenting a receptionist view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, and the catechism did not become part of the prayer book editions of 1549, 1552 and 1559. The Short Catechism of 1553 also presented a nominalist view of eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The additions of 1604 are therefore significant in that they represent a development in eucharistic theology and a re-emergence of realist notions of presence and sacrifice.

Part of the additions concerning the sacraments made to the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer in 1604 (copy of an original format).

11 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

The answer to the first question above suggests that the Eucharist is the continuing means whereby the sacrifice of Christ is remembered. The remembering of the sacrifice has been variously interpreted. Those from the Anglican Evangelical tradition within Anglicanism interpret ‘remembrance’ to mean simply ‘in memory of’, in that the remembering is of a finished sacrifice which can in no way be perpetuated or re-presented in the present. This means that the Eucharist cannot be a ‘memorial sacrifice’ but instead a ‘memorial service’ (Neil and Willoughby, 1913: 422). The Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on A Prayer Book for Australia (1996), the most recent Australian prayer book published in 1995, has recently made the same point in relation to the idea of remembering as memorial (anamnesis). The report says in part:

“The Commission does not accept that this understanding of ‘remembrance’ is either Biblical or in accordance with the doctrine of BCP. In the Bible the great acts of God are ‘remembered’ in order to recognise our participation in the past event (see, e.g. Deut 4: 9-20). But the event remains a past event. Our participation in it consists in the fact that it was ‘for us and for our salvation’. Likewise the ‘perpetual memory of that his precious death’ retains the normal distinctions between past, present and future (cf. 2 Cor 5: 14-15). The idea of moving into ‘a world where time as we know it does not exist’ threatens to empty ‘remembering’ of its proper meaning.” (Sydney Doctrine Commission, 1997: 458).

The danger the Sydney Doctrine Commission Report sees in the use of ‘remembering as memorial’ (anamnesis) is that it may “establish the idea that in the Eucharist the death of Christ at Golgotha is being re-offered or re-presented.” (Sydney Doctrine Commission Report, 1996: 458). Clearly for writers such as Neil and Willoughby (1913) and the Sydney Doctrine Commission Report (1996) the sacrifice of Christ is a past event that cannot be instantiated in any way in the present, apart from the simple concept of remembering it as a past event and receiving the benefits of that past event by faith. The past sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharist in the present and future are therefore self-enclosed entities, sharing no identity with one another in a realist sense. Any idea of an instantiation of the sacrifice of Christ in the present in the Eucharist is seen to be an immoderate re-offering or re-presenting of a past, completed and separate event, and this cannot be accepted from this Evangelical viewpoint. Such a view of remembering the sacrifice of Christ is therefore nominalist.

Catholic Anglicans tend to interpret the first of the 1604 additions somewhat differently. Evan Daniel, for example, sees ‘remembrance’ as meaning not only “in memory of” but also as “to plead before God a memorial sacrifice.” (Daniel, 1913: 476). Daniel’s interpretation implies more than a mere reminder, but a solemn commemoration and pleading of the sacrifice of Christ, that is, anamnesis, whereby in the Eucharist in the present, the merits of Christ’s sacrifice are pleaded anew (Daniel, 1913: 380). This is not immoderate realism, since that would mean re- sacrificing or re-immolating Christ in a fleshy manner, but rather moderate realism, where the nature of Christ’s sacrifice is remembered or instantiated in the Eucharist such that its effect is made available in the present through the eucharistic celebration.

12 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

Others in reference to this question express this somewhat differently again, saying that, “the Holy Eucharist brings to remembrance not only the death of Christ, but also the benefits we receive thereby.” (Allen, 1892: 174). It is this instantiation of the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice in the present in the Eucharist that distinguishes this approach as moderate realism and which at the same time excludes any immoderate realism. Wand argues that the meaning of the words of the catechism as amended in 1604, that is, ‘continual remembrance of the sacrifice and death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby’, mean that in the Eucharist there is a “continual renewal of the atmosphere of the Upper Room on the night before Jesus was crucified when he broke the bread and blessed the wine and called them his Body and Blood.” (Wand. 1961: 130). Wand goes on to argue in relation to this question and answer in the catechism that any talk of a continual remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice implies a eucharistic sacrifice. He goes so far as to use the term ‘sacrifice of the altar’ but does so in very careful and moderate realist terms. He says:

“The sacrifice of the altar is not a new sacrifice, it is not a reproduction or representation of an old sacrifice: it is part of the one eternal sacrifice which in space-time was made on Calvary. We are caught up in Christ’s one offering of himself and are permitted to share with him in that sacrifice and to offer ourselves, our souls and bodies with him. This is the acme of Christian worship, it links us directly with the adoring hosts of heaven, and it is the highest point to which we can aspire during our life on earth.” (Wand, 1961: 132).

Anglican Catholics have expressed this idea of ‘remembrance as memorial’ (anamnesis) in various eucharistic liturgies (e.g. the eucharistic liturgies of A Prayer Book for Australia, 1995 and Common Worship, 2000). This has been a feature of modern liturgical development endorsed ecumenically (e.g. The World Council of Churches document, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, 1989) and a continuation of ancient liturgical practice in accord with a biblical and patristic warrant. The Final Report of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) has for example expressed it this way:

“The Commission believes that the traditional understanding of sacramental reality, in which the once-for-all event of salvation becomes effective in the present through the action of the Holy Spirit, is well expressed by the word anamnesis. We accept the use of the word which seems to do full justice to the Semitic background. Furthermore it enables us to affirm a strong conviction of sacramental realism and to reject mere symbolism.” (ARCIC, The Final Report, 1982: 19).

Other Anglican Catholic writers have also supported this same view of ‘remembering as memorial’ (Dix, 1986: 161-162; Macquarrie, 1997: 139-141). Some Anglican Evangelicals have also adopted and used the word and concept anamnesis in discussion of what happens in the Eucharist (e.g. Cocksworth, 1993) but not in exactly the same way as Catholic Anglicans. Cocksworth has referred to anamnesis as ‘participation’ in the death of Christ, explaining his view in the following way:

13 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

“It is therefore Christ’s presence that we meet in the Eucharist as he comes to us in the anamnesis of his crucified form, to show us that we ‘being dead to sin’ are ‘alive to God’ in his glorified form (Romans 6: 11). The eucharistic gift is then a real presence in the glorified life of Christ which he lives in the presence of the Father.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 206).

Cocksworth’s focuses not so much on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or even more specifically the presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but on the presence of Christ in the anamnesis or memorial of his crucified form and the gift of a real presence in the glorified life of Christ. There is clearly some separation here between the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the presence of Christ in the glorified form he lives in the presence of the Father. Cocksworth’s view is still nominalism, in that the entities, bread and wine of the Eucharist, and the body and blood of Christ are self-enclosed and separated entities, but it is moderate nominalism, in that Cocksworth allows for the notion of memorial, where there is presence on earth which ‘we meet in the Eucharist’ as Christ comes to us, and presence of Christ in his glorified life. Cocksworth’s views will be more fully assessed in a separate case study.

The second question in the 1604 additions to the Catechism asks about the outward and visible parts or signs of the Lord’s Supper. The answer states that these signs are the bread and wine and that they are used because of the Lord’s command. The inward and spiritual part or thing signified in the Lord’s Supper is addressed in the third question of the 1604 additions. These are seen to be the body and blood of Christ and they are said to be ‘verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’. Some Evangelical writers wish to lessen the realist notion implied by these words, arguing on the basis of Article XXVII that the body and blood of Christ is “taken and received ‘only after a heavenly and spiritual manner’. Christ is present by his Spirit whom he sent to apply to His Sacrifice. Hence to take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ, is to receive the grace and benefits procured by the offering up of His Body once given and His Blood once shed for sin.” (Neil and Willoughy, 1913: 423). The Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on APBA (1995) in an attempt to argue against any idea of a realist notion of eucharistic presence in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, states that:

“In BCP the elements of bread and wine (or the bread and the cup) do not represent the presence of Christ either before or after consecration. That the risen Christ is present by his Spirit with his body the Church when it meets in his name, is not doubted, and we have biblical assurances of this (e.g. Matthew 18: 20). But the sacramental elements are not symbols of that spiritual presence. Rather, they are symbols or signs of ‘his meritorious cross and passion, … , and they have that significance when we partake of them by faith, and not otherwise.” (Sydney Doctrine Commission Report, 1996: 455).

Daniel, however, expressing a Catholic Anglican view argues that:

14 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms

“The consecrated elements are not mere symbols of the body and blood, nor are they converted into the carnal body and blood; and yet in some mysterious way, which we cannot, and therefore need not, comprehend, but of which we are none the less certain, Christ conveys Himself to the faithful communicant.” (Daniel, 1913: 477).

Wand argues that perhaps the easiest way to understand the relationship between the outward and visible signs and the inward and spiritual grace, and the assertion in the catechism that the body and blood of Christ ‘is verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’, and:

“to understand the force of this assertion is to remember that the body is the instrument of the personality. Indeed, in Hebrew though the body was actually an essential part of the individual. When we receive the Body of Christ it is his personality of which we partake. He communicates himself to us in such a way that while we remain ourselves his exquisite virtue in all its beauty and strength is made available for us in so far as we are prepared to let him live out his life in us.” (Wand, 1961: 130).

Wand is expressing a realist notion of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, where the outward sign conveys to the communicant the very power and strength of the personality and life of Christ. There is no sense however, in which the outward sign is changed in its nature. The outward signs remain bread and wine, but nonetheless are effective means of communicating the body and blood of Christ to the faithful in the Eucharist.

The views of Neil and Willoughby (1913) and the Sydney Doctrine Commission Report (1996) separate the bread and wine from the body and blood of Christ and emphasise that the means for the receiving of the body and blood of Christ are not these elements. Such a view is one of nominalism. The views of Daniel (1913) however, show realism, whereby the bread and wine are seen to be more than symbols and in fact the means whereby the body and blood of Christ are given to the communicant. This in no way denies the role of faith and that the taking and receiving is spiritual, but at the same time Catholic Anglicans, such as Evan Daniel, would argue, rejecting receptionism, that:

“ the body and blood of Christ have an existence external to the recipient, for the recipient is represented as ‘taking’ and ‘receiving’ them. The external existence is spiritual, for the body and blood are received after a heavenly or spiritual manner. The reality of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament is not dependent upon the faith of the recipient; what is dependent on his faith is the partaking of Christ.” (Daniel, 1913: 478).

The final question and answer quoted above concerning the Eucharist in the 1604 additions to the catechism, refers to the benefits that those who partake in the Lord’s Supper receive. The answer refers to both the strengthening and refreshing of bodies and souls. Souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ and

15 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms bodies by the bread and wine. For Evangelical Anglicans this seems to mean an assurance of the forgiveness of sin and of God’s love towards people (Neil and Willoughby, 1913: 479) or the idea that Christ comes to us clothed with his promises (Doyle, 1996: 12) and is personal through his Word and Spirit (Doyle, 1998: 2), rather than any realist instantiation in outward sacramental signs such as bread and wine.

Since the additions to the catechism in 1604 there have been many revisions of the various prayer books in the Anglican Communion. Some prayer books, such as the Book of Common Prayer (1662), An Australian Prayer Book (1978) and A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) have chosen to continue the use of the catechism as a means of Christian education and providing a concise statement of doctrine, in essentially the same form and wording as the 1604 BCP. Other provinces of the Anglican Communion and some dioceses, have however, chosen to write new catechisms to reflect particular emphases and theologies of the Eucharist and Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. In general Evangelical Anglicans have tended to continue to use the form of the catechism as printed in the Book of Common Prayer (1662), but other Anglicans, particularly Catholic Anglicans, have preferred to write new statements in catechisms as regards the Eucharist. Some of these new catechisms and the theologies of the Eucharist they present will be examined below.

An abortive attempt at revision of the Book of Common Prayer (called The Liturgy of Comprehension, edn. Fawcett, 1973) was produced in 1689 with the intention of enabling those called Dissenters to return to the Established Church (Cuming, 1982: 132). Dissenters were not only Roman Catholics, whose interests became more urgent with the accession of a Roman Catholic king to the throne of England, that is James II (1633-1701, king from 1685-1688). With the arrival of William and Mary of Orange as King and Queen however, Protestants were again on the throne, and the need to reconcile Dissenters was just as urgent for non-Catholics (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 411). The revision of the prayer book in 1689 was an attempt to win over the various Dissenters, but it came to nothing and the BCP (1662) continued in use as the official liturgy of the Church of England. In the catechism of this abortive prayer book there are some changes in the answers to the questions that are of particular relevance to this case study. In answer to a new question, “What is the inward and spiritual grace?” (Catechism in The Liturgy of Comprehension, 1689, edn. Fawcett, 1973: 131), the following answer was given: “The benefits of the Sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” (Catechism in The Liturgy of Comprehension, 1689, edn. Fawcett, 1973: 131). This answer suggests moderate realism in the form of memorial remembrance or anamnesis, since the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are seen to be taken and received by the faithful in the Eucharist in the present. The answer implies a great deal more than mere remembering of the sacrifice as a past event, but rather that the inward and spiritual grace is the benefit of this past sacrifice in the present in the Eucharist. Any idea of immoderate realism or a fleshy re-offering of Christ in the Eucharist is excluded by the previous question and answer, where in answer to the question, “What are the things signified by the Bread and Wine?”, the answer is given, “The Body and Blood of Christ, which were offered for us upon the Cross once for all”. (Catechism in The Liturgy of Comprehension, 1689, edn. Fawcett, 1973: 131). The offering described as ‘once for all’ excludes immoderate

16 Case Study 1.42 Catechisms realism, but seemingly in light of the question on the nature of the inward and spiritual grace, not moderate realism in the form of memorial remembrance or anamnesis. Despite the fact that The Liturgy of Comprehension (1689) came to nothing, it is significant that elements of the revised book were suggestive of moderate realism. This indicates that those who were carrying out the work of revision implied a theology of a spiritual real presence of Christ in the Eucharist through the use of a memorial remembrance or anamnesis.

17