The Development of Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUCHARISTIC LITURGIES IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA

Part 2: A Case Study in Multiformity – 1995 to the Present

1. Anglican Eucharistic Theology Is Multiform

Anglican eucharistic theology and eucharistic liturgies vary not only between the different theological hermeneutics of parties such as Anglican Catholics and Anglican Evangelicals but also between different philosophical assumptions, such as realism and nominalism.1 Realists, most typically Anglican Catholics, base their assumptions on the linking of the signs of the Eucharist2 with what they signify such that the signs instanti- ate what they signify.3 Nominalists, most typically Anglican Evangeli- cals, deny this realist analysis and do not link the signs with what they signify in any real way apart from the enquiring mind and by semantic analysis. Hermeneutic idealism is often the reason for the multiformity of Anglican eucharistic theology and its expression in liturgical forms. Hermeneutic idealism is a term derived from the work of the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas and has been defined by Terence Lovat and Brian Douglas as “that conceptualizing of reality that is totally de- pendent on one’s own (or one’s communal groups’) beliefs, values and interpretations, whilst at the same time remaining blind to their causes, background and those wider connections that would contextualize them and help those holding them to see that they are in fact just one set of beliefs, values and interpretations in a sea of related and unrelated sets.”4 This means that various parties within Anglicanism express a particular

1. See Brian Douglas and Terence Lovat, “The Integrity of Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition,” The Heythrop Journal 51 (2010) 847-861 and Brian Douglas, A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology, Volumes 1 and 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 2. The signs of bread and wine and the offering of the Eucharist itself. 3. The signified body and blood of Christ and the representation of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist. 4. See details in Terence Lovat and Brian Douglas, “Dialogue Amidst Difference in Anglican Eucharistic Theology: A Habermasian Breakthrough,” Australian EJournal of Theology 9 (2007) 1-11. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 197 eucharistic theology, based on say an Evangelical or an Anglican Catho- lic hermeneutic, in the development of eucharistic liturgies. This article explores the understanding and application of the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition5 in more depth by use of a case study of eucharistic liturgies, in the Anglican Church of Australia from the year 1995 to the present. This article aims to chronicle the development of eucharistic liturgies while at the same time pointing to the multiformity of hermeneutic and philosophical assumptions. The year 1995 was the year in which the modern and current prayer book, A Prayer Book for Australia,6 was approved by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia and came into use and seems an appropriate point to pause the discussion before development after 1995 is con- sidered in another article.7

2. A Prayer Book for Australia 1995 (Liturgical Commission) Draft

Efforts to further the process of revision in the Anglican Church of Aus- tralia came to a head at the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia in 1995. A draft book, dated July, 1995, and entitled A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA)8 was submitted to Synod members for their consideration prior to the meeting of General Synod. The draft book con- tained three orders of the Eucharist – First, Second and Third Orders – entitled The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper thereby suggesting through the use of these names, a recognition of the variety of ways in which Anglicans thought of the Eucharist within the Anglican Church of Australia. The First Order9 was a conservative revision of the 1662 BCP service of Holy Communion in contemporary and inclusive English, having much in common in shape with the First Order in An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) of 1978.10 The Second Or-

5. See Brian Douglas and Terence Lovat, “Dialogue Amidst Multiformity: A Habermasian Breakthrough in the Development of Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies,” Jour- nal of Anglican Studies 8 (2010) 35-57. Here the insights of Habermas in relation to dialogue and communicative action are critically applied to the development of Anglican eucharistic liturgies while at the same time recognizing the inherent multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. 6. Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (Sydney: Broughton Books, 1995). 7. Brian Douglas, “The Development of Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part 1: A Case Study in Multiformity up to 1995,” in this issue, pp. 175-195. 8. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) Draft (Sydney: Broughton Books, 1995). 9. Ibid, 96-113. 10. The Standing Committee of the General Synod of the Church of England in Aus- tralia, An Australian Prayer Book (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1978) 114-133. 198 Brian Douglas der11 and the Third Order12 reflected the shape of eucharistic liturgies resulting from the modern ecumenical movement, both expressing realist assumptions, but the Third Order being more restrained than the Second Order. The Third Order for example did not contain the Benedictus or Agnus Dei and the forms of the epiclesis and anamnesis were restrained. The first Thanksgiving Prayer in the Draft Third Order,13 known in the Draft as Thanksgiving 5, borrowed heavily in its Preface and Institution Narrative from the First Form of ‘An Order for the Lord’s Supper’ produced in the Diocese of Sydney14 but went on to add a restrained epiclesis and anamnesis and concluded with an eschatological reference to the feast in the heavenly kingdom, not present in the Sydney order. The second Thanksgiving Prayer in the Draft Third Order,15 known in the Draft as Thanksgiving 6, was a slightly amended version of Thanksgiving 5 in the Liturgical Commission’s trial eucharistic liturgies produced in 199316 but with the Benedictus removed and additional reference to the work of Christ on the cross. There was a very restrained epiclesis in Thanksgiving 6 in the Draft APBA.17 The earlier trial eucharistic material18 had had a much fuller anamnesis referring to the mighty acts of Christ in his suffering, death, rising and ascending into heaven but in the Draft APBA, Thanksgiving 6 this had been reduced to “You have gathered us together to feed on Christ and to remember all he has done for us.”19 As a result of the negotiation on the floor of General Synod though, Draft Thanksgiving 6 did not progress to the final version of the Third Order in APBA20 and Thanksgiving 5, with slight amendment from the Draft version also passed into the final version of APBA in the Third Order. It is important to note that the version of the Thanksgiving Prayer in the Third Order which found its way into the final version of APBA was much less realist in the assumptions underlying its eucharistic theology than the Thanks-

11. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) Draft, 114-158. 12. Ibid., 159-174. 13. Ibid., 168-169. 14. Liturgical Committee of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, Experimental Sun- day Services (Sydney: AIO Press, 1993) 25-27. 15. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (Draft), 170-171. 16. The Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Communion also Called the Eucha- rist and the Lord’s Supper 1993. Prepared by the Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia for Use under section 4 of the Constitution (Sydney: Broughton Books, 1993) 44-46. 17. “Fill us with your Spirit,” APBA Draft, 171. 18. The Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Communion also Called the Eucha- rist and the Lord’s Supper 1993, 46. 19. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (Draft), 171. 20. Although it did find a place in the Second Order of the final form of APBA of 1995. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 199 giving Prayers of the final Second Order forms and generally reflected the work of the Evangelical Diocese of Sydney.21 The intent of these three eucharistic orders seems to have been firstly, to maintain the use and theology of the 1662 BCP, but in contemporary language (First Order), secondly, to use modern eucharistic liturgies which were contemporary in language but which also reflected a more developed Catholic and so realist theology of the Eucharist (Second Or- der) and thirdly, to present a modern eucharistic liturgy in contemporary language which reflected a more Reformed and so less realist theology of the Eucharist (Third Order). The Draft APBA Thanksgiving Prayers in the Second Order22 were supplemented by the two other Draft Thanksgiving Prayers printed in the Third Order. The result in the final form of APBA approved by the Gen- eral Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia in 1995 was five Thanks- giving Prayers in the Second Order, instead of the draft set of four, with one (Thanksgiving Prayer 3) being an entirely new prayer. While there was some innovation (Thanksgiving 2 and Thanksgiving Prayer 3) there was also some conservatism (with the realism of draft Thanksgiving Prayer 3, based on the Apostolic Tradition commonly ascribed to Hip- polytus and draft Thanksgiving Prayer 4, based on the Canadian The Book of Alternative Service of 1985 being rejected, whilst the less realist Thanksgiving Prayers 1 and 2 from AAPB23 of 1978 were preferred. De- spite this the Thanksgivings in the Second Order of APBA present a realist theology of the Eucharist, even if this realist theology is less developed than in the eucharistic liturgies of other parts of the Anglican Com- munion.24 APBA passed through General Synod in 1995, although this was not as unanimous a decision as the passing of AAPB of 1978 had been. While AAPB of 1978 was authorised with only one dissenting voice, the authorising Canon for APBA of 1995 was passed by 22 out of 23 in the House of Bishops, by 87 out of 101 in the House of Clergy and by 84 out of 101 in the House of Laity. The total of 193 votes for APBA out of a possible 225 did however represent an overwhelming endorse- ment for the new prayer book of 85.8% of the members of General Synod, 1995.25 There seems to have been greater theological and philosophical differences and issues with APBA of 1995 than there had been with AAPB of 1978.

21. Liturgical Committee of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, Experimental Sun- day Services (Sydney: AIO Press, 1993). 22. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (Draft), 168-171. 23. The Standing Committee of the General Synod of the Church of England in Aus- tralia, An Australian Prayer Book, 145-148, 159-161. 24. For example The Episcopal Church of the United States of America and The Province of Southern Africa. 25. General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, Minutes of General Synod 1995 (Sydney: Anglican Church of Australia, Thursday 6 July, 1995), Item 23, 42. 200 Brian Douglas

3. A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) (1995)

The eucharistic theology of the Thanksgiving Prayers in the Second and Third Orders of A Prayer Book for Australia26 (APBA) will now be con- sidered in order to highlight some of the theological and philosophical issues resulting in multiformity of eucharistic theology at present in the Anglican Church of Australia. In the Second Order Thanksgiving 127 was a shortened version of the First Form of The Thanksgiving in AAPB of 197828 but included an epiclesis expressed in a more catholic and realist form. It read: “Merciful God, we thank you for these gifts of your creation, this bread and wine, and we pray that by your Word and Holy Spirit, we who eat and drink them, may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood.”29 The bread and wine are associated with the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, although the wording of ‘partakers of Christ’s body and blood’ is preferred to the more developed realist form of the epiclesis, found in some Anglican liturgies30 which use the form ‘made/become Christ’s body and blood’. Use of ‘partakers’ lessens the realist connection of bread/wine and body/blood since it focuses more on the act of reception or partaking than on the making or changing of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. The anamnesis in Thanksgiving 1 also presents a realist understanding, linking the bread and wine with the celebration of the mighty acts of Christ, whilst at the same time being careful not to suggest a resacrificing of Christ by referring to the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice. The anamnesis reads: “Therefore we do as our Saviour has commanded: proclaiming his offering of himself made once for all upon the cross, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, and looking for his coming again, we celebrate, with this bread and this cup, his one perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.”31 The anamnesis stops short of a specific oblation or offering of the bread and wine to God,32 although the epiclesis does thank God for the gifts of bread and wine. The anamnesis nonetheless presents a realist understanding of eucharistic sacrifice by identifying the signs of bread and wine with the celebration of Christ’s sacrifice, that is celebrating

26. Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia. 27. Ibid., 128-129. 28. The Church of England in Australia, An Australian Prayer Book, 145-148. See also confirmation of this in David Richardson, “A Prayer Book for Australia: Historical Background,” A Prayer for Australia: A Practical Commentary, ed. G. Varcoe (Sydney: Dwyer, 1997) 74. 29. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 128. 30. For example The Episcopal Church of USA and Southern Africa. 31. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 129. 32. Such as is found in other provinces of the Anglican Communion, e.g. The Episco- pal Church of the USA and Southern Africa. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 201 with the bread and wine, and the proclamation of Christ’s offering on the cross, in resurrection, ascension and coming again. The use of the word ‘offering’ here, in close proximity to the bread and wine, is a realist statement not found in the earlier AAPB of 1978. Proclamation of the ‘offering’ in AAPB was restricted to the offering of prayer and praise by the people.33 APBA of 1995 does however ‘proclaim the offering’ in relation to the bread and wine of the Eucharist and therefore represents an additional heightened level of sacramental realism in regard to eucharistic sacrifice. Thanksgiving 2 in APBA34 is a rearrangement of Thanksgiving 2 pro- posed in the draft form of APBA but with significant changes. It also reflects recent work in Anglican and ecumenical liturgy35 in terms of liturgical shape and the relationship between biblical themes and recog- nisable Australian imagery. Thanksgiving 2 also presented a realist eucharistic theology. One of the draft forms of the epiclesis read: “Send your Holy Spirit upon us and our celebration that all who eat and drink at this table may be strengthened to serve you in the world and to proclaim the everlasting gospel, one body and one holy people, a living sacrifice in Jesus Christ our Lord.”36 In the final version of Thanksgiving 2 in APBA, this became however: “Send your Holy Spirit upon us and our celebration that all who eat and drink at this table may be strengthened by Christ’s body and blood to serve you in the world.”37 The loss of the words suggesting the proclamation of the gospel as a living sacrifice in connection with the Eucharist significantly lessened the realist eucharistic theology of the final version. The epiclesis in the final form of Thanksgiving 2 in APBA gives more specificity about what is the source of strengthening (that is, Christ’s body and blood in the celebration and at the table), whereas in the draft form the eating and the drinking at the table are seen as the source of strengthening without the specifically realist link with the body and blood of Christ. It seems therefore that in relation to the epiclesis in Thanksgiv- ing 2 of APBA of 1995 there is a more developed realist theology expressed. This however does not seem to be the case in relation to the anamnesis in Thanksgiving 2. In the draft form of Thanksgiving 2 the anamnesis read: “Therefore, living God, as we obey his command, we remember his life of obedience to you, his suffering and death, his resurrec-

33. The fourth form of the Thanksgiving used the words “We offer our prayer and praise, Father,” The Church of England in Australia, An Australian Prayer Book, 166, and did not take the form of proclaiming Christ’s offering in the context of celebration with the bread and wine. 34. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 130-132. 35. Richardson, “A Prayer Book for Australia: Historical Background,” 74. 36. The Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Communion also Called the Eucha- rist and the Lord’s Supper 1993, 38. 37. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 132. 202 Brian Douglas tion and exaltation, and his promise to be with us for ever. … We set before you these gifts of bread and wine. Accept, we pray, our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.”38 Evan Burge argues that “the sense of the ancient verbs for ‘we offer’ (Latin offerimus, Greek προσφ) may be expressed by ‘we draw near to you with this bread and cup’ or ‘we bring before you this bread and cup’”39 thereby suggesting that the words ‘we set before you these gifts of bread and wine’ in the draft form of Thanksgiving 2 of 199340 are really an offering or oblation. This argument is strengthened by the next line which suggests that the request for God to accept the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving refers back to the ‘setting before’ God of the bread and wine. This statement of oblation is more realist than any expression found in Thanksgiving 1, and as such was unacceptable to cer- tain viewpoints within the Synod (particularly the Evangelicals), and so it was significantly modified in the final form of Thanksgiving 2 in AAPB of 1995 to become: “Therefore, living God, as we obey his command, we remember his life of obedience to you, his suffering and death, his resurrection and exaltation, and his promise to be with us for ever. With this bread and this cup we celebrate his saving death until he comes. Accept we pray our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.”41 The words of oblation (‘offer’ or ‘set before’ to accept Burge’s argument) are not used, although the link between the mighty acts of Christ and the elements is made by reference to their celebration with the bread and cup. Further- more the words praying for the acceptance of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving could be seen to refer back to the bread and wine. Thanks- giving 2 of APBA of 1995 therefore maintains a realist eucharistic theology, strengthened from the draft in the expression of the epiclesis, but lessened in the expression of the anamnesis. One of the most ardent exponents of the fuller catholic (and realist) theology of the Eucharist at the General Synod of 1995 was Bishop David Silk, the then Bishop of the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Ballarat. He put forward from the floor of Synod, a new and alternative form of the Thanksgiving not printed in the draft book and not receiving any trial use. Silk describes this prayer as “an explicitly Catholic text.”42 One

38. The Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Communion also Called the Eucha- rist and the Lord’s Supper 1993, 37. 39. Evan Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia – A Watershed for Australian Angli- cans,” The 1995 Austin James Lecture, delivered at St Mary’s College, the University of Melbourne, 21 September, 1995 and in The Australian Journal of Liturgy 5 (1995) 85, note 58. 40. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Commun- ion also Called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper 1993, 37. 41. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 131-132. 42. David Silk, The Holy Eucharist: Alternative and Additional Texts for Use with the Order of the Eucharist in AAPB and APBA. Authorised and commended by the Bishop of Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 203 commentator argues that in proposing such an addition to the draft material, “Catholic Anglicans sought a stronger statement of eucharistic offering and epiclesis.”43 This prayer was debated at some length both on the floor of Synod and behind the scenes44 and became in a modified form, Thanksgiving 3 of the Second Order of APBA.45 The epiclesis in Thanks- giving 3 prays: “Hear us, merciful Lord; through Christ accept our sacrifice of praise; and, by the power of your Word and Holy Spirit, sanctify this bread and wine, that we who share in this holy sacrament may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood.”46 Whereas the three other thanksgiving prayers in APBA refer to the Holy Spirit in relation to the partaking of Christ’s body and blood (Thanksgiving 1) or to the Holy Spirit being sent upon the people and the celebration (Thanksgiving 2) or to the power of the Holy Spirit in an unspecified manner (Thanksgiving 4), Thanksgiving 3 specifically prays for a sanctifying of the bread and wine, so that following this sanctification those who share this holy sacrament may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood. The use of the word ‘sanctify’ suggests change in the state of holiness of the bread and wine, so that those who partake of them partake of Christ’s body and blood. In relation to the anamnesis, Thanksgiving 3 connects the mighty acts of Christ with an offering of a spiritual sacrifice, saying: “Therefore, in obedience to his command, we commemorate and celebrate his saving passion and death, his mighty resurrection and ascension into heaven and we eagerly await his coming again in glory. We thank you that by your grace alone you have accepted us in Christ; and here we offer you a spiritual sacrifice, holy and acceptable in your sight. Through Christ, receive this our duty and service, and grant that we who eat and drink these holy gifts may, by your Spirit, be one body in Christ, and serve you in unity and peace.”47 These words show that there is a commemoration and celebration of the mighty acts of Christ but the connection to this celebration and proclamation is placed at a greater distance from any reference to the bread and wine than is the case in the other thanksgiving prayers. For example, see Thanksgiving 1, where the words “we celebrate, with this

Ballarat under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia (Ballarat: Anglican Diocese of Ballarat, 2002) 8. 43. Gillian Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion – The Anglican Church in Australia,” Our Thanks and Praise: The Eucharist in Anglicanism Today. Papers from the Fifth International Anglican Liturgical Consultation, ed. D. Holeton (Toronto, On- tario: Anglican Book Centre, 1998) 189. 44. Richardson, “A Prayer Book for Australia: Historical Background,” 75 and David Silk, Personal telephone conversation and email correspondence with Bishop David Silk, Bishop of Ballarat, regarding the introduction of a new and alternative Thanksgiving Prayer at General Synod, 1995 and the subsequent debate on, voting on and negotiation concerning this prayer, 28 May, 2003 and 24 July, 2003. 45. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 133-135. 46. Ibid., 134. 47. Ibid., 135. 204 Brian Douglas bread and cup, his one perfect and sufficient sacrifice”48 place the celebration of the sacrifice in very close proximity to the bread and wine, such that the celebration is done with the bread and wine. Thanksgiving 3 seems to be a little more reticent about making this connection and instead speaks of the commemoration and celebration of Christ’s acts with any reference to the bread and wine being nine lines later in the word ‘gifts’. This is surprising considering the Catholic origins of this prayer and its proposer. Despite this, the anamnesis in Thanksgiving 3 uses the words: “here we offer you a spiritual sacrifice, holy and acceptable in your sight.”49 To what does the word ‘offer’ refer? A clue must surely be in the word ‘here’, suggesting that the offering of a spiritual sacrifice is ‘here’ in the Eucharist and that this offering is acceptable and holy. ‘Here’ could refer to the bread and wine, since they are ‘here’ in the Eucharist, but it could also refer to the offering of a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the context of ‘here’ in the Eucharist as an act of praise and thanksgiving. Such ambiguity is a hallmark of the multiformity of eucharistic theology in the Anglican Church of Australia. The amendments brought into this prayer, presumably to satisfy Evangelical objections to any concept of oblation in the Eucharist by means of the bread and wine, seem to have cast the theological position and the realist understanding of this Third Thanksgiving Prayer into some doubt. Gillian Varcoe argues that “evangelicals were intent on protecting the unique atoning work of Christ” and so “the prayer does not reflect consensus, but is burdened with party code words”50 and significant re- petitiveness. It seems likely to conclude that attempts to ‘insulate’ this particular Third Thanksgiving from possible fleshy realist understandings or from any reference to an oblation with the elements, have at the same time limited or lessened the realist understanding of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. It is difficult therefore to understand why Thanksgiving 3 was so heavily criticised in the Diocese of Sydney by several Evangelical writers51 and by a report of the Diocesan Doctrine Commission of the Diocese of Sydney52 when the other thanksgiving

48. Ibid., 129. 49. Ibid., 135. 50. Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion – The Anglican Church in Austra- lia,” 189. 51. See John Woodhouse, “A Prayer Book for Australia and Reformed, Biblical Christianity: An Evangelical Response to A Prayer Book for Australia,” online at: http://www.acl.asn.au/old Accessed 14 January, 2010 and Robert Doyle, “Expressing the Heart of the Gospel: A Review of the Three Orders of Holy Communion in A Prayer Book for Australia,” online at http://www.acl.asn.au/old Accessed 14 January, 2010. For both articles click on Resources, then Prayer Book and Liturgical Resources and then scroll down to the article. 52. Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission, Report “45/95 A Prayer Book for Aus- tralia,” in Diocese of Sydney, 1997 Yearbook of the Diocese of Sydney (Sydney: Diocese of Sydney, 1997) 450-473. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 205 prayers present a more openly realist understanding of both Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. Perhaps the strength of the reaction is related to the use of the word “offer”53 in Thanksgiving 3, suggesting eucharistic oblation in the Thanksgiving. This conclusion is supported by evidence in the Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission Report on APBA, which says that: “In Thanksgiving 3 the movement towards a notion of eucharistic sacrifice is most definite of all forms of the prayer of consecration in APBA” and as such for these writers represents “a return to the idea of pre-Reformation liturgies in which the Eucharist (‘Thanksgiving’) was believed to be itself saving.”54 Any suggestion that ‘our’ sacrifice is part of the Prayer of Consecration is, in the view of the writers of the Sydney Report on APBA (1995), “contrary to the practice of BCP”55 since the 1662 BCP places any reference to a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving after communion and not in the Prayer of Consecration. In the interpretation of the authors of this Sydney Report the doctrine and worship of APBA are not consistent with the doctrine and worship of the 1662 BCP.56 Others, such as Anglican Catholics, had a different view and this is precisely this difference of view which demonstrates the multiformity of eucharistic theology in the production of eucharistic liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. One of the consequences of the insertion of Thanksgiving 3 into APBA was that a form of prayer was adopted that had never been used in any church.57 This meant that “parts of it are awkwardly expressed and difficult to say” but more importantly perhaps, Thanksgiving 3, “represents a departure from the usual Anglican practice of writing liturgy that represent a consensus of the Church as a whole which neither suppresses nor exaggerates particular doctrines. It is not difficult to find within it ‘code’ words representing the doctrinal positions of different factions within the Church.”58 Although David Richardson does not refer to realism and nominalism, it seems that this is the basis of the theological differences in doctrine which were negotiated and debated both at General Synod and behind the scenes. Another consequence of the insertion of

53. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 135. 54. Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission, Report “45/95 A Prayer Book for Aus- tralia,” 465. 55. Ibid., 467. 56. As the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia directs they should be in Article 4. 57. See Richardson, “A Prayer Book for Australia: Historical Background,” 75 and Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion – The Anglican Church in Australia,” 189. 58. Richardson, “A Prayer Book for Australia: Historical Background,” 75. For example the word ‘offer’ is important to Anglican Catholics indicating that Christ’s once and for all sacrifice continues to be offered in the Eucharist and the word ‘sanctify’ in reference to the bread and wine suggests a change in the elements. The words ‘by your grace alone’ in Thanksgiving 3 distance any notions of saving grace through eucharistic worship. 206 Brian Douglas

Silk’s Thanksgiving 3 is that the draft Thanksgiving 3 was completely rejected by the General Synod. Private conversation with someone inti- mately involved with the writing of APBA, Bill Lawton,59 has revealed that draft Thanksgiving 3 was written by Evan Burge60 based on a new translation by Burge of the Apostolic Tradition commonly ascribed to Hippolytus, an ancient liturgical text that has significantly influenced liturgical development in the twentieth century in a number of tradition, for example, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Uniting, and which as an ancient model presents a moderate realist eucharistic theology. Burge himself observes that draft Thanksgiving 3 “went out in favour of the new Thanksgiving,”61 that is Silk’s negotiated and new Thanksgiving 3, but reserves comment, whereas David Richardson62 is less reserved, commenting that: “It is also a misfortune in practice that the shortest (and most ancient) thanksgiving in the draft book [Draft Thanksgiving 363], that based on Hippolytus, was replaced by the longest.”64 Richardson’s distaste for this replacement (Thanksgiving 3 as printed in APBA) is hardly concealed and suggests that compromising eucharistic theology, in order to safeguard party positions, is not the way to proceed in the development of eucharistic liturgies. Gillian Varcoe supports this conclusion and commenting on the party focus so obvious in the debate at General Synod says that, “mistrust skews communication and results too readily in poor liturgy.”65 Further discussion of this use of the Apostolic Tradi- tion at the General Synod and subsequently in draft material produced by the Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia has been addressed elsewhere.66 Thanksgiving 4 in APBA67 is a revision of the second thanksgiving in AAPB of 197868 but with an epiclesis strengthened in a realist direction through the linking of the bread and wine to the power of the Holy Spirit

59. Bill Lawton, Telephone conversations with The Rev’d Dr Bill Lawton regarding General Synod, 1995 and the production of and debate on A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) 27 and 29 May, 2003. Lawton was a member of the Liturgical Commission which presented the draft APBA of 1995 to the General Synod. 60. At that time also a member of the Liturgical Commission and the Warden of Trin- ity College, University of Melbourne. 61. Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia – A Watershed for Australian Anglicans,” 77. 62. Another member of the Liturgical Commission that prepared APBA. 63. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia Draft Only, 129- 130. 64. Richardson, “A Prayer Book for Australia: Historical Background,” 75. 65. Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion – The Anglican Church in Austra- lia,” 189. 66. Brian Douglas, “A ‘Great Thanksgiving’ Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition: A Case Study for Reception of Eucharistic Multiformity in the Anglican Church of Austra- lia,” Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 92 (2011) 112-129. 67. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 136-138. 68. Richardson, “A Prayer Book for Australia: Historical Background,” 75. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 207 and the partaking of Christ’s body and blood.69 The anamnesis in Thanksgiving 4 of APBA is also strengthened from that in AAPB of 1978 by the linking of the celebration of Christ’s mighty acts with the bread and cup.70 Thanksgiving 5 in APBA71 is a short thanksgiving in responsive form, based on Holy Communion – Outline Order72 of 1988 developed by the Liturgical Commission to provide for “a degree of informality and free- dom.”73 The eucharistic theology of Thanksgiving 5 contains the following realist expression: “And now we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine; may we who receive them, as Jesus said, share his body and his blood.”74 There is a realist link here between the bread and wine, the receiving of them and the sharing of Christ’s body and blood. Realist linking is also expressed in the words following the institution narrative, which say: “You have gathered us together to feed on Christ and to remember all he has done for us.”75 Here the mighty works of Christ are expressed briefly in a generalised way (‘all he has done for us’) and this is linked in a realist way with the gathering together in the Eucharist and with the feeding on Christ. Other suggestions of a realist theology in the Second Order Eucharist of APBA are to be found in the words said by the priest and people at the fraction, that is: “We break this bread to share in the body of Christ. We who are many are one body in Christ, for we all share in the one bread.”76 Here there is a realist linking between the bread broken and the sharing in the body of Christ, both in an ecclesial sense (the Church as the body of Christ) and in the sense of sharing in the one bread, identifying the bread with the sharing and with the body of Christ. A further indi- cation of realism is in the use of the Benedictus printed in the text of the Thanksgivings in Second Order. Whilst recognising the practice of many within the Anglican Church of Australia to use these words following the Sanctus, the use of the Benedictus has also been generally associated with those liturgies which present a realist eucharistic theology and which have traditionally been subject to objection by Evangelicals since the use of the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei are seen to signal “a doctrine of the real and substantial presence”77 of Christ in the Eucharist. Gillian Varcoe

69. Ibid., 137. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid., 139-140. 72. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, Holy Communion Outline Order. An Outline Order for Celebrating the Holy Communion (Sydney: AIO, 1988). 73. Ibid., 3. 74. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 140. 75. Ibid., 140. 76. Ibid., 141. 77. Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission, Report “45/95 A Prayer Book for Aus- tralia,” 456. 208 Brian Douglas commented that the inclusion of the Benedictus in APBA of 1995 pro- voked the comment, wrongly, that “people might think it means transubstantiation.”78 Gilbert Sinden in his commentary on AAPB of 1978 argued that some object to the inclusion of the Benedictus in the Eucharist since “it seems to point to a ‘coming’ of the Lord Jesus at a particular moment in the consecration”79 however he rejects this on the argument that the Benedictus points us to the passion of Christ and that we are privileged to share in worship with Christ. Evan Burge argues in a way that seems to respond directly to the criticisms of the Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission Report on APBA, saying that the use of the Benedictus has nothing to do with any doctrine of transubstantiation,80 as the Sydney Report on APBA suggests. Burge argues instead that the Benedictus is in fact an expression of the same idea acceptable to Evangelicals in the Third Order of APBA.81 The use of the Agnus Dei is also allowed in the Second Order of APBA of 1995 but is not printed in the actual eucharistic service but in a section entitled ‘Additional Prayers and Anthems’.82 Once again the Ag- nus Dei has often been associated with eucharistic liturgies which present a realist eucharistic theology, and it is for this reason that the ‘Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission Report on APBA’83 rejects it, saying that it teaches “a doctrine of the real and substantial presence”84 of Christ in the Eucharist. Rejection or acceptance of a realist theology of Christ’s eucharistic presence seems to be the basis for the rejection or acceptance of these aspects of the Second Order of the Eucharist in APBA of 1995 and a further demonstration of the multiformity of eucharistic theology in the Anglican Church of Australia. The Third Order of the Eucharist in APBA85 is based on Experimental Sunday Services86 of 1993 produced within the Diocese of Sydney. It reflects modern liturgical shape but does not express an explicit realist

78. Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion – The Anglican Church in Austra- lia,” 188. 79. When We Meet for Worship: A Manual for Using An Australian Prayer Book, 1978, ed. Gilbert Sinden (Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, 1978) 150. 80. Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia – A Watershed for Australian Anglicans,” 86, note 67. 81. Ibid., 86, note 67. Here he refers to the words “Come, Lord Jesus!” on page 177 of APBA which in turn derive from page 33 of the Experimental Sunday Services of 1993 and which is itself a product of the Diocese of Sydney. 82. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 145-146. 83. Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission, Report “45/95 A Prayer Book for Aus- tralia,” 456. 84. Ibid., 456. 85. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 167-180. 86. Liturgical Committee of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, Experimental Sun- day Services. This is also acknowledged by Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia – A Watershed for Australian Anglicans,” 86, note 67. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 209 theology of the Eucharist. While some see the Third Order as having “simple theological clarity”87 and the possessing of “several indicators of substitutionary atonement”88 as commendable and therefore “very wel- come,”89 particularly to Evangelicals, others view the Third Order from a Catholic perspective as lacking “adequate reference to the sacramental bread and cup as a divinely appointed sacramental means of feeding on Christ”90 and see the Third Order as “not recommended”91 and expressive of “the Protestant doctrine of the 1552 BCP.”92 The Third Order of APBA represents an attempt to construct a eucharistic liturgy which expresses a specifically less realist theology of the Eucharist. The Third Order contains no epiclesis or oblation although there is some realist linking of the signs of bread and wine with the mighty acts of Christ in the following anamnesis: “And now, gracious God, we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine, and pray that we who receive them, in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, according to our Saviour’s word, in remembrance of his suffering and death, may share his body and blood.”93 The linking here seems to be between the bread and the wine, the receiving of them, the sharing of Christ’s body and blood and the remembering of Christ’s suffering and death. This suggests a more receptionist emphasis, such as is found in the 1552 BCP, with any realist linking of the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ, limited to the action of receiving. Burge argues that the Liturgical Com- mission included the Third Order “for its simplicity and doctrinal congru- ity with the BCP, but not to gratify one party,”94 but despite Burge’s as- sertion, it seems that the Third Order is acceptable to some Evangelicals precisely because it gratifies their understanding of eucharistic theology, in much the same way the Second Order is acceptable to Catholics be-

87. Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission, Report “45/95 A Prayer Book for Aus- tralia,” 469. 88. Robert Doyle, “Expressing the Heart of the Gospel: A Review of the Three Orders of Holy Communion in A Prayer Book for Australia,” 25-26. 89. Ibid., 26. 90. Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia – A Watershed for Australian Anglicans,” 84, note 47. 91. David Silk, The Holy Eucharist: Alternative and Additional Texts for Use with the Orders of the Eucharist in AAPB and APBA. Authorised and commended by the Bishop of Ballarat under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. Pub- lished together with a number of service cards entitled: The Holy Eucharist; The Holy Eucharist in Advent; The Holy Eucharist in Christmas and Epiphany; The Holy Eucharist in Lent; The Holy Eucharist – Eastertide; The Requiem Eucharist; The Funeral Mass (Ballarat: Anglican Diocese of Ballarat, 1995) 201. 92. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 2002, 7. 93. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 176. 94. Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia – A Watershed for Australian Anglicans,” 84, note 47. 210 Brian Douglas cause it gratifies their understanding of eucharistic theology. In much the same way the Third Order is unacceptable to some Catholics,95 just as the Second Order is unacceptable to some Evangelicals.96 All this contributes to the argument for multiformity of eucharistic theology in the eucharistic liturgies of the Anglican Church of Australia.

4. Liturgical Responses to APBA 1995

Several significant liturgical responses have occurred since the publica- tion of A Prayer Book for Australia in 1995 – one, in two editions, in the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Ballarat and another, also in two editions, in the Evangelical Diocese of Sydney. Interestingly, although both these eucharistic resources are distinctly different in their eucharistic theology and the philosophical assumptions underlying their theology, both are authorised and published under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Angli- can Church of Australia which allows the bishop of a diocese to approve such measures. Such approval under the Constitution effectively legiti- mises multiformity of eucharistic liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia as long as the diocesan bishop gives approval.

5. The Holy Eucharist 1995/2002 (Diocese of Ballarat)

In the Diocese of Ballarat a manual entitled The Holy Eucharist97 attempts to correct what are seen as deficiencies in APBA and present alternative forms of the Thanksgiving (as well as material not included in APBA, 1995) so as to provide liturgies “capable of Catholic interpretation”98 or “patient of a Catholic interpretation.”99 The manual The Holy Eucharist was assembled by the then Bishop of Ballarat, The Right Rev- erend David Silk in an attempt to draw material from a wide variety of sources, including AAPB of 1978, APBA of 1995, other parts of the An- glican Communion and other Christian traditions. These materials he authorised for use in the Diocese of Ballarat under Article 4 of the Con- stitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. In amending Thanksgiving 1 of APBA Silk makes the following additions (in italics): “Merciful God, we thank you for these gifts of your creation, this bread and this wine, and we pray that by your Word and Holy Spirit, we who eat and drink them may by them be partakers of

95. For example Bishop Silk. 96. For example Robert Doyle and “The Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission Re- port.” 97. Silk, The Holy Eucharist 1995 and 2002. 98. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 1995, 198. 99. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 2002, 8. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 211

Christ’s body and blood.”100 The intention here seems to be to identify the signs of bread and wine more closely with the signified body and blood of Christ. By adding the words ‘by them’ a realist theology of Christ’s eucharistic presence is emphasised. In amending Thanksgiving 2 of APBA (1995) Silk makes the following additions (in italics) to the anamnesis: “With this bread and this cup we celebrate his saving death and sacrifice until he comes.”101 The sense here seems to be that in the Eucharist there is a celebration, not only of Christ’s death but also his sacrifice and that this celebration of sacrifice continues until Christ returns. Here then is a realist linking of the Christ’s death and sacrifice with the celebration of the Eucharist and specifically with the bread and cup. In the second edition of the manual Bishop Silk however does not recommend this thanksgiving prayer, arguing that because of eastern orthodox style with the epiclesis after the Institu- tion/Memorial, it does not reflect the ‘western’ catholic shape which characterises the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican tradition.102 In his treatment of Thanksgiving 4 of APBA Silk again uses the words ‘by them’ to link the signs more closely and obviously with the signified. In relation to the amendments put forward for Thanksgiving 5 of APBA Silk argues that Thanksgiving 5, “lacks memorial (anamnesis) and an invocation (epiclesis) related to the eucharistic action.”103 To rectify this situation, Silk amends (in italics) Thanksgiving 5 in the following way: “Loving Father, you have gathered us together to remember all that Jesus did to save us. In this holy sacrifice which he gave as a gift to his Church we remember his dying and his rising. Fill us with the joy of the Holy Spirit as in this holy meal we receive the body and blood of your Son.”104 Silk says here that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, coming to the Church from Christ himself, and that it is by this sacrifice in the Eucha- rist that Christ’s dying and rising is remembered and Christ’s body and blood is received. These amendments are realist, identifying the signs of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ and the sacrifice of Christ’s death with the sacrifice of the Eucharist. In relation to the epiclesis in Thanksgiving 5, Silk makes the following amendments (in italics): “And now we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine; bless them and make them holy, that we who receive them, as Jesus said, may share his body and blood.”105 The blessing the bread and wine, as expressed here, is to make them holy so that those who receive them may share Christ’s body and blood. This is a more realist interpretation than Thanksgiving 5 of APBA intended and indicates

100. Ibid., 138. 101. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 1995, 111. 102. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 2002, 8. 103. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 1995, 198. 104. Ibid., 120. 105. Ibid., 119. 212 Brian Douglas that Silk wanted, by his amendments, to make Thanksgiving 5 more realist in relation to the linking of the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ. In the second edition of his manual however, Silk avoids the necessity for amendment by simply advising that Thanksgiving 5 is not recommended and by omitting the amendments. He rejects the theology of Thanksgiving 5 and no longer opts for amendment, arguing that Thanksgiving 5 “is drafted in such a way as to exclude the catholic understanding of the Eucharist and to reflect the doctrinal position of 1552 – the real presence is in the heart of the be- liever, and the memorial is in the reception rather than the offering.”106 In the 1995 edition of The Holy Eucharist other material used includes a Thanksgiving described as ‘Anglican Communion after Hippolytus’, the following epiclesis is found expressing realist concepts: “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”107 In the 2002 edition of The Holy Eucharist however, this has become even more realist, saying: “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”108 In a thanksgiving prayer entitled ‘Anglican – Papua New Guinea’ is found: “We offer you the bread of eternal life and this cup of eternal salvation.”109 In a thanksgiving entitled ‘The Western (Roman) Canon’ is found: “We offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.”110 In the 2002 edition of The Holy Eucharist in a thanksgiving entitled simply ‘Roman Catholic’ the prayer prays: “we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. … Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.”111 Silk in using these forms of the Thanksgiving Prayer and in the amendments he makes to AAPB, 1978 and APBA, 1995 is bringing into use more developed Catholic forms of the epiclesis, the anamnesis and the oblation, so as to make the theology of the Eucharist more explicitly realist.

106. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 2002, 8. 107. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 1995, 122. 108. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 2002, 161. 109. Ibid., 158. 110. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 1995, 141. 111. Silk, The Holy Eucharist, 2002, 166-167. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 213

6. Sunday Services 2001 and Common Prayer 2012 (Diocese of Syd- ney)

In the Diocese of Sydney two sets of liturgical resources, one entitled Sunday Services. A Contemporary Liturgical Resource112 and the other Common Prayer: Resources for Gospel-Shaped Gatherings113 were published and authorised by Archbishop Peter Jensen, under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia in 2001 and 2012 re- spectively. Sunday Services were published in an attempt to provide liturgical resources which are described as “biblical in content, intelligible in language and appropriate to our time and culture.”114 Sunday Ser- vices115 however also claim to stand firmly within the Reformation tradition of Archbishop Cranmer and so present several eucharistic liturgies, or Services of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, which reflect this tradition. Common Prayer sets out to provide resources “for gospel- shaped gathering in the evangelical Anglican tradition”116 and does this by using much of the material found in Sunday Services but also including new material and through some conservative innovations. Three liturgies of the Eucharist are presented in Sunday Services – Form 1 (a translation of the service of Holy Communion in the 1662 BCP; and Forms 2A and 2B, both a development of Experimental Sunday Services117 of 1993 previously published in the Diocese of Sydney, and cast in the shape of modern eucharistic liturgies and discussed in Part 1 of this article. Form 1 of Sunday Services (style of 1662) focuses on the death of Je- sus Christ and gives emphasis to the theological concepts of atonement and justification by faith. These themes are most apparent in the Prayer of Consecration where the following is found: “We thank you our heavenly Father that in your love and mercy you gave your only Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross to save us. By this offering of himself once and for all time, Jesus made the perfect, complete sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, satisfying your just demands in full.”118 Common Prayer follows this pattern but amends the text to make it more in line with the 1662 BCP, saying: “We thank you our Father that in your love and mercy you gave your only Son Jesus Christ to die on a cross for our salvation. By

112. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services: A Contemporary Li- turgical Resource (Sydney: Anglican Press Australia, 2001). 113. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer: Resources for Gos- pel-Shaped Gatherings (Sydney: Anglican Press Australia, 2012). 114. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 2. 115. Ibid., 3. 116. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 4. 117. Liturgical Committee of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, Experimental Sun- day Services. 118. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 55. 214 Brian Douglas this offering of himself once and for all time Jesus made a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world and commanded us to continue a remembrance of his precious death until his coming again.”119 The work of the cross is emphasised but the other mighty acts of Christ (resurrection and ascension) are not mentioned. The echoes of the 1662 BCP are more apparent in Common Prayer but the references to substitutionary atonement, an Evangelical theological preference, in Sunday Services (that is, “satisfying your just demands”) are omitted in Common Prayer without comment. There is no specific realist link between Christ’s work on the cross or remembering his death until his coming again and the Eucharist in Sun- day Services although Common Prayer presents the possibility of such a realist link in saying that: “By this offering of himself once for all time Jesus made a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world and commanded us to continue a remembrance of his precious death until he comes again.”120 This is not as strong as the Prayer of Consecration in the 1662 BCP which says that it was Christ who “did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until he coming again.”121 Sunday Services make no mention of continuing a remembrance (as Common Prayer does) or continuing a perpetual memory (as the 1662 BCP does) suggesting that the 1662 BCP and Common Prayer present the possibility of a more realist link between remembrance/memory than does Sunday Services. Sunday Services does say however: “Hear us, merciful Father, and grant that we, who eat and drink this bread and wine, may remember his death, and share in his body and blood,”122 at least suggesting that the remembering is happening at the time of eating and drinking. Common Prayer expresses this in a more realist manner, saying: “Hear us, merciful Father, and grant that we who receive these gifts of your creation, this bread and wine, according to our Saviour’s command, in remembrance of his suffering and death, may share in his body and blood.”123 Here the reference to gifts is specifically noted as ‘this bread and this wine’ and linked to the remembrance of the Saviour’s command, although the sharing of the body and blood seems to be associated with the receiving of the gifts more than the gifts themselves. Common Prayer therefore significantly suggests a clear realist link between the gifts or signs of bread and wine and the remembering of Christ’s death. The act of eating and drinking the bread and wine does not necessarily have any realist link with the remembering and the shar-

119. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 40. 120. Ibid. 121. Book of Common Prayer 1662 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 255. 122. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 55. 123. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 41. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 215 ing, apart from the fact that the act of eating and drinking seem to be occurring at the same period of time as the sharing in Christ’s body and blood. This suggests receptionism. The institution narrative in both Sunday Services124 and Common Prayer125 contains no epiclesis or anamnesis and reception of communion follows immediately after the ‘Amen’ and with no anthems or accla- mations in either liturgy which may lead to a suggestion of eucharistic adoration. This is in the pattern of the 1662 BCP service of Holy Com- munion but also reflects Evangelical preference for liturgies which do not contain these particular materials and which could suggest eucharistic adoration. Significantly the words of administration are altered in Sunday Services from the words in the 1662 BCP. Whereas 1662 says: “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving,”126 Sunday Services says: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for you, keep your body and soul for everlasting life. Take and eat this, remembering that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving.”127 Significantly, ‘in remembrance’ in the 1662 BCP, indicating that the bread and wine are linked in some way with Christ’s body and blood as an act ‘in remembrance’, has been altered in Sunday Services to merely ‘remembering’, where the emphasis is now upon the action of the communicant in bringing to mind that Christ died, rather than the elements being taken ‘in remembrance’. In Common Prayer in Forms 1 and 2 this wording is not followed and the words of administration become: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for you, preserve your body and soul to everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving.”128 What Common Prayer Forms 1 and 2 have done is to maintain the 1662 BCP words of administration with modernisation of pronouns and preposi- tions, but significantly they maintain the words ‘in remembrance’, and therefore a much broader notion of memorial remembrance where the taking and eating is done in association with the idea that Christ died, rather than suggesting as Sunday Services does that the communicant merely takes and eat the bread while they are ‘remembering’ that Christ has died. The addition of the comma after the words ‘Take and eat this’, in Sunday Services also separates the ‘this’ (that is the bread/wine) from the remembering and places the emphasis not on the act of remembrance with the bread/wine, but on the act of remembering itself (bringing to

124. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 55. 125. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 41. 126. 1662 BCP words of administration. 127. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 56. 128. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 41. 216 Brian Douglas mind a past and completed event as an act of faith on the part of the communicant) apart from the bread. This lessens any sense of realism where the signs of bread and wine are linked to the remembrance of Christ’s death and presents instead an increased separation of the sign from what it signifies. This is reinforced by the prayers which follow communion in both Sunday Services and Common Prayer. Any sense of offering is of self alone and only after communion and clearly not in con- junction with any offering of bread and wine. Sacrifice relates only to the people who are described as “living sacrifices.”129 A significant change occurs in the words of administration in Com- mon Prayer Forms 3 and 4.130 Here the introduction referring to the body and blood of Christ is omitted completely and the words of administration become similar to the words found in the BCP of 1552, that is, in Form 3 “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your heart by faith, with thanksgiving” and “Drink this, remembering that Christ’s book was shed for you, and be thankful” and in Form 4 “Drink this, in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for you, and be thankful.”131 A similar form was suggested as an alternative in Sunday Services.132 In this new form of words in Common Prayer there is no clear link to what ‘this’ is that is being eaten and drunk as there is in the fuller form and so the sense of identifying the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ in any realist manner is now also lessened and uncertain.133 Inexplicably the words of administration in Form 3 for the wine return to the earlier form of the comma after ‘this’ and the use of the word ‘remembering’, suggestive of an act of mind, rather than the more dynamic ‘remembrance’. The use of the word ‘remembering’ is not however found in Form 4 and the words of administration return to ‘in remembrance’ although of course in the 1552 BCP pattern, that is, without any reference to the body and blood of Christ. This use of the 1552 BCP pattern of words of administration seems strange since this pattern was not followed in subsequent revisions of the BCP, that is, in 1559 and 1662, both of which returned reference to the body and blood of Christ to the words of administration. Perhaps this is an evangelical preference for the 1552 BCP which was the most Reformed edition of the English prayer book and so intended to remove even the smallest trace of any realist linking of the signs of the Eucharist, that is,

129. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 57; Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 42. 130. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 63 and 67-68. 131. Ibid. 132. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 77. 133. Note however that Forms 3 and 4 of Common Prayer provide a rubric allowing for the use of the longer words with the words ‘The Body/Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ’, Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, 63 and 68. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 217 the bread and wine, with what they signify, that is, the body and blood of Christ. The theological background of Sunday Services is set out clearly by Archbishop Jensen himself in an address to the National Evangelical Anglican Congress in the United Kingdom in September, 2003. Here Jensen argues according to his Evangelical agenda that: “Again and again in the New Testament we discover the truly crucial point, the pivotal moment in our salvation is the death of Jesus Christ. His incarnation, his resurrection, his ascension – all these and more are essential to his work. But it is his death which is the key. It is no accident that the gospels give so much attention to his death.”134 It is the death of Christ that is emphasised, not the other mighty acts, and this is reflected in this liturgy of the Diocese of Sydney where Jensen is the Archbishop and as such approved Sunday Services for use. It is Jensen’s belief that the sacrifice of Christ was “so great and all sufficient … that it has never and can never be re- peated, not even sacramentally; we cannot add to it or supplement it.”135 This means for Jensen that there can no instantiation of the sacrifice of Christ in the present in the Eucharist and that Christians cannot move beyond the cross of Jesus in a sacramental manner. He argues this point in the following way using St Paul, although he does not cite his biblical references: “Twice when Paul talked about the love of Christ he used a very significant past tense. We would say that Christ loves us; he said Christ loved us. He could not graduate beyond the cross of Jesus as the source and power of his religion; as the place at which he gained assur- ance; as the demonstration beyond any other need of proof, of the grace and love of God.”136 Common Prayer in its linking of ‘in remembrance’ with the death of Christ presents the possibility of an alteration to this theology and a more realist interpretation of memorial remembrance. Form 2A of Sunday Services (modern liturgical shape) however, refers to the mighty acts of Christ other than his death (resurrection and coming again) and to Christ’s sacrifice as once offered, a true sacrifice for sin, a reconciliation and satisfaction of God’s just demands and as the means of securing eternal deliverance.137 This pattern is followed in Common Prayer in what is called Form 2, where there is reference to “his death on the cross and rising to new life.”138 The institution narrative follows in both Sunday Services and Common Prayer and then in Sunday Services the people join the minister in saying: “Therefore Father, we

134. Peter Jensen, The Atonement – the Heart of Our Message, Archbishop Peter Jen- sen’s address at the National Evangelical Congress 4, held in the United Kingdom in Sep- tember, 2003, online at http://sydneyanglicans.net/seniorclergy/archbishop_jensen/1072a (Accessed 3 January, 2009) 2. 135. Ibid., 4. 136. Ibid., 5-6. 137. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 66-67. 138. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 52. 218 Brian Douglas thank you for these gifts of bread and wine, and pray that we who eat and drink them, believing our Saviour’s word, may share his body and blood.”139 In Common Prayer the people no longer join the minister in these words, however a significant addition relating to the role of the Holy Spirit occurs in this version so that it now reads: “Therefore Father, we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine, and pray that we who eat and drink them, in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, believing our Sav- iour’s word, may be partakers of his body and blood.”140 It is the eating and the drinking with believing that is linked to the sharing of the body and blood, suggestive of receptionism, and not the signs of bread and wine, although Common Prayer gives a heightened role to the action of the Holy Spirit. Common Prayer in its Forms 2, 3 and 4 presents a similar eucharistic theology to Form 1. Each of these forms presents an Evangelical perspective with the use of the title ‘The Lord’s Supper’, exhortations, short prefaces, and institution narrative and progress to communion immediately after the consecration. There are no prayers or anthems141 other than the words of administration in the presence of the consecrated, presumably to limit any suggestion of worship or adoration directed towards a presence of Christ in the elements. The purpose of the elements accords with the 1662 BCP practice of administration only without any eucharistic adoration. Common Prayer while having much in common with Sunday Services presents a more traditional style of Anglican worship in the Evangelical tradition, especially in Form 1, but at the same time significantly limits the possibility of any realist eucharistic theology. This seems to be its Evangelical intention.

7. Conclusion

The liturgical developments in the Anglican Church of Australia perhaps more than any other province of the Anglican Communion, demonstrate considerable multiformity of eucharistic theology and philosophical assumptions underlying that theology. This may be due to the entrenched diocesanism within the Anglican Church of Australia which is codified in the Constitution of the province. The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia has limited power and the real power exists in the synods of each diocese. This results in a multiformity of eucharistic theology allowed under Article 4 of the Constitution. Both realism, where the signs are linked to what they signified and nominalism, where no

139. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Services, 67. 140. Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Common Prayer, 53. 141. Such as the Agnus Dei. Eucharistic Liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. Part Two 219 such link is found, are part of the liturgical development in the eucharistic liturgies of the Anglican Church of Australia.

St Mark’s National Theological Centre Brian DOUGLAS Charles Sturt University 15 Blackall Street Barton. ACT. 2603. Australia [email protected]