MODELLED on the APOSTOLIC TRADITION a Case for Reception

A “GREAT THANKSGIVING” MODELLED ON THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

A Case for Reception of Eucharistic Multiformity in the Anglican Church of Australia

1. Use of The Apostolic Tradition in Contemporary Eucharistic Prac- tice

The anaphora or eucharistic prayer of the early church order known as The 1 2 Apostolic Tradition, sometimes attributed to Hippolytus, maintains a significant influence on the development of eucharistic liturgies and litur- 3 gical practice in several Christian traditions, not only in the Roman Catho- lic tradition but also the Anglican. This is despite serious questions about authorship, dating of the material and whether or not the text was widely 4 used. Eucharistic prayers modelled on the anaphora of The Apostolic Tra- 5 dition are however approved and used in several Anglican Provinces, and

1. See modern translations of the eucharistic prayer in Geoffrey Cuming, Hippolytus: A Text for Students with Introduction, Translation, Commentary and Notes (Bramcote Notts: Grove Books, 1976) 10-11; Alistair Stewart-Sykes, On the Apostolic Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001) 64-76; Paul Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary (Minneapo- lis, MN: Augsburg Press, 2002) 38-40. 2. See detailed discussion of the authorship of The Apostolic Tradition, in Stewart- Sykes, On the Apostolic Tradition, 22-32; Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition, 1-17; and in John F. Baldovin, “Hippolytus and The Apostolic Tradition: Recent Research and Commentary,” Theological Studies 64 (2003) 520-542. 3. Baldovin, “Hippolytus and The Apostolic Tradition,” 538. Baldovin cites the influence of The Apostolic Tradition on the Second Eucharistic Prayer of the Post-Vatican II Roman Eucharistic Rite, see The Roman Catholic Church, The New Sunday Missal: Texts approved for use in Australia and New Zealand (London/Sydney: Geoffrey Chapman, 1982) 402-406. 4. See Allen Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church: Communities in Tension before Emergence of a Monarch Bishop (Leiden: Brill, 1995). 5. See The Church of England, Common Worship (London: Church House Publish- ing, 2000) 188-190; The Anglican Church of Canada, The Book of Alternative Services A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 113 draft eucharistic prayers modelled on The Apostolic Tradition have been 6 trialled in the Anglican Church of Australia. In 2009 the Liturgical Com- mission of the Anglican Church of Australia re-released draft material dating from 1995, calling it, “A Great Thanksgiving based on The Apos- 7 tolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus,” intending that it be for discussion and trial use within the Anglican Church of Australia. This paper is aimed at examining this draft Australian “Great Thanks- giving” modelled on the eucharistic prayer of The Apostolic Tradition in relation to one linguistic and one theological issue within the multiformity of eucharistic theology and liturgical practice which exists in the Anglican Communion generally and specifically within the Anglican Church of Australia. These issues in Australia are heavily related to the prevailing 8 diocesanism within the Anglican Church of Australia and the limiting effect this has on liturgical development where there is response to the particular theological interests of church parties. This article also argues that there is a need to recognize and accept the multiformity of eucharistic theology inherent within Anglican eucharistic theology and to recognize the place this has on the development and practice of eucharistic liturgies within Anglicanism generally and specifically within the Anglican Church 9 of Australia. In regard to the practice of trial use of liturgical texts in the Anglican Church of Australia, the suggestion is made that a differentiated consensus framed within a process of reception may be an alternative methodology for the Liturgical Commission to employ to engage parties in a more productive process of subject-subject dialogue and the mutual rec-

(Toronto, Ont.: Anglican Book Centre, 1989) 196-197; The Church of the Province of Southern Africa, An Anglican Prayer Book (London: Collins, 1989) 124-126. 6. See the draft liturgical material of the Anglican Church of Australia based on The Apostolic Tradition, that is, Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Communion also Called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper (Sydney: Broughton Books, 1993) 39-40; The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia Draft Only for Consideration by the General Synod July 1995 (Sydney: Broughton Books, 1995) 129-130. 7. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, A Great Thanksgiving based on The Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus, Online at http://www.anglican.org.au/Web/Website.nsf/content/Commission:_Liturgy. Accessed 4 August, 2010. 8. In the Anglican Church of Australia a constitution affirms the rights of individual dioceses over any decision of the national church through its General Synod. See Consti- tution of the Anglican Church of Australia online at: http://www.anglican.org.au/Web/ Website.nsf/content/Constitution, accessed 22 July, 2010. 9. This has already been considered to some extent in Brian Douglas and Terence Lovat, “Dialogue Amidst Multiformity – A Habermasian Breakthrough in the Develop- ment of Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies,” The Journal of Anglican Studies 8 (2010) 35-57, but will be considered here in more detail specifically relating to The Apostolic Tradition and its trial use in the Anglican Church of Australia. 114 Brian Douglas ognition of different philosophical assumptions underlying eucharistic theology, rather than the adversarial subject-object process presently used.

2. The Importance of The Apostolic Tradition

The Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia argues that The Apostolic Tradition remains important for contemporary construction of eucharistic liturgies and liturgical practice because of “its lineage, preceding the controversies surrounding eucharistic doctrine and practice in the ninth, sixteenth and recent centuries” and because of “its bold imagery, reflecting the ‘classic’ motif of God’s atoning victory wrought in Christ over sin, evil and death.”10 This lineage presents material from the early history of Christian liturgy and as such, it is argued, provides a foundation for contemporary liturgical practice.11 A consensus however is less than clear. While some scholars point to the importance of the anaphora of The Apostolic Tradition possibly being the only eucharistic prayer dating from the ante-Nicene period containing an institution narrative,12 other scholars doubt this claim and suggest that the institution was inserted in the fourth century.13 Whatever the case, the anaphora of The Apostolic Tradition remains an early eucharistic prayer and as such has commanded much respect among liturgical scholars and sus- tained a significant influence on the construction of contemporary eucharistic prayers and liturgical practice in a number of Christian traditions. More recently however, serious questions have been raised about whether or not The Apostolic Tradition really represents the liturgy of the Roman Church in the third century.14 While Symth and Bradshaw acknowledge the antiquity of parts of The Aposotolic Tradition, at the same time they point to material that is later than the third century and the lack of resem- blance between the anaphora of The Apostolic Tradition and what is known of the liturgical practice of Rome at later times,15 suggesting that its origins are Antiochene.16 Any use of the anaphora of The Apostolic Tradition, they argue, therefore should “depend upon its doctrinal, litur-

10. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, A Great Thanksgiv- ing, 1. 11. Baldovin, “Hippolytus and The Apostolic Tradition,” 521. 12. Enrico Mazza, The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer, trans. Ronald Lane (Col- legeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995) 103-126; Stewart-Sykes, On the Apostolic Tradi- tion, 71. 13. Baldovin, “Hippolytus and The Apostolic Tradition,” 539; Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition, 46. 14. Matthieu Smyth and Paul Bradshaw, “The Anaphora of the So-called Apostolic Tradition and the Roman Eucharistic Prayer,” Usus Antiquior 1 (2010) 6. 15. Ibid., 6-7. 16. Ibid., 23. A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 115 gical, and literary merits and not upon any supposed privileged parent- age.”17 Smyth and Bradshaw conclude that following adaptation of The Apostolic Tradition by modern liturgical scholars, “its features, stamped by their West Syrian structure and by their archaisms, are henceforth almost unrecognisable, but faithfully reflect the concerns of a small group of liturgists in the middle of the twentieth century.”18 This analysis casts considerable doubt on the argument of the Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church for a unique lineage preceding later controversies and in turn suggests that modern use of The Apostolic Tradition may well in itself be a reflection of particular interests. Such caution may be an important matter for any Liturgical Commission to consider in using The Apostolic Tradition as a model for liturgical development and use.

3. The Apostolic Tradition in the Anglican Church of Australia

In 1993 the Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia produced a new set of eucharistic liturgies19 as part of the process of moving towards a new prayer book.20 The Third Thanksgiving Prayer21 in the 1993 set of draft eucharistic liturgies was modelled on the anaphora of The Apostolic Tradition and said by the Liturgical Commission to be “one of the most ancient thanksgiving prayers known to the Church”22 and the basis for revisions in many parts of the Christian tradition. This text was “a fresh translation by the Rev’d Dr Evan Burge”23 a member of the Liturgical Commission in 1993. Following trial use this thanksgiving prayer was also included as the Third Thanksgiving,24 with slight variations, in the draft form of A Prayer Book for Australia, presented to the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia in 1995. As events turned out at the General Synod of 1995 this Third Thanksgiving, modelled on The Apostolic Tradition, was replaced by another thanksgiving25

17. Ibid., 7. 18. Ibid., 25. 19. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Commun- ion also Called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper. 20. This new prayer book was finally authorised by General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia in 1995. See The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (Sydney: Broughton Books, 1995). 21. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Commun- ion also Called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 39-40. 22. Ibid., 23. 23. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, A Great Thanksgiv- ing, 1. 24. The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia Draft, 129-130. 25. For details of these events see David Richardson, “The Holy Communion,” A Prayer Book for Australia: A Practical Commentary, ed. Gillian Varcoe (Sydney: Dwyer, 1997) 75; Gillian Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion – The Anglican Church 116 Brian Douglas moved on the floor of the synod by one of the bishops who aimed at providing “an explicit Catholic text.”26 Another commentator stated that in proposing this new prayer, “Catholic Anglicans sought a stronger statement of eucharistic offering and epiclesis.”27 The result was that after significant negotiation on and off the floor of General Synod the newly introduced eucharistic prayer, with some amendments to satisfy evangelical interests,28 replaced that modelled on The Apostolic Tradition, and so the new prayer book with the replaced Third Thanksgiving29 moved into production and use without the eucharistic prayer modelled on The Apostolic Tradition. In 2009 the Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia again released the version of the anaphora of The Apostolic Tradition,30 in the same form as presented to General Synod in the 1995 draft of A Prayer Book for Australia31 in the belief that, “the time had come for this Thanksgiving to be available for trial use, believ- ing that the retrieval of an ancient text for contemporary prayer will assist the praise of God by Australian Anglicans.”32 What distinguishes the 1993, 1995 and 2009 Australian draft versions of the eucharistic prayer modelled on The Apostolic Tradition, when compared with other transla- tions33 of the original, is significant linguistic and theological alterations from the original text. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Liturgical Commission had a duty to depart from the original translation in order to satisfy the demands of modern language idioms for present day congre- gations, there were alterations to the text which made the version of The Apostolic Tradition proposed by the Liturgical Commission of the Angli- can Church of Australia, problematic. In this article one linguistic alteration relating to the tenses of verbs in the institution narrative and one theological alteration relating to the use of the verb “offer” will be exam- ined. It is acknowledged that other important alterations in linguistic and in Australia,” Our Thanks and Praise: The Eucharist in Anglicanism Today. Papers from the Fifth International Anglican Liturgical Consultation, ed. David Holeton (Toronto, Ont.: Anglican Book Centre, 1998) 189. 26. 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 Ballarat under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia (Ballarat: Anglican Diocese of Ballarat, 2002) 8. 27. Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion,” 189. 28. See Evan Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia: A Watershed for Australian An- glicans. The Austin James Lecture 21 September 1995,” The Australian Journal of Lit- urgy 5, 2, October (1995) 76-77. 29. Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia, 133-135. 30. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, A Great Thanksgiving. 31. Report of the Liturgical Commission to General Synod 2010, 8-9. 32. Ibid., 9. 33. See Cuming, Hippolytus: A Text for Students and Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition. A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 117 theological matters are made in the 2009 Australian draft, including the alteration of the inclusive language in the original34 to exclusive language and the removal of the eschatological references, but space available here does not allow a full treatment of these issues and so one linguistic and one theological issue are used in this discussion as examples of the process of alteration set in place to satisfy particular sectional interests of the Anglican Church of Australia.

4. A Linguistic Alteration in the Australian Draft of The Apostolic Tradition

The linguistic alteration in the 2009 draft Australian text of the eucharistic prayer based on The Apostolic Tradition concerns the tenses of the verbs in the institution narrative where the future tense is used in both the words over the bread and the words over the wine. The text of the Aus- tralian draft material over the bread states in relation to the words and actions of Jesus that he:

… took bread and gave thanks, saying to this disciples, “Take, and eat: this is my body which will be given for you.”35

In relation to the words and actions of Jesus over the wine, the Australian 2009 draft material states:

In the same way he took the cup, saying, “This is my blood which will be shed for you. When you do this, you do it in memory of me.”36

When this text is compared with the original Latin version as translated37 it is apparent that whereas the future tense, seemingly following the original, is used in relation to the bread in some translations,38 the present tense is used in relation to the wine.39 In other translations the present tense is used in relation to both the bread and wine.40 To be consistent with some ver-

34. “Through your beloved child/servant” to the gender specific “Son.” 35. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, A Great Thanksgiv- ing, 2. 36. Ibid., 2. 37. See Cuming, Hippolytus: A Text for Students, 11 and Bradshaw et al., The Apos- tolic Tradition, 40. 38. See for example Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition, 40 where the text is translated, “Take, eat, this is my body that will be broken for you.” 39. Ibid., 40 where the text is translated, “This is my blood which is shed for you.” 40. See the translations of Burton Easton, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934) 36; Bernard Botte, La Tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte: Essai de reconstitution (Münster: Aschendorff, 1989) 15-16; 118 Brian Douglas sions of the original text and use both the future and the present tenses, it could be argued, would be the source of endless confusion and questioning at the congregational level41 so the problem arises should the future tense be used in both cases or the present tense in both cases. Christian traditions have acted on this possible confusion in various ways. The Roman Catho- lic eucharistic thanksgiving based on The Apostolic Tradition opts for the future tense in the words over both the bread and the wine42 while other traditions have taken a different road. The Anglican Church of the Prov- ince of Southern Africa opts for the present tense in both sets of words43 as does the Anglican Church of Canada44 and the Church of England.45 The Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia provides no reasoning for its decision to follow the use of the future tense in both cases and no reasoning to explain its decision to reject the use of the present tense in both cases. Bradshaw et al, observe that the use of the future in relation to the bread is unusual in early Christian citations of the words of Jesus and goes on to cite the work of Bernard Botte46 who suggests that the use of the future was due to a misunderstanding of a present participle by the Latin and Ethiopic translators and that such a reading is unknown in all other Greek witnesses,47 although both Bradshaw et al. and Cuming in the apparatus for their translations, acknowledge that the future tense is used over the bread (but not the wine) in the eucharistic prayer of Ambrose.48 The argument for the future tense in relation to both the bread and wine is hardly conclusive and just as cogent a case for the use of the present tense in both cases can be made, following the translations of Easton, Botte, Dix and Stewart-Sykes cited above. The present tense in these translations suggests a continuous nature of Christ’s actions, rather than a future nature, and as such links the institution of the Eucharist as one part, to the

Gregory Dix and Henry Chadwick (eds.), The Treatise on The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome Bishop and Martyr (London: SPCK, 1968) 8; Stewart-Sykes, On the Apostolic Tradition, 65. 41. The Executive Secretary of the Liturgical Commission, The Revd Dr Charles Sherlock, confirms this in private email correspondence dated 19 January, 2010 with the author of this article. The use of the present tense over both bread and wine, on the basis of other translations, seems however to be unconsidered. 42. The Roman Catholic Church, The New Sunday Missal, 403. 43. The Church of the Province of Southern Africa, An Anglican Prayer Book, 125. 44. The Anglican Church of Canada, The Book of Alternative Services, 197. 45. The Church of England, Common Worship, 189. 46. Botte, La Tradition apostolique de saint Hippolyte, 15, n. 5. 47. Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition, 48. 48. Ibid.; Cuming, Hippolytus: A Text for Students, 11 both cite Ambrose, On the Sacraments, 4.21, see text in Ronald Jasper and Geoffrey Cuming (eds.), Prayer of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (New York: Pueblo, 1987) 145, which in the Ambrose text reads, “Take and eat from this, all of you; for this is my body, which will be broken for many.” A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 119 mighty acts of Christ, so that the institution stands with the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and glorification of Christ as one linked series of events. The use of the future tense separates the institution off from the other mighty acts of Christ. This linking of events, using the continuous nature of the present tense, makes sense in terms of the events of Holy Week (including the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday), Good Friday, Easter Day and the Ascension, rather than the use of the future tense in relation to the bread, which takes away something of the dynamic sense of events, and isolates the institution from that series of mighty acts. To argue in this way for the use of the present tense over both the bread and wine gives added emphasis to the view that in the Eucharist (as indeed in creation itself) the work of Christ extends through all time. The completeness of this dynamic sense is lost if the future tense is used. Such use of the future is unusual in ancient liturgies and so continuing with the use of the present tense, as is the case in the liturgical texts of the An- glican Provinces of Southern Africa, Canada and England, continues an established pattern both in relation to other Anglican eucharistic prayers and specifically in relation to the eucharistic prayer modelled on The Ap- ostolic Tradition, assuming as Botte suggests, that the use of the future tense was a misunderstanding and that the present tense is more accurate.

5. A Theological Issue Related to the Australian Draft of The Apos- tolic Tradition

The anamnesis in the Australian draft of the Great Thanksgiving from The Apostolic Tradition is rather weak as compared to the original form. It reads:

When you do this, you do it in memory of me.49

The Apostolic Tradition is much stronger in its statement of anamnesis. Cuming translates it as:

When you do this, you make my remembrance.50

Bradshaw et al., have a different translation which is no less strong, reading:

When you do this, you do my remembrance.51

Both the translations of Cuming and Bradshaw et al. are much more definite and strongly emphasise the concept of anamnesis as dynamic remembrance

49. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, A Great Thanksgiv- ing, 2. 50. Cuming, Hippolytus: A Text for Students, 11. 51. Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition, 40. 120 Brian Douglas and offering, making present in the Eucharist the effects of a past mighty act of Christ which has continuing significance and effect and suggesting that those who celebrate the Eucharist together join with Christ in his eternal offering. The Australian 2009 draft material (“do it in memory of me”) suggests merely a bringing to mind by the communicant of a past and completed event rather than a joining with Christ. The dynamic sense of remembrance and offering is somewhat lost in the 2009 Australian draft, whereas the translations by both Cuming and Bradshaw et al. speak of the remembrance as an offering of Christ’s sacrifice being present in the eucharistic celebration as something “made” or “done,” rather than merely being “brought to mind.” In the translations of Cuming and Bradshaw et al., there is no sense of making or doing a physical or carnal repetition of Christ’s sacrifice, or any adding to it in the Eucharist. Christ is not immolated again, rather the effect and the power of that sacrifice is made and renewed in the eucharistic celebration as the communicants join in with the eternal offering of Christ. The Australian 2009 draft words do not exclude this interpretation but at the same time they make this meaning less clear and less definite. The other translations cited above make the meaning more strongly in terms of the concept of offering, and since these translations are closer to the original, it seems appropriate to prefer this stronger sense. The Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia in put- ting forward the thanksgiving modelled on The Apostolic Tradition argues that its lineage precedes the controversies surrounding eucharistic doctrine 52 and practice in the ninth, sixteenth and recent centuries. If this is the case it is also necessary to consider why the Liturgical Commission chose to use words suggestive of memorialism rather than using a translation closer to the original and therefore suggestive of a dynamic and stronger sense of remembrance (anamnesis) and offering. If one of the principal reasons for reusing this draft was to respect the lineage of The Apostolic Tradition and avoid the later eucharistic controversies, then it hardly achieves this aim if words and ideas are moderated to take into account the very controversies which the Australian 2009 draft says can be avoided in modelling a Great Thanksgiving on The Apostolic Tradition.

The Australian 2009 draft continues the anamnesis as follows:

In remembrance of his death and resurrection, with this bread and this cup, we give you thanks that you have counted us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.53

52. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, A Great Thanksgiv- ing, 1. 53. Ibid., 2. A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 121

Theologically, this differs significantly from the original text of The Ap- ostolic Tradition, which in the Bradshaw et al., translation says:

Remembering therefore his death and resurrection, we offer to you bread and wine, giving thanks to you because you have held us worthy to stand before you and minister to you.54

The fact that the eucharistic prayer of The Apostolic Tradition speaks of offering bread and wine to God and that the Australian draft chooses not to use the word “offer” or the idea of offering bread and wine to God, must surely be theologically significant. Any reader who compares the 2009 draft text with a translation of the original would be left wondering why such a significant change in eucharistic theology was made. Instead of offering bread and wine, such as the original text shows, the Australian draft speaks of remembering “with this bread and wine” and giving thanks. The sense of eucharistic offering is thereby lessened considerably in the draft and the sense of merely bringing to mind a past and completed event is heightened. Evan Burge, the translator of the Australian draft, has argued that “the sense of the ancient verbs “we offer” (Latin offerimus and Greek pro- spheromenmay be expressed by “we draw near to you with this bread and cup” or “we bring before you these gifts of bread and wine.”55 These expressions used as alternative translations for “offer” are indeed a great deal stronger, in terms of eucharistic offering, than what is found in the Australian 2009 draft of The Apostolic Tradition. The question arises therefore as to why Burge chose not to use one of these stronger translations or indeed the word “offer” itself, especially when Burge himself argues for the possibility of this stronger sense. Perhaps he was being sensitive to the views of certain Anglicans who may have objected to any concept of oblation or offering in the Eucharist since this raised sensitivi- ties about Reformation controversies. If this is the case then the Austra- lian draft has reacted to the very controversies which the Liturgical Commission claims that the use and approval of The Apostolic Tradition sets out to avoid. Cuming and Bradshaw et al.56 do not make any comment in the apparatus of their translations on the use of the word “offer” and so seemingly see no difficulty with the use of the word “offer” in its lineage. To avoid the use of the word “offer” is to surrender to the controversies of the Ref- ormation and beyond as these relate to eucharistic offering, which the

54. Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition, 40. 55. Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia,” 85, n. 58. 56. Cuming, Hippolytus: A Text for Students, 11; Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tra- dition, 48. 122 Brian Douglas

Liturgical Commission, by its own admission, suggests that the use of The Apostolic Tradition avoids on the basis of its ancient lineage. If the argument of ancient lineage, untouched by later controversies is proposed, then it seems better to use the word “offer,”57 as found in the original, than to create or perpetuate a controversy. It is interesting to note that other liturgical texts in the Christian tradition based on The Apostolic Tradition are not so reticent about using the word “offer.” The second Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Catholic Church says for example:

In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.58

The second Eucharistic Prayer of the Anglican Church of Canada uses the word “offer” in a form close to the original text of The Apostolic Tra- dition, saying:

Remembering, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer you this bread and this cup, giving thanks that you have made us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.59

The Anglican Province of Southern Africa follows a formula resembling the argument of Burge and says:

Remembering, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer/bring before you this bread and this cup, giving thanks that you have made us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.60

This text takes the view, as does Burge, that the sense of the ancient Latin and Greek verbs for “offer” can be expressed by the use of the words “we bring before.” The English Common Worship also seemingly supports words similar to the Burge option and uses the text:

We celebrate this memorial of our redemption. As we offer you this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, we bring before you this bread and this cup.61

57. Or at least the alternatives proposed by Burge which he argues have the same sense as the ancient verbs for “offer.” 58. Roman Catholic Church, The New Sunday Missal, 405. 59. Anglican Church of Canada, The Book of Alternative Services, 197. 60. Anglican Province of Southern Africa, An Anglican Prayer Book, 126. 61. The Church of England, Common Worship, 190. A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 123

The offering of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is closely associ- ated with the bringing before God of the bread and the cup and the sense of the words “we bring before” can be interpreted in the sense of the an- cients verbs for “we offer.” The 1993 Australian draft based on The Apostolic Tradition was mar- ginally closer to the sense of the original when it said:

Remembering, therefore, his death and resurrection, we take this bread and cup, giving thanks that you have made us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.62

This version however, was dropped in the later version presented to Gen- eral Synod in 1995 and in the draft version published by the Liturgical Commission in 2009. Perhaps the words “we take this bread and wine” were felt to be too suggestive of the idea of oblation or offering and so not used in the 1995 and 2009 versions in order to avoid offending particular theological interests such as those that might be felt by Evangeli- cals who object to the idea of offering of bread and wine in any sense in the Eucharist. If this is the case then this is further evidence that the controversies of eucharistic theology are in fact central to the drafting of the 2009 Australian draft and that the central issue is not the ancient lineage of the eucharistic prayer of The Apostolic Tradition as the Liturgical Commission wants to argue, but rather responding to and accommodating the particular theological interests of church parties within the Anglican Church of Australia. This strongly suggests that in the case of this 2009 Australian draft, certain beliefs about eucharistic sacrifice have most definitely shaped prayer.

6. Uniformity or Multiformity

The discussion above in relation to a draft version of the eucharistic prayer of The Apostolic Tradition, as it has been published in a number of versions63 is significant in itself, but it has greater significance since these matters are examples of movement in the Anglican Communion towards multiformity in relation to eucharistic theology and liturgical practice. For this reason there is more at stake here than the fate of one particular draft of a eucharistic thanksgiving in one province of the Anglican Communion. The issue at stake for liturgical revision revolves around whether uniformity or multiformity is the norm of Anglican eucharistic

62. Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, The Holy Commun- ion also Called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 40. 63. 1993, 1995 and 2009 versions in the Anglican Church of Australia and the other versions in the Roman and Anglican traditions. 124 Brian Douglas theology and liturgical practice and whether seeking uniformity is an appropriate way forward for the Anglican Communion and its liturgical development or whether the recognition of multiformity of eucharistic theology and practice is a more realistic path to pursue. Some background information may assist in establishing the distinction between uniformity and multiformity in the Anglican eucharistic tradition. The first Anglican prayer books64 were all accompanied by an Act of Uniformity, passing through the English parliament and receiving Royal Assent, thereby, in theory, enforcing uniformity within England. “The Church of England opted for uniformity rather than inclusiveness” and the Acts of Uniformity “made the use of the revised Prayer Book com- pulsory, insisted that all ministers should be episcopally ordained, and demanded that they take the canonical oath of obedience.”65 This situation of uniformity remained in England right through to the twentieth century, even though there were some notable deviations from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.66 By the Lambeth Conference of 1958 however, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer was no longer viewed by the bishops as normative for the Anglican Communion67 although in some parts of the Anglican Communion the 1662 Book of Common Prayer continues to remain the ruling principle of doctrine and worship.68 De- spite the constraints, the level of liturgical revision has expanded from the middle of the twentieth century and national prayer books are now found right across the Anglican Communion. In Australia at the time of the publication of the first modern prayer book, An Australian Prayer

64. Those published in 1549, 1552, 1559, 1604 and 1662. 65. Ronald Jasper, The Development of the Anglican Liturgy 1662-1980 (London: SPCK, 1989) 5. 66. The Puritan forms of worship differed markedly from the authorised liturgy of the restoration in England in the 1660’s; the Nonjurors and the Methodists developed and used significantly different liturgical alternatives; considerable liturgical diversity resulted from the later period of the Oxford Movement especially with the introduction of various missals and liturgical forms from other traditions; attempts were made to revise the Book of Common Prayer in the 1920’s, which although not authorised continued to influence the life the Church of England and beyond; the ecumenical movement of the twentieth century brought liturgical convergence and inculturation to liturgical forms. 67. See Lambeth Conference Report, 1958 (London: SPCK, 1958) Resolution 2.78. 68. This is the case in the Anglican Church of Australia where the Constitution states that the Anglican Church of Australia “retains and approves the doctrine and principles of the Church of England embodied in the Book of Common Prayer” and that this, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, “be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard” The Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, Chapter II Ruling Principles, Section 4, 3, online at http://www.anglican.org.au/Web/Website.nsf/ content/Constitution, accessed 26 July, 2010. A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 125

Book, in 1978, the Primate of the day69 was able to declare the presence of a principle of “theological variance” and the desire “to discover the truth behind the divergences.”70 Sinden, quoting the Archbishop, argues that the Archbishop went on to remind the General Synod that:

The principle of uniformity was no longer regarded as authoritative in our Church and that “the decision needed is not about the principle, but about the content and the quality” of alternatives to be made available for use by the worshipping Church. “It seems to me that that there is wisdom in permitting alternatives even if they do not say everything that we should want to say or in a way which we should not ourselves use. They invite us to think about, and explore, our brothers’ or sisters’ understanding and needs in worship.” He went on to describe the Church as a family which needs to function like a family. “You keep unity and initiative in that family if within it you permit a certain liberty of choice and judgment within recognized limits.”71

The result of the General Synod of 1977 was An Australian Prayer Book,72 which was “embraced far more widely than could ever have been anticipated,” and even though it did not bring uniformity, it did bring “to the church a measure of unity and common practice which had previ- ously been lacking.”73 It would seem that Archbishop Grindrod’s vision of “theological variance” and the truth behind it, bore rich fruit. What lies behind this notion of “theological variance” is the notion of distinctly different philosophical assumptions underlying eucharistic theology in the Anglican Communion generally, but also within the inde- pendent diocesan structures of the Anglican Church of Australia.74 The result was that while the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Aus-

69. Archbishop John Grindrod. 70. John Grindrod, “An Introduction to An Australian Prayer Book. 1. The Story of the Draft Book,” When We Meet for Worship: A Manual for Using an Australian Prayer Book, 1978, ed. Gilbert Sinden (Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, 1978) 24. 71. Ibid., 24 and 26. 72. The Church of England in Australia, An Australian Prayer Book, 1978 (Standing Committee of the General Synod of the Church of England in Australia, Sydney: AIO Press, 1978). 73. David Richardson, “A Prayer Book for Australia: Historical Background,” A Prayer Book for Australia: A Practical Commentary, ed. Varcoe, 8. 74. The Diocese of Sydney maintains a conservative evangelical view of the Eucha- rist where the Eucharist functions as a reminder only of a past and completed event, whereas other dioceses adopt a more realist approach to the theology of the Eucharist and more closely link the signs of the Eucharist, bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist, with what they signify. These distinctly different philosophical assumptions are explored in detail in Brian Douglas and Terence Lovat, “The Integrity of Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition: A Consideration of Philosophical Assumptions,” The Heythrop Journal 51 (2010) 847-861. 126 Brian Douglas tralia, from 1977 onwards, pursued a course of further revision75 individual dioceses produced alternative eucharistic liturgies76 under the terms of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia77 providing for bishops to authorise such services in their dioceses which they felt appropriate, as long as such services did not depart from the principle of doctrine and worship contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer set as a ruling principle for the Anglican Church of Australia under its constitution. Despite acting within the terms of the Constitution, these actions tended to heighten tension within the Anglican Church of Australia, as divergent eucharistic theology was expressed in these diocesan liturgies.78 Varcoe argues that “the long process of revision, trial use, and consultation across a widely diverse and theologically unforgiving province has brought issues of liturgical theology and practice into sharp fo- cus”79 as the Anglican Church of Australia came to the General Synod of 1995. While acknowledging that consensus was important, Varcoe at the same time observed that, “the theological divergence of the Australian church causes ‘doctrine’ to take precedence over ‘worship’”80 in the interpretation of Section 4 of the Constitution, to such an extent that, “the ancient dictum that prayer governs belief is emphatically reversed in Australian eucharistic revision. Prayer (and liturgical practicality) gives way to doctrine wherever there is perceived conflict”81 with the result that issues of sacramentality, involving symbol and symbolic language

75. Resulting in 1995 in the publication of the next prayer book, A Prayer Book for Australia, which was embraced by many but rejected by the conservative evangelical forces within the Diocese of Sydney. See for example the negative view of A Prayer Book for Australia expressed in Year Book of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney – Sydney Doc- trine Commission Report, 45/95 A Prayer Book for Australia (Sydney: Anglican Diocese of Sydney, 1997) 450-473 and the particular philosophical assumptions adopted by Robert Doyle, “Word and Sacrament in catholic and evangelical theology,” Who May Celebrate? Boundaries of Anglican Order, ed. Ivan Head (Sydney: Doctrine Commission of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, 1996) 8-19. 76. In the conservative evangelical Diocese of Sydney the following were produced: Liturgical Committee of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, Experimental Sunday Ser- vices (Sydney: AIO Press, 1993); Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel, Sunday Ser- vices: A Contemporary Liturgical Resource (Sydney: Anglican Press Australia, 2001). In the conservative Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Ballarat other texts were produced. See David Silk, The Holy Eucharist. Alternative and Additional Texts for use with Orders of the Eucharist in AAPB and APBA (Ballarat: Anglican Diocese of Ballarat, 1995 and 2002). 77. See Chapter II – Ruling Principles, Section 4, 4 of the Constitution of the Angli- can Church of Australia, online at http://www.anglican.org.au/Web/Website.nsf/content/ Constitution, accessed 26 July, 2010. 78. See Douglas and Lovat, “The Integrity of Discourse.” 79. Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion,” 187. 80. Ibid., 188. 81. Ibid., 188. A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 127 and action, are very differently considered by different dioceses and church parties within the Anglican Church of Australia. This underlying difference in philosophical assumptions of eucharistic theology has been explored in the work of Douglas and Lovat,82 and is at the heart of the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Where this multiformity hinges on party position there remains, Varcoe argues, within liturgical revision, such as those concerned with the 1995 prayer book, A Prayer Book for Australia, a “provisionality and the inadequately incorporated pluralism of the Australian church.”83 The issue which Varcoe isolates is an important one and hinges on the distinction between uniformity and multiformity. It therefore raises the question: How then can this inherent pluralism be more definitely and adequately incorporated into the Angli- can Church of Australia? The answer to this question may well lie within the processes of dialogue which in turn recognize the multiformity of philosophical assumptions within the Anglican eucharistic tradition and which also suggest that a differentiated consensus with the Anglican Church of Australia may be a more realistic path for the Liturgical Com- mission to take in the production and use of eucharistic texts than seeking to promote a kind of uniformity which avoids the conflict of party position and the multiformity of eucharistic theology.

7. Dialogue amidst Multiformity

84 Anglican eucharistic theology, argue Lovat and Douglas, is essentially 85 multiform, such that the different voices of various church parties within the tradition compete with one another in the expression of their particular interests. Often the search for and the propagation of a particular “truth” and the desire for “purity” of message and power make the discourse of the tradition provisional and prevent an adequate incorporation of plurality within the one church. As Varcoe suggests, this culture seems to be the case in the Anglican Church of Australia. Evan Burge argued some years ago that “this question of cultural difference has not yet been squarely faced by our church” and that “we have no option but to embrace a cultural pluralism” which in Burge’s view “means compromising or abandoning one of 86 the BCP’s clearest principles, that of uniformity of worship,” since uni-

82. Douglas and Lovat, “The Integrity of Discourse.” 83. Varcoe, “Implications across the Communion,” 192.

84. Terence Lovat and Brian Douglas, “Dialogue Amidst Difference in Anglican Eucha- ristic Theology: A Habermasian Breakthough,” Australian EJournal of Theology 9 March

(2007), online at http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_9/lovat.htm.

Accessed 26 July, 2010. 85. Parties sometimes labelled Evangelical, Catholic and Liberal. 86. Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia,” 67. 128 Brian Douglas formity had more to do with the power of the Tudor monarchy and English nationalism than any gospel purpose or act of spiritual worship. It may be that the concept of uniformity in the present life of the Anglican Commun- ion, and specifically within the Anglican Church of Australia, now revolves around the prosecution of party interest and “purity” of theological view rather than any nationalistic motive. Embracing cultural pluralism requires moving past particular interests of church parties and entering into real dialogue. Such an approach to the development of eucharistic liturgies 87 has recently been argued by Douglas and Lovat where the critical insights 88 of dialogue based on the Habermasian notion of communicative action are discussed in relation to the processes of developing eucharistic liturgies. Such a process holds out the hope pointed to by Evan Burge in 1995 when he argued that “the old principle of uniformity has been replaced by 89 another Anglican principle, that of comprehensiveness.” Such a strategy of dialogue amidst multiformity implies risk and some may see the purity of their particular theological interest being forfeited as other interests are recognized, but unless such risk is taken the nature of dialogue will be stilted and the products of liturgical revision will carry the danger of pleas- ing no one or merely limiting drafts by indulging party interest without any adequate recognition of the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. As Douglas and Lovat point out the present process of liturgical revision adopted by the Liturgical Commission of the Anglican Church of Aus- tralia relies on argumentative negotiation or a subject-object approach, where subjects of one interest or party position debate an object such as eucharistic theology in the hope of uniformity and of producing a text that 90 may suit everyone. The alternative approach, suggested by Douglas and

87. Douglas and Lovat, “Dialogue Amidst Multiformity,” 35-57. 88. See Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1984); Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1989). Haber- mas argues that dialogue and self-reflection hold out the hope of being emancipated from party interest and attaining knowledge in a critical manner, not merely through an individual’s or group’s lifeworld, but as a dynamic system of interactions between speakers and hearers, where there is subject-subject encounter. Discourse in what Habermas calls “dialogue” contrasts to the type of intersubjectivity that sees particular party interest being engaged in subject-object encounters aimed at prosecuting particular interests. Such a subject-object exchange has typified the Anglican Church of Australia as church parties seek to put the purity of their own view. The type of process outlined by Douglas and Lovat suggests another way which has the possibility of leading to more positive en- gagements of cultural exchange and more adequately incorporating plurality as productive speaking and listening into the life of the Anglican Church of Australia. 89. Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia,” 71. 90. This seems to have been the case in regard to the Third Thanksgiving in the Sec- ond Order of A Prayer Book for Australia (see pages 133-135) as it was negotiated and A “Great Thanksgiving” Modelled on The Apostolic Tradition 129

Lovat, aims to reach agreement, not in terms of mutually acceptable eucharistic theology, if such a thing can ever be achieved, but in terms of dialogue amidst the multiformity of eucharistic theology and liturgical practice, where there is a genuine desire on the part of all concerned to hear what another party or interest is saying. “In practice, this may mean that Anglican Catholics would use a eucharistic liturgy which expresses a fuller catholic and realist theology” and “Anglican Evangelicals use a eucharistic 91 liturgy with a reformed emphasis.” This process of dialogue would in- volve both listening and speaking within the multiformity of Anglican eucharistic theology and the resulting eucharistic liturgies would therefore recognize this multiformity, both its theology and practice, in a way that also recognizes and respects the authenticity of a variety of interests. Par- ticular liturgical products and the eucharistic theology on which they are based would not be acceptable to all, but such uniformity would not be the guiding principle of revision and development. The role of the General Synod would be to maintain certain boundaries of order, rather than presid- ing over a situation of anything goes or allowing for party interest to rule, since such a process would hardly be critical but only indulgent. As Burge once argued: “The unity of Anglicans from now on, as it has long been in 92 practice if not in theory, is a unity not of texts but of approach.” The dialogue of communicative action based on speaking and listening and the recognition of multiformity in the Anglican eucharistic tradition may well be the theory and approach Burge suggested was absent.

Senior Lecturer in Theology The Rev’d Dr Brian DOUGLAS Charles Sturt University St Mark’s National Theological Centre, Canberra, Australia. P.O. Box 3417 Manuka. ACT. 2603 Australia. [email protected]

debated at the General Synod of 1995 both by the Liturgical Commission and unofficially off the floor of General Synod. Some within the Liturgical Commission itself suggest that compromising eucharistic theology, in order to safeguard party position, is hardly the way to proceed in the development of eucharistic liturgies, since “mistrust skews communica- tion and results too readily in poor liturgy” Varcoe, “Implications across the Commun- ion,” 189. 91. Douglas and Lovat, “Dialogue Amidst Multiformity,” 56. 92. Burge, “A Prayer Book for Australia,” 78.