Quick viewing(Text Mode)

ABSTRACT Anglo-Catholics, and Specifically Those in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), a Continuing Or Traditionalist Anglican

ABSTRACT Anglo-Catholics, and Specifically Those in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), a Continuing Or Traditionalist Anglican

1

ABSTRACT

Anglo-Catholics, and specifically those in the Anglican (ACC), a Continuing or Traditionalist Anglican Church, have asserted that the only legitimate of the Eucharistic Presence is a “realistic” one. A Biblically, historically, and doctrinally sensitive examination, however, of Anglican formularies (the Articles of Religion, the Ordinal, and the Book of Common –representing the doctrine, discipline, and of the Anglican Church) demonstrates that they do not teach this doctrine, that the Formularies were written purposely to exclude medieval “realistic” interpretations of the Presence, that the authentic of the Presence of in the ’s Supper is one of “dynamic symbolism,” and that a “realistic” doctrine of is a 19th century innovation and importation into the Anglican Church. The Anglo-Catholic of “ of the Blessed ” is used as a test case, criticized, and found severely wanting. A positive appreciation and evaluation of the classic Anglican doctrine (following Ridley, Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, , Cosin, the Nonjurors, and the Wesleys) and its attendant spirituality is given.. The baleful effects of an overly “realistic” view of the Sacrament as adopted by Anglo-Catholics are traced in the pseudo-historical of the ACC; its infelicitous effects on the ACC’s relations to other Continuing Anglican churches and to other non- groups are examined. A conscious re- of the ACC to its heritage and is necessary, and a new dedication to bettering -Anglican and ecumenical relationships is required.

SUGGESTED LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING

Barber, Philip E. (Philip Ernest), 1937- and creatures : the Reformation doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence exhibited in the Anglican Lord’s Supper : a dissuasive from certain Anglo-Catholic Eucharistic doctrines and practices in a Continuing Anglican Church, particularly from Benediction of the : including readings from medieval, Reformation, and modern sources on the doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence / Philip E. Barber III.

1. Anglican –Controversial literature. 2. Lord’s Supper–. 2

3. Lord’s Supper–Real Presence. 4. Lord’s Supper–Adoration–Controversial literature. 5. –Controversial literature. 6. Traditionalist Anglican churches–Controversial literature. 7. Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556. 8. Aquinas, Thomas, , 1225?-1274.

BX6040 3

GIFTS AND CREATURES

The Reformation Doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence Exhibited in the Anglican of ’s Supper

A Dissuasive from Certain Anglo-Catholic Eucharistic Doctrines and Practices in a Continuing Anglican Church, Particularly from Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

Including Readings from Medieval, Reformation, and Modern Sources on the Doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence.

A Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree Submitted to the Graduate Theological Foundation

Philip E. Barber III M. Div., S.T.M.

25 2006 4

CONTENTS:

Preface 4 TheArgument 13 Introduction: What do the proposed canons say? 18 I. Ten theses concerning the two proposed canons and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament 24 II. What Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is not 33 III. Theological objections to Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament 47 IV. “Realism” vs. “Dynamic symbolism” in the Eucharist 61 V. What is (wrong with) transubstantiation? Saint vs. 83 VI. The authentic Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist and of ’ presence 111 VII. “But isn’t this ?” 121 Excursus on Eucharistic “Naive Realism” -- 136-143 VIII. Anglican eucharistic doctrine and liturgy since the Reformation 148 Excursus on the Epiklesis -- 152-156 IX. Romanticizing Medievalism, and other Anglo-Catholic myths 164 X. Status of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion 196 Excursus on the Marian Doctrines -- 205-217 XI. Status of the General Councils, and of (Western) 219 XII. Where do we go from here? 235 5

XIII. Ten conclusions and ten suggestions 257 Epilogue

268

Endnotes

279

Readings

300

Bibliography

352

Curriculum vitae

367 6

PREFACE

It is apparent to all that the Anglican world has been in a state of doctrinal, liturgical, and canonical crisis and turmoil ever since at least the 1970’s over the issues of of women, modernization of language in the liturgy, surreptitious introduction of doctrinal change via that revised liturgical language, and, lately, the ordination of openly practicing homosexuals. Various waves of dissidents felt themselves increasingly marginalized and, in many cases, forced out of the Anglican as a result of these changes. The first wave of churches resulting from this series of crises in the mid-1970’s constitutes the

“Continuing Church” or “Traditional Anglicans,” holding tenaciously to the pre-revised .

A goodly portion of those who left were Anglo-Catholics of one variety or another, and they took advantage of their expulsion to normalize in their new jurisdictions certain doctrinal and liturgical practices distinctive of themselves as a party different from, not only Protestants in general, but also from other Anglicans. In addition, apologetic claims were made that such Anglo-Catholic distinctives (centering usually about the , especially the Eucharist, and the ministry) were not only legitimately in accord with the 7

primitive Apostolic and Catholic church, but that these doctrines and practices not held by other Anglicans had nonetheless always been held in the C of E before, during, and after the Reformation, despite their absence from (and often explicit rejection in) the

Prayer Book, the Ordinal, or the Articles of Religion. Anglo-Catholics found themselves in a state of denial concerning the Reformation nature of the C of E, and of in its train.

This paper undertakes a case study of one of these doctrines, the Real Presence of

Christ’s Body and in the Eucharist, as it has played itself out in one of those ecclesial bodies, the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC). We find that an exaggeratedly “realistic” doctrine of the Real Presence figures greatly in almost every problematic area of the ACC and by extension of any other Continuing church of Anglo-

Catholic propensities.

The case study or test case is expressed primarily in terms of quite polemical assaults on the Anglo-Catholic position, and of assertions of the viability of the Reformation or classical Anglican stance. This kind of , familiar to all from the genre of

“controversial ” that figured so largely in the struggles between Catholics and 8

Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries, diminished in volume considerably after the

Peace of Westphalia in 1648, but never died out altogether. The opponents now engaged in trench warfare, exchanging sniper shots and harassing fires, rather than indulging in frontal assaults, but each side defined itself largely in opposition to the enemy’s lines of fortification.

Anglican theology as it became increasingly self-conscious and self-confident was no stranger to this kind of polemic. Many of the authors whom we shall be quoting and examining: Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel, Hooker, Laud, Taylor, and Cosin, excelled in this controversy and polemic. The were directed primarily against the Roman

Church, but also against Anabaptists and Spiritualists. Lacking was any extensive polemic against the Lutherans, mainly because other, more frontline Reformed churches were handling that. Later controversies came to the fore against , sectaries,

Huguenots, and Non-Conformists, in the years of the Civil Wars, Royalist exile, and

Restoration..

Anglican polemicists and apologists of the 16th and 17 centuries frequently wrote on the

Eucharist, a very controversial topic. Their doctrines may be thought of as prolegomena 9

or commentaries on Articles XXVIII through XXXI of the Articles of Religion, and are abundantly attested in the excerpted attached Readings, especially in their most intensely concentrated form in Readings III A, B, and D (Cranmer); IV A and G (Ridley); V I.A,

B, and E (Jewel); VII A, B, and D (Hooker); and X (Cosin). These theologians with almost perfect unanimity:

(a.) decisively rejected the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation;

(b.) asserted the continued existence of Bread and in the eucharistic elements in the

Lord’s Supper;

(c.) denied the natural or presence of the Body and in the

elements as a result of the ’s ;

(d.) affirmed that the (undoubted) presence of Christ in the Supper was due solely to his

Word of promise and of institution;

(e.) claimed that the presence was not to be understood literally or locally or physically

or chemically, but figuratively (by way of metonymy or synecdoche) and spiritually

(according to the Spirit’s making us partakers of the ascended Christ through )

so that we might “feed on him in [our] hearts by faith with thanksgiving”;

(f.) confessed that there was a true and real but of the believer with

Christ in the Supper, ordained and given for the of one’s sins, 10

preservation of body and soul unto everlasting life, of being a living

member of Christ’s body in fellowship with the , encouragement in knowing

his [Christ’s] and the Spirit’s indwelling in the believer, and being given grace for

perseverance in ;

(g.) followed St. Augustine in saying that dominical Word plus element and symbolic

action ordained by Christ for our was what constituted a sacrament, and

that thereby symbolism was an integral part of the nature of a sacrament;

(h.) further asserted that the symbolism was effectual in conveying to believers that grace

which it signified, precisely because of the power of the Word;

(i.) denied that non-believers or unworthy communicants received the

even if they “carnally and visibly” partook of the Sacrament;

(j.) shifted the focus (and the locus) of the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ

from the elements to the believer receiving them in the worshipping congregation;

(k.) rejected any worshipping of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament or elevating it or

parading it about;

(l.) insisted that the Sacrament be always administered in both kinds;

(m.) rejected the doctrine of the “ of the ,” nor thought of the Supper as

anything other than the Church’s “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” in 11

of Christ’s death as the “full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice,

, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world” once offered and not

needed to be repeated;

(n.) openly proclaimed and confessed that in the Lord’s Supper Christ by his very Word

and promise and institution truly gives nothing less than Himself, once crucified but

now risen and ascended and seated at the Father’s right hand, in the Body and Blood

of his victorious Sacrifice to his faithful;

(o.) looked forward to Christ’s to judge the living and the dead and to

unite his faithful with him in the Great Consummation in the Heavenly City where

all Sacraments will cease because all the faithful are united in charity in worship of

the ;

(p.) and, finally, all asserted (and demonstrated as far as the scholarship of the day

allowed) that the eucharistic doctrines and liturgy of the C of E were in accord with

the Scriptures and Fathers of the primitive Church.

And all of these teachings came from an independent and self-regulating national or particular Church, under a “godly king,” which conditioned its reception of even

Ecumenical Councils on their conformity to God’s Word written, and which regulated its properly-called ministry of Word and Sacrament by , , and 12

legitimately ordained similarly according to God’s Word rather than simply medieval precedent. (Articles XX-XXI, XXIII-XXIV, XXXVI-XXXVII.)

We shall be untangling and analyzing much of this rhetoric and re-employing it against those Anglo-Catholics in the ACC and elsewhere who claim continuity with the kind of

Catholicism, decidedly non- and even anti-Roman, espoused by Henry VIII and Stephen

Gardiner, and forswearing any allegiance to the doctrines of the C of E under Edward VI

(except perhaps the 1549 Book), , and James I, even while they use the liturgical language of the C of E but deny the plain meaning of its liturgical and theological formularies. Many, or even most of the assertions on the Supper made above by the Reformers would be rejected or severely criticized by Anglo-Catholics. The ironies and self-contradictions of such a position will be thoroughly expounded in the following work.

It goes without saying that we believe that results of such a case study may be extrapolated to other Anglo-Catholic and Continuing bodies, and that classical

Anglicanism and its doctrine of the Eucharist may be more confidently asserted in future intra-Anglican and ecumenical discussions. It is, after all, only after one is certain of his 13

or her own confessional and doctrinal ground that one can engage fruitfully in the kind of dialog and discussion that can lead to clarification and even meaningful change. The regnant theological climate in the ACC is impervious at present to any such examination and change. We hope to alter that.

***************

The following work began as a proposed position paper for the late John T.

Cahoon (1.) in to several new canons that had been proposed at the Provincial

Synod in Indianapolis in October 2000. The Archbishop expressed gratitude for the work but declined to accept it, inasmuch as he held what can be considered (in terms that we shall clarify later) a view of the eucharistic Presence that owed much more to “realism” than to “dynamic symbolism.” He hoped that the proposed canons would be rejected, as indeed they were, but he was unwilling to subject the Church to the kind of controversy that he felt would ensue upon the publication of this paper, particularly if it appeared to have any semblance of archepiscopal authority behind it (which it does not).

This work is being published now because of the inherent theological and historical 14

importance of the topics, but also because I feel that the point of view expressed here is hardly ever heard in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) even though it represents that of the Reformers and later theologians of the Church of from Cranmer through the and even to this day. A doctrine which completely misrepresents the eucharistic faith of Anglicanism as a whole and from its beginnings is now widely taught in the ACC as if there were no other and no other ever existed in Anglicanism. I am publishing this work, which is very much expanded and revised from the original, in the hope that its very polemical and controversial (in the 16th century sense) and offensive (in the military sense) characteristics will inspire animated discussion and clarification of theological positions that have unjustifiably been taken for granted, and that the ACC will be spared from taking an indefensible and sectarian position that will simply isolate us from the rest of Anglicanism and from world-wide ecumenical discussion. Those interested in the discussion of eucharistic doctrine and related issues of doctrinal authority but not in the internal ACC canonical squabbles should skip the Introduction and go directly to I.

The method used throughout is simple and straight-forward: we will read the Scriptures and the Anglican formularies themselves in their plain sense and historical context to 15

extract the original eucharistic doctrine, expound and appreciate its inner logic and workings, look at contemporary and later theological texts to see if they exhibit the same or consonant teachings, compare and contrast the results with 19th and

20th century Anglo-Catholic writings and practices, and draw appropriate conclusions.

We will also pay attention to the 20th and 21st century ecumenical context, both in

America and in the wider world.

The work is written from a theological point of view which is obviously that of the

English Reformation and the Restoration but which also owes a great deal to the

Nonjurors’ appropriation of Eastern and liturgical teachings, and to modern

Ecumenical Eucharistic and liturgical thought. We shall be asking and answering, often only en passant, a number of questions usually ignored or glibly passed over in traditionalist Anglo-Catholic circles, which unquestioningly assume a highly “realistic” doctrine of the Eucharist which did not appear in Anglican circles before the 19th century.

To wit: Is the Anglican Eucharist, and the Anglican Church, basically in continuity with medieval Catholicism rather than with the Reformation? No. Does the Anglican

Eucharist represent fairly typical Reformation teachings? Yes. Was the 1549 Book of 16

Common Prayer () eucharistic liturgy already basically a

Protestant reformed communion service rather than a medieval Catholic Mass? Yes. (2.) Is the 16th century Church of England and its eucharistic teaching typical of Reformed rather than Lutheran teaching? Yes.

Did the Church of England consider itself a National Catholic Church and a recognizable

“branch” of the Catholic Church and thus inherently opposed to and to the

Continental and Scottish Reformed and Lutheran Churches? Yes, as an independent in continuity with the ancient Church, but, No, not in necessary opposition to or denial of the ecclesial and Catholic character of the foreign national

Churches of the “magisterial Reformation” on the Continent. Are the eucharistic liturgy and the eucharistic teachings of standard Anglican formularies patient of a “Catholic” interpretation? No, only by a studied and hostile deconstruction and hermeneutical falsification of the texts that was first undertaken by Gardiner and then picked up again in the 19th century. We present here an examination and refutation of all the contortions and gyrations and circumlocutions required in all those who seek to interpret the traditional

Anglican eucharistic documents as if they still intend a (post-Apostolic, pre-Reformation)

Medieval Mass. 17

Can one reasonably affirm that the Anglican eucharistic liturgy of any Book of Common

Prayer based on Cranmer asserts the “Corporal Presence of the natural and Blood” on the Table or that such should be worshiped or adored, even if the “Black Rubrick” is not printed in that Book? Clearly, unequivocally, and categorically No. Is it remotely credible that we should today assert such a Presence anyway on the basis of the 1928

Book of Common Prayer and the Cranmerian Book of Common Prayer from which it is derived? No.

Was the Anglican eucharistic liturgy ever officially seen as valid by ? No. Was the

Anglican liturgy of the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer officially revised in a

Rome-ward direction at any time? No, instead, the American eucharistic liturgy was shaped by Seabury’s acceptance of the Nonjurors’ , which is a revision of

Cranmer in an East-ward direction.

Are present-day attempts to present Anglican eucharistic liturgy and doctrine as

“Catholic” plausible? No, they are not. In particular, does “Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament” make any sense whatsoever in the context of Anglican liturgy theologically or historically considered? No, it does not in the slightest, as the Book of Common 18

Prayer and the Articles of Religion, which are authoritative for Anglican doctrine, were written precisely to exclude this kind of doctrine and practice. Would a Church practicing Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament deserve to be called an Anglican

Church? Obviously not. Does the “Catholic” approach to Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament epitomize or recapitulate its dismissive and derogatory attitude towards the

Reformation and classic Anglicanism? Of course.

Could Anglican eucharistic doctrines and liturgies be fashioned which are more expressive of a “realistic” understanding of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist? Yes, and there have been motions in that direction in the 20th century, but they are not really necessary nor theologically satisfactory. Can traditional Anglican and Anglo-Catholic nonetheless live together in one Church? Yes, since both believe they receive the same

Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and so long as Anglo-Catholics do not try to undermine classic Anglican spirituality by foreign imports with no historical authenticity or by forbidding the classical Anglican understanding of the Eucharist. That is, of course, precisely what the proposed but failed canons did; significantly they failed of passage.

19

Of course, as in any discussion of this sort, it is the nuances and qualifications and reservations which count. The may judge for him- or herself the viability of this polemical and controversial offering and thought-experiment for the edification and, it is to be hoped, reformation, or rediscovery of its Reformation heritage, of any Continuing

Anglican Church. This work is offered in the hope of preventing the ACC and any other

Continuing or Traditional Anglican body from being lured down the garden path of presenting Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in the vain hope of proving its

.” The best way to prove our catholicity is to show our adherence to the

Scriptures, the , and the Councils: Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and the overly-realistic doctrine of the Eucharist which it represents conform to none of those. 20

THE ARGUMENT:

The proposed canons nos. 1 (OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND

BLOOD OF CHRIST) and 4 (OF THE AUTHORITY OF FORMULARIES AND

RUBRICS) were an attack on traditional Anglican eucharistic doctrine and on the as the original and sufficient authoritative doctrinal standard and on the

(including the Ordinal (scil., Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons according to the Order of the Church of England) and the Articles of Religion) as the derivative authoritative doctrinal and liturgical standard of

Anglicanism.

To approve Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (frequently mentioned in discussions at the Provincial as the archetypal instance of giving worship––to the ) and Concomitance (which allows refusing of the to laymen) as touchstones of orthodox ACC use would commit this Church to a eucharistic doctrine indistinguishable from transubstantiation, which in fact Anglicanism has always rejected and which the Book of Common Prayer (hereafter Book of Common Prayer) was 21

compiled expressly to reject and deny (along with the “Romish Doctrine” [Article XXII] of “the of Masses” [Art. XXXI]).

To approve transubstantiation and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as standard in the ACC would make this church no longer a Continuing Anglican Church, or indeed any kind of Anglican Church at all. In fact, though, transubstantiation is an inadequate doctrine of the Real Presence, mutilates the Scriptural evidence, and is a doctrine held otherwise only by the Roman Catholic Church.

The authentic Anglican doctrine says that in the Lord’s Supper Christ communicates his

Body and Blood through holy mysteries, ordained and instituted meaningful signs and symbols, Bread and Wine as food and drink in a Jewish-derived religious Meal, and that those faithful who duly receive them in repentance, faith, charity with their neighbors, intention of new life, and thankful remembrance of all that Christ accomplished for us on the Cross thereby receive him in his Body and Blood and feed upon him to the preservation of their bodies and souls unto everlasting life. The Body and Blood of

Christ are not present in any natural or corporal sense, but only spiritually, or sacramentally, are they truly present to the faithful communicant, by virtue of Christ’s 22

institution and promise, through the power of the . The (consecrated) Bread and Wine rightly received do effectually convey what they signify, but remain physically creatures of bread and wine and as such are not to be worshiped, although of course

Christ is worshiped in the Eucharist, as he is in any gathering of members of the mystical

Body of Christ assembled to hear his Word and to pray and worship in his Name. The intent of the Eucharis, in which Christ is especially and more intensively present, however, is to present to the Father and to Christ’s people the Memorial of Christ’s death, through the congregation’s offering of praise and thanksgiving in self-oblation, and through the people’s reverent reception of the consecrated Bread and Wine as vehicles of the Body and Blood of Christ. The consecrated elements are Christ’s pledges of his love while he is not visibly among us, designated means to communion with him, not ends to be worshiped in themselves. This is a sufficient and Biblically-based eucharistic doctrine, and the proposed canons would simply deny it any validity whatsoever. [For a good general presentation of this position, see Readings X., from Cosin, chief architect of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, a Royalist returnee, and a High-Laudian in eucharistic doctrine. The work was reprinted as an early number of Tracts for .]

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, on the other hand, is not Biblical, not Dominical, 23

not Apostolic, not primitive or original, not found in the days of or approved by the

Ecumenical Councils, not universal or catholic, not ecumenically received (and notably not in the Orthodox and Lutheran churches, which also espouse the Real Presence), and in fact not even Anglican; or more precisely: it is un-Anglican and anti-Anglican.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a party-badge of the Rome-inclined, anti-

Reformation “Catholics” of the ACC, and enforcing conformity to its use will be a tool for driving out non-“Catholic” continuing Anglicans and traditional Episcopalians, and eventually for radically revising or dropping the Book of Common Prayer for a pure

“Catholic” liturgy.

It is absurd to try and make normative a doctrine of the Eucharist which is little more than an iteration of the Medieval doctrines which the 1549 and certainly the 1552 Books of Common Prayer were written precisely to exclude. Furthermore, approving a doctrine which would allow Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament would exclude the basic

Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist (i.e., that the consecrated elements are effectual signs which, by virtue of Christ’s promise and appointment, convey that which they signify when properly received but do not have a literal or physical or ontological identity with that which they signify) which the Book of Common Prayer and Articles teach and which 24

has been standard in Anglicanism since its inception. There have been no generally agreed or official re-formulations of Anglican eucharistic doctrine which could justify such radical re-interpretations as these proposed canons envision, although it can be argued that the 1976/1979 American Book of Common Prayer and the 1971 Windsor

Statement and its Elucidation in 1979 were decidedly more in the direction of “realism” than was hitherto the case in Anglicanism. [See Reading XIII, A and B.]

Nonetheless, heretofore, continuing Anglicans and “Catholics” have co-existed in the

ACC, even though the ACC as a whole probably tends to a rather extreme Anglo-

Catholicism. The balance of eucharistic doctrine and practice in the ACC would have been inalterably changed if the proposed canons had been accepted. They were, however, and should have been utterly rejected. The Bible and the Prayer Book are sufficient for our faith and our salvation.

The following work will be a polemical “thought experiment,” examining the Anglican

Eucharist in the Book of Common Prayer and Articles, as classical Anglican theologians have seen it. It is not a work of formal historical or , or of Biblical , although it will be historically, theologically, and exegetically informed at 25

every point. Its purpose is to vindicate and rehabilitate and re-legitimate the thought of

Cranmer and other English Reformers on the eucharistic Presence, and to uphold that teaching, which is also still the doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer, against those in the ACC who gainsay it. This is not to say that that teaching is infallible, or even altogether complete and unobjectionable or not in need of revision in the light of modern scholarship and ecumenical concerns; it is simply to make again the case for the eucharistic doctrine of the Church of England and the Book of Common Prayer that prevailed before the Movement. We will also critically examine various features of what we claim is an indefensible Anglo-Catholic mind-set with respect to sources of theological authority and to desired ecclesiastical . We will draw some conclusions and make some suggestions as to how these matters do and should affect the ACC.

Finally, our investigations and conclusions are valid not simply for the ACC alone: they apply to every Continuing Anglican Church, or Traditional Anglican group, which attempts to use Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as a touchstone or marker of ; i.e., of true “Catholic” teachings. All Anglicans who practice Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament espouse, in varying degree, where they do not unabashedly confess transubstantiation itself, a peculiar doctrine of the “Real Presence” which I have 26

described as “naive realism,” which is in itself even more obnoxious than the transubstantiation rejected by the English Church since the Reformation and which is unworthy even to be compared with that doctrine as taught by, say, St. Thomas Aquinas himself. That this “erroneous and strange” doctrine is still espoused by many in the ACC is demonstrated once again by the refusal of its 2001 Provincial Synod to endorse the use of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (even in England!) because of its “Black Rubrick” and the “receptionist” doctrine of the Eucharist which it implies. There could hardly be any better proof that Anglo-Catholics and the ACC do not teach the eucharistic doctrines of the Church of England or of Anglicanism in spite of all their claims to the Anglican heritage and lineage. 27

INTRODUCTION: WHAT DO THE PROPOSED CANONS SAY?

[In the following paper we denote as “Catholic” those doctrines which, and as

“Catholics” those people who, while still in the ACC (or formerly in the Protestant

Episcopal Church – PECUSA, the Church of England, etc.), assert that the standard formularies of Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal, and particularly the Articles, do not sufficiently express the Catholic faith, which is supposedly primarily found in medieval canons and councils, or in the Councils of Trent, 1st Vatican, etc. We put the word in quotation marks to avoid confusion with the vastly greater Roman Catholic Church, which self-designates itself Catholic, and its members, who universally call themselves

Catholics, and are so called by virtually everybody in the world, without any further adjectival or ethnic distinction necessary (except perhaps for those of the Oriental ,

Byzantine Catholics or Chaldean Catholics, or the like.).

We also use Catholic to refer to the faith of the historic ancient Church which recognizes the Scriptures, the Councils, and the Creeds as its basic . No acknowledgment that “Catholics” are actually any more Catholic than other Anglicans is implied or should 28

be inferred. No refusal of the term Catholic to the , nor to those

Reformation or other Evangelical Churches holding to the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the

Councils is necessarily intended, however much the latter churches may differ from us on the apostolic ministry and male presbyterate. The objection here is not to the term

“Catholic” itself, but to its arrogation by a party or bloc of Anglicans who refuse its un- hyphenated application to any other group of Anglicans but themselves. Surely the name of Catholic ought to be allowed to all who “worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in

Unity” and “confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and Man,” as the of Saint Athanasius (Quicunque vult) states.

Recommendation No. 1 proposed to alter Article XIV of the Constitution of the ACC (1.

)–OF WORSHIP–to read:

Section 3. OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF

CHRIST. This Church adheres to the Doctrines of the Real Presence...in the Blessed

Sacrament...and of Concomitance. This Church practices reservation...gives the..reserved sacrament...in either Kind as pastorally appropriate, and uses...the devotion of latria...of the real, true, and objective Presence of the Living, Risen, Ascended and Glorified Christ 29

in the Blessed Sacrament. Therefore no Preface, or comment contained in any

Prayer Book, service book, devotional manual...shall be operative or effective to deny, constrain, or in any way limit the application of these Doctrines or practices.

The committee’s comment says that this Church in an “unbroken Tradition” (apparently not including the period from 1549 down to the ) believes the orthodox

Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. It worries that the Book of Common Prayer in certain and other specified places could be misinterpreted or misunderstood to mean something else. And so it boldly states that nothing to the contrary in the Prayer

Book or anywhere else shall be acceptable. That is, of course, already an implicit admission that many statements concerning the eucharistic Presence in the Book of

Common Prayer, and especially its liturgy of the Lord’s Supper and the , and of course in the Articles of Religion, are inadequately “Catholic.”

In fact, that is true, and such statements were originally designed, from 1549 on, to reject the very doctrine of the Eucharist which “Catholics” now maintain. Such statements are not mistakes or misstatements; they were meant to reject the very medieval Catholic doctrines of the Real 30

Presence which “Catholics” began re-introducing into the Church of England from the

Oxford or Tractarian Movement on and which they now wish to give an exclusively normative role in the Anglican Catholic Church. This is but doctrinal change by historical fraud, legislative fiat, and canonical trickery.

This paper disputes every claim of the committee and states that, yes, another doctrine of the eucharistic Presence has always been in the Book of Common Prayer, and that

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, so beloved of the committee and much talked about at the Provincial Synod at which these canons were proposed, is based on the doctrine of transubstantiation (or its indistinguishable functional equivalent), which is roundly condemned in the Prayer Book, the Articles of Religion, and the Ordinal in the

Book of Common Prayer. The proposed canon therefore nonsensically commits us to historical and theological fraud, in the name of a doctrine which is not in fact held by

Anglicanism or by many members of the ACC. The Affirmation of Saint Louis set up a mechanism for continuing the Anglican faith, and its specific reception of the Catholic faith, not for devising a new, purportedly “Catholic” faith transparently not supported by the Prayer Book, the Articles, or the Ordinal. The canon represents nothing less than a revolutionary take-over bid. 31

Recommendation No. 4 proposed to amend Article XI of the Constitution by insertion of this new section 2:

OF THE AUTHORITY OF FORMULARIES AND RUBRICS. In accordance with the

Solemn Declaration...all formularies, Rubrics, or comments contained in any of the liturgical books...are wholly subject to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the

Church as expressed in this Constitution and Canons, and they shall be read, interpreted, construed and applied in accordance therewith.

On the face of it, this is a commonsensical and innocuous section which says that the

Church is free to express its received Catholic faith as it sees fit, and no minor comment etc. in any of the liturgical books should be allowed precedence over the mind of the

Church. The problem is that the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal are not just

“liturgical books:” they are themselves strongly doctrinal confessions, formularies, and resources. And the Articles in the Book of Common Prayer have more than a simply residual and historic value as witnesses to the faith of Anglicanism.

32

These works are, in fact, the way in which classical Anglicanism expressed its Catholic faith and assured its Apostolic order. They are how the Church of England first and then the confessed that it belonged to the Catholic Church of the

Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Councils. The proposed canon actually tries to subordinate the Book of Common Prayer etc. to the ACC Constitution and Canons, rather than confessing that we are subject (though not uncritically) to the Faith of the

Articles of Religion, the Ordinal, and the Book of Common Prayer. These are and always have been, in fact, the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship respectively of the Church of

England, and express how it specifically and Anglicanism in general have traditionally received the Catholic Faith. We left the Anglican Communion because it was distorting and betraying its own doctrines, not because we had found a better doctrine which

Anglicanism had all along not had.

The canon turns everything upside down, and it does this without once mentioning that the Church, and the Book of Common Prayer, etc. and the Constitution and Canons, and the Provincial Synod, and every member of the Church are subject primarily to the Word of God and responsible to shape our lives and behavior and beliefs so that we might be in accord with it. The doctrinal formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, 33

and the Articles are the chief and normative doctrinal resources for knowledge of what the Anglican Church confesses the Catholic Faith to be. To deny or discard them by vote of Synod is an act of rebellion against God and his Church, except in those cases where the formularies are clearly contrary or repugnant to the Word of God.

But it is not so that the formularies are defective, as continuing Anglicans and traditional

Episcopalians proudly and gladly declare, and we reject this none-too-subtle attempt to bend the ACC simply to the will of its “Catholic” members by setting up the Constitution and Canons as doctrinally to the already received standards of faith, and then by voting in allegedly “Catholic” doctrines from the “unbroken Tradition” which are dear to their hearts. (It would be nice, incidentally, to have a complete list of those doctrines and passages in the Book of Common Prayer which are inadequately “Catholic,” as well as a clear and finite list of those doctrines, canons, practices, and observances of the

“unbroken Tradition” which “Catholics” intend to introduce into the Constitution and

Canons in the future. Obviously no such lists will ever be furnished.)

Both proposed canons were rightly defeated and should now be consigned to oblivion.

This paper will give further why. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in 34

particular will be thoroughly criticized. 35

I. TEN THESES CONCERNING THE TWO PROPOSED CANONS AND

BENEDICTION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

1. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, which necessarily involves the worship of

(consecrated) Bread as if it were God, is based on the doctrine of transubstantiation (or on

“naive realism,” or on some virtually indistinguishable functional equivalent to transubstantiation), which says that the consecrated elements are, in some clear, unambiguous, and ontological sense (though not an empirical one), the Body and Blood of Christ, the Bread and Wine remaining only according to their outward appearance; that is, no real bread or wine remain, only sensible masks and which appear to be bread and wine. [Therefore, according to its proponents, adoration of the consecrated elements, as of the Host in Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, is not in intention , as only Christ is in the elements, not mere creatures of real bread or wine.]

Transubstantiation is not a legitimate Anglican doctrine; the Book of Common Prayer, especially the 1549 eucharistic liturgy, and the Articles of Religion were rightly drawn up to reject and refute it as an “erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to the Word of God” 36

(Ordinal, Consecration of a Bishop, 1550). A doctrine of the “Real Presence” which claims any material or any substantial change in the elements of the Lord’s Supper or focuses exclusively or primarily on the “is” of Christ’s Body and Blood in the elements

(to such an extent that it is asserted that they can and should be worshiped), or on the disappearance of the substance of the bread and wine, is the functional equivalent of transubstantiation and is not based on or compatible with the Reformation doctrine of the

Book of Common Prayer or that of the Church of England. It may be that of the Roman

Catholic, Orthodox Eastern, Old Catholic, or even Lutheran Churches, or of Anglo-

Catholicism, but it is not in the Book of Common Prayer or in any Anglican theologians before the Oxford Movement. (Note: two other Churches, the Orthodox Eastern and the

Lutheran, that believe in the Real Presence but do not subscribe to transubstantiation, do not practice Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.) [See Readings III A, IV A, V C, VII

B, and D, VIII A, IX A, and X.]

Furthermore, the concluding rubric (the “”) in the English 1662 and

Canadian 1962 (and several other) Book of Common Prayer eucharistic liturgies expressly says that “no adoration is intended (scil. by kneeling at the reception of the

Holy Communion), or ought to be done, either unto the or Wine...or 37

unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood.” In fact, if such were to be done (because Christ’s natural body is present only in the at the right hand of the Father, whither Christ ascended – see Readings II (9), III A (13), IV A and D, V D, and XII), it “were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful ...” [See Readings V E, and VIII A.] (The Canadian 1962 Book of Common Prayer omits this latter charge.)

No wonder that “Catholics” in the ACC are so concerned to cancel out this rubric and certain other embarrassing statements in the Book of Common Prayer and esp. the

Articles. In fact, the Book of Common Prayer is not “Catholic,” in that party’s

Pickwickian sense, and has never been so since it was written in 1549. And the

Reformation character of the Articles is indisputable, despite a few sad attempts, and

Newman’s valiant but doomed effort, to prove otherwise. (The Canadian Book of

Common Prayer’s excision of the statement condemnatory of worshiping the Elements as idolatrous is, however, a significant and laudable step away from Reformation polemics.)

2. Exalting Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament to a normative (and perhaps obligatory) status and transubstantiation to a preferred or exclusive position in the ACC is just a ploy to run off non-“Catholic” and members (i.e., those who represent a 38

traditional and classical Anglican pre-Oxford Movement eucharistic doctrine) and for the

“Catholic” party to take control. The ACC would then no longer be a Continuing

Anglican Church or indeed any kind of Anglican Church.

3. While one might legitimately and press for a more explicitly “realistic” doctrine of the eucharistic Presence or of the change effected by the consecration, simply to jettison previous Anglican eucharistic doctrine could not be implemented without , required indoctrination and re-education, and/or expulsion or at least sidelining of intransigent non-“Catholic” clergy and of the ACC. This is tyranny.

An even worse ploy, and a travesty of history, is to maintain that the classical Anglican position always was close to transubstantiation. This was never true.

4. Since the Book of Common Prayer does not teach transubstantiation or (it will be argued) even a “realistic” doctrine of the Eucharist, it too would eventually have to go, or at least the Prayer of Consecration, the Catechism and Offices of Instruction, and the

Articles of Religion, if the proposed canons are enacted. Otherwise, keeping these overtly Reformation and Anglican items but reading into them only approved “Catholic” doctrine would be nothing more than a bait-and-switch scam, or at least a travesty of the 39

true historical state of affairs concerning traditional Anglican eucharistic doctrine. Of course, being candid about the fact that the Book of Common Prayer is not patient of a

“Catholic” reading and simply removing the above items would eviscerate the Book of

Common Prayer and clearly make it a non-Anglican book. Anglican doctrine would then have been “transubstantiated” into “Catholic” doctrine, and only the verbal mask or of 16th century

English would remain. This has, in fact, been the radical Anglo-Catholic for over a century and a half.

5. A medieval Western and (notably regressive) pre-Vatican II “Catholic” theology would then reign in the ACC; “Scripture alone” would no longer be determinative, and the ordination vows, and probably all the ordination services, would then have to be heavily revised or simply excised from the Book of Common Prayer. (The Roman

Catholic and Orthodox Churches, after all, consider these services to be so defective that valid cannot be effected through using them.) The ordination vows of bishops, priests, and deacons all contain language to the effect that the ordinand is

“persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation in Jesus Christ” and will teach and preach nothing contrary to that belief. (See 40

also Article VI, Of the Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for Salvation.)

6. There is, in fact, already in the Book of Common Prayer a quite satisfactory eucharistic doctrine, not transubstantiation, of real participation in the Body and Blood of Christ.

“The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper...”(Article XXVIII). This doctrine says that Christ himself is personally and spiritually active and present and accessible in the Eucharist, for he has promised that the properly used and received consecrated elements his Body and Blood, but that the Presence is spiritual and personal (not subjective in the believer, but a presence of the Person of Christ, through the Spirit) rather than a quasi-material or quantitative presence in the world of perceivable or numerically distinct “things.” Certainly there is no physical or local presence of Christ in the elements (which are explicitly called “gifts and creatures of

Bread and Wine” after the ), though Christ, always present by his

Word and Spirit, and especially so in his

Sacraments by his Promise and institution, is really and truly present and his Body and

Blood received by the faithful in the Eucharist.

The means to receive the Body and Blood is faith, not simply “carnally and visibly [to] 41

crush the Sacrament with [their] teeth” (Article XXIX), but rather to receive the

Sacrament with whole-hearted repentance and with committing and affirming and accepting trust in God’s tender mercy and loving-kindness, in remembrance of Christ’s having died for us and shed his Blood for us on the Cross, and with thanksgiving for all that Christ has accomplished and gained for us there. (Rubric on pg. 323 of the American Book of Common Prayer, Communion of the Sick).

The Sacrament can no more be profitably received to salvation without faith, than a message can be received without a receiver, or a radio or e-mail message without our having turned on and tuned in the receiver to the frequency or address. This does not mean that the or message is not sent or given, but that it is not profitably received and enjoyed without faith in Christ as our Saviour and Lord. The centrality of Article XI,

(Of the of Man), is not to be overlooked in the Anglican understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Article XXIX, Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper, is even more obviously pertinent.

We should beware of an undue emphasis on the “objectivity” of Christ’s Presence and

Self-giving in the Eucharist lest it make us forget that Christ’s Presence is only by his 42

promise unto faith. There is no empirically-discernible Real Presence–even according to the doctrine of transubstantiation-- detectible by a disinterested outside observer [that is, there is thus no “objective” Presence, even though all would agree that Christ gives himself in the Eucharist], although one may see the effect of a worthy reception of Christ in the lives of his faithful, which is, after all, the point (res- et-non-sacramentum) of the Sacrament.

The use of such a word as “objective” to describe the Real Presence seems designed to lend an air of scientific certainty to the Sacrament when scientific knowledge is an altogether inappropriate mode of apprehending Christ in his Sacrament. To say that

Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist or other Sacraments is “objective” is a statement, not of science, but of a quasi-Christian variety of “scientism” (i.e., a pseudo-science with implicit metaphysical claims reaching far beyond mere empiricism and which functions as an ideology).

The Presence of Christ is by his Divine promise and covenant, and therefore simply not subject to scientific testing or empirical verifiability (or falsifiability). The term

“objective” may also be an attempt to convey the meaning of the Scholastic term ex 43

opere operato, or even to refer to the extra nos character of grace and of our salvation wrought for us by Christ alone without any assistance of our wills, and it is thus at least preferable to “automatic” or “mechanical,” but is still an unfortunate and misleading term

(even if it is used in the Affirmation of St. Louis).

Article XXIX, Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s

Supper, stands as a roadblock in the way of “Catholic” notions of the “objective” Real

Presence. It was so intended and so approved by the Church of England.

7. The proposed canons not only peremptorily dismiss four hundred and fifty years of

Anglican eucharistic thought and practice, but they quite unceremoniously unchurch people who call themselves “Continuing Anglicans” or “Traditional Episcopalians” rather than

“Catholics.”

The canons also simply ignore contemporary efforts to arrive at a Scriptural and ecumenical consensus on and liturgy. (In fact, they reject the desirability of any such effort; apparently all one has to do is yield without questioning to 44

medieval or Henrician or Tridentine statements.)

These efforts include the Agreed Statement (the “Windsor Statement”) on Eucharistic

Doctrine (1971) of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), and its Elucidation (1979) [again, Reading XIII, A and B], which claimed to find

“substantial agreement” [doubtless no pun intended] between the two Churches; the

Anglican-Orthodox Conversations of 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1984 [see Reading XIII, C]; the Leuenberg Concord on the Eucharist between Lutheran and Reformed and other

Continental Churches [Reading XIV]; the World Council of Churches document on

Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM, which found wide acceptance) [Reading XV] and the “” of 1982. More recent attempts are chronicled in

Welker’s What is the Holy Communion?, an indispensable work. Nor is the work of many individual theologians on the Eucharist to be overlooked: Ratzinger (3.),

Geoffrey Wainwright (4.), Aidan Nichols (5.), (6.), Edward

Kilmartin (7.), Power (9.), and many others. Archbishop McAdoo and Kenneth

Stevenson have written an outstanding work on traditional and recent Anglican eucharistic theology, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition (1995); it too does not arouse the curiosity of the proposers of these canons (10.). 45

8. The doctrines of the ACC and of the seven Ecumenical Councils are true only insofar as they are derived from and agreeable to Holy Writ (Article XXI: “...wherefore things ordained by [General Councils] as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture”), rather than from or to medieval Western doctrines, canons, and councils, which have at best only a limited value and need to be compared with Patristic, Eastern, Reformation, and modern theology, all the while standing under the judgment of the Word of God. The 1928

American Book of Common Prayer as it stands, and the 39 Articles included and bound with it, and in particular its eucharistic doctrine and liturgy, are , as the Canons of the

Church of England aver of the Articles and the1662 Book of Common Prayer, “agreeable with the Word of God” and “may be assented to with a good conscience.” (11.)

Transubstantiation, traditional Anglican polemics would assert, is not similarly derived from and agreeable to Scripture, though a Scriptural and evangelical doctrine of the Real

Presence could presumably be constructed and assented to ( is one such attempt), and Transubstantiation itself as a doctrine, particularly in the hands of theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas, does not teach a quasi-material or local or 46

empirical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In fact, the main point of contention between upholders of transubstantiation and those of the traditional Anglican (especially

Cranmerian) doctrine of the Eucharist is whether the consecrated elements ought legitimately to be worshiped. The proposed canons simply cut off discussion on that point.

9. The proposed canons would destroy the ACC as we know it, and replace it with nothing better, and, in fact, seek conformity with another Church (the Roman Catholic) which most of us do not want to be a part of, particularly when that involves surrender on its terms, and would cut us off from meaningful dialog with any other Churches (including other Continuing

Anglican groups, as well as Orthodox and Evangelical or Protestant churches). These proposed canons ware thus properly rejected. The Bible and the Book of Common

Prayer are sufficient, and we should resist this latest effort to subvert them.

10. The ACC should re-affirm itself as a Continuing Anglican Church, an heir both to the primitive and Catholic Church of the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Councils, and to the Reformation, in both its doctrinal and liturgical expressions, pledged to do its part in 47

fulfilling the , committed to the ministry of Word and Sacrament within the Historic Episcopate, cherishing the , and open to ecumenical contact and dialogue to further the unity of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. 48

II. WHAT BENEDICTION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT IS NOT

A . Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Is Not Biblical: It goes without saying that

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as such is nowhere in the Bible, and worshiping

Bread is contrary to the Word of God, and the Bread of which Jesus is, is not tout court identical with the element of Bread in the Sacrament: it is, rather, that which the

Sacrament, properly celebrated according to the Word of God and received with faith and thanksgiving, conveys. The “Black Rubric” (in its 1662 and Canadian 1962 versions, at any rate) is, on the face of things, simply an accurate reading of the Biblical evidence.

B. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Is Not Dominical: Jesus did not command the worship of the eucharistic elements. He said, “Take...eat...drink...do this in remembrance...,” but he did not say “reserve...worship...elevate...carry in .”

Ontological identity of the eucharistic species with the natural (i.e., physical, local, extended, spatially defined and circumscribed) Body and Blood of Christ need not necessarily be inferred from the “This is...” of Jesus’ Bread and Cup sayings, as it is precisely this meaning of “is” which ought to be proved. 49

It seems more agreeable to the Biblical evidence to see the Bread and Cup sayings in their (or other Jewish ceremonial meal) context as referring to Jesus’ self- conscious substitution of Himself for the sacrificial cultus in an act of prophetic symbolism. “Doing” this and feeding on Christ have to do with celebrating the Eucharist and receiving Communion; there is no hint in the Words of Institution that worshiping the elements outside of the Eucharistic action was ordained by Christ or is in any other way necessary or even desirable. And all of this is even apart from the consideration that the mission of Jesus of Nazareth in the was, not so much to have people worship him, but to call “the lost sheep of the house of ” to the full acknowledgment of the Reign of God in their midst by his preaching and healing and and finally by his going up to to experience the full enmity and rejection of the Jewish and Roman Establishments (and indeed of all mankind) and to offer himself as the availing Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

Transubstantiation and allied doctrines (including the naive realism of those many who, like Queen Elizabeth I, simply believe without further discussion that the Bread “is” the

Body etc. because of Jesus’ use of “is”) are usually based on the allegedly “literal” 50

meaning of Jesus’ Words of Institution in the . But Jesus himself certainly used “is” or other forms of the verb “to be” in other than literal senses, even as applied unto himself; for instance, all of the “I am” sayings in the of John (accepting the canonical value of John’s Gospel and leaving aside the question of whether the historical

Jesus actually said these things).

None of the latter is to be interpreted in a literal or physical sense, though the sayings are of course true and have cognitive and theological value. Jesus is no more (and no less) literally and ontologically the Bread of Heaven than he is the Light of the world, or the true Vine, etc. And the “living water” which he would give the Samaritan woman at the well (and us) is not H2O. Likewise, neither does “is” have a literal meaning in such places as, e.g., the explanation of the Parable of the Sower: “the seed is the word.”

And Paul’s saying in I Cor. 10:3-4, of the Rock that followed the Hebrews in the Desert to give them drink, that “that Rock was Christ,” is not literally true, unless we are willing to undertake serious modifications of . (The passage, which refers to a rabbinical tradition and not directly to the Scriptural account in Exodus 17:6 ff, is best interpreted as referring to a , or, as Paul himself avers, an “allegory” or typology The fact that the Rock appears in 51

both Rephidim in the above Exodus passage, and at Meribah in Numbers 20:9-13, was evidently taken by rabbinic exegetes, not as a matter of parallels or doublets, but as proof that the Rock had actually followed the people about in their wanderings in Sinai!). Paul talks also of God’s giving the Israelites of the Exodus “spiritual food” to eat in the Desert

(presumably from the and the quails), and “spiritual drink” to drink from the

“spiritual rock” which he then identifies as Christ.

The passage and its use of pneumatikos, as mediated by Augustine and then probably

Ratramnus and certainly Ridley, thus gave Cranmer Biblical language for his reference to the gift of communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper as “feed[ing] us with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ,” but even a Thomas Aquinas could talk about the Eucharist as providing spiritual Food and Drink for its recipients. [See Reading II, (8).] This language of “spiritual Food” is not reductionistic or non-Biblical or anti-Catholic at all; it is embedded in the general, even the medieval, eucharistic doctrinal legacy. Cranmer then used this pneumatikos language, and its obvious connection to God’s Holy Pneuma, as a powerful counter to other medieval eucharistic language which claimed that Christ’s body and blood were corporaliter or naturaliter present in the Eucharist.) 52

But to return to our point: “Is” does not have to be taken only literally to be true or meaningful, and “spiritual” does not mean non-real or subjective or simply imaginary, as some critics of Cranmer and Book of Common Prayer language would have us believe.

(1.) Spiritual food and drink is, after all, first and foremost a gift of God, given to faith, though it may be received unto condemnation.

Conversely, non-literal or figurative statements and uses of “is” may have legitimately meaningful and cognitive content and be true (or false). There is thus no a priori why “is” in the Words of Institution be taken for evidence of the truth of transubstantiation or any other highly “realistic” account of the Eucharistic Presence.

And one can certainly agree that the consecrated Bread and Wine “are” the Body and

Blood of Christ by metonymy (i.e., the figure of speech or figurative language which substitutes a word or phrase for that with which it is closely associated, such as saying

“the White House” when the President or the executive function of the U.S. government is meant, or as here, using the name of that which is signified for that which more 53

properly signifies it), so long as one understands that the signifying is not adventitious or accidental but, rather, Christ-instituted and -ordained, and that the Dominical promise of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is attached to receiving the consecrated Bread and Wine of the Supper in faith. This is certainly the approach of all the 16th and 17th century Anglican authors, Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel, Hooker, Laud, Taylor, and Cosin cited in our Readings. “Catholic” critics would have us ignore this, or, better yet, not ever learn it.

If such a figurative and non-literal meaning is appropriately ascribed to the Lord’s

Supper, then receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and feeding on our crucified, risen, and glorified Lord in our hearts is more like “getting” the meaning of a metaphorical statement or a symbolic action or a poem or a work of music or art and being edified and nourished inwardly by it than it is like ingesting some divine thing.

But of course the acts of eating and drinking in a sacred meal with others and being nourished and refreshed are themselves inseparably part of the complex symbolism which is ordained and blessed by Christ. Nowadays many theologians would assert that it is the whole eucharistic action or use of the Meal which is the “outward and visible 54

sign,” and not just the elements of Bread and Wine. At any rate, receiving the Body and

Blood of Christ in the Meal is better understood by means of an aesthetic analogy rather than simply an alimentary one. The alimentary act is itself to be understood in an allegorical, figurative, referential, and symbolic fashion. And anything separating the symbolism of eating the Bread and drinking the Wine from their (Paschal) Meal context is particularly suspect. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament concentrates on the Bread alone, to the exclusion of the Wine and foregoing the eating and drinking of the two together, in company with other believers invited to the Meal, while only mentioning the

Paschal Meal in some accompanying . This is perverse.

The Bread and the Wine are identifiable with the Body and Blood only by synecdoche or metonymy (i.e., figuratively and not literally) inasmuch as they are the symbolically appropriate and Dominically-instituted and ordained instruments–holy mysteries–of

Communion with Christ sacrificed and glorified; they are, by Christ’s promise and institution, effectual instruments to such as receive them rightly. They are, that is, the

Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood (which not only points to but effectually conveys, when rightly used, what it signifies: the Body and Blood of Christ), and the elements are not in and of themselves “the thing” (res) itself to which they refer. Ontological identity 55

of the signs with the signified is precisely the point at which the doctrine of transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament,” as Article XXVIII says.

The fact that figurative language is used does not prevent one from praying, for instance, the in all sincerity, nor does it keep the one administering the

Sacramental elements from praying that those receiving them may receive the Body and

Blood and feed upon Christ in their hearts by faith, with thanksgiving. (The first sentence of each of the two pairs of Sentences of Administration in the Book of Common Prayer

Eucharist is, by the way, a conditional or prayer and not a declarative; even in 1549, in other words, Cranmer was already praying that the communicant might worthily receive the Sacrament so that he could partake of the Body and Blood, rather than flatly identifying what the priest was administering with the Body and Blood per se. And the addition [Scriptural, but drawn doubtless from Luther or Cologne or Bucer] of

“given/shed for thee” to the translation of the old formula is also important to note.)

Of course, this type of Anglican (and Reformed rather than Lutheran) theology of the

Sacraments is itself no more directly Biblical than is the medieval doctrine of

Transubstantiation, but it is a rational and coherent attempt to make sense of the Biblical 56

evidence, on the basis of an Augustinian doctrine of signs and sacramentality, and of a

Reformation doctrine of the Word and of promise and of faith, and particularly a recognition of how that faith grasps hold of the “given...shed for thee” aspect of the

Eucharist. And if the focus of eucharistic thought is shifted from the “how” of Christ’s

Presence in the Sacrament to the fact of the reception and in-dwelling of Christ in the faithful communicant, why, that is certainly all to the good. The latter is no less inexplicable and mysterious than the former; it is only more important and in keeping with the thrust of of free grace, forgiveness of sins, and newness of life, rather than of curious prying into the mysteries of God’s workings. [See Readings V (J) and

VII (E).]

C. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Is Not Apostolic: Neither the Acts nor the

Epistles nor the Revelation mention worship of the eucharistic species as part of the primitive kerygma or the worship of the early Church. Nor is there any hint that

Reservation of the sacred species for adoration was any part of Jesus’ institution of the

Sacrament, or of the early Church’s provision for the communion of the sick or absent.

Certainly the Elements were to be protected from desecration or confiscation by pagan authorities, but that does not argue ritual worship of the Elements. 57

D. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Is Not in accord with the Ecumenical Councils:

The Canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils cannot refer to Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as if it did not yet exist. While latria is of course owed to the divine Son, there is no evidence that such honors as and were owed to the consecrated eucharistic Gifts outside of the , or that the Gifts themselves were worshiped, only that the Gifts were the bearers of through Christ’s appointment and that Christ should be worshiped in the course of the eucharistic action, especially at the and Epiklesis (and when one received him in communion, of course). At any rate, the mutual co-inherence of Persons ensures that the

Son is worshiped also in the Eucharist which is in and of itself directed to the Father by the action of the Holy Spirit.

Reverences to the Gifts at the Great of the ancient Orthodox Divine Liturgy are to unconsecrated elements; the intense worship at the Epiklesis or is primarily to the Holy Spirit who comes down as in a new to consecrate the Gifts and 58

change them into the Body and Blood of Christ. Reverence to the consecrated contents of the carried in in the Lenten Liturgy of the Presanctified is within the context of that Liturgy (or rather, that of the preceding where the Gifts were consecrated). To this day the Orthodox Church does not worship the consecrated Gifts outside of the Divine Liturgy itself. And reservation for the sick is always in both kinds. (2.) BBS does not exist in Eastern

Orthodoxy, though some Western- Orthodox groups have it, and some Oriental-rite

Catholic Churches have an adapted form of BBS.

This is not to deny that divine honors are paid to the Gifts in the Orthodox Liturgy, nor that the priest in the Divine Liturgy ever blesses the people with the Holy Mysteries

(even those who do not receive at that service), nor is it to assert an identity between

Orthodox and Anglican Sacramental spirituality, but it is to assert that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic eucharistic piety are themselves significantly different on a number of points, and that it is hardly a sign of ecumenical progress to abandon one’s own

Anglican eucharistic faith and practice and to adopt specifically Roman Catholic eucharistic practices, especially when that Church denies the validity of our sacraments and ordination, as well as the legitimacy of our eucharistic liturgy. At the very least, no 59

changes in traditional Anglican eucharistic faith and practice ought to be undertaken without broad ecumenical discussion and internal reception of the new or deepened understanding. Nothing of that sort has been done in the ACC.

E. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Is Not Ancient or Primitive : Indeed,

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a peculiarly Western and distinctively medieval addition to which apparently developed out of such practices as the of and of the Host for or worship. The doctrine of concomitance, also distinctively Western, was logically necessary for limiting the elevation and worshiping to that of one species alone in Corpus Christi processions or

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament; it was also convenient for illegitimately denying the Cup to the laity. We will discuss concomitance later.

F. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Is Not Universal, that is to say, not catholic: Neither direct worship of the consecrated species, nor elevation of the Gifts– except at the Anamnesis or Oblation, which takes place before consecration at the

Epiklesis or Invocation–, nor Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament itself are practiced by the Orthodox Church, which does believe in the Real Presence and does practice 60

reservation for communion; nor by the Lutheran Church, which also believes in the Real

Presence but does not practice reservation. In fact, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament came into widespread and popular use in the Roman Catholic Church only with the

Counter-Reformation counter-offensive against Protestantism. Benediction of the

Blessed Sacrament is very characteristic of and Rococo Latinate and South

Germanic Catholicism. It is an import into certain strains of “Catholic” Anglicanism, and it is derivative at best, and at worst, fawningly imitative of some of the most unfortunate aspects of Roman Catholic eucharistic piety. It is also used quite consciously as an affront to the more Evangelical or Reformation-minded sort of Anglican, and as an in- your-face confession of one’s “Catholicism” in the midst of various heathen and

Protestants.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament could be introduced into Anglicanism only after the doctrinal innovations (or “rediscoveries”) of the Oxford Movement and “Catholic

Revival” of the 1840's, particularly with the eucharistic writings of R. I. Wilberforce, E.

B. Pusey, and . (3.) Neither Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament or even

Elevation of the Host was practiced in the Church of England to the mid-19th century, and neither was ever authorized in the Book of Common Prayer or by

Convocation or any synod of the Church of England. And, of course, such practices, 61

when they were introduced at all, were confined to a minority party and were in no way representative of the Church of England officially or as a whole. Still, doubtless as a result of that

Movement most Anglicans today, and not just Anglo-Catholics, have a considerably more “realistic” doctrine of the eucharistic Presence than their ancestors did. The actual introduction of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament took place surreptitiously and in a rather truncated form (i.e., without the use of a ) under the name of

“Devotions,” probably in the late 19th century. It was always considered a mark of quite extreme Anglo-Catholicism. There is thus no “unbroken tradition” of worship of the consecrated eucharistic species in Anglicanism (or, again, anywhere else, for that matter).

It is thus not typically Anglican at all.

Although Anglo-Catholicism did later grow to be a majority in some overseas and even provinces, because of the heroic efforts of dedicated and pioneers there, and it is likely a majority in the ACC, and does meet the religious needs of many Anglicans in a way that strict Book of Common Prayer worship and belief does not, it has nonetheless never attempted, as these proposed canons did for the ACC, to abolish and ban traditional Anglican eucharistic doctrine and practice. 62

G. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Is Not Anglican: Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament is not in any Anglican Prayer Book, nor is it usually printed even in Anglican

Missals–it is not, after all, a part of the Mass–and finds a place only in some popular

Anglo-Catholic devotional manuals. These should not be allowed to trump the Book of

Common Prayer.

Of course, the Church of England banned the elevation and adoration of the Eucharist– and a fortiori Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament-- from 1549 on, and reservation

(without which Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is impossible) from 1552, except for the brief period of “Bloody Mary” Tudor’s restoration of England to papal obedience; and in 1662, the (rewritten) “Black Rubric” of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer firmly declared that “no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood....” The “Declaration

Against Transubstantiation” was required from 1673 onward in England of any person holding civil or military office, and of course, subscription to the Articles of Religion, which condemned transubstantiation, was required of all ordinands and incumbents, and even of those taking university degrees. 63

The more extreme Anglo-Catholics, or just plain “Catholics,” as some call themselves, hate and reject such passages as the above that may be found in the Book of Common

Prayer itself or in easily accessible textbooks of English Church history, and especially the Articles of Religion, because they make clear the forthright Reformation rejection of much medieval Catholic doctrine and practice, especially transubstantiation, and presumably any other extremely “realistic” doctrine of the Real Presence.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in Anglicanism is thus mainly a party badge and even palladium of the more extreme Rome-imitating Anglo-Catholics and serves a function somewhat like that of the Confederate Battle Flag: its adherents see it as a glorious symbol of the Great Cause, past, present, and perhaps future, while its detractors see it as the emblem of tyranny, , and superstition. Many, including this author, see BBC not only as not characteristically Anglican, but as anti-Anglican and anti-Book of Common Prayer. It is one thing to esteem and properly use the consecrated elements of the Sacrament as Christ commanded, ut sumitur; i.e., to eat and drink them reverently and thankfully. It is a somewhat different thing to keep them to give to those innocently unable to attend the public Supper. It is something altogether different to expect people 64

not at the Supper to worship the leftovers. This is not classical Anglican eucharistic spirituality.

Those who maintain the classical Anglican position of the Prayer Book itself see eucharistic worship as genuinely consisting in the self-offering and renewed and re- focused discipleship of the Christian faithful who are strengthened and refreshed by spiritually feeding on Christ’s Body and Blood, as he commanded, rather than by worshiping Bread outside the Supper, which he did not command.

H. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Is Not Pan-Anglican or Ecumenical: A religious community may legitimately express itself in worship, and set forth canons to regulate its worship [see Article XX: Of the Authority of the Church], but insisting on the normative and even exemplary nature of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as a standard for Christian worship in the ACC is not only contrary to the Word of God written; it is nothing less than a slap in the face and an assault on the religion of those

ACC members who identify themselves as Continuing Anglicans or Traditional

Episcopalians or Evangelical Catholics rather than as “Catholics.” It is especially offensive to use Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in purportedly pan-Anglican 65

gatherings such as those sponsored by FCC (the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen) or

FIFNA (--North America) as if Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament were really a badge or mark of classical traditional Anglicanism. It is anything but that.

The purpose and effect of the proposed canons would have been to exclude and expel or re-educate believers in traditional Anglican doctrine, and their purpose was also to repudiate and even insult Protestants and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and all others in but the Roman Catholic Church. Why this should be is not at all clear, except as a matter of mistaken principle and zeal without knowledge, since the ACC is hardly a blip in the consciousness of the Roman (or any other) Church, and no recognition or concessions or gratuities or Golden Roses can be expected from Rome because of this action.

The overall effect of the ACC’s recognizing transubstantiation (or its functional equivalent), concomitance, and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament will simply be further to marginalize the ACC and to isolate and estrange it from other Continuing

Anglican Churches and from 21st century ecumenical dialog, as was doubtless the intention of the framers of the two canons. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is 66

divisive and anti-ecumenical.

Finally, worship should be regulated by the Word of God and pure doctrine, rather than by merely party-line or sentimental or aesthetic considerations, and Benediction of the

Blessed Sacrament is severely lacking in sound theological and Biblical justification, as shall be demonstrated. 67

III. THEOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS TO BENEDICTION OF THE BLESSED

SACRAMENT

Furthermore, there are serious theological objections to Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament:

A. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament loses sight precisely of the Paschal context of the Eucharist as a Sacred Meal: the consecrated Host is wrenched out of its character as

Food in a Meal, and made rather the object of independent devotion. A definite argument could, however, be made as to the devotional value of Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament, and of extra-liturgical worship of Jesus in the reserved sacrament, undistracted by the Offering of the Eucharist (see an excellent Anglican appreciation of

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament by in his Paths in Spirituality

(1.), and the chapter on “‘Adoration’ and ‘Benediction’” in E. L. Mascall’s still serviceable 1953 work Corpus Christi) (2.), but the purpose of the Sacrament, according to Jesus’ institution, is surely simply that it be eaten and drunk, not kept and worshiped.

Perhaps Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a tolerable and even legitimate development of the doctrine of Jesus’ eucharistic Presence, but it is such a novelty 68

historically to Anglicanism, and is so objectionable theologically that it ought not to be forced on those who do not want it. It should certainly not receive the canonical status and quasi-Confessional legitimacy that these proposals envision.

In fact, (eucharistic) worship of Christ ought to be focused primarily on Communion with him in his Self-offering to the Father of which we make Anamnesis, corporately and individually, in the Eucharist. Receiving Jesus as the Food of wayfarers which leads to the Cross and beyond it to the Resurrection and Ascension and Heavenly Session and ultimately to the Second Coming is surely what Eucharistic worship ought to be about. Older Anglican eucharistic devotional theology shared with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament to a surprising and unfortunate degree the same kind of individualistic piety that focused on a rather passive worship of Christ rather than on dynamic incorporation through the and its Meal into his dramatic act of obedience to his mission from his Father, even unto the death of the Cross. But at least there always remained the statement of the Catechism as to the purpose of the Lord’s Supper: “For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.”

69

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament therefore should not be elevated to such a position of pre-eminence as the touchstone for Christian orthodoxy which the proposed canon would have inflicted on us. “The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have an wholesome effect or operation...” (See Article

XXV of the Articles of Religion.)

Indeed, reservation for communion of the sick makes sense inasmuch as it provides for those physically unable to attend the Meal; it is not just a matter of keeping “leftovers.”

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, on the other hand, is like preparing a Meal never intended to be eaten but just looked at.

B. Following on the same point, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is to the

Messianic Banquet of which the Eucharist is the foretaste, as coitus interruptus is to the

Wedding tryst of the soul with Christ. The way duly to use the Eucharist is worthily to eat it and drink it as Jesus commanded; that is how Christ promises to let us come into communion with him so that he dwells in us and we in him. One could propose that communion from the reserved sacrament (after appropriate 70

confession and ) always be available if Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is allowed, but not as a substitute for Sunday morning worship.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is not the Eucharistic Action: Benediction of the

Blessed Sacrament misdirects the Father-ward (sacrificial) direction of the Eucharist to a

Son-ward direction. And it misconstrues the man-ward dimension of the Eucharist from

God’s gift of feeding the faithful with the Body and Blood of Christ to his (the Son’s) giving a to man less than sacramental Communion with himself. But the

Eucharist is supposed to be the showing to the Father in praise and thanksgiving by the

Church of the Memorial of Christ’s unique and all-availing Sacrifice of himself. No serious exegetical or theological case can be made that Jesus instituted Benediction of the

Blessed Sacrament as a way to worship himself (except en passant, as it were: certainly sharing in the Son’s supreme act of love and worship of the Father is itself an act of worship of the Son who is alone worthy to offer this sacrifice).

At the same time the Eucharist is the memorial and reminder to man of those benefits and merits of Christ’s passion and death, and it is the gift to the faithful of Christ himself, in his Body given for us and his Blood shed for us, and in his divine and human natures. 71

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is directly none of these things, and it is certainly not the service instituted and ordained of Christ to accomplish these things. “For as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”

(I Cor. 11:23). And of course the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the Gospel, of the Good News of our reconciliation to God by the death of Christ our crucified and risen Lord. Once again, Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament loses sight of the main thing.

D. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (and before that, transubstantiation) obscures the fact of Christ’s bodily Ascension and his Heavenly Session at the right hand of the

Father after he had completed his high-priestly Self-offering. Worshiping Christ as if he is literally or corporeally present upon the or in the tabernacle or monstrance, demonstrates precisely how transubstantiation thus “overthroweth the nature of a sacrament” (Article XXVIII); that is, it confuses that which signifies on the altar with that which is signified, still in heaven and to come at the end of the age, and thus overwhelms us with the “already is” of Christ’s Presence and therefore keeps us from fully appreciating the “not yet” of the Second Coming. It is a serious distortion of eucharistic priorities to let a lesser, derived, and perhaps merely contrived use of the Sacrament 72

overshadow the Christ-ordained and -instituted purpose and use of the Eucharist.

Too much ill-considered talk about the Church as the “extension of the Incarnation” obliterates or nullifies the pathos of our having to wait and suffer patiently, obediently, and expectantly for Christ’s Second , the General Resurrection, the Judgment

Day, and the Consummation. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament thus contributes to the evisceration of the Eschatological, a failing which has been the bane of institutional

Christianity for two millennia.

Of course, one can legitimately ask for some relief from the poignancy of Christ’s final

Parousia’s not having happened yet, but the foretaste of that final bliss and glory is found in faithfully receiving the risen and glorified Christ in the Eucharist rather than just looking at the consecrated Bread. And

Christ the Pantokrator (All-Powerful) is, after all, still otherwise present to his faithful people in the Word and through the Spirit. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a mere unnecessary fillip in comparison.

E. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament also gives too easy an answer to the question of 73

how one is to worship Jesus Christ the Son of the living God. There is simply no truth to the contention that Christ instituted (the reservation of) the Lord’s Supper as a direct way of worshiping Christ himself: the direction of the Last Supper is too Father-ward and man-ward to allow of that interpretation. And even reservation for communion (most likely originally also in both kinds), which may be dated back at least to Justin (1st

Apology, ca. 155) (3.), has no proof of Dominical or Apostolic origin, although it appears a completely reasonable thing to do to provide for the communion of the sick who cannot be present at the cultic celebration; but again, reservation for adoration is a Western medieval innovation.

And in fact there are many ways of worshiping the Person of Jesus, down to and including such aberrations as the self- of the or the mushy religiosity of the revivalist “In the Garden.” (4.) Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament is not the only nor the foremost nor even a particularly compelling variety of

Jesus-worship; kneeling or prostrating oneself before a piece of (consecrated) Bread waved about by a priest will not commend itself as anything but bizarre or just plain silly to many believers in Christ, in or outside of the ACC.

74

To repeat: the best worship of Christ is a transformed Christian life, in response to God’s free and , of prayer and thanksgiving and self-oblation to God, humble trust in and obedience to Christ as Lord and Saviour, friendship with Christ, fellowship with other believers present and past and indeed “with all the company of heaven,” and a discipleship of keeping the love-commandments (and “do[ing] all such good works as

[God has] prepared for us to walk in”) and witnessing to others of Christ’s Presence and in our lives as received through the Word and Sacraments, especially our spiritual feeding upon Christ in the Eucharist. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament once more misses the point of what eucharistic worship is and deflects us from a true understanding of Christian sacraments.

F. Those five or six churches (for that is all we are talking about) which advertise

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament among their extra-liturgical services might try varying or enriching their worship diet with a Bible Study class, or a charismatic prayer service, complete with active (and impromptu) congregational participation, tongues, interpretations, healing, prophesying, a praise band, etc., just to experience other ways of knowing and praising Jesus. (At least the latter form of service has some Biblical 75

precedence and authorization–cf. I Cor. 14:26 ff.–as Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament has not.) Perhaps some or all of these things are already done, in which case

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament becomes part of the mix or spectrum of service offerings to parishioners.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament could remain in all those which want it, as an optional, non-obligatory, supplemental devotion not to be substituted for Sunday morning worship. It should be licensed by the , except for those churches which are grandfathered in, upon the request of the priest, wardens and , and congregation. We have all learned the futility of the anti-“Ritualist” prosecutions of the

19th century in both England and America, and we can easily vow that there shall be no anti-Anglo-Catholic ACC “stripping of the ,” just as there ought to be no inquisitorial or re-education attempts on Continuing Anglicans or

Traditional Episcopalians who decline to accept Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament or anything like transubstantiation. Differing groups and brands of in the

ACC must exercise charitable tolerance towards each other and learn to co-exist, or there will be a or an exodus from our already tiny band. A coercive imposition of

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, however, is surely grounds for departure in 76

defense of the Gospel.

G. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament also severely threatens the unity of Word and Sacrament.

As the service stands now in the aforementioned popular devotional manuals, which correspond to the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic practices concerning Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and not to that Church’s latest official liturgical revisions (5.), Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament does not require the use of any Scripture other than (which has only two verses), nor is a required. Of course, it is possible to do Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament after

Evensong and with an appropriate . Present-day Roman Catholic liturgical practice does insist on these things, but even the more recent Anglo-Catholic works, such as The (c1991) (6.) or A Manual of Anglo-Catholic Devotion (compiled by John Burnham, c2001)

(7.) do not follow the reforming Roman Catholic lead. If any of our bishops do license Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in any of our churches, and that is the only way it should be allowed

77

(Amer. BCP, pg. vii), adequate provision for reading the Scriptures and preaching the Word and administration of communion should be insisted upon. On the other hand, long-term Exposition of the Sacrament before the actual Benediction, as required in recent Roman

Catholic liturgical directives, seems uncalled for in any Anglican context.

H. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament subverts the distinctness of the two kinds of eucharistic species and also subverts the theological import of what Roman theologians would call the “separate consecration” of the two species, or at least of the fact of the

“two kinds” in the Eucharist. Not only is this an evasion of Article XXX (Of Both

Kinds), more importantly it again misses the point of the Eucharist as a showing forth of

Christ’s death as the means of our . The separateness of the Bread and the

Wine appropriately and designedly symbolize Christ’s Body broken upon the Cross and his Blood poured out for us through his having been scourged, his head’s having been bloodied by of thorns, the nails’ having been driven into his wrists and ankles, and his side’s having been pierced with a .

Jesus’ Table words over the Bread and the Cup at the Last Supper taken at facevalue clearly indicate that he willed and freely accepted the coming Sacrifice of the Cross, in 78

which his Blood (which is his life, Gen. 9:4, Lev. 17:11, etc., and the means of making

Atonement; see especially Hebrews 9-10) is separated from his Body. His Body and

Blood are the very means and terms of his Sacrifice and the inauguration of the New

Covenant by the shedding of his Blood; thus, emphasis on communion and adoration of the risen and glorified Christ in the Sacrament should not be allowed to obscure the more important fact that the Lord’s Supper is primarily about the proclaiming of Christ’s death and the owning of his Covenant by eating his Body and drinking his Blood in the Meal and being strengthened and refreshed in our Christian walk by the same.

We are also reminded that as his Blood drained out of his Body, that Body was made a pure and holy (and dead and kosher) Sacrifice according to the Law of the Old

Testament. Also, the shedding of his Blood can be seen as foreshadowed by the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover on the homes of the Hebrews to be “passed over” at the Exodus.

All these significant bits of O.T. symbolism or typology are wholly lost in the

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, as only the Host is used and not the Cup. Also lost are the many other associations and references in the N.T. to the saving precious 79

Blood of Christ, and even to the ceremonial symbolism in the Commixture of the

Resurrection reunion of Christ’s Body and Blood. Actually, the receiving by the communicants of both kinds is even more richly symbolic of Christ’s Resurrection in our renewed lives. All of this is lost by the omission of the from

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. This is unfortunate, unnecessary, and deplorable.

Of course, one may counter that “concomitance” means that both the Body and the Blood are present in the Host at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, but in point of fact there is no emphasis at all in Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament on the Blood. And the partisans of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament would have no interest in, say, providing a clear crystal goblet of consecrated Wine to be on the altar at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, since that sort of thing just isn’t done (i.e., in the pre-Vatican II

Roman Church, although she now does permit crystal at Mass). The Bread alone is used purely for reasons of sacerdotal convenience.

In fact, clerical convenience and control, not to say priestcraft, are the unacknowledged leitmotifs and sub-texts of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. Another such leitmotif is the notion that Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is meant especially for the 80

religious elite, cognoscenti of the Jesus-cult, who want to worship him with a special intimacy above and beyond that of receiving him in Holy Communion [!?]. This idea of using Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament to go above and beyond what is strictly required [see Article XIV, Of Works of ] ineluctably reminds us of the uncanny parallel of “In the Garden” to Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

I. The philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings of Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament are so complex and remote from normal concerns that one wonders if they are worth the trouble. One difficulty with transubstantiation is that there is no “” of the bread and wine (since they no longer exist except as mere appearances) with the Body and Blood of Christ that is comparable to the of the natures of Christ, the human and divine, with each other in the one Person of the Son.

Chalcedonian Christology requires us to say that worship directed to the human nature of

Christ is also worship of the divine; the two natures are inseparably, though distinguishably, united in the one

Person of Christ, who is one of the Persons of the Trinity. But there is no such analogy with the

81

elements of the Eucharist, even when consecrated. Thus, the “accidents” of Bread and Wine simply disappear from consideration—indeed existence—after the consecration, according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, and one wonders how such a non-entity may properly be the carrier of the sign- value of the elements.

The Bread and the Wine are not to the Body and Blood as the Body and Blood (roughly, his human nature) are to Christ’s divinity. In fact, in order to avoid the charge of idolatry

(or artolatry) of the elements, traditional eucharistic theology found it necessary to postulate that the elements had to disappear, notionally at any rate, in their creatureliness, immediately and totally at the Words of Institution, in order that Christ’s Body and Blood could be worshiped without any admixture of the non-incarnated. Benediction of the

Blessed Sacrament is impossible to defend from the charge of idolatry if the doctrine of transubstantiation is not true; i.e., Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament necessarily is a claim that transubstantiation (a presence of the Body and Blood of Christ and an absence of the substances of bread and wine, only their appearances remaining) is true.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is thus intolerable from the point of view of the

Anglican disavowal of transubstantiation. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is thus 82

anti-Anglican.

Note also that the disappearance of the “accidents” in transubstantiation appears to be analogous to the absorption of the human nature by the divine in or extreme . In fact, in spite of what is said by many in favor of an

“incarnationalist” view of the Church and Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, there is no analogy to the Incarnation (i.e., of the Word’s taking on human nature without abolishing it) in the consecration of the eucharistic Gifts; there can be no relation of the elements of Bread and Wine to the Body and Blood if the former are considered simply to have disappeared (in substance, anyway) to be replaced by the latter (though only in substance, not in accidents). The notion of the disappearance of the elements is so striking that it has reminded some opponents of transubstantiation not of Eutychianism but of sheer . [See Reading VIII A.] (Perhaps part of the appeal of naive realism, as opposed to the more austere symbolism found in both Thomas and Cranmer, is that such thought at least makes the Sacrament seem meatier and juicier.)

Note that the “invisible ” of transubstantiation was necessary to explain how the elements remained only as “accidents,” mere appearances, while the “substance,” the 83

innermost and being, or the perduring subject, of the Body and Blood by Christ’s command took the place of the disappeared substance of the elements, and the substance of the Body and Blood somehow supported the accidents, not of themselves (for there are no accidents of the Body and Blood in the Sacrament), but of the elements. Thus we have two “miracles:” the substance of the Body and Blood subsists without its own accidents, and the accidents of the Bread and wine exist without their own proper substance, and neither miracle makes any empirically detectible difference, unlike Jesus’ miracles in the Gospels. There is thus no actual “change” of one substance into another: the substance of the elements disappear instantaneously; the substance of

Christ’s Body and Blood appear instantaneously whole and entire at the Consecration.

According to this doctrine, therefore, when the Eucharist is adored, only Christ is worshiped, for the bread and the wine are not really there; thus, there is no intent of idolatry. It is thus .at least an exaggeration to claim (as do the English Reformers and all versions of Black Rubric except that of 1962) that adoration of the Sacrament is simply idolatry on the part of those who believe in transubstantiation. Surely this is a charge made by the Reformers that we may now drop in the new ecumenical environment, though the Black Rubric otherwise contains valuable, classically Anglican 84

eucharistic teaching.

The decrees of the on transubstantiation avoided undue emphasis on

Aristotelian-Thomistic terminology about “substance” and “accidents,” however, while strongly reaffirming the doctrine itself. Modern Roman Catholic apologists usually are at pains to say that transubstantiation is not meant as an explanation of the “how” of the

Real Presence, but Paul VI in his Mysterium Fidei in 1965 made a powerful assertion of the ontological reality of the “what” of the Real Presence of the

Body and Blood in the Sacrament. (8.) But one got to this reality only by a radical change in the referents of the symbolism of the Supper: the elements no longer refer to mere bread and wine, or even to Jewish religious meals, or to Passover, but to Christ himself.

An exegetical riposte to this would be to say that they refer to Jesus’ Body broken and his

Blood shed as the new and availing Sacrifice replacing those of the Temple, and to his Body and and Drink for everlasting life with him. These two points are not mutually exclusive, and therein lies a possibility for ecumenical rapprochement on the Eucharist.

Still, after all is said and done, transubstantiation strikes one as a specimen of 85

Scholastic theologizing, which the Reformers dismissed as specious and sophistical and non-Biblical, and which gives us an idea of the philosophical and theological quagmire that we get into with the doctrine of transubstantiation. And to the extent that transubstantiation requires confessing (as a matter of faith necessary to our salvation) that there is really no bread or wine “there” after the consecration, it is pernicious. No wonder the Reformers went back to the clear words of the Gospel rather than submit to the endless casuistry of medieval .

J. Finally, the main objection to Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is that it enshrines and encapsulates all the dangers and inadequacies of the medieval and Roman Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation and concomitance which our ancestors rightly rejected at the Reformation. (See section V below.) Transubstantiation is not the exclusively true or even an adequate doctrine of the Real Presence, though in some forms it may be a tolerable and permissible one, and concomitance is a completely unnecessary and dispensable medieval fiction. Those possible forms or restatements of doctrine have hardly been stated or even adumbrated by the proposers of the canons. All that they do is re-impose the medieval or Henrician doctrines, for the denial of which many Reformers of our Church were martyred, and cavalierly reject 450 years of intervening Anglican 86

eucharistic thought, without any theological argumentation or plausible appeal to God’s

Word. This is most reprehensible. (9.)

Most ACC members have experienced enough of being hijacked or kidnapped by canonical and liturgical devices and contrivances, first by liberals and modernists and counter-culturalists and feminists (and nowadays postmodernists and homosexualists would have to be added to the list) in the Episcopal Church, and now there is an altogether different assault by “Catholics” in the ACC. Many of us will not supinely acquiesce if someone tries to oblige us to conform to Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament. Lest we forget: “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.” (Article XXVIII) 87

IV. “REALISM” VS. “DYNAMIC SYMBOLISM” IN THE EUCHARIST

Let us employ as a simple analytical tool the conceptual schematism used by Everett

Ferguson in two articles which he wrote, “Eucharist” and “Real Presence” in The

Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, which he also edited. (1.) Ferguson, following the lead of other patrologists in this regard classifies the Biblical and Patristic doctrines according to whether they exemplify “realism” or “dynamic symbolism” as to the relationship between the elements and the Body and Blood of Christ; i.e., whether the elements are somehow changed into the “real” Body and Blood of Christ, or whether the elements have a mainly symbolic but nonetheless definite and assured power to effect communion with Christ. (These phrases are somewhat more helpful than the old polemical dichotomies of “literal” versus “figurative,” and “corporeal” versus

“spiritual.”) (2.)

“Realistic” eucharistic passages of the obviously are the Institution

Narratives of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptics and Paul. Jesus’ use of “this is my body” seems incontrovertible and common to the four pieces of evidence. We also notice 88

very quickly, however, that instead of the expected symmetrical “this is my blood,” which does occur in Mark and Matthew, Luke and Paul (doubtless the earliest source) have “this cup [which is poured out for you] is the in my blood.” Now saying “this is my body” and following it with “this is my blood [of the new covenant]” has a parallelism and symmetry that almost invite metaphysical and ontological conclusions in a very “realistic” direction: the bread is obviously his body, and the wine in the cup is his blood (or the first pair is converted without remainder into the second pair). “Realism,” then, seems firmly anchored in the Gospel texts. And “realism” was indeed the overwhelmingly preponderant Patristic doctrine, in spite of some few instances of calling the elements “figures” or symbols of his body and blood, and the ruling doctrine as well of the Church down to, say, the Anabaptists and Zwingli, both of whom denied much or any relationship between the elements and Christ in the here and now.

The Lukan and Pauline versions, however, already introduce problems. The cup (which is synecdoche–the figurative use of a part for a whole or a whole for a part-- for the wine)

“is,” it is said, the new covenant in Christ’s blood. Obviously this “is” cannot mean the same thing as the “is” in “this is my body.” Or, if it does, then the cup is the new 89

covenant rather than Christ’s blood. There is no identification of the cup (or its contents) with the blood as in Mark and Matthew. Instead, the emphasis is placed on the new covenant, which like any other covenant involves the shedding of blood.

Although we have been presidentially advised that “it all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is,” most of us habitually prefer to rely on the nice symmetry of liturgical recitations of the Institution Narrative, practically all of which use a harmonized version to finesse the difficulties of the divergent texts. But the exegetical problem remains.

What the expression “this cup is the new covenant in my blood” suggests is that Jesus is not speaking of metaphysical identity (which would have been rather odd for an itinerant

Palestinian wonder-worker and preacher of the Kingdom to have done anyway). What does suggest itself is that Jesus and the Evangelists and Paul were not making an ontological declaration, but were reporting an act of “prophetic symbolism” on the part of

Jesus. Such symbolic actions are familiar enough to us from the and from other places in Jesus’ ministry.

“Prophetic symbolism” in the O.T. was not just a visual aid or object lesson to help the 90

prophets get their message from the Lord across to a recalcitrant and stiff-necked people; it was in fact the very form of God’s message–his Word–itself. In I Kings 11:30-31

Ahijah shreds a new garment into twelve pieces and gives ten to Jeroboam to symbolize the schism between Israel and Judah and the sinful secession of the ten Northern tribes under Jeroboam. Jeremiah smashed a potter’s vessel to show the wrath of the Lord coming inevitably on Jerusalem for its sins (Jeremiah 19:10-13). digs out through the city wall and takes his belongings with him to show the coming Exile of

Judah to Babylonia because of the Judgment of God on the people (Ezekiel 12:3-6).

Even more startlingly, God himself tells Hosea to “take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the

Lord.” Hosea then gives symbolic names to his children which express God’s judgment on the kingdom of Israel. Ezekiel is ordered to do still more shocking things (cf. Ezekiel chs. 4 and 5) to symbolize God’s wrath on Judah and Jerusalem. Other acts of prophetic symbolism by Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as by Ezekiel can only be described as bizarre and shocking and even disgusting. But they all made a point, and one not by way of

“ontological identity.”

Such prophetic symbolism, however, is the context in which to understand Jesus’ 91

supplementing or even supplanting parts of the sacred Passover with acts drawing attention to his final and decisive role in salvation history, his declaring that a new covenant in his blood surpasses and replaces that of Moses, and his giving his body and blood to fellow Jews to eat and drink (Uncleanness! Cannibalism! Sacrilege!

Blasphemy!) in place of the Temple sacrifices ordered by God through Moses. Jesus’ use of shocking and outrageous and even hideous prophetic symbolism at the Last Supper is, however, a definitive proclamation of God’s Word of salvation and judgment, mercy and wrath, especially in view of Jesus’ forthcoming passion and death. The notion of transubstantiation and other extreme forms of eucharistic realism sheds no light on prophetic symbolism, and does not itself even remotely express the significance of such symbolism with respect to the Supper. Given this context of prophet symbolism, the idea that the bread and wine are literally Christ’s body and blood only suggests itself to those who have not the foggiest notion of what Jesus is doing and saying. (Cf. the reactions to

Jesus’ actions and proclamation in John 6.) To ask if the bread and wine designated by

Jesus at the Last Supper were literally or metaphysically or “really” his Body and Blood is akin to asking whether the events and persons in Jesus’ parables were historical and non-figurative and “real.”

92

The symbolic act or “prophetic symbolism” in the Last Supper is that Jesus used the bread and wine (present in any Jewish meal and carrying sacrificial overtones in certain contexts, certainly in the Passover Meal) figuratively to symbolize what was going to happen to him, and of his acceptance of that fact as the fulfillment of his mission from his

Father. Jesus symbolically designates the bread and wine as his body which is to be broken on the Cross and as his blood which is to be poured out for the forgiveness of

Israel’s sins. Thus the Temple sacrifices of animals’ flesh after the blood has been drained out of them are to be made meaningless and done away with by Jesus’ death, which will be cosmically significant inasmuch as it inaugurates the new relationship and alliance between God and man through Jesus himself. The further aspect of the symbolism of the Supper is that Jesus declares himself to be the true sustenance and nourishment of those who receive him in that Supper or in any future Eucharist.

Believers’ eating and drinking the elements then would constitute, among other possible meanings: their believing that God’s promises to and Moses and David and

Isaiah and Jeremiah and Malachi are now finding their Yea and Amen in Jesus; their recognition that Jesus’ Self-sacrifice fulfills and supplants all the Tabernacle and Temple offerings of the Old Covenant; their acceptance and owning of the New Covenant and 93

admission into Jesus’ eschatological community; their being incorporated into and strengthened and refreshed by him who makes his very Self (in the terms–“body” and

“blood”–in which the Sacrifice had to be expressed) accessible and available in the

Supper, in a way surpassing all the sacrifices and sacred meals of the Law; their making

Anamnesis of Jesus’ all-availing obedience and sacrifice to the Father; their proclaiming to others, by celebrating the memorial-meal and eating and drinking, the evangelical and eschatological meaning and consequences of Jesus’ sacrifice; and so on. None of these meanings is readily expressed by the notion of changed “substance” of the elements.

One need not assume, therefore, that the Supper requires the ingestion of a new and metaphysically changed substance, or that one must use something other than either a substantialist or a materialist to express whatever might be meant by bread and wine purported to be someone’s body and blood. Or one must take the language as figurative or metaphorical in some sense. Clearly, too, the question of how “self” and

“person,” let alone “body” and “blood,” are transmitted or conveyed by “symbols” in the

Eucharist is not exegetically obvious, or perhaps even recoverable exegetically, and requires further theological elucidation. The history of the doctrine of the Eucharist has been largely that of successive attempts by theologians to elucidate the mystery of how 94

Christ is present in the elements; it ought to have focused instead on the mystery of the fact that eating and drinking the elements bring about the indwelling of Christ in the faithful communicant. This latter course was the one chosen by Anglican theologians from the 16th century onward.

In other words, to return to our point here, the very Institution Narrative, so frequently used to assert a eucharistic “realism,” can be seen rather as the prime example of eucharistic “dynamic symbolism” in which the elements are seen as appointed indicators and interpreters of Jesus’ self-understanding of his life (and death) of mission from his

Father and self-oblation to his Father for us. The elements also by Jesus’ command

(though his followers hardly needed to be told to eat and drink what he blessed at the

Meal) become the means of participating in and accepting his sacrifice and owning the covenant which he effects. The elements–or rather the whole complex of associations with the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christ-Event bound up with those elements and that

Meal--have a dynamic in them which thus goes beyond merely memorializing (or making anamnesis of ) Jesus to the Father, central as that thought is to the meaning of the

Eucharist, so that they become that which makes us partakers of his Body and Blood, precisely by making memorial of his once-for-all sacrifice and self-oblation, announced 95

at the Last Supper, physically offered upon the Cross, and commemorated and actualized and appropriated in the Eucharist.

Paul in fact has another teaching, that of I Cor. 10:16, which says that the cup which we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. What Paul asserts is that we have communion with

Christ’s body and blood through properly using the bread and wine, not that the bread and the wine are the body and blood without further qualification, or that the bread and wine have been turned into the body and blood so that the bread and wine disappear.

There is thus a step in between the elements and Christ’s Body and Blood, and that step is bridged only by blessing and breaking, drinking and eating them rightly.

This passage was often cited by Reformation theologians (of the Reformed rather than the Lutheran stripe) who wanted to deny the strict identity of bread (or its accidents) with body, and wine (or its accidents) with blood; it is so cited in Article XXVIII of the 39

Articles. The consecrated bread and wine communicate the body and blood of Christ, but they are not in and of themselves that which they communicate, though they are the ordained and Christ-commanded means of that communication and communion. 96

Similarly, in the next verse, Paul has no difficulty in referring to the (obviously consecrated) bread simply as “bread” (, properly speaking, a loaf of bread) which nonetheless (or thereby!) has the power to make and keep the Church (as the body of

Christ) one and united. And in fact Paul regularly refers to the “bread” (I Cor. 11:26-28) and to the “cup” (I Cor. 10:21); these are “the plain words of Scripture” (Article

XXVIII), although some of our latter-day “Catholics” would much prefer him to have said “body” and “blood.” (They similarly dislike the words “Bread” and “Cup” in the rubrics for the administration of the Sacrament in the Holy Communion service.)

We have rather over-emphasized the role of sacramental “dynamic symbolism” in the

N.T. (without falsifying the data, however) merely as a counterpoint to the way in which the early Church, from Justin to on to the third century, found it necessary to emphasize the “realist” understanding of the Eucharist in order to safeguard the truth of the Incarnation and of the very Creation over against Gnostics and Docetists. These early subversives of the Gospel were bent on denying the goodness–or even the real existence– of the material world and of human flesh as good creations of the good God. This was such an overwhelming apologetic task and polemical necessity that it led the early

Church, as has been often observed ever since Harnack, to shore up its bulkheads 97

by fixing the canon of N.T. Scriptures, drawing up baptismal Creeds denying such doctrines (especially in the first article of the Creeds), and firming up Church authority by stressing apostolic succession and the monarchical episcopate. ( 3.)

It also led the post-apostolic Church to downplay and under-emphasize “dynamic symbolism” as something that would perhaps give aid and comfort to those enemies who denied that Christ even had a real body. (Similarly, in the 10th through 13th centuries in

Western there was an ever more strongly emphasized “realistic” doctrine of the

Sacrament, developed at least partly in response to the dualistic challenge of the

Bogomils, the Cathars and Albigensians, and perhaps certain of the . Still later, Wyclif and the Lollards, and Hus and the Bohemians also offered resistance to overly “realistic” Catholic doctrines of the day (though they were perfectly Catholic in their doctrines of the Creation and the Incarnation); official reaction against them was predictably similarly fierce, and now carried out by the Inquisition and special and by the power of the secular authority, as well as by the council of Constance.)

But the under-current of symbolism persisted, if only because it eventually became important to be able to explain why the Body and Blood were not in physical appearance and properties the same thing as the elements, and that Christ was not in the elements in 98

absolutely the same way as if his natural body were here.

Many questions were raised, particularly in the medieval West, concerning this problem.

One could ask whether eating the Body and drinking the Blood were acts of cannibalism.

Or how Jesus’ Body and Blood could be on thousands of altars simultaneously. Or whether Jesus suffered pain at the

Fraction in the Mass. Or whether, if Jesus was on the altar after the consecration, he were sitting or standing or lying down or walking about. Or whether he was wearing clothes or shoes or was naked in the Sacrament. Or whether the clothes and shoes were eaten along with Jesus’ body in the Sacrament. Or whether a mouse or a dog eating the

Sacrament really received Christ. Or whether one could receive an arm alone or a leg alone in taking the Sacrament. Or whether Jesus was moved about when the Sacrament was carried in procession. Or how a body of Jesus’ adult size and weight could be squeezed into the eucharistic Host. Or whether one received Christ if he vomited up the

Host immediately upon reception. Or whether a priest consuming the remaining elements at the conclusion of the Mass received Christ twice that day. Or whether the consecrated elements were to be worshiped or merely venerated. Or where the substance of the Bread and Wine went when it disappeared at the consecration. Or where the Body 99

and Blood went after they were eaten and drunk by the communicants. Or whether the

Body of Christ was like a slab of meat or a cadaver or a living man. Or whether a

Eucharist celebrated on (the original) Good or would result in the dead Christ’s being on the altar. Or whether the Blood of Christ was at 98.6 degrees

Fahrenheit or at ambient temperature. And so forth. Clever Sunday School and seminary students still ask these questions.

Obviously there were many intellectual difficulties to be dealt with if one were to maintain any sort of literal or objective presence. Just as obviously one had to deal, not just with how the Body and Blood of Jesus were really present in the Sacrament, but also with the manner in which they were not present, or at least with how the sacramental

Body and Blood of Christ did not have to share with other human bodies certain limiting characteristics, such as location, size and weight, “countability,”sensibility, tangibility, visibility, etc., etc.

The quickest answer to most of the implied questions above was that either “is” or

“body” does not have the same meaning or function in Jesus’ sentence “This is my Body” as they do when we say “That is John’s body over there.” But then there was the 100

immediate rejoinder as to how the sacramental Body could still be a human “body” in any sense at all, if it did not share the same characteristics and limitations of every other human body. The question of God’s omnipotence, often enough proposed as to the problem of how Bread could be Body, does not enter into the picture at all if we are talking about two logically incompatible entities: a rock cannot be a tree, even by God’s will, if it does not assume the characteristics of the tree. Bread can’t be Body unless it is changed into Body, and if it is so changed, surely it can’t be Bread anymore although it still looks like Bread. But how can it have been changed into Body if it still looks like

Bread? The “infinite intellectual ” about the Eucharist was exhausting and not always edifying.

None of the answers to these problems were intuitively obvious, given the prevailing climate of eucharistic realism. But these embarrassing questions remained about how the

Body and Blood of Christ could be present on earth in the same fashion that they were before the Ascension (even prescinding from the question as to how Jesus’ resurrection- body was related to his pre-resurrection Body). Eventually theologians such as St.

Thomas Aquinas would brilliantly and elegantly (though finally unsatisfactorily) sort out these questions through distinguishing the accidents of bread and wine, which carried the 101

sign-value of the Sacrament, and the “substantia” of the Body and Blood of Christ which was present after the consecration, the accidents alone of bread and wine remaining.

Nonetheless, at the Reformation Protestant theologians, including those whom we would now anachronistically call Anglicans, would move towards “dynamic symbolism,” a belief that the signifying elements and actions properly used (i.e., according to Jesus’ will and institution) conveyed but were not identical with what they signified, not as a way of avoiding these questions, but in the belief that such questions were irrelevant if one not only considered the covenantal and relational context of the Last Supper and the

Eucharist, but also understood the proper use of figurative or metaphorical language.

It is also true, of course, that the Reformers detested the accumulation of power in the hands of the Papacy and its priesthood which the doctrines of transubstantiation and of the sacrifice of the mass furthered, and the Reformers wished to destroy that (falsely usurped) power by denying the underlying doctrines (which they saw as nothing but medieval Western accretions not found in the Scriptures or the Fathers); nonetheless, it is important to see that the motivation of the Reformers was theological and Biblical and 102

not (simply) a matter of political or nationalistic insurrection against an evil foreign power. The Reformers naturally enough fastened on that symbolic language about the

Eucharist already legitimated by Biblical and patristic and even medieval use.

It was important in the Patristic period, and also generally for sacramental theology, to explain that the elements were not chosen arbitrarily but actually had some (symbolic) relationship to the grace that they conveyed in sacramental use, as well as to the preceding and ongoing history of salvation of Israel and the Church. With respect to the

Eucharist, Biblical typology (so prominently figuring in Patristic exegesis) was the first line of explanation here (4.): the Tree of Life in the Garden; ’s offering of bread and wine; the Lord (the “three men” of Gen.18: 1-15) appearing to Abraham and

Sarah at Mamre and being served a meal (Cf. St. ’s treatment of the

Philoxenia theme to bring out both the “Old Testament Trinity” and the Eucharistic motifs of this remarkable theophany–though, of course, this was not a popular Anglican theme at any time); covenantal sacrificial meals and, of course, the Passover meal itself; the feeding episodes of Moses and the Hebrews in the Sinai; and Elisha feeding the people in the Wilderness; Jesus feeding the thousands in the Wilderness; the Temple sacrifices, and 103

the feedings thereupon afterwards, as foreshadowings of Jesus’ perfect Sacrifice, and of our communion and feeding on his sacrifice in the Lord’s Supper.

But perhaps the main symbolism favored was that of the bread and wine as Food and

Drink of new and eternal life with Christ: Christ himself becomes the living Bread–or the

Bread of Life-- for us, and the Cup of salvation. One of the Reformers’ favorite passages here is I Corinthians 10:3-4, where Paul talks of the “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” given by God to those in the Exodus. This food and drink came from the “spiritual rock” who was none other than the pre-incarnate Christ himself. Thus Christ could give his people himself through food and drink even in the Old Testament. Similarly, Christ talks in John 6 (5.) of giving himself in his flesh and blood for eternal life to his believers, months before the institution of the Eucharist. Of course, he does not literally give them his flesh and blood, only the loaves and fishes given to the five thousand in the wilderness, but he promises eternal life and mutual indwelling to those who spiritually eat and drink his flesh and blood; i.e., believe in him unto eternal life. Merely eating the manna in the Sinai or the bread and fishes in the wilderness, or even just receiving in one’s mouth the Sacrament of bread and wine, do not suffice in and of themselves for such life and communion; only true faith and repentance do. 104

The Reformers could play on these Biblical themes just as the early had, and, also like them, without having to resort to a doctrine of transubstantiation, in explanation and homiletical explication of what Christ had been doing for his people since the beginning of salvation history.

To revert to our theme, eucharistic theology has two poles, or two foci of an ellipse, about which it revolves, without ever being resolved in favor of one to the exclusion of the other, realism and dynamic symbolism, and few thinkers can or should completely avoid the one however much they favor the other. Both poles or foci are in fact necessary for a balanced eucharistic theology. In neither case should the doctrine become identified with, or even touch, one focus only. [See Readings XIII, A (8) and B. (7)]

We cannot go into the long history of eucharistic realism from Irenaeus to or the early medieval controversies swirling about and and

Berengarius down to the clear acceptance of transubstantiation as a by the 4th

Lateran Council in 1215. Nor can we trace dynamic symbolism from to 105

Augustine, who played an immensely influential role in trying to meld realist and symbolic language in eucharistic theology, and introduced a theory of signs and signification, down to its unexpected champion, St. Thomas Aquinas, who is usually reckoned–certainly so by his supporters in the ACC–as the completely unambiguous defender of sacramental realism. That is not quite so, but that is the story of the next chapter.

We can, however, quote another and later and-- not just supposedly, but completely– unambiguous example of eucharistic realism, namely the Six Articles of 1539, when

Henry VIII still had eight years to reign but was already obviously very worried about the rise of Protestantism in his Rome-free but still very “Catholic” and almost totally un- reformed Church of England. The Six Articles were prepared possibly by or at the inspiration of Bishop , an early supporter of

Henry’s and re- and also of the Royal Supremacy, but who had become a reactionary traditionalist who violently hated and opposed the tendencies to the protestantizing of England, especially as , Henry’s General and

Gardiner’s arch-rival (who was more of an Erasmian humanist than any sort of

Protestant) seemed to be moving in that direction. (6.) The Six Articles outlawed as 106

heretical a number of these tendencies, re-affirmed medieval doctrines in quite unrestrained terms, and threatened offenders with death and forfeiture of all their property to the Crown. The first two articles, both carrying this death and forfeiture penalty, read as follows:

“First, that in the most blessed sacrament of the altar, by the strength of and

efficacy of Christ’s most mighty word (it being spoken by the priest), is present

really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of our

Saviour Jesus Christ, conceived of the Mary; and that after the

consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other

substance, but the substance of Christ, God and man.

Secondly, that communion in both kinds is not necessary ad salutem, by the law

of God, to all persons; and that it is believed, and not doubted of, but that in the

flesh, under the form of bread, is the very blood; and with the blood, under the

form of wine, is the very flesh; as well apart, as though they were both

together....” (7.)

It is fascinating to note that the recommended canonical proposals so instinctively and 107

unerringly turned back to precisely these two doctrines of transubstantiation and concomitance, and that although our recommenders graciously deleted the death and forfeiture penalties, nonetheless they still found it necessary to attach very stringent and severe prohibitions to even finding propositions contrary to these two in the very Book of Common Prayer that Cranmer prepared to deny and reject transubstantiation and similar un-Biblical doctrines. Like

Henry VIII and Gardiner (who is something of a hero to certain “Catholics” in the ACC), they must feel severely threatened by Protestantism, and even Anglicanism, so much so that they want to overthrow all the years of Church of England history after Henry VIII and act as if they had never occurred.

One also notes in passing that the use of the expression of “(Christ’s) natural body and blood” (in the Sacrament) indicates that the author(s) of this passage had not even understood St. Thomas Aquinas properly. It does appear that a eucharistic doctrine far more “realistic” than was that of Thomas Aquinas, and devoid of much reference to the role of symbolism in the Eucharist, was strongly at work in English medieval Catholicism and in its resistance to an emerging Reformation view of the Sacrament.

108

This medieval view, of Christ’s natural body and blood being present in the Sacrament, was never really canonical, even after 1215. It appears to be virtually identical with the kind of “naive realism” so unthinkingly though enthusiastically espoused by many

Anglican “Catholics” to this day. Most of these folk are, however, are hesitant baldly to confess that the bread and wine disappear in their substance at the consecration, so that the doctrine does not quite count as one of transubstantiation either. It is merely confused and inadequate.

We want to say just a few words in passing about concomitance, for it deserves no more.

First, the doctrine of concomitance rests upon the Biblically-unwarranted presupposition that “Body and Blood of Christ”is used primarily as metaphysical shorthand for Christ’s human nature (inseparably and hypostatically united with his divine nature, of course), so much so that “Body” alone suffices to

express the human nature; separation of the Body and Blood seem to be largely coincidental. Instead, we argue here that there is an earlier and quite different Biblical

(and especially Johannine and Pauline) doctrine that the Body refers to that which Christ consciously offers in self-oblation, and the Blood to his life’s essence poured out and 109

separated from his Body on the Cross, and they are re-united only with the Resurrection and, as it were, in our sacramental communions. The separation of the Blood from the

Body is thus not coincidental; it is essential to the meaning of the Sacrifice and of the

Sacrament. Excluding the sacramental sign of the Blood vitiates and eviscerates the meaning of the Sacrament.

Concomitance should be thus suspected of having no valid explanatory value if it leads to sacramental practices which undercut the very meaning of the Eucharist itself. But, as we have seen, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and transubstantiation move in quite a different world of thought than do the Gospels and the doctrine of the early Church, not to mention the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion.

Secondly, concomitance is a corollary of transubstantiation or some extremely realistic doctrine of eucharistic change. Thirdly, it is a convenient dodge to justify sacerdotal refusal to share the Cup with the laity. Fourthly, it is an evasion of the Dominical command to drink from the Cup as well as eat of the Bread; some past Roman Catholic apologists have said that it is all right to restrict the Cup to the clergy, since the

Dominical words were addressed only to clergy and not to laity, so the laity can’t 110

complain if they get the Bread, which contains all that is needed. Why then do they not withhold also the Bread from the laity if the words were addressed only to the clergy?

After all, one can make a spiritual communion by intention and desire alone (Amer. Book of Common

Prayer, p.

323).

Fifthly, the doctrine of concomitance is used to intimidate people in the Anglican tradition at the weakest point of their defenses, when they are sick or dying, into receiving only the consecrated Bread. This practice desensitizes people from wanting to exercise their right to the Cup and prepares the way for such excesses and abuses as

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

Sixthly, although every effort should be made to reserve and administer the Sacrament under both kinds if necessary for sick communions (and compartmented vessels in which both the consecrated Bread and Wine may be stored for pastoral use can still be obtained, though only from a few dealers); nonetheless, the above rubric on pg. 323 should allow us to “take the intention for the deed” when communion under one kind only is the only 111

thing possible (in the vast majority of American hospitals, for instance). Priests will be able to accommodate pastorally people with allergies (either to wine or to wheat) and people under a vow of because of alcoholism, without having to invoke dubious theological or metaphysical propositions, if priests only adopt the practice of reserving the consecrated elements for the communion of the sick under both kinds.

Then they will be able either to administer the reserved Sacrament in both kinds, as the

Lord normally requires, or one kind only, according to the medical or other requirements of the recipient.

Seventhly, it should be noted that those who practice reservation frequently are lax about seeing that reserved hosts in the tabernacle for communion of the sick be from the most recent celebration of the Holy Eucharist. If reservation is a way of extending participation in the Supper to those absent for reasonable cause, then surely such participation should be in the Supper just missed and not some other. Recent Roman rubrics and practice emphasize this point; it is surprising that our “Catholics” neglect it.

Finally, one notes also that a rubric at the end of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer

“Supper of the Lorde” allowed that the “somewhat thicker than afore” communion wafer 112

could be split in two for two communicants, and that yet each communicant should be assured that the “whole Christ” was received in both broken pieces. The passage should doubtless be interpreted as Cranmer’s way of seeing that all shared in the “broken bread” rather than as a backdoor recognition of concomitance, since Cranmer already resolutely rejected both transubstantiation and communion in one kind only. In 1552, of course, this rubric was unnecessary, as the transition to leavened loaf-bread had been made.

It is also a reminder, as is the rubric in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer that “it shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to be eaten [i.e., a leavened loaf]; but the best and purest Wheat Bread that can be gotten,” that our unleavened baked wheat paste or cardboard-like wafers are radically inadequate and actually subversive of the Supper- symbolism of the Eucharist. A glance at actual 17th and 18th century English and

Colonial Communion-ware, such as found on display in the Victoria and Albert Museum or in the “Queen Anne silver” donated to various American colonial-era churches

(reproductions of which are still available in various ecclesiastical gear catalogs), should convince anybody that our Anglican ancestors did not use wafers, as did Roman

Catholics and Lutherans, but used loaf-bread that had to be accommodated in a large deep-dish so that it could be openly and visibly broken before the congregation in 113

the Lord’s Supper as part of the

“manual acts”(or of a after the Prayer of Consecration).

In addition, it would be desirable to use a bread that could be visibly (and audibly) broken before the congregation (as the rubric before the Prayer of Consecration requires), so that they can appreciate why the Eucharist is called “the Breaking of the Bread.”

Perhaps celebrating from the North end of the Table, or even from behind it, would facilitate this ancient understanding of the Eucharist. (Cranmer was too chary in 1549 about letting the people see the Bread except at the Administration of the Communion, which is odd, considering that he thought the Sacrament to be a kind of “visible Word.”

He was, of course, reacting to the Medieval practice of worshiping the Host at the

Elevation, and later in 1552, with altars replaced by a Table in the , the congregation could certainly see the Bread and Wine clearly enough. It was Laud’s fencing in the

Table and placing it altar-wise so that the priest can take the Eastward position that has kept, and still keeps, most people from observing the priest’s breaking the Bread. This is unfortunate, though elevating the Host or the Loaf at the Manual Acts or the Fraction can still be profitably used by those who adopt the Eastward position.)

114

Our adopting others’ sacramental habits with respect to what Bread is used, however convenient, hygienic, or practical they appear (with ready-made, crumb-free wafers), is actually symbolically and liturgically and sacramentally grossly inappropriate. Above all, the use of a “priest’s host” separate from the people’s wafers is an invidious distinction which simply destroys the “one Loaf, one Cup” symbolism of the Lord’s Supper and the unity of God’s people which it requires. This is merely another example of how the casual adoption of Roman precedents and practices has deeply subverted the true sacramental meaning of the Anglican Lord’s Supper. But in most parishes the use of a priest’s host and people’s wafers is so deeply ingrained that it is simply assumed to be the Apostolic practice. And it is usually counter-productive to try to introduce changes.

Similar points might be made about the communion-wine: it is inexcusable to use wine for the Lord’s Table that we would not tolerate on our own tables; this applies especially to so-called “kosher” , ostensibly similar to those used by Jesus, that are actually made from that are not even related to the kinds of grapes grown in 1st century and which make an execrable, treacly “wine.” (There are, however, perfectly acceptable kosher vitis vinifera wines, both from Israel and from the United

States.) All of these points refer to the basic Supper-symbolism of the Eucharist, which 115

is simply obscured or made invisible by the kinds of practices which seem part and parcel of the mind-set which finds concomitance and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament to be good things. The Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist ought to look and taste like the usual, or the best, Food and Drink, at the Supper-Table of the richest Banquet to which none other than the Messianic Bridegroom invites his Church. We must not trifle with eucharistic symbolism, or leave it to priests or altar guilds.

Here again, however, practical considerations interfere with symbolic niceties. Table wine will not keep from one Sunday to the next; many parishes therefore use fortified wines, port or sherry, which will assuredly keep in the bottle without refrigeration and which are likely more to the taste of most communicants, but they are most definitely not table wines. The supper-symbolism is thus imperiled. People need to be reminded that it is a Supper that they go to when they go to the Lord’s Supper.

On the other hand, Puritans objected that one ought to sit as at a supper at the Lord’s

Supper rather than kneel, as the Prayer Book required. Indeed, the first purpose of the

“Black Rubrick” was to give a rationale for kneeling rather than sitting. In fact, of course, we are not required to reproduce exactly everything that was done at Jesus’ Last Supper 116

(even presuming that we could in fact determine historically just what was required) in order to have a valid Eucharist. We do not anticipate reclining, for instance, although that was the custom at a formal Supper and certainly at the Last Supper (Mk. 14:18).

Returning to our original themes and summing up, concomitance is a misleading and offensive and overly-“realistic” doctrine; it has obviously not been an official or even a tolerated Anglican doctrine since the Reformation, except in certain Anglo-Catholic circles since the 19th century. We dare not accept it as normative and standard in the

ACC. Still, consideration of concomitance can lead us to deeper matters concerning transubstantiation itself. And we turn to these. 117

V. WHAT IS (WRONG WITH) TRANSUBSTANTIATION? SAINT THOMAS

AQUINAS VS. CRANMER

It is impossible to do justice to this extremely complex set of topics. We want only to say that there are unexpected similarities between Thomas and Cranmer in some surprising places, although we do not wish to deny the perhaps unbridgeable chasm that separates their positions on the Real Presence. But there is also finally a very similar recognition of what it means to feed upon Christ’s Body and drink his Blood; that is simply the unmerited grace of and his Church through faith in his all-availing

Passion and death. We are not bound to a word-for-word belief in either of their positions, but we respect how both of them finally bowed down in awe and worship before the same Mystery of Christ’s ineffable Presence and Self-communication, though

Aquinas genuflected to the altar upon which Christ was present, and Cranmer rejected that act while worshiping the Christ received into the heart of believers who there fed upon him.

First, we must notice that Thomas’ position on the Eucharist represents the apogee of a 118

“dynamic symbolism.” Actually in Thomas’ hands transubstantiation is a subtle, sophisticated, and even elegant statement of that “dynamic symbolism,” while at the same time it is a corrective of the deficiencies of “realism” and yet assimilates the truth of that position into a higher synthesis. (This procedure is characteristic of Thomas’ .)

All the sacraments have to be interpreted in terms of symbols. Symbols are sensible signs, since man’s constitution is such that he can know reality only through sensible things. “Nothing in the intellect that is not first in the senses” went the Scholastic (or

Aristotelian) axiom. Sacraments have sensible things, their elements, of course, but these elements are symbols too, albeit divinely instituted ones. Quoting Augustine, Thomas says that “The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament” (1.). And still following Augustine, he says that

“a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses” (2.). A sacrament is defined as “the sign of a holy thing so far as it makes man holy.” (3.) The sacraments cause grace by signifying to the mind, not by conveying something quasi-material to the believer.

119

The Eucharist too is to be interpreted by means of signs and symbols. The fact that the elements are Bread and Wine, for instance, testifies to God’s wanting to give man Food--

Living Bread, in fact, and the Cup of Salvation--for spiritual preservation and growth, after he had used the revitalizing symbolism of Water to give spiritual . (4.)

It is precisely as symbols that the elements convey the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood.

We point out these rather obvious things so that no one should underestimate the importance of symbolism to medieval eucharistic theologizing in an effort to overplay just how “real” the Presence is. Also, one should not immediately conclude that

Cranmer, on the other hand, also heir to medieval tradition and, like the other Reformers, prone to use symbolic language in his doctrine of the sacraments, is just being

“Zwinglian” anytime that he mentions symbolism. The Articles of Religion state no less explicitly than Thomas that the sacraments are “...effectual signs of grace...by which he doth invisibly work in us...” (Art. XXV). The 39 Articles and the Books of Common

Prayer from 1559 on, however, do provide a clarification and corrective to Cranmer himself at precisely this point.

120

One should also note here that Luther’s definition (as to Sacraments in general, in The

Babylonian Captivity of the Church in 1520 (5.), and, as to the specific Sacraments of

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, most simply and eloquently in his Small Catechism (6.)) of a Sacrament as element-sign-act complex plus an instituting Dominical-Word-of-

Promise-of-forgiveness-of-sins is obviously Augustinian-Medieval Scholastic in origin, but applies a Reformation corrective and Gospel-compelled focus on direct Dominical institution and on the promise of forgiveness of sins. A sacrament-like act without an instituting Word and a promise of forgiveness does not constitute a Sacrament. Likewise, the Book of Common Prayer Catechism definition of a Sacrament as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof,” makes the same point (in a much more avowedly Augustinian phraseology) as to the sign-nature of a Sacrament and its ordained efficacy and instrumentality. Of course, the Catechism and the Articles go on to limit the Sacraments “generally necessary for salvation” to the two major or Dominical Sacraments (since they lack Dominical institution or a specific element or sign ordained by him).

Secondly, according to both Thomas and Cranmer, Christ’s natural body is in heaven, not 121

here, in every sense proper to other human bodies. Christ is not locally, circumscriptively, movably, materially, and, one might add from a modern perspective, physically, chemically, molecularly, atomically, or sub-atomically, or otherwise literally present on the altar or in the monstrance or tabernacle. (7.) Of course, to Thomas Christ is sacramentally present in the Eucharist, but only “substantially;” that is, according to the Aristotelian category of substantia, the underlying reality beneath or the abiding, unchanging innermost essence or “thingness” of a thing behind its sensible appearances.

Now obviously to Thomas, we cannot sense the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, nor should we want to, since the act of eating a man’s flesh and drinking his blood is cannibalism and thus the very thought of this is abhorrent. But the elements or species or

“accidents” (the appearances of things as phenomena) are such sensible, visible and tangible things, and we use the symbolism and signification of these accidents, once they are validly consecrated, to receive Christ’s Body and Blood substantially. The substance of Christ instantly and totally replaces the substance of bread and wine at the consecration, the accidents alone remaining in their sign-function.

We rehearse these well-known facts to make clear, once again, that “substance” is 122

nothing “substantial,” in the modern sense of the term, and that even to Thomas, Christ does not literally come down to our altars. He does come “really” (i.e., substantially) by the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that substantial change is one into the most “real” way that something can be, but it is not a change in the location of Christ’s Body nor is it a change in the empirical constitution of what we see on the altar.

It turns out, therefore, quite ironically and startlingly, that the ostensibly very “realistic” doctrine of transubstantiation ends up with a quite ethereal or ephemeral notion of how the Presence is “real,” inasmuch as “substance” itself is nothing material or empirically discernible at all, and there is thus nothing literally “there” on the altar as a result of transubstantiation, except the accidents of Bread and Wine, now evacuated of their proper substance! Since there is thus no physical or literal “change” in the elements per se, it is not surprising that some modern Roman Catholic theologians (e.g., Piet Schoonenberg,

Eduard Schillebeeckx) (8.) have suggested that “” or “transfinalization” might be a more appropriate expression than transubstantiation for what goes on in the consecration of the Sacrament, in view of the change in the God-given value or signification of the elements by the consecrating Word, and the worshiping 123

congregation’s attitude towards the elements, which are now capable of transmitting the grace of union with Christ.

Of course, modern philosophies of empiricism and pragmatism or language analysis cannot account for any given doctrine of the Real Presence (or probably of any dynamic symbolist account either!). And one occasionally finds an odd combination of an English empiricist bent with a Reformation theological stance being used to assert that to accept transubstantiation requires accepting also a particular brand of philosophy (scil., a

“metaphysical” one, in the pejorative sense, or at least a non-empiricist one equally ), and since that is to teach something above and beyond Scripture, such a

(substantialist) doctrine may not be claimed to be necessary for salvation. One may oppose this by saying that some sort of metaphysics is implicit in any doctrine of the Real

Presence (or of its contrary doctrines), but that that metaphysics need not be as intrusive and comprehensive as the substantialist metaphysics of Thomas. That metaphysics ought to take due account of the nature of human (and divine) speech-acts and the role of symbolism in conveying reality.

Modern Roman Catholic theologians are aware of these considerations and avoid giving a 124

too technical and Thomistic explanation of transubstantiation or implying that the term gives an explanation of the how of eucharistic change. Also, other philosophies, such as , phenomenology, or existentialism, are pressed into service to get beyond the impasses of . Transignification, for instance, amounts to saying that the ontology of the Sacrament must be one of relationship or signification rather than of substance, for there is no attempt to deny the Real Presence, simply to re-state it in more personalist terms. It is not surprising that many Anglican theologians have been attracted to this sort of re-statement, and one can hardly deny that a doctrine of the eucharistic Presence constructed along these lines could be acceptable to

Anglicans and not readily susceptible to the kinds of objections made in the English

Reformation.

And of course, the truth of a matter of faith is not dependent on our being able to give a satisfactory intellectual explanation of it, although that does not absolve us either from trying to find one nor from refusing to accept unsatisfactory theories in the meantime.

Modern Anglican theologians have been remarkably reluctant, unfortunately, to pursue new theories of the eucharistic Presence very vigorously (Gore is an exception here), or to accept newly proposed ones, or even to suppose that satisfactory ones could be 125

developed. Reformation Anglicans were hardly so diffident.

At any rate, the real difference between Thomas and Cranmer is found precisely in the” how” rather than the “what” or the “who” or even the “where” of the Real Presence:

Cranmer does not believe in the substantial Presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, nor does he believe that these are to be worshiped or adored, but he does believe as fully as Thomas does that those coming in faith, repentance, charity, etc. (i.e., those with the proper dispositions and not placing a hindrance to proper reception) can be and are granted communion with the sacrificed Christ in his risen and glorified Body through the action of the Holy Spirit.

Thomas’ emphasis seems to be on how “our minds are filled with grace” (9.) to appropriate what is symbolized in the Sacrament. Cranmer’s emphasis is on the Holy

Spirit who “lifts up our hearts” to the heavenly places and grants us communion with

Christ at the right hand of the Father. Cranmer’s Ascension Day (from Sarum and

Gregorian sources) is particularly appropriate in this regard. “Grant...that like as we doe beleve thy onely-begotten sonne our Lorde to haue ascended into the heauens; so we may also in heart and mind thither ascende, and with him continually dwell.” 126

One might add at this point that it is inappropriate to interpret Cranmer’s eucharistic theology according to the same model or paradigm as that popularly understood of the medieval Roman Mass: Cranmer is not interested in calling down the Body and Blood of

Christ onto the altar but rather in having God lift up our hearts to Christ in the heavens. It may be suggested, therefore, that the controlling pattern of Cranmer’s eucharistic thinking is one of “heavenly ascent” rather than of divine descent. That is to say, this kind of thinking can call upon such Biblical events or concepts as that of ’s Ladder

(with the of God descending and ascending into God’s heaven); or the ascents or assumptions of such figures as Enoch, Moses, and Elijah (and later Jesus and, outside the

Scriptures, Mary); or the heavenly visions of Isaiah in Is. 6, or of the “chariots and horsemen” of Elijah, or of Ezekiel’s vision in Ezek. 1, or of the “Son of Man” in Daniel

7, or Stephen’s and Paul’s visions of the heavenly Christ in Acts, or of (probably) Paul’s own being snatched up into the third heaven in II Corinthians 12, or of many of John’s visions in the .

One thinks also of the putative 1st century C.E. Merkava- that scholars are more and more attributing both to Jesus (Bruce Chilton in his Rabbi Jesus) (10.) and to 127

Paul (cf. John Ashton’s The Religion of ).(11.) There are also the rather fulsome references to gateways, portals, and doors and ways to heavenly regions throughout both the Old and New Testaments. One can also refer (perhaps more distantly, but tellingly) to the sorts of things Mircea Eliade comes up with his Patterns in

Comparative Religion (12.) and other works under the rubric of ascents into heaven:

Shamanic ecstatic flights, Mohammed’s Night Journey, the Occultation of the Hidden

Imam, Dante’s Paradiso, and, in a more debased and banal form, time machines and teletransportation and space-time portals and gateways, worm-holes, and space warps in

Science Fiction and Fantasy. After all, there is a Magical wardrobe, and Harry Potter has a portal key.

But finally, of course for Cranmer it is Jesus’ “blessed passion and precious death” which is the Portal to everlasting life. Likewise, the Collect for Eve (which is not

Cranmer’s, but possibly ’s, though an earlier form dates to 1637) in the 1662

(and 1928) Book prays that “as we are baptized into the death of thy blessed Son...so by continual mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with him; and that through the grave, and gate of death, we may pass to our joyful resurrection; for his merits, who died, and was buried, and rose again for us...Jesus Christ our Lord.” (The underlying text 128

is Romans 6: 3 ff.)

Cranmer’s eucharistic liturgy, and subsequent traditional Anglican liturgy, focuses on

Christ’s death to an extent that unnerves modern liturgical scholars, who prefer a more cheery and bouncy doctrine of the Atonement and consequently the Liturgy celebrating it.

Dwelling on our sinful state and need for repentance and on Jesus’ necessary and uniquely atoning bloody death seems morbid to such theologians, who cannot wait to get to a resurrection and a joy and gladness unalloyed with contrition and confession and compunction, let alone any sense of the of the flesh as a normative part of our Christian life. No wonder that Cranmer’s Exhortations and Confessions are the first thing to be excised when modern liturgies are devised. No wonder that modern liturgies seem to offer only a “cheap grace” and to ring so shallow and tinny to the ears of traditional Anglicans who treasure Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer and its majestic and solemn English. must precede Easter, and Cranmer knows that. The

Lord’s Supper is ordained “for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of

Christ,” and, then and only then, “of the benefits which we receive thereby,” which are 129

principally forgiveness of sin, communion with the risen and ascended Lord, newness of life, and finally everlasting life.

If one takes seriously these precedents and connections and suggestions about a “heaven- ward ascent” pattern underlying Cranmer’s liturgical craft, then it is not a long step to supposing that Cranmer’s eucharistic thought, and in fact Reformed eucharistic thought generally, represents a rather decisive but Biblically-informed paradigm-shift away from that of the medieval Roman mass. If these speculations have any truth to them, and that is clearly a subject for further scholarly investigation, then that would certainly account for the English Reformers’ insistence that they had both discarded erroneous medieval thought-modes and jumped back to the eucharistic thought and practice of the primitive

Church and the Fathers. This new valorization and use of an old underlying pattern might go some distance towards explaining the eventual popularity of the Reformers’

Lord’s Supper (which is not just a memorial of the Lord’s Passion but above all a

Communion with the ascended and glorified Christ) and its displacement of the Old

Religion’s countless private and non-communicating masses, which only filled the pockets of chantry priests and did nothing to promote the Gospel of free grace, justification by faith, and unto good works. 130

The new valorization is essentially one of the greater accessibility of Christ to his people through his written and proclaimed Word, and through his (Dominical) Sacraments, which are to be interpreted primarily as visible rather than merely audible instances of the

Word’s application to an individual or a congregation unto justification and salvation.

Romans 10: 6-10 is the relevant proof-text here, and it was widely used by Lutheran and

Reformed, and Anglican too, of course: “Who shall ascend into heaven...to bring Christ down from above…or, who shall descend into the deep...The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is the word of faith, which we preach; that if shalt confess in thy mouth the Lord Jesus...thou shalt be saved.” (The passage plays upon and partially quotes Deut. 30:11-13.) No metaphysical journeys–or literal pilgrimages-- are necessary: faith in the received Word or Sacrament avails unto salvation here and now.

Similarly, Ephesians 1: 3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ...” stresses the already redeemed and glorified status of the believer in communion with the ascended

Christ. Colossians 3: 1-2 (the Easter ) likewise exhorts believers: “If ye then be 131

risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” (This passage is reflected in Article XVII, On and Election, which traces the course of the elect as they mortify their earthly members and are increasingly drawn to the heavenly things of Christ.) Again, this is a radically different spirituality from that which obtained in the and it is intimately related to the new Reformation conception of the Eucharist as the Supper and Communion of those being redeemed in the Church of Christ and sanctified by his Spirit. Augustine would have recognized this spirituality, though the same cannot be so readily asserted of the Fathers in general.

Certainly none of this descent-ascent terminology with respect to the Eucharist is altogether unfamiliar to orthodox and Catholic thinkers, who since Origen and Augustine and clearly also Thomas Aquinas have constructed their systematic along the lines of “exitus (a Deo) et reditus (ad Deum).” And, of course, Cranmer’s eucharistic

“ascension” is an “invisible miracle” (and certainly also an empirically indiscernible one) just as much as transubstantiation is, and we see that this notion represents the point at which Cranmer’s mind could no longer attempt to explain but had to stop simply to adore the Mystery. Cranmer never really attempts to 132

explain the “how” of this communion, but he obviously believed that real communion with the crucified and risen Christ takes place in the Sacrament, without localizing the

Presence in the elements, and predicates his entire corpus of eucharistic liturgical revision on that belief. The “what” –or rather, the “Who”--of communion with the crucified but glorified and ascended Christ remains the same as with Thomas and the medieval (and early) Church, without accepting the “how” of substantial presence.

(One does have to qualify this remark as to the identity of the “what” or the “who” in

Thomas and Cranmer by noting that to Cranmer communion is with the spiritual (risen and glorified and ascended) Body and Blood of Christ in heaven, while for Thomas it is with the “substance” of the risen and glorified Christ. Presumably, though, Christ is the same. One has to observe also that it is quite impossible for Cranmer to explain the

Mystery of just how we are made to feed on the risen Christ by partaking of the sacramental signs, except to say that it is so promised and ordained of Christ himself. For him, and for most of Cranmer’s later followers in eucharistic doctrine, the eucharistic

Mystery–and indeed the Real Presence-- lies in the inward and spiritual partaking of and feeding on Christ and not in the elements themselves.)

The real difference and simultaneously perhaps the most interesting similarity between 133

Thomas and Cranmer may be seen with regard to the old distinction, which goes back to at least Innocent III, [see Reading I. C] of sacramentum et non res, sacramentum et res, and res et non sacramentum. Thomas says, “We can consider three things in this sacrament; namely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and the wine; that which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ’s true

Body; and, lastly, that which is reality only, namely, the effect of this sacrament” (13.).

All sacraments may be analyzed in this three-fold way, but for Thomas only in the case of the Eucharist does Christ’s true Body occupy the middle term.

Cranmer denies that Christ’s body and blood are simply “there” in the middle term, while an ontological, though not physical or even local, presence is essential to Aquinas.

Cranmer nonetheless believes that the faithful and penitent recipient of the holy mysteries is taken up into communion with the real and whole Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Cranmer sees the “effect’ of the sacrament as being the believer’s partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in his heart by faith and dwelling in Christ, while Thomas sees the

“effect” as being the perdurance of the Body and Blood in the consecrated elements so long as they remain as bearers of the sign-value of the Sacrament.

134

The crux of the matter to Thomas and to the medieval Catholic Church is that Christ is ontologically (“substantially”) present in the sacrament of the Eucharist and somehow at the disposal of his priests and people so long as the species remain. One has no such disposal over the Sovereign Lord Christ, according to Cranmer, though one is never out of Christ’s judging or saving Presence. His gracious and favorable Presence is by divine promise and word annexed to his ordained and instituted signs and elements, and they do convey what they signify to the believer, or they bring condemnation to the unworthy partaker, but they do not fail, and yet Christ is never in our possession, so to speak.

There is an obvious similarity of this doctrine to Calvin’s belief that only the elect truly are nourished by the Sacrament, and as well as to Luther’s belief that God uses the

Supper both to nourish true believers and to damn unbelievers who presume to receive the Sacrament. (14.)

This reserve, of never having Christ simply tied down at human disposal in the

Sacrament, (which is the core of what Cranmer’s opponents today refer to as “receptionism”) is nowhere more evident than in Cranmer’s Article XXIX, Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the Supper. Cranmer did not believe that mere “carnal” or “Capernaitic” eating of the 135

sacrament could avail unto salvation, and he certainly did not believe in the corporeal or literal Presence of Christ (i.e., of his natural Body) in the Sacrament and on the Altar.

Actually, all of Cranmer’s opponents agreed that the wicked did not receive the benefits of the sacrament, but they affirmed that the wicked or unbelievers nonetheless received

Christ’s Body and Blood, only unto judgment and condemnation. Thomists would say that reception of the consecrated elements without the proper intentions and dispositions did not avail unto salvation, but they believed that the elements received were nonetheless Christ. Lutherans, who because of their doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s bodily human nature made accessible in the sacrament by Christ’s word of promise, believed that an unworthy communion did not avail unto salvation either, but they believed nonetheless that Christ’s Body and Blood were unfailingly ministered through the reception of the Sacrament. And many taught that an unworthy communion could be

“revived” and become effective once repentance and faith were truly present, as the reception of the Sacrament gave a certain “title” to grace.

Cranmer, however, will have none of this and refuses to admit that man’s un-faith can force God’s hand. Lack of faith cannot undo or thwart God’s gracious gift and promises, but God’s gift is given and his promises are made only unto such as will and do repent 136

and receive him in faith and thanksgiving. God is not mocked or deceived by man’s petty machinations and deceits. “To know

Christ is to know his benefits,” was a Reformation commonplace (as stated by

Melanchthon), and thus those who do not know his benefits certainly did not know

Christ.

Cranmer’s position here, as elsewhere in his eucharistic thought, was similar or identical to that of other Reformed luminaries, with virtually all of whom he was in correspondence or closer contact, principally , Peter Martyr Vermigli, John a Lasco, Oecolampadius, Bullinger, probably even Melanchthon (though he remained

Lutheran), and certainly Calvin, but definitely not Zwingli (who died, after all, in 1531 and with whom Cranmer was never in correspondence and who did not believe in any sort of sacramental feeding of the faithful on Christ’s Body and Blood). To call Cranmer a “Zwinglian” with respect to the Sacraments is a baseless canard, though Cranmer is clearly on the Reformed side rather than the Lutheran as far as the Real Presence is concerned. One also should beware of underestimating the continuing influence of Zurich and Basel on the developing eucharistic doctrine of the Church of England from

Edward’s time, and the Marian Exile, and throughout the Elizabethan and Jacobean 137

periods. “Catholics” are loath to admit these facts and try to ignore or minimize them as much as possible, as we shall later discuss.

Many see a real failing in Cranmer here, and certainly he denied the medieval doctrine of the Eucharist and clearly reflected that position in the1549 Prayer Book liturgy of the

Lord’s Supper, and much more radically so in 1552. 1549 is in fact the first English

Protestant Communion Service, although it is usually 1552 and 1662 which call forth the wrath of Anglo-Catholics. True, the 1549 service does seem to pull its punches with respect to denying the medieval (scil., “Romish”) doctrine of the eucharistic Presence in a way that 1552 does not.

But Diarmaid MacCulloch certainly argues for the congruence of 1549 and 1552 in his book on Cranmer, Thomas Cranmer : a life, and in his recent book The Boy King :

Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation, (known in England as The Tudor Church militant) he suggests that Cranmer avoided making a too Reformed-appearing liturgy while he was awaiting the drawing up later in 1549 of the , which represented a coming together of the South German and the Swiss in favor of a spiritual Presence and real communion in the Lord’s Supper. 1549 was also the year of 138

the , which represented a definite ebb in the fortunes of Protestantism in the Holy . Perhaps Cranmer was simply displaying tact, but 1549 was nonetheless the year in which England officially dispensed with the Roman or the Sarum or Henrician Mass, and that fact should not be overlooked. Cranmer’s 1550 Defence, however, does not mention the Consensus, and it may be that Cranmer had reservations about it.

The Consensus represented the ascendancy of Bucer and Calvin over the followers of

Zwingli with respect to the Sacrament, but its theses would hardly give comfort to the supporters of a Real Presence in either a Lutheran or a Catholic sense. Scanning the titles of the Articles gives reveals their drift and and the degree of their agreement with the eucharistic doctrine of Cranmer: “The signs and the things signified are not separated, but distinct;” “In the sacraments the Promise is chiefly to be kept in view;” “The elements are not to be superstitiously worshiped;” “The sacraments per se have no efficacy;” “God uses the instrument but in such a way that all the power (virtus) is his;” “Not all who participate in the sacraments partake also of the verity;” “The sacraments do not confer grace;” “God’s gifts are offered to all: believers alone receive them;” “Believers have communion with Christ, before and without the use of the Sacraments;” “Grace is not so 139

joined to the act of the Sacraments, that their fruit is received immediately after the act;”

“Local imagination should be suppressed;” “Concerning the eating of the body of Christ;” “Against Transubstantiation and other silly conceits;” “Christ’s body is in heaven as in a place;” and “Christ is not to be worshiped in the bread.”) (It is also to be noted that the 1559 Book of Common Prayer and the 1571 Articles moved rather noticeably beyond the Consensus, and Cranmer, in a moderately realistic direction which has characterized the Book of Common Prayer

Eucharist ever since.)

But 1549 was moving in the direction of 1552 anyway, and it required only Gardiner’s reactionary and counter-revolutionary attempt to treat 1549 as if it still permitted a Mass- like and Transubstantiation-like interpretation to make Cranmer decide to formulate a eucharistic liturgy which would leave no doubts as to his doctrine. 1552 was the result, though 1559 certainly modified that outcome.

But many Anglicans too have thought that Cranmer went too far in his highly qualified view of the Presence. He seems to overlook the Sacramentum et res altogether in his concentration on the Res et non sacramentum of the benefits of worthy eucharistic 140

reception. At any rate, the 1552 Book of Common Prayer and Cranmer’s original 42

Articles were never again accepted in their bald formulations after Cranmer’s death; certain important revisions in the Book of Common Prayer in 1559 were required after

Elizabeth’s accession (and some at her insistence, it would appear), and then in the newly enumerated 39 Articles in 1562.

The 1559 Book of Common Prayer and the 1562-1571 39 Articles go a considerable distance toward re-affirming a moderately “realistic” view of the Real Presence in the consecrated elements within the eucharistic action, without ever asserting that the elements were to be worshiped or that a substantial change took place at the consecration.

The 1559 Book of Common Prayer combined the Words of Administration into the present form and dropped the 1552 “Black Rubrick,” which denied “any real and essential presence of Christ’s natural Body” in the Sacrament. (Elizabeth’s own eucharistic views –her liking for a moderately “realistic” view of the Presence, but also her disliking of any Elevation or worship of the Sacrament--are probably reflected in these changes, as were her concerns not unduly to antagonize her loyal recusant subjects and to remain in consultation, and political and military alliance where necessary, with

Lutheran princes.) The revised 39 Articles dropped Cranmer’s more radically 141

“receptionist” language and said that the Body and Blood of Christ “...are given, taken, and received” in the Lord’s Supper, albeit only “after a heavenly and spiritual manner.”

In 1662 the “Black Rubrick” returned, but in a form which merely denied any ”Corporal

Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood” (which, as we have seen, Thomas could have easily said) and still left room for a real communion in a spiritual fashion with

Christ’s Body in heaven. Also, in 1604, when the Book was again revised under James I, a section on the Church and Sacraments was added to the Catechism, and a question- and-answer dialogue said that the “inward part or thing signified” (i.e., the res-et- sacramentum, Thomas’ middle term) in the Lord’s Supper was “the Body and Blood of

Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s

Supper.”

It should be noted, however, that this statement is silent as to whether the Body and

Blood are “in” the elements (or “in, under, with, and through” them, as Lutherans would have said), or in the heart of the faithful recipient (and, of course, “in thy heart” is itself figurative or metaphorical language). The statement is ambiguous enough to be taken in either a moderately 142

“realist” (perhaps even quasi-Lutheran) sense, or (much more likely) a more

“receptionist” one of “dynamic symbolism.” Either a Thomist or a Lutheran would say that the statement is moving in the right direction but is not specific and exact enough to be fully satisfactory. Certainly most Anglicans then thought that it meant that the Body and Blood were in the heart of the faithful communicant and were thus invisible, while the bread and the wine of the Supper were without doubt visible, until they were eaten and drunk.

Anglican eucharistic theology has stayed pretty much at that ambiguous point ever since, though, again, both popular and informed Anglican eucharistic devotion have rather steadily moved in a more “realistic” direction ever since Cranmer, and particularly since the Oxford Movement. This will be discussed in Sections VI and VII.

What Cranmer does show, however, and so does Thomas at this point, is that there is an inescapable limit to “realistic” eucharistic doctrine. Christ will never be on the altar as he is in the heavens, and will be again on earth only at the Second Coming. His natural body is in heaven and not on the altar, say both Thomas and Cranmer, who are clearly pre- moderns here. (Both, of course, lived before Galileo Galilei could confirm the 143

speculations of Copernicus, and neither had any doubt that heaven lay beyond the stars affixed to the firmament spinning about us and no more than a few thousand miles away.

Neither had the problem of explaining how the ascended Body of Christ, if natural or material enough to be limited by such a basic principle as the speed of light, would not have had sufficient light years even to get out of our galaxy by now, let alone move beyond the stars, which we now know are not fixed to any firmament at all! ) Today the notion of Christ’s ascended “natural body” in heaven has become at least as problematic to us as the notion of a “sacramental Body” which has no determinate shape or size or mass was to Cranmer.

And neither Thomas nor Cranmer paid much attention to the eucharistic implications of

Paul’s doctrine of a “spiritual (resurrection) body”–I Corinthians 15:44–, presumably somehow related to Christ’s glorified Body, although Cranmer otherwise makes much of

“spiritually feeding” and “spiritual food” in his eucharistic doctrine: for instance, he denies a “Capernaitic” feeding upon Christ’ natural Flesh and Blood, despite what many have made of John 6:54-56, precisely because of John 6:63. “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” The feeding on Jesus is therefore for Cranmer a “spiritual” feeding facilitated by the (Spirit? 144

and the) Word attached to the Sacrament, but certainly not limited to the reception of the

Sacrament itself, especially inasmuch as some in John 6 were presumably already eating

Christ’s Flesh and drinking his Blood unto everlasting Life even before the institution of the Sacrament!

Whether this is an accurate exegesis of John is another matter, and it certainly involves an exegetically questionable melding of Johannine with Pauline thought–from I Cor. 10:3-4-

-, but it is at least not a cannibalistic or quasi-materialist reading of the Gospel evidence, and Cranmer could call upon Augustine, with his talk about the Sacrament’s delivering an inward and invisible and spiritual grace, as well as upon Ratramnus and Berengarius

[Readings I A and B], before the latter’s papally-compelled retraction, on the notion of feeding upon Christ’s Body and Blood somehow “spiritually” (that is, sacramentally and really but not naturally) present. Cranmer here uses Scripture to interpret Scripture (and from the same chapter, at that) and finds a valuable weapon against both Lutheran and

Catholic opponents.

Of course, the glorified body (of Christ or of post-Resurrection believers) would, it seems, have to be material in some sense, as all the Gospels’ resurrection-appearances 145

stories claim, and not just “spiritual,”and thus it would not fit easily into either Thomas’ or Cranmer’s eucharistic schematism, especially with reference to the use of symbolism to exhibit/communicate the body to the communicant. Though both Aquinas and

Cranmer believe in the glorified resurrection-body of Christ, and both believe it is communicated in the Eucharist, they make no use of its special properties to explain the eucharistic Presence. And, of course, both believe the natural, even the post-resurrection

Body of Christ, to be elsewhere, in heaven, and only “substantially” or “spiritually” given below. [See Readings II (9).] Cranmer particularly insists that the risen body of Christ is ascended and thus not here, though he evidently believes that through faith the communicant is lifted into heaven and truly but spiritually feeds upon the Body and

Blood of Christ.

Nor, Cranmer adds, will the glorified Christ ever be simply disposable to his people, any more than he was to his disciples in the days of his flesh or of his resurrection. Christ certainly “tabernacled” among us when he first came down from heaven (John 1:14), but he is not “boxed in” in the tabernacle now at our convenience or beck and call. Thomas

Aquinas is also quite capable of observing that Christ’s grace is not confined to his sacraments, but Thomas Cranmer does more forthrightly emphasize Christ’s 146

transcendence even in the midst of his graciousness and condescension for our sakes, and even his promised provision of himself as food for his elect.

The result of this Cranmerian emphasis would seem to make the eucharistic Presence a far more problematic matter for the Reformation communicant than it would have been for a medieval communicant, unless, of course, that Reformation communicant is already otherwise convinced of God’s gracious disposition to him, and that he is already a member of Christ’s Body, not simply by Baptism but through election and grace and faith

(though that faith may need through God’s ordained outward and visible signs and pledges of his love). Reception of the Eucharist assures believers of God’s favor and goodness towards them; it does not create that assurance de novo. And, of course, those who feed upon the Body of Christ are already members incorporate of the mystical Body of Christ, the Church, the blessed company of all faithful people.

And thus one comes to the importance for Cranmer and the Reformers of the doctrine of predestination and election. Article XVII, “Of Predestination and Election,” says that the

“godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the 147

working of the Spirit of Christ...drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things...and greatly establish[ing] and confirm[ing] their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ...”

It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that this Predestinarian sort of spirituality and piety has all but vanished from Anglicanism today and that thus it is correspondingly more difficult for its contemporary practitioners to understand the full force and effect of

Cranmer’s eucharistic theology: the Eucharist, as with Calvin and other Reformers, is above all a matter of Christ-ordained covenantal signs’ being ministered to the elect which assure them as well of their election to salvation as of the saving Presence of

Christ in the worshiping congregation. That this is quite a different emphasis from Patristic theology (though not perhaps from Augustine), from much medieval and later Catholicism of whatever stripe, and from contemporary ecumenical eucharistic convergence should be quite apparent.

This point is also characteristically overlooked, or loathingly rejected, by Anglo-

Catholics, whose doctrines of grace and election tend to be Arminian or perhaps Molinist, if not simply Semi-Pelagian. But even many more moderate Anglicans as well tend to be 148

equally unsympathetic nowadays to the Reformation doctrines of grace and election and thereby as unresponsive to the inner workings of 16th century C. of E. eucharistic theology.

There is, however, still a large area of agreement between Thomas and Cranmer. They agree to a very large extent on the Res et non sacramentum of the Eucharist: it is Christ himself who alone through the grace and merits of his blessed passion and precious death feeds and nourishes and preserves his people unto everlasting life with him and with all the saints. Christ builds up and preserves his Church, the mystical Body of Christ, by means of his holy mysteries, which effect a true communion and participation with Christ in his Godhead and his manhood. But there are also differences in other areas, and especially in one, rather surprisingly, where Aquinas’ emphasis on the relation of the symbol to the thing symbolized leads him to a position resoundingly rejected by

Cranmer.

The liturgy of the Lord’s Supper and its Exhortations, which were originally directed to be used a great deal more often than they are nowadays, emphasized over and over how the Eucharist gave the precious Body and Blood of Christ as our Food and comfort, 149

brought forgiveness of sins and newness of life to penitents, and, most importantly, allowed us evermore to dwell in him and him in us (John 6:56; cf. Ephesians 3:17), evermore, not just for the brief time (fifteen minutes? half an hour? an hour?) that the ingested Bread remained in our stomachs before it was turned into something not bread, and then, not having the proper accidents or symbolism anymore, could no longer be the Body of Christ. (21.) For Thomas the Body disappears whenever the Bread which symbolizes it disappears: no sacramental Sign, no substantial

Presence. At this point, Cranmer can be said to have a more adequate and fulsome notion of Christ in the Sacrament than did Thomas, though both do want a real communion with the Whole Christ, though it can has been argued that Cranmer had simply not realized that the Sacrament has a perduring effect beyond the reception of its Sign. Actually, however, Cranmer is much more interested in the Reality of the indwelling Christ conveyed by the sign than he is in the Sign itself, or what happens to it in the stomach.

In summary, Cranmer’s eucharistic theology is what we would expect of a man who could make a remarkable and lively–but not altogether original-- synthesis of his

Patristic, liturgical, and theological studies; his Augustinian-Medieval-Scholastic theology of signs and signification (as amended by Luther and other Reformers); his 150

rejection of Aristotelian-Thomistic substantialist metaphysics; his Reformation insistence on the absolute grace of God and his election and justification of believers in Christ; his detestation of the Medieval and Romish sacramental system; the influence of the

Continental Reform (chiefly South Rhenish and Swiss), and his belief that communion with the risen and glorified Christ through his Eucharist was not just a digestive interlude, but rather an on-going and mutual indwelling of Christ and his people that was attained by “feeding upon [him] in our hearts by faith, with thanksgiving.” There is also a strong dose of humanism and rationalism, and of the exaltation of the New

Learning over the Old in Cranmer, but we should be careful not to read this as if it were

18th century Enlightenment skepticism or British empiricism. And we should not forget that Cranmer remained a Western medieval figure much more than he himself reckoned. This can be noticed, for instance, in his very Anselmian doctrine of the Atonement explicit in the Prayer of Consecration.

What one misses in his eucharistic doctrine is a clear sense of the Sacramentum-et-res, hardly a household expression nowadays, but that loss was at least partly made up for later in Elizabethan and Jacobean Prayer-Books. Cranmer did, naturally, retain the sacramentum basis of eucharistic symbolism, though for him the sign was not just the 151

elements of Bread and Wine, but the whole action of the Supper of believers’ feasting together; in 1552 he even dropped the term Mass and emphasized the Lord’s Supper as the proper title for the Eucharist. Cranmer also retained the res, and so tried to underline the importance of the congregation’s feeding on Christ and feeling themselves “very members incorporate of the mystical Body of Christ” that he introduced a liturgy and otherwise broadened and encouraged group participation in the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ’s passion and death and the communion of his Body and Blood..

Cranmer encouraged corporate celebration of the Eucharist on Sundays and Holy Days

(although a very much reduced list) and frequent communion, and emphasized our consequent “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” for all the benefits we have from the

Cross and the congregation’s corporate oblation of “ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee,” (echoing Romans 12:1). Our being also ready thereby “to do all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk in” (cf.

Ephesians 2:10) flowed precisely from the grace of Christ’s having made Atonement for us and in our stead once for all. (Hebrews 9:11-10:18 plays a large role in Cranmer’s eucharistic theology.) Our life in Christ, our “newness of life,” our dwelling in him as he does in us, were to be understood as the normative Christian response to Christ’s “one 152

oblation of himself once offered” and the salvation which it effected for us: wrought in us by the

Holy Spirit, given by grace alone, received by faith alone, unto thanksgiving and self- oblation and good works done thankfully and dutifully in answer to God’s prevenient grace.

There is also a strong eschatological dimension to Cranmer’s eucharistic liturgy. We are to celebrate the Eucharist as Christ commanded us, but only “until his coming again,” when there shall be no further need for Sacraments, anymore than there is need for a

Temple in the Heavenly City, as we shall be in the direct Presence of Christ, come down from his seat at the right hand of the Father. Always our only Mediator and Advocate and the for our sins, Christ shall come again to gather his faithful. The

Supper, in the meanwhile, has prepared and equipped us, not only for our daily Christian walk, but for our eternal life in Christ, who dwells in us as we dwell in him. We will inherit that heavenly Kingdom of which we are now heirs. Our bodies and souls, preserved unto everlasting life, shall be raised at the Last Day with Christ, of whose mystical Body we are very members incorporate and of whose favor and goodness the

Sacrament assures us, as we feed upon Christ in our hearts by faith, with thanksgiving. 153

All shall be fulfilled and completed, and the Lord’s Supper looks forward to that final

Heavenly Banquet with Christ, the Supper of the Lamb, and strengthens us with patience and hope in the meanwhile.

This was Cranmer’s–and the Reformation’s–answer to and replacement for the Romish

“sacrifices of masses.” And today we should still be thankful for and use the eucharistic liturgy and believe and teach the eucharistic doctrine which Cranmer and the Reformers provided for us. Furthermore, we should keep and use that liturgy in the Book of

Common Prayer in the sense which Cranmer and the Reformers intended, and not in the sense of the medieval Mass and its practices which they abolished. This does not preclude our profiting from new insights into the Eucharist from modern Biblical or Patristic scholarship or from ecumenical discussion, but it does focus our attention on the Reformers’ foundation-laying of the particularly Anglican notion of what the Eucharist is.

Finally, we conclude with one of Cranmer’s most memorable and characteristic letters, written to the new (papist) Queen Mary Tudor, who had the power of life and death over him, dated apparently May 1555, when he was already in the Tower. It is worth quoting at length as it conveniently sums up his teaching on Jesus’ Presence in the Sacrament: 154

“For by their doctrine (i.e., that of Cranmer’s opponents in the recent kangaroo court

Oxford ), of one body of Christ is made two bodies, one natural, having distance of members [i.e., having a definite measurable size and occupying a certain circumscribed space] with form and proportion of man’s perfect body, and this body is in heaven; but the body of Christ in the sacrament, by their own doctrine, must needs be a monstrous body, having neither distance of members, nor form, fashion, or proportion of a man’s natural body. And such a body is in the sacrament, teach they, and goeth into the mouth with the form of bread, and entereth no farther than the form of bread goeth, nor tarrieth no longer than the form of bread is by natural heat in digesting. So when the form of bread is digested, that body of Christ is gone. And forasmuch as evil men be as long in digesting as good men, the body of Christ, by their doctrine, entereth as far, and tarrieth as long in wicked men as in godly men. And what comfort can be herein to any

Christian man, to receive Christ’s unshapen body, and it to enter no farther than the stomach, and to depart by and by as soon as the bread is consumed?”

Furthermore, he says: “It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine, that

Christ hath but one body, and that hath form and fashion of a man’s true body; which 155

body spiritually entereth into the whole man, body and soul; and though the sacrament be consumed, yet whole Christ remaineth, and feedeth the receiver unto eternal life, (if he continue in godliness,) and never departeth until the receiver forsake him. And as for the wicked, they have not Christ in them at all, who cannot be where Belial is. And this is my faith, and (as me seemeth) a sound doctrine, according to God’s word, and sufficient for a Christian to believe in that matter. And if it can be showed unto me that the Pope’s authority is not prejudicial to the things before mentioned, or that my doctrine in the sacrament is erroneous, which I think cannot be showed, then I never was nor will be so perverse to stand wilfully in mine own opinion, but I shall with all humility submit myself unto the Pope, not only to kiss his feet, but another part also.” (22.)

No wonder that they burned him alive. 156

VI. THE AUTHENTIC ANGLICAN DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST AND OF

JESUS’ PRESENCE

One often hears it said that Anglicanism has no mandatory doctrine of the eucharistic

Presence. While it is true that Anglicans have traditionally shied away from prying too closely into the Mystery, nonetheless it is not true that there was no carefully delineated doctrine of the eucharistic Presence in the 16th century or that the Book of Common

Prayer and the Articles do not have a clear position on the topic. In fact, the Book of

Common Prayer and the Articles clearly state that the Body and Blood of Christ are given to and received by the faithful in the right use of the Lord’s Supper, but that one should not worship or adore the consecrated elements as if they were in any but a spiritual and heavenly sense the Body and Blood of Christ who has ascended into heaven and remains there and will come again to judge the quick and the dead. The Book of Common Prayer and the Articles are silent, however, on just what “spiritual” and “heavenly” mean and on just how one enters into communion with the natural (though glorified and ascended)

Body of Christ in heaven by means of receiving the Sacrament on earth. In fact,

Anglicanism traditionally eschews delving very far into the mystery of the “how” at this 157

point.

This Anglican doctrine was standard down to the Oxford Movement and Catholic

Revival. Such a doctrine was sadly deficient to the perception of both Lutherans and

Romans Catholics, as it is more exactly a doctrine of the Real Communion rather than of the Real Presence, and it has appeared equally sadly lacking to most Anglo-Catholics. It has remained on the books, however, and is still the clear meaning of the unaltered Book of Common Prayer Eucharist, despite Anglo-Catholics’ denials and introduction of and liturgical additions designed to obscure the obvious fact of the 16th century doctrine in Anglican official formularies. While there has been change, and even positive growth, in Anglican eucharistic sensibilities since the

Reformation, it would be a massive task to remove all traces of this doctrine, and, if one did so, the resulting Church would no longer be Anglican. Most of us believe, of course, that the official Anglican Communion itself is no longer recognizably Anglican, but many of us would no longer remain in an ACC that simply denies the clear theological and historical truth of the Book of Common Prayer doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

The Anglican doctrine of the Lord’s Supper would be denied, dismissed as inadequate, or 158

decried as heretical by the defeated proposed canons. Such a doctrine is based, in part, on I Cor. 10: 15: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of

Christ?” This doctrine, easily found in all the Anglican Books of Common Prayer and

Articles of Religion, says, briefly, that while Christ is not literally or physically or quasi- materially or “substantially” present in the consecrated elements, they are changed in value and signification by God’s Word and promise and Spirit coming upon them and thus become his ordained and covenanted instruments for his faithful to enter through “a heavenly and spiritual manner ...by faith” [Article XXVIII] into a real communion with the Body and Blood of Christ at the right hand of God, that we might “evermore dwell in him, and he in us” [Prayer of Humble Access].

The doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer is that in the Holy Communion Christ actively offers himself (both God and man) in his Body and Blood by the instruments of the consecrated Bread and Wine to his faithful in his church. (This doctrine may be extracted from the various Book of Common Prayer texts of the Lord’s Supper, or the

Holy Communion, itself, the Exhortations and

Rubrics attached to it, the Catechism or Offices of Instruction, one important rubric in the 159

office for the Communion of the Sick [pg. 323 in the American Book of Common

Prayer], and the Articles of Religion.) That rubric states that, with respect to a sick person unable to receive the sacrament with his mouth, “...if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed his Blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits which he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.” The rubric does not encourage abstention from the

Sacrament for healthy folk, but encourages and instructs them as to the right dispositions necessary for the proper and worthy reception of Christ through the Sacrament. The doctrine taught by the Book of Common Prayer is one of the spiritual presence of Christ to believers and of real communion with him through the faith and repentance and thanksgiving by which we feed upon him in the Sacrament.

He offers pledges of his love, outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace, covenanted and ordained elements, holy mysteries, by which we receive him as our spiritual food and drink. These signs of Bread and Wine are both continuous with and the fulfillment of Old Testament types and foreshadowings, especially the Passover, and they 160

symbolize Christ’s broken Body given for us and his Blood shed for us to establish the

New Covenant (Testament) between God and his Church. They also obviously symbolize

God’s providing nourishment and refreshment for us at a joyous Supper with Christ and other redeemed and reconciled brothers and sisters, just as Christ will do in the Messianic

Banquet at the end of time.

Christ’s instituting Word and God’s Holy Spirit endue the elements with power and holiness to effect what Christ promises and they symbolize. When the consecrated elements are received by faith in Christ as our Saviour and Lord, in repentance and charity and thankful remembrance of Christ’s uniquely and solely availing Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, they as covenantal signs do convey and give what they signify and promise: the nourishing and preservation of our bodies and souls by Christ’s

Body and Blood as our spiritual food and drink, the forgiveness of sin, grace for newness of life in the church here and now, and for eternal life in his kingdom, and the assurance that Christ dwells in us, and we in him, to whom we respond with self-oblation and love.

Christ’s Presence is thus inseparable from Communion with him.

Anglican churches, in consequence, protect the consecrated Bread and Wine thus 161

solemnly set apart from common or profane use, and they do not re-consecrate Bread already so set apart, as some other non-Anglican churches do. (Both the Lutheran and the

Reformed Churches, including their Union and United off-shoots, state that the eucharistic Presence, however described, is limited to the liturgical “action” of the Lord’s

Supper and that consequently reservation of the eucharistic species is simply pointless; frequently the bread and wine are used over again for subsequent celebrations of the

Supper.)

While nowadays in Anglicanism it is usual to reserve the consecrated sacrament for sick communions, the normal use prescribed in the Prayer-Book is reverently and immediately to consume consecrated elements left over from the Eucharist rather than to expose them for adoration. (See Article XXVIII.) The rubrics in the Alternative Order for the

Communion of the Sick in the 1928 English Proposed Book of Common Prayer represent an advance beyond previous Book of

Common Prayer’s and allow reservation for the sick and infirm, in both kinds, but forbid any ceremonies (i.e., “Devotions” or “Adoration,” let alone Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament) with respect to the reserved Sacrament.

162

It seems clear that the Anglican preference for consuming the species after the service rather than using them over again led by a logical progression to the notion that reservation should again be an allowable practice. This seemingly minor matter thus becomes or reveals a major point of difference in eucharistic practice and doctrine between Anglicans and Lutheran and Reformed Christians: for Anglicans the consecrated eucharistic species retain their new status and efficacy even after the action of the

Eucharist is over. (Perhaps more precisely, the action remains as long as the species remain for communicants.) But this recognition need not also lead Anglicans to the practice of reservation for adoration or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, as the prohibition against elevation of the consecrated species in 1549, the omission of reservation in 1552, and the prohibition of worship of the consecrated species in the

Articles and the “Black Rubrick” were erected as a firewall precisely to prevent that sort of thing. These were not unthinking or accidental omissions, or revisions or additions imposed by an Erastian Crown or Parliament, but conscious and intended theological statements that clearly express the Reformation character of pristine Anglican eucharistic doctrine.

Four hundred and fifty years of Anglican eucharistic theology and liturgy have mainly 163

produced only variants on the themes and practices in the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles concerning the eucharistic Presence, although Anglicanism in general has tended more and more to a somewhat “realistic”appreciation of the Real Presence from as early as 1559 (Elizabeth’s accession, when the 1549 and 1552 Sentences of

Administration were combined, and Cranmer’s first baldly minimalist “Black Rubric” was dropped, and his 42 Articles, which included some very receptionist-sounding language about the Lord’s Supper, were omitted, only to be revised and re-issued as the

39 Articles a decade or so later). Hooker’s brilliant synthesis and apology for the polity and doctrine of the Church of England followed thereafter, and then the purportedly high eucharistic doctrines of the Caroline divines and the 1637 “Laud’s Liturgy” in , which in fact varied little from previous doctrine. [See Readings VIII, IX. and X.] The

Restoration imposed a more rigid and thorough-going Anglicanism on England and ensured that only men ordained with Prayer-Book or who “had formerly had Episcopal

Consecration or Ordination” be allowed as priests, etc. (This had previously been the general, but by no means universal practice, as some men ordained by foreign presbyteries, but not by British ones, had previously occasionally been accepted in the

Church of England. At the Restoration, however, there was the problem of dealing with hundreds of incumbents who had been ordained as Independents or Presbyterians or 164

whatever during the Commonwealth and Protectorate.)

All this being said, it must be stressed that there was much room to play in Anglican doctrines.of the Eucharist, ranging from something that was a coldly formalistic and occasional that hardly partook of the richness of the Cranmerian liturgy, to a deep realization and appreciation of the communion with Christ that the Lord’s Supper truly allowed the partaker of the Lord’s Body and Blood.

Indeed, in his Parochial and Plain offered several examples of the latter significantly still classical Anglican doctrine in content but before the turn of Tractarianism to a more pronounced doctrine of Real Presence verging on the

“corporal” that characterized later Anglo-Catholic thinking.

In his Easter1838 sermon on “The Eucharistic Presence” (1.)Newman begins with an examination of the mystery of the “spiritual” rather than carnal Presence of Christ given to us in Holy Communion:

Christ, who died and rose again for us, is in it spiritually present, in the fulness of 165

His death and of His resurrection. We call his His presence in this holy Sacrament

a “spiritual” presence, not as if “spiritual’ were but a name or mode of speech,

and He were really absent, but by way of expressing that He who is present there

can neither be seen nor heard; that he cannot be approached or ascertained by any

of the senses; that He is not present in place; that He is not present carnally,

though he is really present. And how this is, of course, is a mystery. All that we

know or need know is that He is given to us, and that in the Sacrament of Holy

Communion

(...)

[Furthermore:] Such reflections as the foregoing lead us to this conclusion – that

it is our duty to make much of Christ’s miracles of love; and instead of denying or

feeling cold towards them, to desire to possess our hearts with them...[T]here is a

also a holy and devout curiosity which all who love God will in their measure

feel...[Such is] the case of the Holy Angels who (as St. Peter tells us) “desire to

look into” the grace of God in the Gospel. Under the Gospel there are surely

wonders performed...Let us feel interest and awful expectation at the news of

them; let us wait upon God day by day for the treasures of grace, which are hid in

Christ, which are great beyond words or thought. 166

(...)

Let us pray Him then to give us such a real and living insight into the blessed

doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God, of His birth of a Virgin, His atoning

death, and resurrection, that we may desire that the Holy Communion be an

effectual type of that gracious . No one realizes the mystery of the

Incarnation but must feel disposed towards that of Holy Communion. Let us pray

Him to give us an earnest longing after Him–a thirst for His presence–an anxiety

to find Him–a joy on hearing that He is to be found, even now, under the veil of

sensible things–and a good hope that we shall find Him there...

Such an attitude towards the Holy Eucharist, at once both profoundly Anglican and thoroughly Catholic, had been demonstrated many times before in the devotion and theological expression of Anglicans. One thinks especially here of the Caroline Divines and the Nonjurors.

The efforts of the Scottish Nonjurors to meld some features of the 1549 eucharistic liturgy with 1661, and to foster a new appreciation of the 8th chapter of the Apostolic

Constitutions and other primitive and Eastern liturgies, and otherwise to re-introduce 167

certain older “Usages” and revive and restore eucharistic faith and practice, influenced men and movements as divergent as and , on the one hand, and

Bishop Seabury and the American Book of Common Prayer, on the other. Bishop

Seabury’s incorporation of a Scottish Nonjuror Prayer of Consecration, complete with an

Oblation (Anamnesis) and an Invocation (Epiklesis), into the 1789 American Book of

Common Prayer (with significant revision) introduced a quite new (or ancient!) strand into Anglican liturgical and eucharistic theology and expanded its ecumenical horizons.

(It also made it all the more obvious, even if no one so much as thought about it at the time, that the American Prayer of Consecration could not be treated as if it were an

English translation of the old Roman or

Sarum Canon.)

Anglican Book of Common Prayer revisions down through the 1960's shared or partially advanced many of these developments, though from the 70's onward Anglican eucharistic revision went wildly off track, and those who wished to remain continuing Anglicans faithful to the authentic Book of Common Prayer tradition were obliged to secede from the Anglican Communion. Our task now is to preserve and promote and where necessary advance the Prayer Book tradition, especially as to its eucharistic faith and practice, in a 168

conservative and orthodox fashion, without succumbing to the temptations of modern

“inclusivist” language or “gender-neutral” ordination. Most of us see this as the principal vocation and mission of the ACC, inasmuch as the Book of Common Prayer is our principal and most characteristic way in Anglicanism of confessing the Faith, proclaiming the Gospel, and worshiping God and guiding the flock in Word and

Sacrament. It is not our vocation to go the way of the “,” but of the old, unreconstructed (or un-deconstructed) Prayer Book. We left the Anglican Communion to keep the Prayer Book rather than to add numerous dubious “Catholic” practices and jettison perfectly valid Reformation and Prayer Book theology. 169

VII. “BUT ISN’T THIS RECEPTIONISM?”

The question naturally arises, or the polemical charge is thrown in our faces: Is what is taught and advocated in classical Anglicanism and in this paper actually only a variety of

“receptionism,” or of “virtualism?” More to the point, is it not therefore illicit according to the Affirmation of St. Louis or the Solemn Declaration of the Constitution and Canons of the ACC? The Affirmation and Declaration confess the Real Presence and consider it a Fundamental Statement or non-negotiable item. These are serious accusations and deserve a full response. (We do note that neither the Affirmation nor the Constitution and

Canons is infallible, and neither has the status of a Confession or Creed.)

First, one should note that “receptionism” and “virtualism” are not self-designations, so to speak; they are pejorative and polemical labels fastened on these doctrines by their opponents. The of these doctrines usually refer to them as those of a spiritual presence or communion of the Lord’s Body and Blood by the faithful in the Supper.

Furthermore, there is no hint that the set-apart elements merely represent or symbolize the Lord’s Body and Blood and play no further role in communicating those realities 170

except by a mental effort on the part of the communicants. There is no subjectivism or individualism in the doctrine, that is to say. The mind or faith do not make the Body and

Blood appear. The elements are ordained divine gifts and creatures, and efficacious symbols, of prevenient grace, and dependent upon Christ’s gracious promises and

Covenant, and it is God alone who initiates and accomplishes the action of feeding and refreshing the partakers with the spiritual food of the Body and Blood, however that mysterious action be accomplished.

The receivers do not postulate or call forth the reality of the Sacrament. Instead, faith

(itself only an effect of grace and not a human work) trustingly receives what God offers and gives, has promised and pledged and covenanted himself to do, and to which end he has instituted and appointed holy mysteries to accomplish what he wills to do: feed and nourish and refresh the bodies and souls of his faithful unto everlasting life, and keep them incorporated into the Church and account them in the number of his saints. Of course, faith, trust, promise, pledge, covenant, etc. are personal and inter-personal or relational terms, and not material or substantialist ones. And there is no doubt that the advocates of this doctrine prefer the former set of terms as an accurate expression of the

Biblical reality of the Eucharist, and find the latter inadequate and unsatisfactory by 171

themselves.

Second, if the Affirmation of St. Louis and the Solemn Declaration actually do exclude the doctrine set forth in section VI of this paper as not sufficiently expressive of the Real

Presence, then, we repeat ourselves, they also exclude the Articles, the Ordinal, and the

Prayer Book as well. This is no small matter, obviously, since that would also exclude four and a half centuries of Anglican eucharistic thought and praxis, and the considered positions, not only of Cranmer and Ridley, but that of , ,

Lancelot Andrewes, Archbishop Laud, Jeremy Taylor, Daniel Waterland, the Wesleys,

F.D. Maurice, etc. etc. would all have to be disallowed. And, of course, one could certainly contest the validity of orders predicated on such a defective doctrine of the

Eucharist. It does no good to suggest that Anglican orders have been somehow restored or rejuvenated with Old Catholic orders, for that would still leave three and a half centuries of invalid or severely lacking eucharistic celebration and administration. It is pointless to call oneself “Anglican” after disavowing all previous Anglicans.

Furthermore, in yet another devastating reduction to absurdity, the Prayer Book and

Ordinal would surely have to be replaced if they express such a defective view of the 172

Eucharist. The wholly transparent device and strategem of simply commanding people to read them as if they actually already teach and have always taught transubstantiation or consubstantiation or whatever will not fool everybody forever. The final irony that our

“Catholic” friends would impose on us is that their interpretation of the Affirmation and the Declaration would accept as legitimate interpretations of “Real Presence” the Roman

Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and possibly the Lutheran one of consubstantiation, and perhaps some unspecified “realistic” doctrine that did not require claiming that the Bread and the Wine are literally changed into the Body and Blood (and thus themselves disappear), but not the Anglican doctrine of spiritual presence and communion with the elements of Bread and Wine admitted as continuing their previous natures. Carrying anti-“receptionism” too far can “de-Anglicanize” the ACC.

It is further important to note that Anglo-Catholics have constructed a dilemma for themselves: EITHER the Prayer-Book (and presumably its compilers) teaches a valid doctrine of the Real Presence and may thus legitimately continue to be used by all continuing Anglicans (presumably including those who do not buy “Catholic” interpretations of the Eucharist, but whose eucharistic celebrations are, all other things being in order, valid); OR it does not in and of itself teach an unambiguously “Catholic” 173

doctrine, so that its underlying teaching must be either (a.) denied, ignored, explained away, or forbidden to be thought; or (b.) an alternative liturgy (viz. the Gregorian or

Sarum Canon) must replace the Prayer Book Prayer of Consecration (and numerous other places in the Book of Common Prayer as well). “Catholics” in the ACC appear to have chosen (a.), however theologically and historically untenable this is (as we have endeavored to show); while the soi-disant “Holy Catholic Church--Anglican Rite” (a schism or excretion from the ACC ) has followed (b.). A further “Catholic” rationalization or sub-set of (a.) involves claiming that the 1549 liturgy was still (reformed) Catholic while the 1552 Eucharist was purely Protestant. Changes in 1559 through 1662 made it acceptably Catholic again, although neither it nor any of its derivatives until the 1928 American Book of Common

Prayer etc. are sufficiently acceptable enough actually to be used. This line of argumentation is of course historical and theological nonsense. 1549 was not “Catholic” at all, but the Prayer Book by itself (and its descendants) contains a valid Eucharist, and the Reformers who fashioned it do teach a sufficient eucharistic doctrine, not needing any

Romanizing corrections.

We should, however, briefly summarize Cranmer’s eucharistic teaching once again, seen 174

already in the 1549 Book and Cranmer’s 1550 Defence., for it is the font and origin of claims of receptionism in the English liturgy. Cranmer's position on the Real Presence in the Eucharist as expounded in his Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the

Sacrament (1550) is so straightforward as to be seemingly naive. Its baldly stated points appear somewhat shocking and alienating even today, and especially to many Anglicans hitherto unaware of their existence. They were outrageous from the point of view of any who subscribed to medieval Catholic or even Lutheran notions of the Real Presence.

Cranmer taught that Jesus Christ bodily ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father and will remain there until his second coming. The bread and wine of the

Lord's Supper remain in their natural substances after the consecration. Jesus Christ calls the bread and wine at the Supper his body and blood in a figurative sense so that they represent or signify his body and blood. The earthly elements so consecrated may then be called after their heavenly realities, but they are not themselves identical with Christ’s body and blood. There is no carnal or corporeal or spatial or local or material presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. The faithful indeed spiritually partake of Christ's body and blood and are nourished spiritually by him as they thankfully recall his death for us, which the Supper commemorates.

Christ dwells in us and we in him so long as we are faithful members of his body, and not 175

just as long as the Sacrament remains undigested in our stomachs. The Sacrament was ordained and instituted by Christ himself to assure us of God's favor and goodness towards us and of the forgiveness of our sins and to let us feed on Christ as we lift up our hearts to heaven where Christ sits at God's right hand. (3.)

Cranmer further believed that the "bread from heaven" and Christ's "flesh and blood" in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John refer to nothing less than Christ himself as the spiritual food and drink of believers even apart from the sacrament. John

6 does not refer to the Lord's Supper as such, but to the "thing of the sacrament" (res sacramenti). We can spiritually receive that "thing" (though it is not a thing at all, but the crucified and risen Christ himself) by faith without receiving the sacrament and, indeed, we must have already so partaken of it to a saving degree when first we believed even before receiving the sacrament. No wicked (unrepentant and unbelieving) man receives

Christ so that Christ dwells in him to eternal life, no matter how often he takes the

Sacrament.

The "Real Presence" of Christ is thus to be sought, not in the elements of the Lord's

Supper, but in the hearts of faithful believers who feed upon him by faith with 176

thanksgiving, for the remission of their sins and unto everlasting life. Therefore, we should not worship the consecrated elements at the

Elevation nor in Corpus Christi processions [nor should we believe that any priest offers

Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice in a mass for the living or the dead since (A.) Christ has already offered the one full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of himself once for all, and

(B) there is no body or blood of Christ on the altar, except in a figurative and mystical sense, that he might offer.]

Our attention is to be focused (corporately and individually) on commemorating Christ’s passion and death for us, on beholding him in triumph at the right hand of the Father, thanking and praising him for all the benefits given to us by that sacrifice and heavenly session, living a life of faithful obedience hereafter, and awaiting his coming again for our vindication and the consummation of all things. Thus, the medieval Mass is overthrown and abolished, and the Scriptural and primitive Lord's Supper or Holy

Communion is re-established in its stead in the Prayer-Book liturgy of the English

Church.

As radical as this position is when compared with the medieval Church or even with 177

Lutheranism, it is nonetheless still not “receptionism” as the term is pejoratively used, for

Cranmer does believe that because of Christ’s institution and promise his Body and

Blood are truly given to the faithful communicant; the communicant does not somehow conjure up Christ by the reception of the elements. The Sacrament uses material elements and actions along with humanly interpretable signs and symbols, not just as an , but in accordance with the structure of human nature and its symbol- apprehending mind in order to communicate a divine reality and to effect a real communion with Christ himself. What has been (mis)dubbed “receptionism” turns out to be a quite sophisticated effort to rescue and preserve a divinely-divinely-given and instituted from a medieval clericalist (papalist, Cranmer would have said) hijacking. The medieval system of sacrifices of masses and worship of the Host was so evil, Cranmer thought, that it must have been conceived by the .

Whatever Cranmer’s eucharistic theology may be called, and however much it and the

English liturgy may have been modified between 1559 and 1662, this doctrine and its liturgical embodiment nonetheless satisfied the bulk of English clergy and people as a replacement of medieval doctrine and of the medieval Mass itself, and as a bulwark against superstition, priestcraft, and foreign tyranny. Anglo-Catholic polemics to the 178

contrary notwithstanding, this so-called receptionism, if that is what we want to call it, is still beloved of Anglican people and it is the clear meaning of the Prayer-Book text.

In the meanwhile, the introduction of more color, light, splendour, , and pomp and into the services, seems not to disturb people too much anymore or to raise serious theological issues, and may be dismissed as . A certain Anglican tolerance and aestheticism, after a protracted period of now mostly forgotten ritualist controversies, allows “receptionist” and more “realistic” eucharistic doctrines to co-exist in Anglicanism, unless one were to think (mistakenly) that the Continuing Anglican secession allows only Anglo-Catholics in the ACC. And even if that were true, the very

Prayer-Book (including the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer with its Scottish

Nonjuror Prayer of Consecration) still teaches a basic “receptionism.” Most “Catholics” balk at this point. They should read Cranmer and the other English Reformers and apologists before the later days of the Oxford Movement. (There was no attack on the classical Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist in the early years of the Oxford Movement.

See Reading X: Bp. Cosin’s presentation of the Anglican doctrine of the Presence was re- issued as two of the earlier !)

179

As examples of how difficult it would be to eliminate this so-called “receptionism” from the Book of Common Prayer, consider the following two passages from the Prayer of

Consecration (Amer. 1928 Book of Common Prayer, p.81):

“...we beseech thee to bless and sanctify...these thy gifts and creatures of

bread and wine, that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour

Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion,

may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.”

“Humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of

this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and

Blood...”

Evidently the “gifts and creatures of bread and wine” (i.e., not divine in themselves, and certainly not changed metaphysically or substantially into something else even by virtue of the foregoing Words of Institution) still have to be blessed and sanctified by the invocation of the Word and the Spirit before they can convey the Body and Blood of

Christ to those rightly receiving them. Just as evidently one can partake of the Holy

Communion without receiving the Body and Blood, or rather, only those who partake of 180

the Lord’s Supper worthily and rightly (with faith and repentance and thanksgiving) also and thereby receive the Body and Blood.

The first prayer comes from Cranmer’s insertion in 1552 before the Words of Institution to replace the proleptic epiklesis of 1549; it is perhaps the clearest and most precise statement of Cranmer’s and all subsequent official Anglican eucharistic theology: the bread and wine remain gifts and creatures but are now, through Christ’s institution and promise, the means whereby faithful communicants are made partakers of the Body and

Blood of Christ. There is no hint here of “Real Presence” in the sense of something wholly changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which is on the Table just waiting for communicants to take it. Since we know how much Anglo-

Catholics dislike both the eucharistic liturgies and doctrines of 1552 and 1662, finding these rites’ most characteristic doctrines and words enshrined in the American 1928

Prayer of Consecration must be a bitter pill for “Catholics” to swallow. Typically they just ignore or explain away the plain meaning of the text.

The same teaching is found also in the following prayer from the past-communion Prayer of Thanksgiving (Amer. Book of Common Prayer, p, 83): 181

“...we most heartily thank thee, that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who

have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the

most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ...”

One also notes that the Prayer of Humble Access, far from being a prayer of latria addressed to Jesus’ Presence in the consecrated elements, as the proposed canons imply, with the priest kneeling before the Body and Blood of Christ on the Table, as it were, is in fact a prayer for worthy communion addressed to the Father. In 1549 the Prayer was a devotion immediately prior to communion, but in 1552 Cranmer removed it to a position right after the and before the Prayer of Consecration (not yet so labeled) precisely to obviate this Gardinerian interpretation. And there the Prayer remained until the 1928 American revision. One may speculate that Cranmer used the expressions

“flesh” and “blood” in this prayer, rather than “body” and “blood” precisely to invoke the sixth chapter of John and to pray that one receive the res sacramenti, the inward and spiritual grace of the sacrament, and not just the outward and visible signs of bread and wine. The

Prayer of Humble Access is far from being, as some claim, an expression of very realistic 182

language concerning the Presence in the sacrament.

Of course, there was no thought in 1928 that putting the Prayer of Humble Access after the Prayer of Consecration actually amounted to ordering (or even allowing) priest or people to worship the eucharistic species, though the proposers of our canons try by sleight of hand to make us think so.

The 1976/1979 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church in the of

America (ECUSA), by the way, has removed or re-worded all of the above , with the rather odd result that its eucharistic liturgy is far less susceptible to the charges of

“receptionism” and is thus far closer to a “Catholic” theology than is the 1928 Book of

Common Prayer.

Third, perhaps transubstantiation and consubstantiation do not exhaust the possibilities of expression of the Real Presence, and we do not have to say either that the substance of bread and wine are removed, or that the substance of the Body and Blood is substituted or added, empirically indiscernibly in both cases. After all, Queen Elizabeth I clearly believed in some sort of Real Presence, as can be seen in the oft-quoted little ditty 183

ascribed to her:

“Christ was the word that spake it,

He took the bread and brake it;

And what his words do make it,

That I believe and take it.” (5.)

(One notes immediately the similarity of this thought to that of Thomas Aquinas in his

Adoro Te devote, the telling line of which is translated, “What the Truth hath spoken, that for truth I hold.” (6.)

This bit of Elizabethan doggerel probably comes closer to expressing the beliefs and sentiments of garden-variety Anglicans than do all the subtle of theologians, including ours. And of course, this belief, which we think is certainly a type of “naive realism,” is not necessarily incompatible with the notion of spiritual presence and communion, but it will not support Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament or even, in

Elizabeth’s case, elevation, who would not allow the elevation of the Host even in the

Roman Mass at her coronation, let alone in the 1559 Book of Common Prayer imposed 184

by the (3rd) Act of Uniformity later in that year.

In fact, various Anglican theologians have tried to synthesize or mediate between the supposedly opposing schools of thought that both have a seat in Anglican eucharistic thought, “real presence” and “receptionism.” We quote from the 1938 work (a report of a committee appointed by the Archbishop of ), Doctrine in the Church of

England:

“[It is not affirmed that] the bread and wine are in themselves at all changed by

consecration either by receiving a new substance or by acquiring any new

properties which can rightly be said to be theirs. [Yet it is believed that] in the

Eucharist the bread and wine are themselves taken up into a new spiritual relation

to the living Christ. Consecration sets them apart to be the very organ of Christ’s

gracious self-revelation and action towards his faithful people; and they actually

become that organ in so far as, in and through these material objects and what

is done to them, the life of Christ, once offered through the breaking of his Body

and the shedding of his Blood, is now really given to be the spiritual food of

Christians.” (7.) 185

(This was not an adopted position of the Commission but merely an example of how the

Real Presence might be stated in a positive way without resorting to notions of change of substance.)

And there have been many subsequent attempts at re-stating the mystery of the eucharistic Presence of Christ, to the extent that that is possible, in terms that go beyond the deadlocked oppositions of 16th century theology. The defeated proposed canons, and the “Catholic” party in the ACC, simply want to cut off all discussion, label contrary opinions as Zwinglian or Calvinist thought-crimes or , and commit us irrevocably to medieval or Henrician or even Tridentine statements. This is atrocious.

Fourth, the truths, if not of “receptionism,” then of “dynamic symbolism” need to be re- affirmed, without denying the truths of “realism.” [See Reading xiii, B, (7)] The Real

Presence is admitted and confessed by orthodox Christians of all stripes and , in some fashion or another: none deny that Christ is the Host and the Food at his Supper.

All can also gratefully accept and affirm the words of Jesus in John 6:26-58 that he is the

Bread of Life, and that those eating his flesh and drinking his blood will abide in Christ and he in them. We need, however, to understand these words, spoken before the 186

institution of the Eucharist and before his passion and death and , as referring not so much to the Sacrament itself, but rather unto the “thing” of the Sacrament, the res- et-non-sacramentum, to that which is the goal and aim of the Eucharist as of faith itself: communion and the grace of union with Christ in the communion of his saints forever.

What the Eucharist aims at is this personal and communal new covenantal relationship with the crucified and risen and ascended Christ as Lord and Saviour, and not the corporeal ingestion of a blob or sip of divine protoplasm, however cleverly disguised it may be.

We can be grateful that Cranmer saw through to the limits of “realism,”and that

Anglicanism thereafter has been delivered from the excesses of an unbalanced “realism” in our understanding of the Eucharist. It takes two poles to make a magnet, or a world, and the “Catholic” demand for a too-realistic doctrine of the Real Presence overemphasizes one pole at the expense of the other, and even perhaps to its exclusion.

It is, of course, also possible for an overly symbolic interpretation to force us into the opposite error, and Cranmer’s opponents have accused him of doing just that. But we think that sufficient evidence has been brought forth from Cranmer’s and the Reformers’ 187

writings and the liturgical texts themselves to refute that charge.

If by “Real Presence” we allow only a change in the elements and a subsequent ontological or metaphysical or substantial identity of the consecrated elements with the

Body and Blood of Christ, then the Anglican doctrine which we have been describing, whether it be called “receptionism” or something else, clearly fails this test. If receptionism is excluded and we want a “realist” doctrine of the Real Presence, then one must ask whether according to that doctrine the substance of the bread and wine remain together with the Body and Blood or are somehow replaced by them. If the answer is that they are replaced, then the doctrine is the medieval and Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and perhaps that of St. and the Orthodox Church

(, or “transmutation”). And that has never been an acceptable Anglican doctrine and should not be so now. It is historically and theologically impossible that any

Anglican Book of Common Prayer was written to further such a doctrine, or that a transubstantiation-like doctrine can or need be read into the Book of Common Prayer

Eucharist.

If the elements of bread and wine are conceived as somehow coexisting with the Body 188

and Blood, then we have a doctrine of consubstantiation, which is a Lutheran doctrine, or some kind of teaching of . The Lutheran doctrine relies upon the notion of communicatio idiomatum, the “communication of the properties” or the co-inherence or interpenetration of the properties of the divine and the human natures of Christ in his one

Person. Thus, the same ubiquity that Christ’s divine nature has must be attributed to the Lord’s Body; thus, the Lord’s Body is everywhere, for, as Luther himself said, “the right hand of God is everywhere,” and it is

“there” that Jesus is seated. But through the power of the Word of promise in the

Eucharist, the Body of Christ is made accessible to all who receive it in the Supper. The bread and wine are not annihilated in the Supper, but by the Word the Body and Blood of

Christ are really, literally present and communicated “in, under, with, and through” the bread and wine in the Supper. (8.)

(And that means everybody, including sinners and unbelievers, though not irrational animals like dogs or mice or inanimate creatures, for Lutherans have a very literal understanding of the Real Presence and could never accept Article XXIX, Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.) Reformed Christians always replied to this that a body which is everywhere could not be a human body in any 189

recognizable sense at all, and that in fact “ubiquity” takes away all the specificity of

Christ’s Body and indeed his very human Nature in the Sacrament.

But neither the English Church nor any Reformed Churches accepted consubstantiation, and the Continental Reformed and Lutheran Churches contended mightily with each other over this point. The English Church did not come down on the side of the

Lutherans, though for various historical reasons the English Church became progressively disillusioned with the Reformed and later became more inclined to the

Lutheran because of its liturgical, sacramental, and even episcopal doctrines and practices.

Or perhaps we are thinking of some sort of quasi-material presence on the altar. (The fact is that all parochial clergy have all run across amusing or appalling examples of some people who hold the latter position, to the extent that they wonder whether they are receiving a leg or an arm of Christ in communion, for example. These are not just examples of naive and uninformed but genuine faith, but are 20th or 21st century correlates of medieval stories of bleeding Hosts or of Hosts crying out at the Fraction.

These are all just instances of what Article XXVIII was referring to when it said that the doctrine of transubstantiation “hath given occasion to many superstitions.”) None of 190

these notions, which seldom achieve theological articulation, are in the Prayer Book or

Scriptures either, and it must be admitted that a thorough-going Thomistic doctrine of transubstantiation, since it does not admit of material change or local presence, is conceptually far superior to such forms of “naive realism.”

[Excusus: We postulate the existence of a “naive realism” in eucharistic theology

that affirms the real and literal existence of Christ’s body and Blood in the

Sacrament, apart from the belief of the faithful and despite all physical and

sensible evidence to the contrary. What is the doctrine of “naive realism” or “real

Presence” so unthinkingly or just implicitly held

by many Anglican “Catholics?:”

The doctrine of the “Real Presence” or “naive realism” advocated among

“Catholics” has the following characteristics:

1. It asserts the real, literal, perhaps even local, though usually not the chemical or

physical Presence of the natural Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic

elements on the altar. (“Substance” language is usually eschewed so that the 191

advocates can plausibly maintain that they do not really believe in transubstantiation.) Christ is to be worshiped in the consecrated elements themselves, and not simply as the Gift that Christ offers to his people in the

Supper. Proponents of this doctrine will usually insist without further qualification that the Body and Blood of Christ are “on the altar” after consecration.

2. It may assert the disappearance or absence or at least irrelevance of the natural

[substance of] bread and wine in the Sacrament after the change effected by the priest’s consecration.( The eucharistic bread and wine are usually seen only as

“veils” or “masks” hiding or disguising the natural Body and Blood.)

3. It rejects, avoids, or ignores all “symbolic” or “spiritual” or figurative

(metonymical) language about the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ.

4. It focuses, not on the Supper or the Memorial or the Covenant aspects of the

Eucharist (sometimes to the point of rejection of these aspects), but on the

Sacramental and sacerdotal aspects of the Eucharist: the Body and Blood of Christ to be sacrificed are the 192

result of a change effected by the priest alone, prior to and essentially quite apart from the communion of believers. In fact, the Eucharist may be consecrated for reservation solely for the purpose of adoration (although consecration requires the communion of at least the priest-celebrant).

5. The Presence of Christ is effected alone by the priest’s saying the Words of

Institution (rather than, say, by the eucharistic assembly’s president’s recounting all the saving works of God in Christ while invoking the Holy Spirit in the

Epiklesis of the Great Thanksgiving [anaphora] and the congregation’s joyfully completing the Supper by receiving the Bread and Wine so consecrated and thus being nourished and refreshed by Christ’s Body and Blood and assured thereby that they are very members incorporate in the mystical Body of Christ, the

Church.)

6. It sees the continued eucharistic Presence of Christ only in the reservation of the consecrated species in the Tabernacle or the Monstrance, rather than in the assembly of consecrated and believing communicants in whom Christ dwells and they in him. 193

In and of itself, the notion of “naive realism” is not Catholic, for the Roman

Church would nowadays much more carefully qualify #1 as it stands and would today also re-state #’s 4 , 5, and 6. It is not Lutheran, for the Lutheran Church would reject at least #’s 2 , 4, and 6. It is not Orthodox, for the Orthodox Church would reject #’s 4 through 6, and probably # 1 as written. It is not Reformed, for the Reformed Church would reject all 6 statements as they stand. Nor is it classically Anglican, which Church would likewise reject all six as written and strongly affirm the contrary of #6. And of course, none of the six are properly

Biblical or Dominical or Apostolic either. “Naive realism” is a woefully deficient eucharistic approach.

Those who represent “naive realism” as outlined above still hold to the medieval belief in remarkably unchanged form that the priest takes bread and wine for the

Sacrament, then changes them by his powerful recitation of the Words of

Institution into the [natural] Body and Blood of Christ so that Christ descends upon the Altar, then offers that Body and Blood of Christ to God in sacrifice, and finally lets the people adore the Body and Blood thus freshly confected and 194

offered, and perhaps even lets them receive it. Nothing that the Bible or the

Reformation or the Book of Common Prayer or modern liturgical or patristic or ecumenical scholarship says is allowed to interfere with these beliefs.

“Naive realism,” while apparently a basic and perduring type which recurs spontaneously, is, in its Anglican form, mainly one of the more deleterious results of the Oxford Movement and its assault on the previous classical Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist. “Naive realism” is invincibly resistant to all the teachings of classical Anglicanism advocated throughout this paper.

It should also be admitted that the doctrine may be a perfectly reasonable if unsophisticated attempt to do justice to the “is” of Scripture while not utterly denying the evidence of one’s senses. For Anglicans, who refuse to define just exactly what kind of a thing “Body and Blood” might be, do not resort to ontological or substance language, but still want to maintain their belief in the

Incarnate, crucified, and risen and glorified Christ offered somehow in the

Sacrament, “naive realism” might be the only way left to acknowledge Christ’s

Self-giving in the Sacrament. Those who think that such a position cannot avoid 195

the grossly materialist stance called “Capernaitic” by the Reformers have never heard certain kinds of Anglicans talking of the Bread and Wine turning into the

Body and Blood of Christ in their mouths at the moment the recipients have faith.

Even “receptionism” can be taken in materialistic ways; for instance, one sometimes hears talk of the Consecration charging or “zapping” the elements, or of grace or the (invisible) Body and Blood being conveyed to believers as through a pipe.

Also, it will be admitted that “naive realism” points up a real difficulty, or deficiency, in Anglican eucharistic thought: Anglicans are loath to admit a difference between the res sacramenti and the virtus sacramenti. Roman

Catholics and Lutherans can point out that Anglicans (and Reformed) cannot distinguish between the Body and Blood of Christ itself and the effects which it produces: forgiveness of sins, communion with Christ, preservation of body and soul unto everlasting life, etc. etc. There is thus for classical Anglicans nothing properly speaking which is the Body and Blood of Christ apart from its effects.

For Catholics and Lutherans this suspicion is only confirmed and exacerbated by

Anglican statements such as this one from the classic Anglican theologian 196

Richard Hooker: “The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.” [Readings VII. B.]

This distinction between res and virtus indeed goes to the heart of Roman

Catholic (and Lutheran) vs. Anglican or Reformed beliefs and explains the criticism of Roman Catholics that according to Anglican belief the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament lack ontological mooring. (Of course, Catholics have a different, though equally sticky, time of it describing what this proprium of the Body and Blood is. If is not atoms or molecules or cells or corpuscles or chunks or swallows or mouthfuls, just what is it really? Again, “substance” itself is a distressingly ethereal and emotionally unsatisfying concept at dealing with the above.)

“Naive realism” has therefore served as something of a bond between Roman

Catholics and Lutherans on the one hand, and Anglicans on the other. Roman

Catholics and Lutherans suspect, and Anglo-Catholics happily proclaim, that the almost instinctual incidence of “naive realism” among ordinary Anglicans 197

demonstrates that Anglican eucharistic belief in fact far outstrips classical

Reformation Anglican doctrine and liturgy in affirmation of the Real Presence.

This belief has in fact been a driving force in 20th century and current efforts at eucharistic rapprochement between formerly warring parties. “Naive realism” has helped Anglicans resist rationalistic and reductionistic brands of belief with respect to the Eucharist. It has also helped Anglicans resist that kind of

“Zwinglianism” which seems latent, despite all that we have said, in Cranmerian eucharistic thought. This has been particularly helpful in America, where

“Zwinglianism” seems to be the default eucharistic theology of many millions of believers, and thus Anglicans have used “naive realism” to avoid being lost in the great American Protestant melting pot.

So the balance sheets of “naive realism” are not all in the red.

We suspect, therefore, that “naive realism” has an appeal of its own and is due not so much to the persistence of pre-Reformation eucharistic doctrines as popularly held (for they would not have passed inspection with St. Thomas Aquinas in certain very 198

important respects). Perhaps one could argue, following C.W. Dugmore in his The

Mass and the English Reformers (1958) that such doctrines are but a popular instance of the continuance of “Ambrosian realism” rather than of the

“Augustininan realist-symbolism” more characteristic of classical Anglicanism.

And in point of fact, “naive realism” does sound very much like the very non-

Thomistic assertion of the presence of the “natural body of Christ” by transubstantiation demanded to be assented to in Henrician times. (Cf. the Six

Articles.) But a genuine historical continuity of such doctrine is hardly to thought of in the post-Reformation Church of England, except among those about to turn recusant.

Instead, “naive realism” follows in the train of, and is often indistinguishable from, the Anglo-Catholic revival of pre-Reformation eucharistic beliefs and its introduction of Counter-Reformation doctrines and practices into the English

Church. It is certainly one of the more disastrous effects of the Catholic Revival of the Church of England.

“Naive realism,” however, is also understandable partly as a reaction against 199

certain perceived cold, rationalistic, minimalist, reductionist, and formalistic aspects of Cranmer’s eucharistic theology (though not against his liturgical language, which is still revered by Anglo-Catholics, against all reason). His language and thought-patterns in his Defence do often seem extremely negative over-compensation in their reaction against medieval false doctrines and excesses, without always offering emotionally satisfying substitutes. Classical Anglican theology certainly could have profited, for instance, from the warmer and more passionate expressions of the Scots Confession (Reading VI), although the basic outlines of the underlying Reformed sacramental theology are almost identical.

Unfortunately, however, the movement for liturgical revision of the Book of

Common Prayer (under the invocation of developing ecumenical liturgical convergence) culminated in the loathsome 1976/79 Book of Common Prayer, which intended to correct some of the above-mentioned problems with Cranmer’s

Liturgy, but ended up by excising or ruthlessly paring away precisely the most affecting and literarily or theologically most appealing aspects of Cranmer’s liturgical legacy (e.g., the regular use of the Decalogue, the Confession and

Absolution, the Comfortable Words, much of the Prayer of Consecration, the

Prayer of Humble Access, the very Words of Administration, and the 200

Thanksgiving after Communion, the Gloria in excelsis after the foregoing

thanksgiving, all of which constitute the most distinctively Anglican parts of the

service!). (End of excursus)]

The historical and authentic Anglican position is neither transubstantiation nor transmutation nor consubstantiation nor “naive realism”. And certainly Anglicans thought their doctrine incompatible with worshiping the elements, let alone practicing

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. It would be absurd to hold such eucharistic doctrines as transubstantiation or consubstantiation as permissible in the ACC while disallowing the classical Anglican position, so clearly attested in the Prayer Book and

Articles and compatible with (if not demanded by) the Scriptures.

And yet that same classical position holds that in the Eucharist Jesus is personally active and accessible and communicates his crucified, risen, and glorified Self through divinely ordained symbolic elements and actions to his faithful in his Church. (And of course it cannot be given if it is not in some sense already “there”–even if not locally-- as promised.) Surely that is sufficient to count as a doctrine of the Real Presence, even if it is incompatible with 201

transubstantiation.

Perhaps the resulting Anglican position, molded over against not only Medieval Roman practice, but also against 16th and 17th century Lutheran and Reformed and Counter-

Reformation Roman doctrine, is best stated by , the early 17th century poet and priest, in his poem “The Holy Communion,” originally written for The Temple :

Sacred Poems and Private Ejaculations (1633), but not included in printed editions of that famous work.

THE HOLY COMMUNION

Oh Gracious Lord how shall I know

Whether in these gifts thou be so

As thou art ev’rywhere;

Or rather so, as thou alone

Tak’st all the Lodging, leaving none

For thy poor creature there.

202

For I am sure, whether bread stay

Or whether Bread do fly away

Concerneth bread, not me.

But that both thou, and all thy train,

Be there, to thy truth, and my gain,

Concerneth me and Thee.

And if in coming to thy foes

Thou dost come first to them, that shows

The haste of thy good will.

Or if thou two stations makest

In Bread and me, the way thou takest

Is more, but for me still.

Then of this also I am sure

That thou didst all those pains endure

To abolish Sin, not Wheat.

Creatures are good, and have their place; 203

Sin only, which did all deface

Thou drivest from his seat.

I could believe an Impanation

At the rate of an Incarnation

If thou hadst died for Bread.

But that which made my soul to die,

My flesh, and fleshly villainy,

That also made thee dead.

That Flesh is there, mine eyes deny:

And what should flesh but flesh descry,

The noblest sense of five?

If glorious bodies pass the sight,

Shall they be food and strength and might

Even there, where they deceive?

Into my soul this cannot pass; 204

Flesh (though exalted) keeps his grass

And cannot turn to soul.

Bodies and Minds are different Spheres

Nor can they change their bounds and meres,

But keep a constant Pole.

This gift of all gifts is the best,

Thy flesh the least that I request.

Thou took’st that pledge from me:

Give me not that I had before,

Or give me that, so I have more;

My God, give me all Thee. (9.)

In other words, while denying both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, Herbert believes in the real (sin-forgiving and saving) communion with the Flesh of Christ, the same flesh (i.e., our human nature) which he assumed and divinized in his conception and nativity, and which he now uses to communicate his very sin-forgiving and sin- destroying Self and Person to us. Herbert disdains to speculate too closely about the 205

How, but confesses the Who, even Christ our Lord and Saviour himself, of what is conveyed and given to us in the Holy Communion. It is sufficient for Anglicans today to do likewise, and no more.

Finally, one notes that the Affirmation of St. Louis rightly sees a “continued presence and saving activity” of Jesus in all the Sacraments (Dominical as well as the lesser

“sacraments commonly so called,” as the Articles correctly call them) and otherwise describes the Eucharist only as “the Sacrament in which He feeds us with His Body and

Blood.” This expresses precisely the historic authentic Anglican eucharistic teaching which this paper has been expounding. 206

VIII. ANGLICAN EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE AND LITURGY SINCE THE

REFORMATION

It may be time now for the ACC and the Continuing Anglican movement at large to attempt a responsible and conservative revision of the traditional Anglican eucharistic liturgy and its Book of Common Prayer in general, rather than relying on the pedantic, antiquarian, pettifogging, and eccentric Rome-aping private versions of the Missals

(which do as of now have some official status in the ACC) that many have adopted in default of a more comprehensive revised Book of Common Prayer. A more “realistic” eucharistic doctrine could in the interim be advanced in the ACC by using Cranmer’s

1549 language to produce a truly consecratory Invocation of the Spirit on the elements.

The close equivalent of the Epiklesis in the Roman was the prayer

(just before the Institution Narrative) Quam Oblationem, in which God was asked so to bless the Gifts of the Altar that it (the “oblation”) might be [made] unto us (...ut nobis...fiat) the Body and Blood of Christ. (1.) Cranmer’s 1549 version read:

207

Heare us (o merciful father) we besech thee; and with thy holy spirite and worde,

vouchsafe to bl+ess and sanc+tifie these thy gyftes, and creatures of bread and

wyne, that they maie be unto us the bodye and bloude of thy most derely beloved

sonne Jesus Christe. Who in the same nyght... (2.)

[This was the only place in The Communion where Cranmer specified that the might be made over the elements, but “any eleuacion, or shewing the Sacrament to the people” at the Institution Narrative was forbidden outright. It is interesting to note how “Catholics” from Gardiner on down to the present ACC have simply ignored this directive and thus try to make the 1549 “Lorde’s Supper” look like a medieval “Masse”.]

The Invocation in “Laud’s Liturgy” of 1637, which was actually the product of conservative Scottish bishops and theologians, read as follows:

And we thine unworthy servants beseech thee, most merciful Father, to hear us,

and to send thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these thy gifts and creatures of

bread and wine, that, being blessed and hallowed by his life-giving power, they

may become the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, to the end that

all who shall receive the same, may be sanctified both in body and soul, and 208

preserved unto everlasting life. (3.)

This quite prolix prayer was part of a Book of Common Prayer for the Church of

Scotland, then episcopal in constitution but hardly yet (or ever) uniformly “Anglican.”

Most of (Lowland) Scotland, being Calvinistic, rose in revolt against its attempted introduction, and the stage was set for the coming of the . But the theology of the Invocation is still of value. (Even Scottish Presbyterian liturgies for the

Lord’s Supper have continued to retain an Invocation.)

Seabury’s Communion Service, adopted from the 1764 rite of the Scottish Nonjurors as a condition of their consecrating him bishop, read:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy

almighty goodness vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy word and holy Spirit,

these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may become the body

and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. (5.)

The Invocation in the 1928 English Book of Common Prayer Alternative Order of the 209

Communion reads:

Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee, and with thy Holy and

Life-giving Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify both us and these thy gifts of

Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy Son, our

Saviour, Jesus Christ, to the end that we, receiving the same, may be strengthened

and refreshed both in body and soul. (6.)

Likewise, the original language in the answer to the Catechism question on the inward part or thing signified in the Lord’s Supper could be restored to read: “The Body and

Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the

Lord’s Supper.” These changes could as an interim be printed on slips of paper to be pasted into the present Books of Common Prayer. But we need not bring back transubstantiation to do this. Of course, those who prefer a Rome-sounding or Tridentine

Mass will not be satisfied with whatever is done.

The main fault of the “Missals” is that they resolutely interpret the 1928 Book of

Common Prayer Prayer of Consecration as if it is just an English version or translation of the Canon of the Roman 210

Mass, whereas it is actually a (17th century Scottish bishops’) imitation of a West Syrian

Anaphora (but using Cranmerian wording, mostly from 1549) and is thus more closely allied to –or to Antioch rather-- than to Rome. The deeper problem, of course, is that, against every intention of Cranmer, the “Missals” (and Anglo-Catholics in general) also interpret 1549 as if it is merely an English version of the Roman Canon of the Mass.

[Excursus on the Epiklesis or Invocation in the Anglican Prayer of Consecration:

The American Book of Common Prayer Prayer of Consecration can in fact be

made acceptable to Eastern Orthodoxy with an Invocation that petitions and

summons the Holy Spirit to change the elements into the Body and Blood of

Christ; see the Anaphora or Canon of the Mass of the so-called “Liturgy of St.

Tikhon” (7.) –which is actually the American Prayer of Consecration so modified

and used in the Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite in this country–even though

that Liturgy is named after the Russian bishop who authorized it for American

Anglican converts to Orthodoxy and who later became of Moscow and a

confessor during the Bolshevik Revolution and who was canonized by the

Russian Church in the last decade. 211

It is important to note that the eucharistic liturgy of the “

Anglican-Use in the Roman Catholic Church makes no attempt to modify 1928 or any other version of the Book of Common Prayer Prayer of Consecration to make it acceptable to Roman Catholic eucharistic doctrine, ---probably because that cannot be done!—and there are many other quite serviceable Roman Catholic eucharistic prayers to use instead. The 2003 Catholic Anglican-Use Book of

Divine Worship uses as its preferred Rite One Eucharistic Prayer an

“Old English Translation”of the Roman Canon of the Mass (8.), familiar to us through the Anglican or the Anglican Service Book versions of the English translation of the Sarum Canon going back allegedly to Miles Coverdale. Its Rite

Two allows for the use of all authorized Roman Latin-Rite Eucharistic Prayers

(Anaphoras). 1549 does not arise as a possibility. Nobody should be surprised at this.

It is further important to note that the Invocation as it stands in the American

Book of Common Prayer is satisfactory to hardly anybody who reads it. It is on the face of it the most receptionist-sounding prayer in the Book of Common 212

Prayer: it assumes that the elements which were set aside by manual acts–and/or other ceremonies–in the Institution Narrative still have to be further blessed and sanctified before they can do their job, and furthermore it calls the elements “gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine,” whereas a true “Catholic” reading would be that the elements were no longer such as a result of the consecration (i.e., by the

Words of Institution recited previously by the priest). It must be galling for a

Thomist or a “Catholic” even to read such a prayer, let alone recite it liturgically.

And those who prefer an Eastern understanding of the Epiklesis (which is that consecration requires an Epiklesis in addition to the Words of Institution, just as

Pentecost was necessary to make the Christ-event accessible to mankind) notice that in fact the Holy Spirit is not asked to change the elements and make them the

Body and Blood of Christ. Indeed, the language was changed from “may be unto us the Body and Blood...” in Seabury’s Communion Service, and before that

Cranmer’s 1549 and the Gregorian (old Roman)

Canon which said “...ut fia(n)t nobis...”

The change took place in the consultations between Seabury and William White, 213

a far more rationalistic bishop, who would accept Seabury’s Communion Service only with the proviso of modifying this prayer, by excising all hint of the eucharistic elements’ “becoming” the Body and Blood of Christ and by using instead Cranmer’s wording from 1552/1662 to the effect that we are made partakers of Christ’s Body and Blood through duly receiving the “gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine” in remembrance of Christ’s death and passion.

(These words, which preface the Institution Narrative in 1552/1662, do express, in a remarkably concise and precise fashion, the essence of Anglican eucharistic doctrine. But they do also fall short of what almost anyone would think of as being a consecratory invocation.)

Fortunately, there was no attempt to change the Oblation or the Anamnesis, also a feature of the Nonjuror Liturgy which Seabury had adopted by agreement with the

Scottish Episcopalian bishops who consecrated him. The Prayer obviously looked to the whole of Christ’s life (including the Resurrection and the

Ascension), as the “Christ-event,” and not his passion and death alone, as that which was memorialized and offered to God, along with “these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee.” (Seabury had even specified an elevation at this 214

point in his Scottish-derived Liturgy for the churches in that circulated before his agreement with White and the issuing of the 1st American

Book of Common Prayer in 1789.)

Both points, memorializing the Triduum and the Ascension (the Orthodox Divine

Liturgy includes the Heavenly Session and the Second Coming as well), together with an explicit offering of the Gifts to be consecrated as Christ’s Body and

Blood, brought in issues that were not easily subsumed under either current

Roman Catholic or Anglican notions of what happens in the Eucharist. This injection of the Nonjurors’ interpretation of Patristic and Eastern Orthodox eucharistic thought into the American Book of Common Prayer has never really been as influential or as appreciated as it ought to have been. It does, however, demolish attempts to interpret the American Prayer of Consecration as if it were just another version of the Roman Canon of the Mass, as the “Missals” do.

Thus was the American 1789 Prayer of Consecration born through politico- theological compromise in committee, and not just by editorial cut-and-paste methods. But one can hardly help thinking that he has just witnessed either 215

sausage being made or Congressional bills marked up. It is time to rectify this unfortunate of events, described fully in Echlin’s The Anglican

Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective (9.), and use wording which more clearly represents a truly consecratory Epiklesis, but only if Cranmer’s extraordinary prayer that “we receiving these thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood” be elsewhere retained in the Prayer of Consecration, most likely in

Cranmer’s original position immediately before the Words of Institution.

A final thought about the Invocation: although it is important that phraseology of

“change,” and “become” and “be for us” be used in any genuinely consecratory

Epiklesis, it is also necessary to note that “become” is at least as problematical and ambiguous a word as “be,” and that any “change” (yet another difficult word) must be understood not in any physical or “substantial” sense. [See Readings

VIII, B, and XIII, B, (6.)] Transignification or transfinalization or a similar doctrine other than transubstantiation should still be maintained: God has himself definitively set apart and purposed and declared this symbolic action and these 216

elements to be the instruments for the conveyal of Christ’s Body and Blood to

believers. Thus the Church may no longer consider these consecrated elements to

be mere bread and wine, but that which by God’s Word and Spirit exhibits to faith

Christ the Bread of Life and the Cup of salvation, that we might receive them and

feed upon him unto life everlasting. (End of excursus)]

As a result of willful or historically unjustifiable mis-reading and a failure to pay proper attention to the Invocation, Roman rubrics and ceremonies are wholly inappropriately applied to Amer. Book of Common Prayer 1928 where they do not at all fit; for example, the ceremonies of ringing and elevating the elements at the Institution Narrative

(ceremonies not even mentioned in the rubrics of 1928 nor in any other Book of Common

Prayer and certainly something which would have appalled the Reformers!) clearly imply that consecration takes place at that point, but the simplest and most straight-forward reading of the Invocation following the Oblation shows that consecration must take place at this later point. Also note the rubric in the Holy Communion on consecration of additional elements if those originally consecrated run out, and also the rubric on pg. 323 of the 1928 Amer. Book of Common Prayer. Together these imply that “...The

[truncated] Prayer of Consecration, ending with these words, partakers of his most 217

blessed Body and Blood”–that is, the Words of Institution (with prefatory material) and the Oblation with the Invocation-- is what is necessary and sufficient to consecrate the

Eucharist, and not just the Words of Institution alone. Clearly the Nonjuror and Eastern position has prevailed in 1928 over the putative Roman. One never hears “Catholics” admit or even listen to this point.

(The appropriate ceremonies, if we were to follow the Byzantine or the Connecticut Old

High Church tradition of Seabury–and Ladd of the once widely-read Prayer Book

Interleaves (10.), still fondly remembered by some–would be to perform the prescribed

Manual Acts and no others at the Institution Narrative, then elevate the Gifts at the

Memorial and bow deeply after the Invocation. The “minor elevation” could then be performed as an elevation of both the consecrated Bread and Wine at the of the

Prayer of Consecration.)

We might add that if the Sacrament is to be interpreted as a “visible Word,” then it surely makes sense to let it be seen by the people, and not only at the administration of Holy

Communion. It is often forgotten that the American Book of Common Prayer rubric at the beginning of the Prayer of Consecration directs the priest celebrating “..so [to order] 218

the Bread and Wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the Bread before the People, and take the Cup into his hands.” It is quite natural, and not merely a

Romish superstition, to want to see the Bread broken, just as Jesus had done many times with his disciples, and as he had done in revealing himself to the disciples at Emmaus

(Lk. 24:30-31). The Fraction, if performed after the Prayer of Consecration, could also be made a visible ceremony for the people–with appropriate Biblical citations such as I

Cor. 10:16 [and perhaps 17], and not just one hidden by the Eastward-facing body of the celebrating priest. The use of loaf-bread and/or celebrating from the north end of the

Table would facilitate the people’s seeing the Fraction and understanding that the

Eucharist really is “the breaking of the Bread.”)

One expects that the fact that the Nonjuror position denies that consecration takes place through the priest’s reciting the Institution Narrative is why some especially Rome-ward looking “Catholic” bishops and clergy prefer 1549 and/or the “Gregorian canon” to the

1928 American or English Proposed Book, though 1549 cannot legitimately be interpreted in a Roman fashion either, if we are to believe Cranmer (who wrote it). [See

Reading III G.] (11.)

219

Cranmer’s response to the attempt of the vacillating but mainly reactionary and popishly inclined Bishop Stephen Gardiner so to read 1549 as if it were trying to do what the

Roman Mass did was to consult Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jan Laski (John a

Lasco) and Bishops Latimer and Ridley and Hooper, in order to revise the 1552 Book of

Common Prayer and liturgy of the Lord’s Supper to its most protestantizing extreme, precisely to keep it from being misinterpreted in a “Catholic” fashion. (He also clapped

Gardiner in the Tower.)

Cranmer considered that revised liturgy of 1552 to be in continuity with 1549, which was itself designedly discontinuous with the Romish Mass and which Cranmer had especially devised to reject and replace medieval notions of transubstantiation and of the “Sacrifice of the Mass.” (See Dom (12.), Brillioth (13.), Louis Bouyer (14.), Echlin

(15.), (16.), MacCulloch (17.), Bromiley (18.), A.G. Dickens (19.),

Mons. Philip Hughes (Catholic), Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (Evangelical Anglican) (20.),

Peter Newman Brooks (21.), Samuel Leuenberger (22.) and indeed every reputable

Reformation or Cranmer scholar on his intentions in 1549; his own Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament and other works should be consulted, although they are not readily available in print nowadays. [See Reading III, A-G.]) The 1550

Defence represents the true meaning of the 1549 Eucharist, and there is no comfort for 220

“Catholics” in it.

Cranmer in 1552 did, however, quite consciously revise both the familiar order of the

Roman Mass still followed in 1549 and radically dismantled and rearranged the “prayer of consecration” (not yet so called) so that it would not resemble the Roman Canon

Missae at all. Much of Anglican Book of Common Prayer revision since then has been an attempt to recover what Cranmer changed or discarded or purposely re-positioned in order to avoid identification of his liturgy with the traditional order of the (sung) Mass

(i.e., eleison, Gloria in excelsis , , [, Preface and] Sanctus,

Pater Noster and ).

Cranmer in 1552 also placed the Prayer of Humble Access between the Sanctus and the prayer prefacing the Words of Institution. He also added an important prayer (now incorporated into the American Invocation) before the Words. And he ended the truncated “prayer of consecration” with the Words of Institution themselves, without even a congregational Amen. The prayers which had followed in 1549 were moved to after the distribution of communion. There were thus three prayers after the Communion: first, the Lord’s Prayer, and then either the prayer for the benefits of communion and of 221

self-oblation of the worshipers, or, finally, the prayer of thanksgiving for communion.

And the Gloria in excelsis was re-positioned here, as an appropriate concluding paean of praise before the final Blessing.

Users of the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer are usually shocked and appalled when they first encounter a 1662 Communion Service (which still follows the 1552/1559 order) or John Wesley’s American Communion Service (22.), and our changed eucharistic sensibility is due primarily to the fact that the American 1928 Prayer of

Consecration was influenced by the Scottish bishops who fashioned “Laud’s Liturgy”of

1637 and by the Scottish Nonjurors who required Seabury to follow their liturgical lead as a condition for their consecrating him bishop. This succession of events has given the

American Church a true anaphora for its Prayer of Consecration, though we note again that this is not the Roman Canon.

Once again we have a Eucharist in which we in prayer bless and glorify the Father for giving his Son to offer himself as the one availing Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and by prayer the Bread and Wine are consecrated by the Dominical Word and the

Holy Spirit to convey to us as effectual instruments the Body and Blood of Christ, and we 222

offer our sacrifice of praise and self-oblation and thanksgiving in response for all that has been accomplished for us, and we conclude with a final, splendid Doxology to the Holy

Trinity. This magnificent Prayer of Consecration is the crown jewel, the set-piece of the

American Book of Common Prayer.

The Canadian 1962 Book of Common Prayer too has a true Prayer of Consecration as compared to 1552/1662; i.e., not just the Words of Institution read as a “warrant” or foundation charter for the Service, preceded by a prayer stressing the once-for-all character of the Atonement offered by Christ on the Cross and asking for our proper reception of the Bread and Wine so that we may be partakers of Christ’s Body and Blood

(although surely this is sufficient for the validity of the Eucharist). The Canadian Book of Common Prayer does not have an Eastern or Nonjuror epiklesis, but it does have a proper anamnesis, and it restores to the Prayer of Consecration petitions for the benefits of Christ’s passion and death upon the communicants, and offers our prayers of praise and thanksgiving before the concluding Doxology. (The self-oblation of the worshipers is found in the prayer of thanksgiving after communion).

What the American and Canadian Books of Common Prayer have done is restore the 223

ancient and primitive notion of the Anaphora: a prayer corresponding to the Jewish

Berakah, the prayer of blessing and thanking God over the cup of wine and the bread in

Jewish ceremonial meals, of which the Passover is the prime example. (23.) (We prescind from the issue of whether the Last Supper was actually a Passover.) The Bread and Wine are consecrated by our blessing and thanking and glorifying God for his great salvific acts of creating, redeeming, and sanctifying his people Israel and taking them into Covenant with himself. In the Christian Eucharist or Thanksgiving we likewise bless and glorify

God, similarly to the Berakah, for all that he had done for us by the saving and liberating blessed passion and precious death of Christ, and we are taken into the New Covenant inaugurated at the Last Supper and fulfilled on the Cross by partaking of the saving signs of Christ’s Body and Blood according to his institution and commandment and provision for the nourishment of his Church.

Furthermore, the Anaphora or Prayer of Consecration is in the second step of the “four- fold shape of the liturgy,” as we have all learned from Dom Gregory Dix: (1.) He took bread and wine []; (2.) he blessed bread and wine [Consecration], (3) he broke the bread [Fraction], and (4.) he distributed the bread and wine to be eaten and drunk

[Communion.] The Prayer of Consecration stands exactly where the blessing of the 224

bread and wine should be, in other words, and it is a full-scale prayer, the greatest prayer of Christendom, in fact, and not the bare reading of a warrant, as in certain Reformed liturgies which hold no claim to follow the traditional liturgical shape of eucharistic prayers. The American and Canadians Books of Common Prayer, in other words, restored the traditional and ecumenical shape of the Eucharist that Cranmer followed in1549 but which was lost in 1552. The American and Canadian Prayers of Consecration thus represent a great gain, spiritually as well as liturgically, and we should honor them and preserve their integrity.

It was thus primarily the Scottish liturgical tradition which has allowed later Anglicanism to re-capture certain strains of the eucharistic theology of the primitive and Eastern

Church (and of 1549) and to begin to come up with more satisfactory notions of both the eucharistic Presence and the Sacrifice commemorated and realized in the Eucharist. This has been the path of Book of Common Prayer revision since the Reformation. But although the trend of Anglican liturgical revision of the Anaphora in the 20th century was to go beyond the Cranmerian liturgical order of 1552/1559/1662 and follow in the path of the Scottish and American Books of Common Prayer, nonetheless the basic Cranmerian notion remained of the consecrated elements as the God-instituted and promised 225

transmitters of communion with Christ, (and faith as the solely intended receptor), rather than as objects either quasi-physically or ontologically identical with the Body and Blood of Christ. This conception has not been changed and has rightly always persisted as the basic Anglican eucharistic doctrine of Christ’s nurturing Presence to his believing congregation. That doctrine would simply be done away with by the proposed canons.

What is most noticeable, and short-sighted, about the proposed canons is that they simply ignore–or are ignorant of–these developments and return reflexively, atavistically, and pathologically to the doctrines of transubstantiation and concomitance, medieval excrescences which last were official in the Church of England under Henry VIII, in the Six Articles (1539), where anyone denying them was subject to death as a heretic by burning, with confiscation of all his property by the Crown, and also in the later King’s Book (1543). John Frith, Anne

Askew, also , though the chief complaint against him was having translated the Scriptures into English, and others were all executed for denying or attacking transubstantiation; Wycliffe too, the 14th century Reformer, had earlier opposed transubstantiation, but had escaped martyrdom.

226

(Note also that the supposedly, or later, saintly , who was Henry VIII’s

Janet Reno or John Ashcroft, was responsible for having his agents hound down several of these proto- or crypto-Protestant and present them for execution. Tyndale, however, though pursued at times by More’s agents, was strangled and burnt in Brussels after capture by agents of the Holy Roman Empire and after More had suffered his own fatal reversal of fortune. Also, Cranmer as the newly-minted signed over Frith to be executed by secular authorities, after he was condemned by the

Church for holding eucharistic doctrines that were–in a bitter irony-- very similar to those which Cranmer himself would later adopt and for which he would be martyred under

Mary Tudor.)

The Reformation under Edward VI and Thomas Cranmer briefly swept away all the horrors of persecution for denying transubstantiation until the advent of Mary Tudor, when Mary had Archbishop Cranmer himself, and Bishops Latimer and Ridley burned at the stake for denying transubstantiation. (One notices that in the “Missals” and the ACC

Ordo Kalendar Thomas More and have masses as martyrs, but there is no mention of Cranmer et al. What a declaration of loyalty!) But then the accession of

Elizabeth I and her Settlement of Religion saw the final demise of these medieval 227

doctrines and practices in the Church of England until the rise of Anglo-Catholicism in the later 19th century. Now the ACC proposes again to suppress the denial of transubstantiation, or its indistinguishable equivalent, and nobody laughs.

Those advocates of the defeated proposed canons obviously will burn no one at the stake, and they will let us keep the Book of Common Prayer, at least for the time being, but only if we declare that it doesn’t mean what it so obviously says, or that if it means what it says that doesn’t count (“...shall not be operative...”). It would have been lunacy to accept this ludicrous position, but that is what the defeated canons proposed. 228

IX. ROMANTICIZING MEDIEVALISM, AND OTHER ANGLO-CATHOLIC

MYTHS

There is in Anglo-Catholicism at large and the ACC in particular a widespread tendency to denigrate, minimize, dismiss, ignore, or deny the influence of the Reformation on

Anglican theology and practice, and very loudly to reject its possible relevance to the

ACC today. Particularly for certain “Catholics” the seems to have vanished down the Orwellian memory hole. Or it is remembered only to be vilified and execrated.

This odd, almost comical, tendency is no more than invincible historical ignorance or theological “denial.” Much of it is due to the strain of romanticized medievalism infecting part of the Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival itself, from Hurrell

Froude on. How else to interpret that movement’s popularization of the ideal of the proud and free Celtic and British and Anglo-Saxon Churches antedating the English obedience to Rome? And although that sort of Anglo-Catholicism found in adherents of the “Sarum Use” yielded to the Romanizing “Western Use,” there was always the strong 229

conviction that England and perhaps all the constituted a separate and independent folk or national Catholic Church in the Middle Ages that required no more than the snap of the finger by Henry VIII to secede from Rome. Thereafter, of course, the Church of England remained free and Catholic, with a glorious English Mass in 1549, with no obedience (or money) owed to Rome, and (after Henry’s death) with priests and even bishops free to marry. (Henry’s destruction of shrines and relics, forbidding of pilgrimages, dissolution of monastic and mendicant orders and usurpation of their properties, and the prohibition of chantries and annexation of their incomes, etc., are usually lightly passed over by the admirers of Henry’s Independent and National Catholic

Church of England. So is Henry’s doctrinal vacillation and his acquiescence in the increase of Protestant sentiment in his court and in Edward’s tutors and regents in waiting.

Everybody, however, recognizes Henry’s moral monstrousness, though many explain it away as merely a form of political expediency. Or even a necessity in view of the need to have a strong male heir to continue the dynasty and secure England against France,

Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire.

According to this pleasant 19th century Anglo-Catholic myth, this was the extent of the 230

Reformation in England: no important doctrinal changes are alleged to have taken place, and the liturgical changes were in keeping with Western use, although many important things were admittedly omitted and have to re-introduced today, from medieval sources, of course. Still, the claim goes, nothing essential was changed or lost at the Reformation

(though apparently now every opportunity should be taken to restore medieval and pre-

Reformation uses and even Counter-Reformation and later practices). Or perhaps it was lost or forgotten, but that is all the more reason for us now zealously to restore lost medieval truths, or to follow the lead of that great of the Western rite, up to but not including Vatican II and its subsequent liturgical reforms, that is.

(One wonders why at least the more recent of these interpreters apparently have not bothered to read, for instance, the magisterial figures of G. R. Elton and A.G. Dickens on the English Reformation, and perhaps to move on to the newest generation of scholars in this field, such as Christopher Haigh and Diarmaid MacCulloch, and Eamon Duffy. They will find scant comfort there).

This line that there wasn’t really any Reformation in England is mouthed even today by such questionable apologies as Staley’s The Catholic Religion (a popularizing work still 231

used and recommended in the ACC but extremely dated –1893! --and inadequate and unscholarly even when it was first written) (1.), and the “historical” sections of The Practice of Religion (2,), and even the official ACC brochure on its website (3.) and the semi-official ACC manual by

Bishop Haverland, Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice (4.). There is hardly a shred of truth in these writers’ minimizing the significance of the doctrinal Reformation in

England or its connection with the Continental Reformation, or in their belief in the essential continuity (except in the obvious senses of church fabric and buildings, organization, etc. and confession of the early Church and Creeds) of the English Church after the Reformation with the pre-Reformation Church in England.

In fact, church historians today would be hard put to find much of a generic difference on the matter of continuity or discontinuity with the medieval Church between the Church of

England, on the one hand, and the Churches of the “magisterial Reformation” on the

Continent, on the other. (The “magisterial Reformation” churches were those where the

Reformation proceeded in conjunction with the Magistrate or secular authority, and definitely not those churches of the “,” including the Anabaptists and

Spiritualists.) The chief difference lay in the Church of England’s almost accidental (or 232

providential) retention of the episcopacy and the three-fold ministry, at least of those ordained under its purview. And, as is demonstrated by the and the

Baltic Churches, the Church of England was not altogether unique with respect to episcopal ordination (though the office of seemed always to be left out in those

Churches, or made purely vestigial or lay in character). And the office of Bishop usually seemed more bureaucratic than sacral in character.

Certainly there were doctrinal differences between the Churches of the Reformation, but that more and more resolved into a Lutheran versus Reformed split, and the Church of

England was clearly on the Reformed side. (5.) The Marian Exiles, for instance, went to

Reformed-controlled and cities in and Germany (, Basle, Zurich, Emden, Frankfurt), rather than Lutheran ones, where they were not welcome because of their suspect eucharistic teachings. (They did not believe in the Real Presence to the Lutherans’ satisfaction. The situation became even tighter after the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, when Lutherans obtained a measure of recognition or toleration from the Empire, but Reformed remained excluded.) After their return, many of the Exiles remained in close contact with the

Reformed Churches in Switzerland, France, and the Netherlands, and those Reformed

Churches and their theologians continued to influence the official Church of England. It 233

was, in fact, men from this pool of theologians whom Elizabeth used to fill her episcopal sees, with many reservations and passings-over of the more radically Reformed; most of those who had conformed to Rome or were appointed under Mary tried to remain papist and could play no role in Elizabeth’s new polity, though a few Henrician bishops conformed under Elizabeth.) (6.)

Still, the Continental Reformed influence was quite strong. , for instance, Zwingli’s successor in Zurich and a co-author of the Consensus Tigurinus along with Calvin and Farel, had been hospitable to many Marian exiles (some of whom did later become bishops in the Elizabethan Church), became by correspondence a virtual spiritual advisor and privy counselor in religion and state matters to Elizabeth I.

Bullinger was the sole author of the lengthy and dense 1566 Second Helvetic Confession,

(7.) still a standard confessional document of the Reformed Church. Bullinger also authored the Decades (8.), an extended commentary by sermons on the Apostles’ Creed which became an authorized text-book for non-theological graduates reading for Holy

Orders in the Church of England. The Church of England sent representatives to the anti-

Arminian (Dordrecht) in 1618. Plainly, then, the influence of Swiss,

French, Dutch, and German Reformed Christianity in the Church of England was not 234

limited to the “Puritans” alone in Elizabethan and Jacobean England, but extended to the highest ecclesiastical offices.

Edmund Grindal, for instance, an exile in Frankfurt under Mary who returned as Bishop of in 1559 and was successively archbishop of and then of Canterbury until his death in 1583, was an admirer and correspondent of Bullinger and personally endorsed Bullinger’s theology and his great Confession. George Abbott, archbishop of

Canterbury from 1611 to 1633 was hardly less sympathetic to continental Reformed faith and practice and generally preferred Puritans and Calvinists in his appointments. The

Puritans who resisted Crown and both were exasperating because their doctrine differed mainly in degree from that of the Establishment, except in the matter of obedience to Crown and Church with respect to adiaphora such as , etc.. Non- separating Puritans could be tolerated, while Separatists increasingly found it better to be extremely discreet in their public utterances, or to hide or emigrate, just as did recusants.

(8.)

Similarly, English eucharistic doctrine (but not necessarily liturgy, which did retain generally more conservative features–the and the sign of the cross in baptism and 235

the !-- than did that of the Scots or the Continentals, except in ) during this period remained closely aligned with the Reformed stance and could have been taught out of Chapter XXI of the Second Helvetic, “Of the Holy Supper of the

Lord.” In fact, the “virtualism” or “High ” of Reformed eucharistic doctrine remained somewhat more satisfactory and considerably more dynamic than did the austerities of purely Cranmer-based eucharistic doctrine (even as modified by the 39

Articles of 1571 and the Catechism of 1604). (9.)

These inconvenient facts do not fit tidily into the Anglo-Catholic myth about the Church of England being a national Catholic Church which had supposedly retained the Mass even after the Reformation, and so they are either ignored or repressed, and certainly denied.

Matters would, however, begin to change somewhat after the accession of the Stuart kings, first James I and then Charles I. (10.) There were indications of discontent that became focused in the theology of the Caroline Divines, the liturgical investigations of various High-Church Scottish bishops, and the activities of . The Church of England’s ties with the Crown, its episcopal constitution, its liturgical worship, its 236

conservative reserve verging on inertia, Laud’s furious and lengthy controversies with the

Puritan party, and the Church of England’s openness (at least in certain circles) to

Arminianism made it estranged more and more from the foreign Reformed Churches

(especially as the latter during the Civil War and the Commonwealth declined to recognize the Royalist–and Anglican–cause).

The juridical murders of Archbishop Laud and King Charles I, the rejection by

Parliament of Prayer Book and Episcopacy, and the turning over of English and parish churches, not just to Presbyterians and Independents, but also to fanatics and sectaries, made any sort of comprehensive national religious reconciliation impossible once the Crown was eventually restored. The Restoration of Crown, Episcopacy, and

Liturgy and the attendant of non-episcopally ordained ministers and the penalization and increasing alienation of the Nonconformists made it unthinkable that

Church and should be reconciled. The and increasing

Toleration of (Protestant) Nonconformists only slightly improved matters.

The 17th century thus saw the beginnings of the three-fold party system that characterized the Church of England for many years: first, Calvinistically-inclined but non-separating 237

Protestants distinctly loyal to the Crown and to the Liturgy but not doctrinally unsympathetic to Non-Conformists. Secondly, Old-High-Churchmen who despised Non- conformity and equally and positively adhered to the Crown and Episcopacy and “our incomparable Liturgy”. And thirdly, who detested “enthusiasm” above all but trusted to educated reason and learned enquiry under the protection of a benevolent but disinterested Crown to provide domestic tranquility and a degree of toleration. This trinity would not prove eternal, but it did last, though shaken first by the defeat and discrediting of the Jacobites and by extension of those High-Churchmen sympathetic to them (many of whom seceded as Nonjurors), and then by the Evangelical

Revival and Wesleyanism. This uneasy equilibrium then endured down to the Oxford

Movement, and, in many respects to the ‘60's in the 20th century.

By the 20th century, however, there had been a considerable rapprochement between the

Anglican and the more mainstream Lutheran Churches. Today one can hardly imagine that the Anglican Church once was considered Reformed and not closer to the Lutheran

Church of the Continent, if to any other Protestant Church at all. It is doubtless significant that the British and Irish Anglican Churches recently (Porvoo 1993) entered into virtual intercommunion and mutual recognition of ministries with the Nordic and 238

Baltic Churches, and the Episcopal Church with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of

America, rather than with the or the or the

Continental or American Reformed and Union or United Churches, though this is clearly but a matter of time.

The growing convergence of Anglican with Lutheran Churches first of all is doubtless partly the result of the decidedly more “realistic” doctrine of the eucharistic Presence that now obtains in the Anglican Churches, and this in turn is the result mainly of the influence of the Oxford Movement, which ironically enough would have been appalled at the thought of intercommunion with such “non-Apostolic” Churches. (Witness the crises caused in the 19th century by the joint Church of England-Prussian Bishopric in

Jerusalem, though admittedly this involved the Prussian Union Church rather than a strictly Lutheran one, and in the 20th by the foundation of the Church of South from a union of Anglican and various Protestant groups, without the requirement of re- ordination of non-episcopally ordained clergy, though with the consecration of new bishops in historical succession chosen from the non-Anglican as well as the Anglican participants in the new union.)

239

Back to Reformation England: of course, there were continuing Catholics in the Church of England after the Reformation, clergy and people who resisted Reform down into the

1570's and even 80's, –they may even have been in the majority in Elizabeth’s early years or more (especially in the countryside), even when they mostly outwardly conformed to the new liturgy--, but certainly there were none still calling themselves Catholics without qualification and remaining in the Church of England by the time of the failure of the

Spanish Armada in 1588, and prior to that time the bishops of the Elizabeth’s Church of

England were busy quite ruthlessly expunging as many traces of medieval Catholicism from the Church as possible. (See Eamon Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars, passim.)

Certainly the Prayer Book itself, which was officially mandated in all parish churches and cathedrals, was a prime factor in converting the hearts and minds of Englishmen to the

Reformation cause; but the , the “” and (privately and unofficially) the “” (with its strongly Reformed glosses and chapter headings), not to mention “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs,” effected quite thoroughly the Protestantization of

England well before the end of Elizabeth’s reign. After all, Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to 1603! There was a generation or more without the official endorsement or even memory or example of the Mass or of the Old Religion with its quaint and colorful 240

practices of medieval English folk-religion (or superstition). The suppression of the

Mass and the Old Religion carried through with officially and stringently enforced conformity to the new doctrines and liturgy effectively and thoroughly changed England from a Catholic to a vehemently Protestant nation.

(No wonder that the bishops of ECUSA in our own days knew this quite well and followed the example of Elizabeth’s bishops when they just as ruthlessly suppressed the

1928 Book of Common Prayer in order to bring about and enforce what was in effect a

“new religion” on its previously Anglican constituents.)

Afterwards, English Catholics, as the proponents of the Old Religion liked to call themselves, were classed as recusants, suffered civil disabilities, did not frequent the

Church of England, except to avoid denunciation by informers or official punishment, and were loyal to the Pope. Appalling persecutions took place by the Crown against recusant clergy and even lay folk, and many Romish priests, particularly if they were dispatched from foreign seminaries like Douai or by the Jesuits, were martyred for saying

Mass and believing in transubstantiation. The persecutions and executions (for treason rather than heresy) were precipitated, however, by the Pope’s final of

Elizabeth I in 1570, and his subsequent attempts to have Elizabeth deposed (or 241

assassinated) in favor of a Catholic monarch (such as, it was hoped, Mary Queen of Scots) more compliant with the Pope and or France.

Elizabeth, to her credit, had originally declined to persecute her loyal recusant subjects; she did not wish to “make windows into men’s souls,” as she said, so long as there was at least outward liturgical and sacramental conformity and no open resistance. (12.) But she found herself under increasing pressure to quell any resistance at all from [Roman]

Catholic recusants, and her own bishops and Parliament were united in wanting to crush such resistance, particularly as it seemed part of a conspiracy of foreign (popish) attempts to overthrow her regime and legitimate her Continental Catholic and Stuart enemies. But one should not underestimate the determination of English Protestants at all costs to defend the newly won liberties of their English Church and Reformation from the clutches of and the Counter-reformation.

But there was no “Catholic” party as such in the Church of England before the 19th century, although beginning in the late 16th and reaching its height in the 17th century the

High Church wing of the Church of England and the Caroline Divines (men such as 242

Lancelot Andrewes, etc.), and especially the proteges of Archbishop Laud [see Reading

VIII], and men like William Forbes (first bishop of ) and the later Nonjurors, did emphasize the continuity of the Church of England with the pre-Reformation Church.

All of these groups and men, however, accepted the Reformation in principle and in most details, and they clearly supported the Elizabethan Settlement (obviously with some reservations, esp. Forbes, who thought transubstantiation ought not to be completely ruled out as an interpretation of the Eucharist) against the recusants. But political and theological common cause with the English recusants was simply not an option for any remaining in the Church of England.

In Scotland, however, Jacobite Episcopalians, no longer part of the established Church of

Scotland after the Glorious Revolution of 1689 but also not subject to English bishops, could follow a considerably freer course doctrinally and liturgically, as they were

Nonjurors, but the Crown’s victory in 1745 and the Grand Union in 1801 made the

Scottish Episcopal Church even more of an irrelevancy. But the Nonjurors, amidst a great deal of internal quarreling, did use this period of marginal and nearly clandestine existence to do some quite interesting liturgical experimentation, which bore fruit in the 243

Scottish Communion Office and ’s liturgy that so influenced the Prayer of Consecration of the 1789 American Book of Common Prayer. (14.)

The Nonjurors tended to look upon themselves as the “Catholick remnant of the ancient

British Church,” but the surviving English (and other British) papists had a considerably more credible claim to that title. There were no friendly relations on any sort of official level between the Establishment and these recusants; English Catholics were considered potential or actual traitors as well as enemies of the Gospel by most other , clergy and laity alike; and England habitually fought against Continental Catholic countries on sea and land, and generally allied itself with Protestant princes of Germany, the Netherlands, or Scandinavia. ( and represented partial exceptions because of somewhat convergent national interests.) Nobody of any in the

16th or 17th and 18th centuries could possibly have thought of the English nation and

Church as Catholic (apart from some anachronisms and amusing medieval survivals and vestiges that could easily be dismissed as purely quaint Anglo-Saxon eccentricities) in any sense that could not also have been said of the Continental or Scottish nations and

Churches which embraced the Reformation, since these Churches also retained the

Scriptures, the Creeds, and the (four) Councils in their Trinitarian and Christological 244

consensus.

There were, of course, various quarrelsome doctrinal divergences and different emphases in the less important liturgical and episcopal and royal areas, and Anglicanism did take on an increasingly separate and distinct identity from the Reformed from the 17th century onward, particularly after the Restoration. But the Establishment was still clearly

Protestant in every significant sense. Even the Non-Conformists, though definitely out of the Establishment after 1662, were still looked upon as fellow Protestant Christians who, for whatever bizarre reasons, would not conform to the Crown’s perfectly reasonable ordering of the Liturgy and Ministry. The Church of England, whatever else may be said of her, was firmly in the Protestant and specifically the Reformed rather than the

Lutheran camp. There seems to be much reluctance to admit these facts on the part of present-day Anglo-Catholics, and there is much fancy footwork involved in explaining how the Discipline and Worship of the Church of England (i.e., its episcopal succession and its liturgical wording) can be used in support of a self-confessedly or purportedly altogether different Doctrine, one “Catholic” rather than Protestant.

One particularly glaring example of the persistent Anglo-Catholic hermeneutic of 245

intentionally or at least habitually misreading the Reformation may be found in the recent and immensely depressing (in its detailing of the bizarre and byzantine history of the

American Continuum) yet otherwise helpful Divided We Stand : A History of the

Continuing Anglican Movement, by Douglas Bess. Bess writes:

...the conflicts that accompanied the Protestant Reformation were based on some

rather serious doctrinal disagreements, but the Anglican “compromise” was the

only Reformation era solution to assert that the conflicts were essentially not

necessary. What else can be implied [sic: inferred?] from the classic Anglican

position that Catholics and Protestants can inhabit the same ecclesiastical body

[sic: ?] Regardless of whether this was the best solution, it is difficult to avoid the

conclusion that a church that allows (for example) its members to either [sic] view

the Eucharist as a symbolic memorial meal, or as the Grace-bearing very Body

and Blood of Christ, is an essentially pluralistic and relativistic body... (15.)

This is simply nonsense. There was no Anglican “compromise” in that sense in the 16th century: the Elizabethan Settlement did not, to be sure, seek at first to persecute recusants–or non-separating Puritans, for that matter-- but to ensure their conformity in as peaceful a fashion as possible; i.e., they had mainly to recognize that they had lost and 246

were to keep quiet and worship as the Crown specified. The situation quickly became impossible. But there was never any attempt to include national recusant or Continental

Catholic doctrines and practices in the Settlement. (This is not to deny that there were ambiguities in the Settlement, and diverse theological tendencies within it, and even latent strains and stresses that would later rend the Church of England, but both recusants and Separatist were after Elizabeth’s first ten years or so subject to harassment, punishment, and even execution.).

It is important to understand, as Bess does not, that there were no distinctively “Catholic” doctrines, parishes, dioceses, bishops, clergy, or liturgical texts or practices allowed in the Church of England. The Crown and the Bishops of the Church of England made sure of that, and the 1559 Book of

Common Prayer, the Homilies, the Ordinal, and the Articles (in 1560 and 1571), Jewel’s

Apology, as well as the Act of Uniformity itself clearly and unambiguously laid out the terms by which the Church of England understood itself as an independent but reformed and Protestant National church within the larger Church Catholic and to which every subject was to conform. Those recusants or separatists who could not do so either fled to the Continent (or, later, America) or went underground to one degree or another. If there 247

was a “compromise,” it excluded anything that present-day folk would see as “Catholic.”

Uniformity meant conformity, not diversity, in doctrinal and liturgical practice. “Bloody

Mary,” papal excommunication of Elizabeth, unsatisfactory recusant answers to the

“Bloody Question,” the Gunpowder Treason, and the Glorious Revolution assured that

England would be a people and Church in which “No popery!” was the watchword.

Whatever attempts at “comprehension” were made were to convince the more unruly sort of Puritan or Protestant sectaries to remain within the Establishment and not become

Separatists of some sort. Recusants were pressured to conformity and assimilation in many ways, including increasingly harsh penal . Such efforts were eventually almost totally successful, as the number of recusants dwindled significantly, and the bulk of people in the Church became accustomed to, and many even warmly embraced, the new practices and services in the Church. It took centuries for first Separatism and then

Recusancy to be tolerated and then left alone by the Establishment.

The Puritans, as compared to 16th and 17th century recusants, waxed ever stronger, even with persecution and emigration. Certain Non-Separating Puritans went to America..

Some Separatists (the Pilgrims) exiled themselves from the land to Holland and then 248

America. The Civil War and the Commonwealth and Protectorate even saw the Puritans’ and the sectaries’ temporary victory, only to find most of them expelled from the Church of England by the Restoration. “Comprehension,” such as it was, failed at both ends of the spectrum, but at no time was anything like a “Catholic” but non-Roman party ever near dominance or toleration or even open existence in the English Church. Any claims to the contrary are but fantasy or fiction. They do, however, constitute a deeply held Anglo-Catholic myth.

Let us be clear: Anglican comprehensiveness in the 16th century was not meant to include and did not include the things which a modern Anglo-Catholic understands as “Catholic” distinctives. That sort of thing came only in the latter part of the 19th century when the

Establishment tired of its Anti-Ritualist prosecutions and tacitly though warily allowed

Anglo-Catholics to practice their newfound religion within the confines of the Church of

England. And so it remained until the secession of the Continuing churches.

The ACC and some other Continuing churches have by now so isolated themselves from the that they have forgotten or suppressed its true history and doctrines and imagined themselves “Catholic” by so doing. But an honest and candid theology cannot base itself upon unexamined myth and propaganda rather than on sound 249

historical and theological learning. The ACC and other Continuing Anglican churches have failed in this regard., and our missionary and apologetic approaches to others are based on fundamentally flawed, even fraudulent, premises. This must not be allowed to continue. Historical claims for Anglo-Catholic, and therefore ACC, legitimacy have been made which differ only in degree of accuracy or even plausibility from the pseudo- historical apologies for British Israelitism, , Mormonism, the Landmarkist

Baptists, and the Black Hebrews. “Catholic” claims do at least remain orthodox as to doctrines of the Trinity and Christology, but their claims as to continuity of doctrines of the Church, the Ministry, and the Sacraments are comically absurd.

Bess also seriously misstates the character of supposed Protestant vs. Catholic divergence on the Eucharist. A “symbolic memorial meal” does not fully and fairly depict Cranmer’s or the Book of Common Prayer’s view of the eucharistic Supper, nor does it that of

Luther or Bucer or Calvin, nor any of the English Reformers and Apologists given in our

Readings, though we must not forget that, yes, the Eucharist is first and foremost a sacred

Meal and a Memorial in which Christ’s death is proclaimed, and, yes, it is to be interpreted in symbolic terms as Augustine, Aquinas, and Cranmer teach. It is both

Biblical and Catholic to call the Eucharist a “symbolic memorial meal,” although more 250

needs to be said. So much for one member of Bess’s false dichotomy.

Neither, of course, is “the Grace-bearing very Body and Blood of Christ” a description of

“Catholic” teaching that no mere “Protestant” such as Cranmer or a partisan of the Book of Common Prayer could advocate, for Cranmer and the Book of Common Prayer certainly do teach that the Eucharist conveys the very Body and Blood of Christ to the believer, though not to unrepentant or unfaithful partakers, and Luther taught a very thorough-going Real Presence. Of course, Cranmer would not allow a “Capernaitic” or overly realistic interpretation of what is on the altar, any more than Aquinas would. Bess is apparently another Anglican “naive realist” who believes that Christ’s body is present

(locally?) on the altar like a slab of meat and his blood is there in a cup of freshly poured but still 98.6" F liquid.

But we caricature as unfairly as Bess here! It would help for him and other ACC detractors of the Reformation to go back and examine its actual teachings, such as are to be found in the attached Readings, or in the Book of Common Prayer itself, and its

Catechism and Articles. And to remember that those teachings were authoritative and definitive as far as State and Church were concerned, and not to be blithely ignored or 251

cavalierly dismissed. Again, there were no “Catholics” who stayed in the Church of

England unless they had the misfortune to die before they became full-fledged recusants, though doubtless there was much shilly-shallying and other forms of indecision in the

16th and even the 17th century. Nonjurors in the 18th century represent perhaps a partial exception here, but typically they are ignored by “Catholics” today. But only with the

Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival in the 19th century, one of the now many anti-Establishment counter-culture movements in English history, did there come into existence a sizable group of “Catholics” who tried to stay in the Church of England.

Most poignantly, there were no “Catholics” who resisted the Establishment in the 16th and 17th centuries to the point of death by martyrdom for the sake of the Real Presence who were not also Romanists.

Bess’s characterization, such as it is, of the supposedly hybrid character of Anglican eucharistic teachings possibly derives from the indisputable fact that the two Sentences of

Administration, the first “realist” and thus supposedly laudably “Catholic” from the 1549

Book of Common Prayer, and the second “dynamic-symbolist” and thus allegedly regrettably “Protestant” from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, are combined into the dual formula of the 1559 Book of Common Prayer of the Elizabethan Settlement.(and 252

subsequent Books of Common Prayer, including 1662 and 1928). (16.)

But we have argued that both together should be taken as representing the classic

Anglican position of the Elizabethan Settlement, which Jewel popularized and Hooker then systematized: Christ has ordained the elements of Bread and Wine in the Holy

Supper as the sacramental means of not just representing but effectually conveying his very Self, in the very terms of his sacrificial offering of his

Body and Blood on the Cross, to his faithful and worshipful followers in the congregation gathered to remember and memorialize and celebrate and proclaim that perfect Sacrifice and to appropriate its benefits and fruits for themselves by receiving that perfect spiritual

Food and Drink–again, Christ himself–unto everlasting life. Any accounting of

Reformation eucharistic teachings that is less than this –such as Bess’s--is merely a propagandistic caricature.

The conclusion that Bess and others would have us draw (namely, that the Continuing

Church should strenuously rid itself of all those doctrines and practices that make us a

“hybrid” body and not a pure “Catholic” church) is thus a false and self-serving and self- destructive one, as we have already argued at some length. It is wrong to denigrate the 253

Reformation teachings of the Church of England in favor of a “Catholic” Church in

England, separate from both Rome and the Reformation, which never so much as existed.

It is both wicked and pointless to present ourselves to others as heirs to a non-entity which is nothing more than a pious fiction or delusion of the 19th century Oxford romanticists.

The appeal to a quasi-mythical English “Catholic” past, however, persists in other areas and authors as well. Bishop Haverland writes: “The Church of England understood herself and her ministry and sacraments to be the same before and after the Reformation”

(17.). He makes this assertion in spite of what the Articles (in force all this time), the

Book of Common Prayer itself, and the Ordinal say about the ministry and the sacraments. Article XXV (Of the Sacraments) says that there are only two Dominical

Sacraments, and that the “five commonly called Sacraments” are not “sacraments of the

Gospel.”

In fact, one of these lesser “sacraments,” that of Unction, disappeared entirely from the

Book of Common Prayer in 1552 (though an unction remained at the Coronation

Service), probably because it was but a “corrupt following of the Apostles” in their use of 254

oil to heal the sick (which was not the apparent purpose of medieval Extreme Unction).

The revival of a form of Unction in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer is laudable as part of a ministry of healing, but it ought to be admitted more candidly that it does not conform to either pre-Reformation, Tridentine, or post-Vatican II notions of the

Sacrament of Unction, particularly insofar as in the Anglican usage Unction tends to be repeated any number of times for a chronic affliction.

As to confession and absolution, one should not fail to note that the 1548 Exhortation before Communion abrogated without further ado compulsory yearly confession, in spite of the demands for at least yearly confession in 4th Lateran, 1215. (18.) Obviously under

Cranmer the Church of England was simply unilaterally abolishing certain demands of medieval doctrine and without troubling too much for the niceties. In the1549

Book of Common Prayer, auricular confession to a priest was similarly non-obligatory and only at the request of a distraught parishioner, rather like the practice enjoined in

Luther’s 1529 Small Catechism. (19.) This was an extraordinary change from medieval practice.

General confession and absolution became standard in the liturgical services instead, and 255

people increasingly relied on them and on the Lord’s Supper as places to go to receive assurance of forgiveness of sins, though private Absolution was retained and available.

(Lutheran Churches were much stronger in retaining some obligation to private confession as a prerequisite to receiving communion, mainly because Luther himself had kept a very positive appreciation of the practice, though he rejected the medieval insistence on a thorough enumeration of all one’s sins and did not believe that per se was a Dominically-instituted sacrament, however desirable, perhaps indispensable, it was in Christian life).

One should note that “general” or congregational confession and absolution en masse are not usually allowed by medieval or modern Roman practice, except in emergency situations (before going into battle or in a storm at sea, etc.) Even then, resort to private confession and absolution afterwards was required. The Anglican practice of congregational confession and the priest’s thereupon absolving the congregation is an

Anglican innovation and simply not a Catholic practice, as may be seen by examining

The Book of (c2003), subtitled “Being elements of the Book of Common

Prayer revised and adapted according to the for use by Roman Catholics coming from the Anglican tradition” and labeled “Approved by the National Conference 256

of Catholic Bishops of the United States of America and confirmed by the Apostolic

See.” There, e.g., in the Penitential Rite in Daily Morning Prayer, the “officiant” [not necessarily a priest] prays after the general confession, “May the...Lord grant us absolution and remission...” (20.), and similarly in the Penitential rite which may precede the Holy Eucharist (21.). A rubric then requires individual private confession and priestly absolution after the Penitential Rite if it is used separately. Obviously the Roman

Church does not consider the Prayer Book general confession and absolution to live up to theological standards for the (or Reconciliation, as it is now usually called). “Catholics” might meditate upon this fact.

Oddly enough, one Article of Religion (XXXIII, Of Excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided) even talked of the retention of an occasion in which such folk might

“be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto,” and the Commination Service had from 1549 on spoken of public penance as a practice of the primitive church that ought to be restored. (This never was more than a pious clericalist pipedream and never became a popular sentiment.) Regular private confession fell into desuetude (although provision was retained for private absolution in the Visitation of the 257

Sick, and one of the Exhortations to the Holy Communion recommended positively resort to the ministry of the Word and subsequent Absolution for those who could not otherwise quiet their consciences).

The revival of the use in Anglicanism of auricular confession on a non-obligatory basis is doubtless a result of the Oxford Movement, and arguably a good one on pastoral grounds, as it allows for a perfectly evangelical and authoritative application of the Word of forgiveness to an individual penitent. Still, “penance” or “confession and absolution” lacks an obvious institution by Jesus himself as a separate and distinct and ritualized practice having a universally recognized “form.” Reconciliation of the penitent to the communion of the Church by an authorized minister of the healing Word would seem to be the “matter,” but that is precisely where the lack of a distinct and unique “form” enters into question. Of course, the proclamation and application of the Word of forgiveness and absolution by whatever means to penitent believers is clearly the heart of the Gospel, and reconciliation of penitents and excommunicates to the Church by an appropriate authority who absolves them from any disciplinary constraints that hindered their communion with the Church and Christ as the Ur-Sakrament, is likewise essential, but that does not constitute either one as a separately instituted sacrament. It has no separate Dominical 258

institution. It has no single authorized form or sign attached to it (although the whole rite and process of reconciliation might be taken as one). It has no promised grace attached to it except inasmuch as repentant sinners by the grace of

God may always return and be saved, but this is true without the sacrament.

Confirmation at the Reformation became an (early-) adolescent rite of passage requiring much more instruction and personal public avowal of commitment than had been common in the Middle Ages; it was even more definitively severed from Baptism than had been the case in the Medieval West. (Confirmation was also in the event not routinely or very frequently observed in the Church of England before the 19th century, nor could it have existed in the American colonies, as there were no bishops). The ancient unity of Baptism, Confirmation (), and remained a dead letter in the West for Catholic and Protestant and Anglican alike. The practice of , universal in the East, could no more be allowed by Cranmer than by medieval and Counter-Reformation Catholics or Continental Protestants. Furthermore, the very use of was dropped in 1552, in favor of an appeal to the precedent of the

Apostles’ to confer the Holy Ghost. All of these changes have had ominous consequences for Anglicans’ ecumenical relations. Our practice of 259

Confirmation, which in the Book of Common Prayer is appallingly unrelated explicitly to the Paschal Mystery and to the rites of the Triduum, is in one way or another compatible with neither Catholic nor other Protestant nor Orthodox doctrine and practice, nor the Bible nor the Fathers, for that matter. Confirmation clearly requires theological emergency assistance.

Marriage on the surface remained much the same, but steps were certainly taken in the direction of no longer recognizing marriage as a sacrament, but as a universal ordinance from Creation, though a state of life blessed by Christ (and definitely preferred over or monasticism), possessing more of the character of a covenant or even civil contract. (Its indissolubility, however, was maintained, as was not always the case with

Continental Protestants; Bucer’s –as later, Milton’s–

pleas for provision for honorable divorce and re-marriage were not heeded in England.)

(22.)

Ordination, on the other hand, was quite radically changed in appearance: medieval ceremonies such as the ordinands’ before the altar, the hands, 260

conferring power to offer sacrifice for quick and dead, giving over a symbolic chalice and paten to the ordinands (still retained in 1550 but dropped in 1552), and so forth, were all junked. Cranmer (apparently at Bucer’s urging) replaced the medieval rites of ordination and brilliantly re-shaped the service to emphasize the pastoral ministry of the Word and

Sacraments. The services of ordination in the 1550 and subsequent versions of the

Ordinal emphasize above all the subjection of the Church and its ministers to the Holy

Scriptures. This subjection to the Word of Scripture as solely sufficient for doctrine and practice and the emphasis on the Pastoral ministration of Word and Sacrament characterize the Reformation concept of Church and Ministry over against the medieval priesthood. Anyone comparing the medieval ordination rites and the Anglican Ordinal, particularly in the vows exacted of the ordinands, would come to this conclusion. (23.)

Also, notice how the well-known and climactic formula used at the imposition of hands on a priest, for instance, switches the emphasis from being a sacrificing priest to being a

“faithful Dispenser [i.e., minister] of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments,” just as in other Continental documents and ordination services, and, in fact, in a tradition going back at least to St. Augustine (and not, therefore, unknown to other later medieval strains of thought). 261

By the same token, “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained” (quoting John 20: 22-23,

Jesus’ commissioning the

Apostles after his Resurrection, echoing Mt. 18:18, Jesus’ empowerment of all disciples in his Church to bind and loose) is not a direct reference to priests’ powers of absolution in the “Sacrament of Penance” (commonly so called). Instead it refers to the whole

Gospel ministry of opening the kingdom of heaven by preaching the Word of God to those who accept the grace to repent and believe and of ministering the Sacraments of grace to them, and closing it to those who refuse to believe and obey.

The power of the Keys extends to and includes that sacramental act of absolution of repentant sinners after individual confession, to be sure, when properly offered as a ministry of the Word, but that is only a sub-set of the wider ministry of Word and

Sacrament. Again, the 1550 Ordinal is for ordaining priests to the Reformation ministry which was already being put into place in 1549 and which was re-affirmed in 1559 and

1662, and not for continuing the medieval ministry of mass-priests. The Preface affirmed and asserted the continuity and identity of this Reformation ministry with that of the New 262

Testament and the Primitive Church, and not with that of the Middle Ages (though priests ordained according to the old forms were not discriminated against, unless they refused to conform to the newly-introduced Reformation doctrines and practices.).

The words “priest” and “priesthood” were retained, to be sure, but in no discernible sense differing from the etymological derivation of the terms from presbuteros or “,” or from the use of praest in the Danish and later Scandinavian Lutheran , where the sacrificing aspect of the ministry and the Eucharist was also explicitly denied.

“Catholics” may assert, in the words of the Preface to the 1550 English Ordinal, that the

Church of England had an “intent that these Orders [of Bishops, priests, and deacons] may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church...” But certainly by

1550 (the date of his Defence, see Reading III, and especially G) and indeed already by 1549, Cranmer and those who compiled the Ordinal had gone over to the Reformation concept of the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon over against Roman

Catholic objections and had no concern to perpetuate un-Scriptural medieval conceptions of a sacrificing priesthood.

The appeal of the Preface is to the “Holy Scripture and ancient Authors” to demonstrate 263

that “from the Apostles’ times there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s

Church.” In other words, unbiased reading of the Scriptures and the Fathers in the original languages is all that is necessary to demonstrate the truth of Primitive doctrine and practice to scholars. We see here the strong influence of the “New Learning” of

Christian Humanism and its antipathy to medieval scholasticism and the emphasis of the latter simply on deductive reasoning on the basis of canon law.

Cranmer and the Reformers were confident (rather too over-confident, as far as modern scholarship is concerned) of their ability to discern the true pattern of the ordained ministry in the ancient sources and then to reform the existing priesthood and finally reproduce and re-introduce a three-fold ministry which antedates that of the Western medieval Church and requires no appeal to the supposed authority of Western canon law to justify its [Anglican] orders and ministry. That ministry was perpetuated simply by proper candidates’ being publicly examined and called and sent [see Article XXIII, Of

Ministering in the Congregation] and then ordained by prayer with the imposition of the bishop’s hands.

There is thus no justification whatsoever for the notion that “Catholic” conceptions of the 264

episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate are perpetuated in the Anglican Ordinal, but that work, in conjunction with Article XXXVI, Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers, does assert that the is in continuity with that of the New Testament and the Primitive Church and is altogether sufficient and valid. As far as the Ordinal and its

Preface are concerned, the Anglican conception of the three-fold ministry is sufficiently based on Holy Scripture, and the Ordinal does not need supplementation from medieval sources and in fact fundamentally re-structures the ministry and does away with its medieval distortions. There is an Anglican continuity with the medieval ministry, of course, but only insofar as the latter is reformed and re-ordered to remove its obnoxious character. This is probably not what Bishop Haverland wants.

And, of course, the Eucharist itself was changed beyond all visible or doctrinal recognition as far as English Catholics were concerned, and as far as ACC “Catholics” would be concerned (24.), if they were to see a 16th or 17th century Church of England

Lord’s Supper, with its Holy Table a movable table of wood moved into the at

Communion time, with the presiding in and surplice (at most) from the north end of the Table, and communicants kneeling around the Table in the “Quire,” to receive loaf bread and an unmixed cup. And of course the Supper was an all-parish event 265

(though increasingly observed only monthly or quarterly or on , Easter, and

Whitsunday only), and there were no separate “early services” of Communion and certainly nothing like “private masses” in chantries as in the past Cranmer had been careful to specify in 1549 that all the priests in a or were to participate in the common Eucharist; i.e., they were not to absent themselves for private masses. In fact, “Mass” had become a term of opprobrium to the English in Elizabeth’s time and was not used to refer to the Lord’s Supper in the , as well as being something that was illegal and proscribed, and practiced only by Romanist recusants. Is this what Haverland means by the ministry and sacraments being the same?

Article XXXI (Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross) says that “the sacrifices of Masses” (which is what the medieval priesthood was all about) “in which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits,” and the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal did and do effectively replace mass-priests with the Ministry of Word and

Sacrament, in accordance with the Gospel, just as altars were torn down, and altar-stones with embedded relics were sent to the middens, and altars were replaced with

Communion Tables after 1552 (and in London and some other places, even before then). 266

The Ordinal and especially its Preface did carefully assert the historic continuity of the ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons with that of the New Testament and early

Church, but many purely medieval doctrines and practices were simply ruthlessly jettisoned and thoroughly excised.

The English priest became a pastor (almost always married) of the people (and a servant of the Crown) and a preacher of the Word (or maybe just a reader of the Homilies and of the Common Prayer of the Church) and an administrator of the (two) Sacraments, rather than a mass-priest or cloistered religious. Reforming the ministry of Word and Sacrament according to the Gospel and to the new teachings of the Reformation emphatically was and is not the same thing as the Church of England’s “understanding her ministry and sacraments to be the same before and after the Reformation,” though the Biblical and primitive church foundations of the Sacraments were vigorously asserted.

The amazing thing about Haverland’s assertion is not just that not one single reputable contemporary scholar of the English Reformation, Protestant or Catholic, would say such a thing, nor that no 16th century Protestant or Catholic controversialist would have said anything of the sort. The incredible thing is that anybody today should want the English 267

Church to have retained all or any of the medieval theological and other accretions and excrescences which it had so forthrightly rejected at the Reformation, or even claim that it had not so rejected them, or try to re-introduce and practice them today. (We except the harmless re-introduction beginning in the 19th century of such things as the imposition of ashes on or the burgeoning of ceremonial pomp and pageantry that may be more correctly ascribed to the vogue of Romanticism, Balmoralism, or Gothic

Revival, or to simple aestheticism.)

There is nothing left of Bishop Haverland’s claim. The Church of England’s appeal to continuity at the Reformation was to the Primitive and Apostolic Church and not to the

Medieval Church. Perhaps, viewed from this perspective, Leo XIII’s bull Apostolicae

Curae in 1896 (25.) can be positively interpreted as a denial of Anglican continuity with things medieval, even prescinding from the quite shoddy scholarship behind the bull and the rather effective Reply of the English to Leo’s , and we can move ahead to assess such matters as the eucharistic sacrifice, the Real Presence, and

Anglican orders in quite a different light. In fact, that is largely what has happened in the

ARCIC discussions, and surprising areas of agreement have been discovered. [See

Reading # 13.] But, of course, the ACC generally ignores anything coming from 268

ecumenical discussion.

In the event, the ultimate refutation of the line of Anglo-Catholic thought which exults in continuity with the medieval Church came from John Henry Cardinal Newman, once the greatest English Anglo-Catholic of them all. Already in 1850, shortly after the Gorham

Judgment, he had delivered his “Twelve Lectures on Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Submitting to the Catholic Church” (usually known as Anglican Difficulties) (26.) as a sort of preaching mission to Anglo-

Catholics to persuade them of the untenable nature of their position, specifically the

of the Church,” and the Anglo-Catholics’ futilely mimicking of the

Catholic Church while remaining in a Church of England which was steadfastly

Protestant and had not any serious claim to the marks of the ancient and universal and authoritative Church that Rome claimed to be.

In 1864 he wrote his Apologia pro Vita Sua (27.) in which he argued with immense eloquence, forthrightness, and forbearance that Anglo-Catholics appeal to a medieval and even post-Reformation British or English Catholic Church, rite, and doctrine that never existed, is largely fictitious, and rests upon a highly selective and biased reading of the 269

evidence. Newman was finally convinced that only the Roman Pontiff could stand at the head of the Catholic Church and only obedience to the living could provide a reliable interpretation and use of Scripture and Tradition from which true doctrine could be extracted. Anglo-Catholics really ought to read Newman more often.

The alternative approach, which is the one represented here, is to take the Reformation and its doctrines and changes seriously, and to see that the Reformation Articles as well as its Liturgy present a coherent and compelling attempt to confess the ancient and primitive Catholic and Apostolic Faith in controversy over against its various 16th century opponents of Romanism and sectarianism. Perhaps this present 21st century controversy over Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc. can open some people’s eyes to the truth of their own Reformation and Biblical heritage in the Book of Common Prayer.

This is not to deny, of course, that certainly some of the 16th century Reformation argumentation was based on understandings of the Bible and the Fathers and ancient liturgy that are not supportable today. It is certainly not true that the Reformation simply restored the teachings and practices of the primitive Church, or that the Scriptures alone, without reference to modern Biblical and Patristic scholarship, can be used in a simple 270

and straightforward and exclusive way to restore the Church to its pristine purity in doctrine, liturgy, and practice.

But neither is it true that the medieval and Counter-Reformation or even modern Roman

Catholic positions were or are any closer, in any uniform or across-the-board fashion, to such ideals (though things have dramatically changed for the better in the Roman

Catholic Church beginning with and continuing after Vatican II). And, of course, one must also pay attention to post-Reformation thought and practice, as well as to the broader ecumenical scene and world of theological and historical scholarship, as it is no more possible (or desirable) to reproduce 16th century Anglicanism today than it is to make the Middle Ages or Counter-Reformation come alive again.

Nonetheless, the Reformation did restore or bequeath to the Church of England and

Anglicanism a solid sense of God’s free grace in Christ for the justification of sinners, of the centrality and reliability of the Scriptures, and of the necessity of the Gospel ministry of Word and Sacrament (in continuity with the Church of the Apostles and Councils).

The Doctrine of the Scriptures and Creeds and Articles, the Discipline of the historic

Episcopate and the three-fold ministry in a properly ordered Church in apostolic succession, and the liturgical Worship enshrined in the Prayer Book still represent viable 271

parameters and guidelines, rather than a straitjacket, for the exercise of the Christian religion in the Anglican tradition. We should resist any movements in the ACC which tend toward the diminishment or disparagement of this heritage. There is no need to seek out further medieval continuities and certainly none to conjure up supposed positive connections with the Counter-Reformation. The Anglo-Catholic pseudo-historical myth of Anglican origins and identity is to be rejected once and for all. Thank God for the

Reformation re-structuring of the English Church that resulted eventually in classical

Anglicanism! 272

X. STATUS OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF RELIGION

The anti-Reformation bias extends especially to the 39 Articles (adopted as considerably revised from Cranmer’s 42 Articles of 1553; approved in preliminarily in

1563, finally in 1571 when # 29 was finally accepted), and perhaps most particularly to its sacramental teachings.

The (39) Articles of Religion, a fairly typical but not radically Reformed confession, of somewhat limited scope, are, of course, very Protestant in character throughout. They are strongly Augustinian in tone (as were all of the Reformers), are partly derived from

Lutheran sources (through Cranmer’s consultations with Lutheran princes in Henry’s reign), but show more obviously affinities with Reformed thought; they are strongly critical of many medieval usages and of Scholastic theology, corrupt “Romish” doctrines and practices, and of Papal usurpation of episcopal authority in England to the detriment of the Crown, which is seen as the “supreme governor” on earth in England as to both temporal and spiritual authority. The Articles also reject across the board the practices and doctrines of Anabaptists and other radical sectarians. 273

The Articles first discuss the doctrines of God, of the Trinity (with a separate Article approving of the !), the Incarnation and Person and offices of Christ (with one odd article devoted solely to Christ’s descent into hell). None of these were items in dispute with Rome, although certain Anabaptist and spiritualist sectaries denied various of these doctrines. The Articles then discussed the nature of grace, election, predestination (in considerably stronger and more positive terms but roughly agreeing with the Council of Orange 529, and not advocating double predestination or supralapsarianism), justification by faith alone (as expounded in one of Cranmer’s

Homilies), and sanctification: the order of salvation (), in other words. All of these items were central to Reformation thought but are now dealt with quite disparagingly or dismissively (if at all) by Anglo-Catholics. In many cases, Tridentine positions (from the

Roman Catholic council of Trent, 1545-1563) on these matters were more-or-less covertly preferred and taught by Anglo-Catholics. Then there were extensive sections on the Church and the ministry, and the Sacraments. Anglo-Catholics typically found these highly defective or of minimal value and attempted to gloss over them. We have already attempted to show their positive meaning and value with respect at least to the doctrine of 274

the Eucharist.

The overall purpose of the Articles, as John Booty and others have shown, as well as of the Book of Common Prayer as a whole (and especially the Catechism) and Homilies, was to reform Church and State under the Crown (the Royal Supremacy) into a united and unified “Godly Commonwealth,” in which commoner, peer, and king lived mutually bound together in a stable and moral society, and together gave praise to God in Common

Prayer, and together were guided and nourished by Word and Sacrament. (1.) Clearly this high ideal was never realized or was even only stillborn and is certainly irretrievable in the modern world of secular states; perhaps its obvious failure has wrongly led many to conclude that the Articles are altogether irrelevant, even though there is a strong Christian social ethic which underlies their teaching on Church and State: God’s Word and

Sacraments build up strong Christian faith and morals and instill Christian virtues so that subjects and churchmen may live together in a mutually supportive and peaceable society. The sacraments, not least the Lord’s Supper, have social and even political meanings and consequences, not just personal or even ecclesial ones.

Several strategies historically have been used by Anglo-Catholics who are embarrassed 275

or angered by the Articles. (Quite rightly so, since the Articles undercut and condemn many of later “Catholics’” favorite doctrines and practices.) First, one could try to demonstrate that the Articles could be interpreted in an acceptably Catholic fashion.

Newman famously tried to do this in his XC (1841) (2.), as Christopher Davenport, an English convert to Rome, had tried in the 17th century. Newman’s strategy was essentially one of deconstruction and eisegesis, saying that the Articles could not be understood from their historical context, known theological positions of their framers, or according to their original intent, and that therefore faithful “Catholics” were free to interpret them as closely as possible to medieval and pre-Vatican I norms. But strongly adverse reactions against the Tract, particularly by the bishops and the universities, caused him to stop publishing the Tracts for the Times, resign his Oxford fellowship and parochial living, and retire to Littlemore for reflection. He was received into the Roman

Catholic Church in 1845, and there has been a steady trickle ever since of converts to

Rome from Anglo-Catholicism who, disillusioned with the very possibility, or fantasy, or delusion, of a non-Roman Catholic independent English Catholicism, have followed him.

A second strategy is to refuse to attach any significance to the Articles and to claim that they were merely a 16th century controversial document and have no validity or authority 276

now in the Church of England or any other Anglican Church. This is, of course, absurd in the light of these facts:

(A.) The Articles were required to be subscribed to by all ordinands and inductees of the

Church of England until 1865, and even by university graduates until 1870. The Articles were to be generally assented to by ordinands in the Church of England until 1975, though now all one has to do is acknowledge the Articles as a significant historical formulary by which the Church of England declares its Catholic faith in the Scriptures, Creeds, and Councils. (3.)

(B.) The Articles are bound up in the Books of Common Prayer of most Anglophone

Anglican Churches. (The Episcopal Church in Scotland is a notable exception.)

(Occasionally one even hears that “the Articles are not part of the Book of Common

Prayer,” and this is technically although only trivially true, but in no greater sense than that the Ordinal or the is not part of the Book of Common Prayer.) PECUSA accepted the Articles in a mildly revised form, one obviously rejecting Royal Supremacy for the United States, and the Preface (1789) to the American Book of Common Prayer asserted that “this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, and worship; or further than local 277

circumstances require.” Ordinands at least implicitly consented to the Articles when they declared conformity to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Church, though no detailed subscription to the Articles ever seems to have been envisioned or required. The

39 Articles are listed along with Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal as essentials of

Church of England doctrine and practice (which the Canadian Church vowed to retain) in the 1893 Solemn Declaration prefacing the 1962 Canadian Book of Common Prayer, one of the doctrinal and liturgical standards of the ACC (p. viii).

(C.) The Canons of the Church of England from 1604 on, and still as of 1964 and 1969

(4.), gave the Articles a very important place in Anglican doctrinal confession. Canon 2 A says the “Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.” Canon A 5 says that “[the] doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and

Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” It is thus misleading to say, as many do, that the Church of England is not a confessional, but only a creedal Church, or that “the Articles are not part of the Book of 278

Common Prayer.”

In addition, Canon C 15 requires a Declaration of Assent of all to be consecrated, ordained, admitted to office, or licensed, and the form of assent is to the Articles, the

Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal, with a promise to use no other (except for authorized experimental liturgies). The Assent is even printed in the front of the Church of England’s most recent venture into liturgical change, (5.), and is of interest inasmuch as it points out that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the Articles remain normative in spite of the new book, which does undoubtedly expand the perimeters of Anglican faith and liturgical practice. (The new Common

Worship remains technically experimental or tentative, but is liable to remain in use for several decades. As a practical matter, it will doubtless supplant the Book of Common

Prayer in most churches, at least until some later production comes along.) Finally, until

1975, a minister being instituted into a charge was required to read the Articles aloud to the parish and repeat the Assent. (One can imagine that the people stayed away from these services in droves; in fact it was often done privately before the .) This requirement has been dropped as too onerous or simply archaic.

279

The point of all this is that the Articles always did and still do hold a highly important place in the doctrinal stance of the Church of England and the rest of Anglicanism, though nowadays they are not treated as a Confession of the Church. (It would, however, require an Act of Parliament amounting to a Disestablishment, as a well as a drastic revision of the Canons for them to be formally removed as the doctrinal standard of the

Church of England!) Neither, of course, are the or the Westminster

Confession or the Second Helvetic Confession still so rigidly enforced in most of the

Lutheran and Presbyterian or Reformed Churches today, except in the more staunchly conservative or “confessional” groups like the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod or the

Christian Reformed Church, and groups of Old-Lutherans and Old-Reformed on the

Continent. More importantly, the classical–or, to use the American term, “mainline”--

Continental Lutheran and Reformed Churches have mostly lifted their mistrust and of each other enshrined in the Confessions and have entered into intercommunion and mutual recognition of ministries through the Leuenberg Concordat.

[See Reading XIV.] The Anglican Churches have not (yet) joined in, though this is probably inevitable.

But no one should try to underestimate the Articles’ historical and theological 280

importance, even though it is obvious that not everything in the Articles has passed the test of time, especially its doctrine of Royal Supremacy. And most can point to one place or another where historical or theological scholarship, and particularly Biblical exegesis, force us to move on beyond the Articles. The Articles’ doctrines of God, Christ,

Christian anthropology, election and grace, justification by faith, or the Church and the sacraments, however, in their general scope and tenor, have a continuing viability and relevance and do sufficiently expound the Gospel and the Word of God that one may still generally consent to them. Those who do not or will not are simply not Anglicans, though that will not deter certain “Catholics” in the ACC.

At any rate, though literal subscription to every jot and tittle of the Articles is no longer required, this does not mean that one is allowed instead to import willy-nilly doctrines or practices from the Council of Trent or the Baltimore Catechism. It is not so that secession from the Anglican Communion as constituted at present gave or gives Continuing

Anglicans the right to abrogate core areas of previous Anglican doctrine and practice; indeed, the Affirmation of Saint Louis explicitly states that the purpose of the secession is to continue the specifically Anglican reception of the Catholic and Apostolic faith and practice. (6.) Like it or not, that reception was filtered through the English Reformation 281

and the Elizabethan and Restoration Settlements of Religion. Denial of our genuinely

Anglican Reformation and Restoration heritage will only lead us to be perceived as pseudo-Catholic exclusivist sectarians with no more compelling historical claims than the

Mormons or Masons or Landmarkist or (Non-Instrumental) Churches of Christ.

The Oxford Movement and Catholic Revival later on, though hugely influential, led to no substantial changes in Anglican formularies, though the formularies themselves were frequently interpreted in new, and historically alien, Anglo-Catholic ways.. The doctrine of the “Real Presence” as understood by “Catholics,” for instance, is simply not to be found in the Prayer Book, the Ordinal, or the Articles, though the doctrine of the “Real

Communion” of the Body and Blood of Christ certainly is. Any attempt, such as this one, to demonstrate what the original and authentic Anglican doctrine was concerning the

Real Presence, meets with intense hostility and resistance. It is astounding how much and with what effort “Catholic” doctrine has to be read back into the Book of Common

Prayer, and is done so unconsciously or ingeniously or in some cases disingenuously, and those who proposed these canons clearly have some conscious or unconscious idea of the need to do just such retroactive interpretation. The people best experienced, however, to see that it is actually necessary to jettison or radically revise and re-word traditional 282

Anglican texts to make them work as “Catholic” are precisely those former ACC priests

(and occasional bishop) who have gone over to the Roman Church via the “Pastoral

Provisions” route or to the Antiochian “Western Rite” or other kinds of Eastern

Orthodoxy.

Certainly lessening the once iron-like grip of the 39 Articles on Anglican theological expression does not mean that “classical Anglicanism is preserved now only in its Anglo-

Catholic form and within the ACC and the movement which it leads” (7). (What movement? What leadership? One notes the casual arrogance and grandiosity of this statement.) One does not preserve Anglicanism by gutting it of its foundational doctrines and Articles, especially those concerning the Lord’s Supper, which are so characteristic precisely of classical Anglicanism. It is as if someone had said, “We had to destroy classical Anglicanism in order to save it.” In fact the statement that “the ACC has jettisoned the theological ambiguity that long has afflicted Anglicanism for a clear

Anglo-Catholic faith and order” (8.) exposes the transparent take-over agenda and program of the Anglo-Catholic party in the ACC for what it so obviously is.

This party apparently believes that the ACC is already a used-to-be Anglican and 283

wannabe Catholic Church. The “Catholic” party sees the ACC as no more than a launching pad for such a new-fangled Church, unheard of in Church history. The destination after lift-off is clearly either Rome or a satellite orbit around it. Fortunately this absurd mission was at least temporarily aborted by the ACC dioceses’ voting down the proposed canons.

Such desperate and self-serving and self-deceiving evasive measures as the two described above are now supplemented by a third: one not only ignores or rejects the Articles, but refuses to see any relation between them and the sacramental or eucharistic doctrines of the Book of Common Prayer and forbids (!?) any interpretation of the Book of Common

Prayer contrary to acceptable “Catholic” doctrine as defined by ACC , canons, etc. to come. Such a position is, of course, prima facie evidence that the Book of Common

Prayer and especially the Articles do not teach “Catholic” doctrine and have to have it read into them at various (unspecified) places. A blanket Orwellian decree that no one is even allowed to teach or hold or suggest in scholarly articles that there is anything but

“Catholic” doctrine in the Book of Common Prayer and elsewhere is thought-control that is repugnant to the Anglican tradition and should be rejected outright by every ACC member who holds his Christian freedom dear. 284

And if the canons had been accepted, we would thereafter have been subject to repeated intrusions of items from the Anglo-Catholic hidden agenda. All of the unfortunate or questionable or simply intolerable abuses condemned by Article XXII (Of ) or

Article XXXI (Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross), or brought in with the Counter-Reformation or later practices of the Roman Catholic Church could then be sneaked into the Church: obligatory auricular confession, private masses, the , a plethora of patronal saints, veneration of and traffic in alleged relics, pilgrimages, , Bingo. We have already seen the attempted enforcement of the “Marian doctrines” (i.e., those in addition to the Virginal conception, of Mary’s perpetual virginity, , and assumption into heaven), doctrines completely insupportable from a 16th or 17th century Anglican perspective and denied in the Articles, just barely beaten back in the ACC a few years ago.

[Excursus on the Marian Doctrines:

Briefly, and controversially, the doctrine of the Virginal Conception of Christ in

Mary of the Holy Spirit is clearly Biblical. The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity

of Mary is not Biblically demonstrable, despite the fierce resistance of many who 285

persist in trying to explain away the clear statements of the Gospels about Jesus’ brothers and sisters. (9.) It may, in fact, be true that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are actually children of Joseph by a previous marriage (as the mid- 2nd century apocryphal or pseudepigraphal Infancy Gospel of James claims) (10.), rather than cousins or more distant kinfolk, as claimed in the fourth century. (11.) But there is no

Biblical evidence that Mary remained a virgo intacta during the parturition, or that she had no conjugal relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and the

Infancy Gospel is thus at pains to make up for this “deficiency” in the Gospel records.

(It goes without saying, that the late, secondary, inauthentic, non-credible, and non-canonical nature of the Infancy Gospel is demonstrated precisely by its tendentiousness in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary.) (This “Gospel” was excluded finally from the Canon, not just because of its obvious inauthenticity, but because it explicitly denied the Western view as to the identity of Jesus’ brethren. The Eastern Church, though it too denied the canonical status of the book, accepted its view of the brethren as offspring of Joseph from an earlier 286

union, and in fact allowed considerable influence of the book on developing

Eastern liturgy: the feast-days of the Nativity of the –from and

Anna–on September 8, and the Presentation of the Theotokos in the Temple on

November 21 are both heavily dependent on the Infancy Gospel, and they rank among the Twelve Great Feasts of Orthodoxy.)

Beliefs in Mary’s perpetual virginity and her sinlessness (12.), however, were probably widely or even universally held by the time of the first Councils, and are still held by the Orthodox, both Eastern and Oriental. The references to the

“Virgin Mary” in the Creeds may thus also reflect this belief, although originally the Baptismal confessions from which the Creeds developed could have just referred to Mary’s virginity at the time of her Conception of Jesus and then later been interpreted as referring to the Perpetual Virginity. Still, 4th and 5th century

Christians did not doubt that the expressions “the Virgin Mary” and “the Virgin

Birth” referred also to her continuing and present virginity. The 5th Ecumenical

Council of Constantinople in 553 recognized the term aieparthenos (Ever-Virgin) as applied to the Theotokos, (13.) but the expression had probably already long been used in the Divine Liturgy. Belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is common 287

to both Orthodox of the East and Catholics of the West.

The difference, however, between the Western view (after Jerome) that the brothers and sisters were just more distant kinsfolk of Jesus, and the Eastern view that they were half- or (more precisely) step-siblings from an earlier marriage of

Joseph (14.), remains to remind us that there was no unambiguous testimony on these points in the Scriptures, even if very early on interpreters had decided to reject as unworthy of Christ and Mary the thought that the brothers and sisters were blood siblings born after Jesus from normal conjugal relations between

Mary and Joseph. Merely to hear these considerations voiced is upsetting to many and will be said to constitute an “offense against pious ears” or indeed the most blasphemous heresy.

The doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary was asserted as early as the above- mentioned pseudepigraphal Gospel in the 2nd century, and that of her Dormition was widely believed at the latest by the seventh or eighth centuries and is still held by Orthodox. The declaration that Mary was the Theotokos, or Birth-Giver of God, by the in 431, while it seemingly only recognized the sentiments of popular piety no less than the Christological convictions of 288

theologians against (who asserted that Mary was only the mother of

Christ rather than mother of God per se), gave a powerful stimulus to the growth and spread of the cultus of Mary in both East and West. (15.) Certainly to claim that the creature Mary carried the Creator in her womb, or that her womb contained the Uncontainable (infinite) God stirs the imagination, and interpretations of Mary as prefigured by Jacob’s Ladder to Heaven or the Burning

Bush or the Ark of the Covenant or the Temple or the Enclosed Garden, or the eastward-facing Gate of (Ezekiel’s vision) of the restored Temple through which alone the glory of the Lord entered (Ezek. 43:4), and so forth, abound from this period on. (All of these are from passages read as in the Orthodox

Church’s Marian feasts.) Ephrem Syrus, already in the 4th century for the Syriac

Church, and the famous Greek hymn, the Akathistos, of perhaps the 7th or 8th century, best represent the zenith of this Marian piety in the East. And the West in train certainly elaborated an only slightly less exuberant (or extravagant) cultus of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (16.)

Protestants too in the 16th and 17th centuries still generally believed that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life (17.), but the doctrine was never emphasized 289

in Protestantism, as a relationship with Mary did not figure in the “order of salvation” recognized in Reformation theology, nor was Mary thought of anymore as an availing intercessor. Only with the Enlightenment and the rise of Biblical criticism, however, did the general Protestant recognition of Mary as perpetually virgin fade away. Modernists, of course, by definition hardly ever found in the

Continuing Anglican movement, reject even the Virginal Conception.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and that of the Assumption of the

BVM were proclaimed as in 1854 and 1950 respectively by the Roman

Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church does not hold them, although it is intensely devoted to the Theotokos, whom it reveres as the All-Holy and sinless one, and does hold earlier versions of these beliefs. There is talk, usually discouraged by the Vatican but not always outright forbidden, of proclaiming

Mary as Co-Redemptrix and of all graces.

It would seem that Anglicans are obligated only to the first belief –that of the

Virginal Conception--by the Articles, but that belief in the Perpetual Virginity is at least possibly permitted by the Articles, since nobody actually cared to deny 290

such a doctrine at the time of the Articles. Article XV, Of Christ alone without

Sin, however, is obviously relevant to notions of the sinlessness of Mary and of the Immaculate Conception of the BVM.

Furthermore, Anglicans and Protestants in general remain averse to the medieval habit of deductively ever expanding Marian doctrine under the motto of decuit, potuit, ergo fecit (i.e., “it was fitting and appropriate; God had the power to do it; therefore, he did do it”), as elaborated first by Eadmer and then .(17..)

The need for sound Biblical and historical-theological grounding for any such doctrines was severely under-valued from this perspective. Even today, in spite of considerable re-focusing on the part of Roman theologians, Roman Catholic assertions about Mary seem to many outside that Church based on shallow and a questionable scholastic, purely deductive methodology, as well as a false claim of authority on the part of the Magisterium. Obviously there is still a long way to go before securing an ecumenical consensus on Mary. It remains to be seen how the newly-issued ARCIC document “Mary: Grace and

Hope in Christ” will fare as to its Anglican reception, but it should be quickly noted that to find the doctrines of Mary’s immaculate conception and her 291

assumption “consonant with Scripture” does not mean that these doctrines are true or historically justified or in fact found anywhere in the Scriptures. That remains the question. (17a).

Since the Catholic Revival in the Church of England and the Ecumenical

Movement, there has been a serious re- of Anglican theology with

Marian devotion and the veneration and even invocation of saints. As a result, even many more moderate Anglicans today are more likely to agree that these doctrines are at least consonant with the Scriptures and early church practice, while it cannot be confidently asserted that these doctrines and practices have explicit authorization in the Scriptures. Certainly it is true that they date from the earliest days of the Church after the completion of the New Testament and are, to a great extent, the common property of the ancient Church both East and West.

Medieval excesses are commonly alleged as the occasion for the Reformation rejection of such practices, but it was the fear that the sole Mediatorship of Christ was threatened by them that seems to have really moved the Reformers. The 292

principle of further assured these doctrines’ exclusion from

Anglican theological approval. Catholic and Orthodox reassurances that the saints and Mary have no powers independent from Christ, and that the communication between the living and the departed in the is a function entirely of the glorified Christ’s omniscience and omnipotence (and not of independent saintly channels of communication which have to used before one can connect to Christ), are of great importance here. But for Protestants and most

Anglicans difficulties of a historical nature still remain, even if one puts the best possible face on Marian doctrines.

Modern ecumenical contacts and scholarship have, however, to a large degree removed the mutual suspicions between the churches on this score, without having yet actually effected any changes in the doctrinal or liturgical expressions of the Reformation churches. Mary is, for instance, increasingly treated as the first (from the ) and exemplary faithful of Christ (in spite of such passages as Mark 3:31-35), and thus as the “Mother of the faithful” and, indeed, the New Eve for all mankind.

293

Mary is definitely seen as a creature and a human being, and even one who calls

(in the ) God “my Saviour;” nonetheless she is seen as having certain privileges due her as the chosen vessel of the Lord and bestowed upon her by a special grace of God in view of the foreseen merits of Christ: the privileges both of immunity from Original and actual Sin, and also of pre-Parousia resurrection and assumption to be with her Son, at his command and in accordance with her role as second Eve and Mother of all the faithful.

These graces are seen as the wholly appropriate expression of the full sanctification (or “deification,” as the Orthodox would say) and redemption given her by the Lord to equip her for her vocation and witness and continuing role in the Body of Christ as the Theotokos. Mary’s response is that of the new Eve and faithful Israel and Virgin Bride: she answers Yes to God’s momentous call to bear and raise up the incarnate Word conceived in her by the Holy Spirit. Mary’s being the New Eve–a position recognized as early as and Irenaeus– certainly implies a continuing role and vocation for her in the Body of Christ. Her faith and obedience and determination in that vocation as the Mother of Jesus and indeed Theotokos are also seen as exemplary and paradigmatic for the Church and 294

the individual Christian. As the first human to respond positively to God’s initiative to inaugurate the New Covenant (fulfilling all of God’s Promises from

Abraham through the Prophets), she becomes the first and prototypical disciple and, indeed, the “Mother of all Christians.”

These gifts of grace and privileges (i.e., of sanctification or deification unto sinlessness, and of bodily resurrection) are precisely those which all Christians equally will have at the Consummation, of which Mary the New Eve is a kind of first-fruits after Christ the New . Mary’s continuing virginity is seen as the altogether appropriate continuation of the purity of her fulfillment of the role of the waiting Israel and Church which wants to remain faithful and obedient only unto God (i.e., which hears and keeps the Word of God as did Mary) before the second as well as the first advent of Christ. Mary thus already, even before the

Consummation, represents the apex of human nature’s ascent to God through deification in Christ; she is as such “more honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim” and worthy of all respect and emulation by fellow Christians.

295

Clearly, then, it is possible to re-state the traditional Marian doctrines in a fashion much more likely to be acceptable to their previous gainsayers, and Anglo-

Catholics, who usually regard proper recognition of Mary as a shibboleth of orthodoxy, may be harbingers in accepting a change in Anglican ethos as big as or bigger than that which occurred in the last century with regard to explicit liturgical . On the other hand, one does not hear from ACC writers in particular or Anglo-Catholic writers in general theologizing on Mary as sophisticated as that above, which is here presented as fairly typical of current

Roman Catholic and Orthodox . (18.)

Issues concerning Mary have also been intensively studied in the Ecumenical

Movement and in Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox encounters beginning in the 20th century. Protestant and Anglican theologians of a historico-critical bent were challenged, perhaps first of all, by Hilda Graef’s splendid but sometimes testy

Mary : a history of doctrine and devotion. (19.) The work of the Ecumenical

Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary, founded in 1966, has been especially fruitful in bringing together Anglicans, Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics in

England, , and America in conferences and papers to encounter and appreciate each others’ thoughts and practice concerning our Lady. In 1978 Mary 296

in the New Testament : A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman

Catholic

Scholars (edited by Raymond Brown and others) appeared as the result of

American Roman Catholic and Lutheran and other assessments of the Biblical evidence. (20.) ’s Mary through the Centuries (1996) has been especially influential as a sensitive and measured account of Mary’s reception in the Church over the years. (21.) Likewise, the works of Beverly Gaventa, Mary :

Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus (Columbia, S.C., c1995) (22.) and Blessed One :

Protestant Perspectives on Mary (edited with Cynthia L. Rigby; Louisville and

London, c2002) (23.) have shown a willingness to re-evaluate and appreciate the role of Mary, not simply as an important personality of the New Testament, but as a central figure in God’s order of salvation. Most recently, the 1999 investigations of the ecumenical Dombes Group have been translated into English and published as Mary : In the Plan of God and in the Communion of Saints

(Mahway, N.J., c2002).(24.) Braaten and Jenson have edited and now published the important papers from the 2001 conferences on Mary of the Center for

Catholic and (25.)

297

Needless to say, these works were not (or in many cases could not have been) consulted by the five bishops expelled from the ACC for asserting the absolute necessity of accepting the Marian doctrines as taught in the Roman Church ca.

1950. It is time for us to move forward with evaluating Marian doctrines, but not in the peremptory fashion indicated for us by those five “Catholic” bishops, nor by their present Continuing body, the Holy Catholic Church–Anglican Rite.

As to the matter of prayer for the dead, it may be noted, however, that it is at least possible that II Timothy 1:18 is a prayer for one departed and thus provides

Biblical warrant for the practice, and that even the 1662 Book of Common Prayer has a prayer which just barely qualifies as a prayer for the dead: that in the Burial Office which begins,

“Almighty God, with whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the

Lord...,” and ends “...that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of thy holy Name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in thy eternal and everlasting glory; through...” But there was no great support possible for official Anglican liturgical prayer for the dead until the trauma of World War I, and a few prayers for the dead (including a petition in the 298

Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church that the faithful departed might be granted “continual growth in thy love and service”) were only inserted in the

American Book of Common Prayer in 1928.

It can thus be argued that prayers for the dead do not represent so great a change for Anglicanism as would Marian doctrines more closely resembling or even equaling those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, and that, at the very least, recent efforts to certify such doctrines as standard ACC belief were premature and inopportune. Needless to say, the Anglican revival of explicit prayer for the faithful departed in Christ did not involve a full-blown doctrine of

Purgatory or the use of indulgences or private or chantry masses for the dead.

Also, although Marian devotion and the cultus of the saints may be a growth area for Anglican theology and practice, and Anglo-Catholics have played and may continue to play something of a pioneering role in this regard; nonetheless, there is as yet no groundswell of popular Anglican support, as there was for praying for the faithful departed. One can hardly imagine now what events or arguments would avail to change Anglican 299

sensibilities in this area. Certainly these beliefs cannot simply be dictated to ACC members.

And there are continuing historical and theological problems with the Marian doctrines that are not to be under-estimated, not least in the areas of , , eschatology, and hermeneutics. Also, Anglo-Catholics should be wary of latching onto some of the more exotic, not to say bizarre, Counter-

Reformation practices and beliefs in Mariology, just at the time that post-Vatican

II Roman Catholicism is showing greater reserve and moderation in such matters, though there are now also signs of a hardening of Rome’s positions in this area.

On the other hand, however, Anglicans need to understand that reunion with

Roman Catholics and Orthodox is simply not an option unless there is an acceptance by Anglicans of what others see as simple corollaries (however delayed in expressing themselves historically) of the Biblically-grounded doctrines of the communion of saints and of Mary as the Mother of God or

Theotokos. Reformation anxieties in these areas will not be overcome overnight.

These matters need to be part of the continuing ecumenical process, and we can 300

be grateful to our own Anglo-Catholics for prodding our consciences in this

regard. This does not absolve us from the necessity of critical Biblical, historical,

and theological thought nor does it excuse zealots for trying to impose the

“Marian doctrines” upon Continuing Anglicans by fiat or by subterfuge. (End of

excursus.)]

To return to the matter of the Articles: Matters are not helped by Anglo-Catholics’ telling us that the Prayer Book means something that most of us have never heard of before and that the Articles are of little or no doctrinal importance to Anglicanism past or present. It is foolish to pretend that the Articles in the Prayer Book have not had, do not have, and should not have any relevance or significance whatsoever. The solid, Biblically based doctrines of the Prayer Book, the Articles, and the Ordinal remain as bedrock for traditional Anglicanism. As the Articles themselves say (Article XX, Of the Authority of the Church): “...yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to

God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and keeper of Holy

Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so beside the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation.” 301

Such considerations would clearly exclude transubstantiation and Benediction of the

Blessed Sacrament: however interesting a philosophical theory transubstantiation may be, we are not obliged to hold it or teach it as necessary for salvation, and the Bible does not require us to worship the Sacrament, or even suggest that that might be a nice thing to do.

And the Marian doctrines beyond that of the virginal conception of Christ by Mary and the Holy Spirit are simply not Biblically obvious to traditional Anglicanism or to most

Anglicans today, unless we buy the ACC line that only Anglo-Catholics are true the true heirs to Anglicanism as well as to the Catholic faith.

Many of the doctrinal controversies and quarrels that have wracked the ACC and the more Anglo-Catholic wing of the Continuing Church have grown out of a failure to give the Articles of Religion their due place. Traditional Anglicanism is inseparable from what previous ages saw simply as Biblical and Reformation Christianity. Attempts to present our Church (the ACC) as traditional Anglicanism and at the same time to discard or overlook what are in fact are its traditional teachings and beliefs can hardly be viewed as anything more than laughable by most outsiders, even those otherwise inclined to be sympathetic to our form of Christian faith adhering to the Scriptures, Councils, and 302

Creeds, and to the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines synthesized in them.

The Articles of Religion in particular deserve fairer treatment as a document whereby the

Church of England claimed to accept and interpret authoritatively the Catholic Faith for its day and age, and as a document which still deserves respect for its statement of that

Faith. The Articles also clearly represent the Reformation Protestant faith of the Church of England and its progeny. (26.) The Articles, however time-bound and even pre-critical, still point the way to a more solid and Biblical form of Christianity than the quite unimaginative and inflexible “Catholicism” (actually only 19th century Anglo-Catholic

Ritualism and/or an aping of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism) of its more uncritical proponents in the ACC. Ecumenical dialogue with modern Roman Catholic and

Orthodox as well as Protestant theologians is hampered rather than aided by the presence of retrograde ACC “Catholics.” In practice other Churches’ theologians simply ignore the Continuing Church movement altogether, not only because of its numerical insignificance, but more especially because of its theological grandiosity, ecclesiastical pretentiousness and regressiveness, and its preposterous “historical” claims. 303

XI. STATUS OF THE GENERAL COUNCILS, AND OF (WESTERN) CANON LAW

Several important things remain to be said about the (seven) Ecumenical Councils and their reception by the ACC. Anglicans in the past generally talked about receiving only the first four Councils, and then basically only as to their Trinitarian and Christological doctrines. Three other Councils seem to have been added in the Affirmation of Saint

Louis mainly because we wanted to impress the Orthodox and the Old Catholics, who recognize [only] the first seven Councils.

Two points need to be made immediately: (A.) It is not clear that the framers of the

Affirmation had any right or authority to commit Continuing Anglicans to seven Councils when the Anglican Church previously recognized only four, especially since the framers claimed only to be continuing the Anglican reception of the Catholic faith, not substantially altering or adding to it. (B.) It seems equally odd that “Catholics” today do not explicitly accept other Councils, as do the Roman Catholics, who reckon fourteen other (purely Western or Western-dominated) Councils as Ecumenical, and in fact

“Catholics” do implicitly, covertly, and tacitly accept many medieval Western councils 304

and doctrines, especially 4th (1215) and its promulgation of transubstantiation as a dogma and of yearly auricular confession as a mandatory discipline. Apparently recognizing four or seven or twenty-plus Councils is not so easy and straightforward as some imagine.

In fact the Church of England and its Articles are quite reserved about the Councils: the text of Article XXI, Of the Authority of General Councils is omitted in the American

Book of Common Prayer, although its enumeration was retained and its meaning claimed to be covered in other articles or otherwise accepted. It is retained in the Canadian 1962 Book of Common

Prayer. We quote it in full:

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and

will of Princes. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an

assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,)

they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.

Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength

nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture. 305

Three points are made here: First, Councils may be summoned only by Princes (i.e., the

Emperor) and thus not the Pope. (The American Book of Common Prayer doubtless omitted this Article because of its reference to the power of princes and kings.) Second,

Councils may err and have erred, even on important matters of the Faith, and are thus not infallible. (That presumably was directed at Trent, which was not summoned by a

Prince, certainly not of England, and which was meeting while the 42 Articles were being written.) Third, Councils are accepted by the Church of England only to the extent that their decisions are agreeable to the Scriptures. (The Articles on God, the Trinity, and

Christ are in fact, of course, based on the doctrine of the Councils and the Creeds, but they are accepted only because and insofar as they are agreeable to the Scriptures. Cf.

Article VIII and Canon A 5 of the Church of England.) In other words, no matter how many Councils are recognized, their doctrines are not accepted by Anglicanism unless they are in accordance with the Scriptures. ACC enthusiasts for the seven Councils conveniently overlook this point, since they habitually ignore the Articles of Religion anyway.

A fourth point might be added: according to Article XIX (Of the Church), Article XX (Of 306

the Authority of the Church), and Article XXXIV (Of the Traditions of the Church), particular or national/provincial churches (i.e., those under a patriarch or synod of bishops) have charge over their own discipline and liturgy, and thus do not necessarily have to follow the rules in the same areas even of Ecumenical Councils. This is particularly important if England is a Empire unto itself, as Thomas Cromwell and other propagandists for Henry VIII argued, and the English Crown is the supreme authority in

England over the State and the Supreme Governor (“Head,” Henry’s apologists said) of the Church of England and may order church discipline and liturgy accordingly, though the Crown does not itself minister Word or Sacrament or dictate doctrinal matters. (That was the theory; in actuality Henry and Elizabeth, and later James and Charles I did influence the Church of England’s doctrinal stance, and none too subtly at many times, but, then again, so did many morally and doctrinally much more questionable Byzantine

Emperors in the Eastern Church, and not all for the good either.)

All of these provisos are significant qualifications on the authority of the Councils, even though the English Church does basically accept certainly the first four, and some theologians have accepted the Councils maybe through six, though usually not including seven. (16th century Anglicanism was itself too nearly iconoclastic to have felt at ease 307

with the seventh Council. Article XXII, of Purgatory categorically rejected the “Romish

Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well as of

Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints,” and Anglican authors, who had hardly any significant practical and human contacts with Orthodox until centuries later, generally thought that the Article excluded recognition of the veneration of , although the seventh Council–which is hardly “Romish”-- explicitly contrasts the adoration or worship of icons with their veneration and rejects the former.) Anglican attitudes in this area have softened considerably over the years because of increased cultural contacts and theological exchanges, but “veneration of icons” is still hardly a general Anglican practice, or likely to be one. [See Reading XIII C.]. Veneration of relics has been clearly excluded from the English Church since Henry’s Royal

Injunctions of 1534 and 1535 and the Edwardian prohibition of altars (and altar-stones) in

1550 and 1552. Those ACC “Catholics” who want relics are reduced to buying them from Roman Catholics, who are only too happy to sell them to eager if gullible ACC customers. (Perhaps Roman Catholic authorities would all too willingly allow

“Catholics” to obtain relics of, say, St. Elizabeth Seton or of the English Catholic martyrs of the Reformation era, and there is a potentially great futures market in relics of Blessed

John Henry Newman.) 308

If the ACC is actually serious about accepting the seven General Councils, then several points still need to be raised:

A. The ACC needs to take very seriously the fact that the Filioque has been illegally added to the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed (“The ”) only by

(usurped) Papal authority. None of the seven Councils authorized this purely Western addition to the Creed. Article V (Of the Holy Ghost) is an embarrassment in this regard and a serious obstacle to ecumenical progress. The basic problem is that Easterners accuse Westerners of confusing the temporal mission of the Spirit after Christ at

Pentecost with the eternal procession or spiration of the Spirit from the Father alone in the Godhead; the mistake is comparable to confusing the Incarnation in time of the God-

Man with his eternal generation and Son-ship from the Father before all worlds. Surely the Father sends the Spirit into the world at Jesus’ behest (cf. John 14:16, 26, the temporal mission), but the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone (:26) and in fact was in the world even temporally from the beginning (Genesis 1:1, the Spirit hovering over the face of the waters) and thereafter (the Spirit “spake by prophets” and indeed conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary and anointed Jesus at his Baptism and 309

accompanied Jesus throughout his earthly ministry).

Westerners frequently have much difficulty in seeing why the East takes these passages so seriously, but we should be clear in our minds that no Orthodox Church will take us seriously until the Filioque is removed. Removing it should have been an item of business long before transubstantiation or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. Oddly enough, Anglo-Catholics here would probably resist change of this Article, as the belief in the double procession of the Spirit is quite firmly grounded in Western Catholic tradition, certainly from Augustine on. (Augustine is not highly esteemed in the East, though for most Westerners, both Catholic and Protestant, he is the zenith and epitome of the Fathers.)

B. None of the Councils sanction the marriage of bishops, though there were still some married bishops around by the time of the first Councils. Of the ancient Churches only the Nestorian Church (or the Assyrian ), which was separated as a result of the third Council (Ephesus, 431) still has married bishops. And by the canons accepted by early Councils the Orthodox Church still allows future clerics to get married only before ordination and not thereafter. Re-marriage of clergy after the death of their 310

spouse, or divorce, is not allowed if one wishes to remain in the clerical rank. Nor may a future cleric be married to a divorcee or even a widow. Cf. I Tim. 3:2: ”A bishop (= -bishop) must be...the husband of one wife...”).

To the extent that the ACC does not in fact follow all of these provisions, and we are not suggesting that bishops put their wives away into , we should realize that we are not in compliance with the Councils, or at least not with all the disciplinary canons (some of which seem downright bizarre nowadays, forbidding going to Jewish physicians, and the like) accepted by those Councils, and stop crowing about how orthodox we are.

Modern scholarship increasingly verifies the central importance of and celibacy to the early Church in particular and in in general. Peter Brown’s

The Body and Society (1.) has let us all see what a revolutionary move it was for the

Reformation to allow and indeed encourage clergy and religious to wed when they willed. In fact, it is a fine Protestant thing to let clergy and even bishops marry, at whatever time of their life they find it advisable. Cf. Article XXXIII, Of the Marriage of

Priests. Our married ACC bishops are good Protestants in this regard!

311

C. All of the Churches which participated in the seven Ecumenical Councils were in communion with Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, , or Jerusalem, the great

Pentarchy of of the ancient Church. Nowadays neither the Roman Catholic nor the Orthodox Church are in communion with all the Patriarchates, except inasmuch as Rome has set up its own Oriental rite or even Latin patriarchs to rival the ancient ones.

(The Latin patriarchs have now been largely suppressed by Rome, to remove a perceived offense to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox patriarchs.) And excluded Oriental

Orthodox have patriarchs in Antioch and in Alexandria–where the are in every sense the Egyptian national Church and far outnumber the few mostly Greek Eastern

Orthodox-- competing with Eastern Orthodox and Oriental rite Catholic ones. (There are, for instance, some five bishoprics claiming to be the of Antioch: Eastern

Orthodox, Syrian [Jacobite] Orthodox, Catholic, Maronite Catholic, and Latin, although all of these are now located in or near either Beirut or Damascus rather than on the original site of Antioch, which is now Antakya, a mere village in Turkey.) All of these fine oriental Churches are not in communion with each other nor in agreement as to who the proper Patriarchs are. Obviously the Patriarchal of old is in disarray, unless one is willing simply to submit to either the Roman, or the Eastern Orthodox, or the Oriental Orthodox view of the matter. 312

Be that as it may, we Anglicans, on the other hand, are in communion with none of the ancient Patriarchates, and our orders are recognized by none of these, despite the impression which some try to make. If we were serious about the Councils, then we should be making every effort to get back into communion with these groups. We are not doing that, except to the extent that some are courting Rome. Of course we could just say that England was an Empire, politically and ecclesiastically, and be satisfied with that.

But we aren’t in communion, even “impaired communion,” with Canterbury either.

These remarks are made in the spirit of recalling us to our own ecumenical responsibilities, rather than encouraging us to persist in our rather pathetic triumphalism and our parochial squabbles over doctrines that will only alienate us from everybody except Rome, as if Rome would even bother to notice such a minuscule and picayune body as the ACC.

We impress no one except ourselves with our supposed allegiance to seven Councils.

But saying that we recognize them affords an opportunity to bash those Continuing

Anglicans who do not venerate relics or invoke saints or observe all the so-called

“Marian doctrines.” Most ACC members are unaware of what is involved in supposedly 313

recognizing the seven Councils, and many would doubtless be horrified to discover just what practices and beliefs are being foisted off on them.

D. We do not keep Easter (Pascha!) at the date required by the Council of Nicaea, at least, certainly not according to the calculation of the Eastern Orthodox. (It has often been remarked that the Reformation retention of the Roman , as of the

Filioque, is highly ironic.) We keep Easter at the same time (or before) the Jews celebrate Passover, whereas in the Gospels the Resurrection has to come after Passover.

We do not use leavened Bread in the Eucharist. We do not use an historic Liturgy. We do not have a proper Epiklesis in the Anaphora. We often have the wholly false notion of

Purgatory. And we do not remain standing during the weeks of Pascha. All of these are uses cherished by the Eastern Orthodox, who are pre-eminently the Church of the

Ecumenical Councils. We can hardly expect even to enter into dialogue with them if we are not conscious of these matters. But of course if we are going to Rome, then we don’t have to worry about the Eastern Church!

E. We have no notion of the Christological importance of the fifth (Constantinople II in 553, which dealt with the “Three Chapters controversy,” and moved Chalcedonian Christology in a decidedly more Alexandrian direction), or of 314

the sixth (Constantinople III, 680-681, which rejected ), although we mouth acceptance of them. This is a serious deficiency.

F. And we think that the seventh Council, 2nd Nicea, 787, which is about the veneration of icons, principally taught that we may use polychrome statues in our churches. In fact, three-dimensional statues were not being talked about in this Eastern

Council. Also, in fact in the ACC we do not generally venerate icons: we don’t bow down to them, kiss them, incense them, burn lamps before them, pray before or to them, go on pilgrimages to them when they work wonders, commemorate them in the Church calendar, expect some of them to shed tears or pour forth , etc. etc. Perhaps we make an implicit distinction between doctrine and discipline or devotional practice. We can claim to recognize the doctrinal points at issue against : the created world and the human form (as the apex of creation) can rightly be used to depict Christ and the saints and provide access to the things of God, and may thus be honored and venerated, though not worshiped. But all of this is a long way from the practice of venerating icons, and no Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Christian is deceived by any claims of ours to the contrary.

315

Even worse, we have that Council footnoted in the first recommendation for a proposed canon as if there really were a Conciliar precedent for worshiping Bread (as distinct from acknowledging and worshiping Christ’s Presence in the course of the Eucharist)! There is not, although a comparison and contrast is made with the Sacrament of the Eucharist and icons. (Both the Eucharist and icons are similar inasmuch as they are examples of accessibility to and worship of God through objects of his creation, but only Sacraments, and especially the Eucharist, have a Dominically-covenanted and ordained and instituted

Promise of forgiveness/salvation attached to their proper use. Icons, apart from legends of their having been painted by St. Luke or having mysteriously appeared “not made by human hands” and the like, have no such Dominical or Scriptural warrant attached to them. They may well be “windows to heaven” and quite permissible and useful in

Christian spirituality, but they are examples at best of the exuberance and super- abundance of grace posited or discovered by faith outside of the usual institutional and sacramental channels of the Church. And there is a covenanted assurance and Scriptural warranting of God’s Presence in the Sacraments that there is not in icons.

Finally, of course, the Reformers saw no direct Scriptural warrant for the use of icons.

They were too obviously “graven images” to the 16th century Reformers. The arguments 316

of such men as St. John of Damascus that such images were used even in the legitimate worship of God in the Temple (i.e., the Ark of the Covenant) and that the prohibition was only against their worship, not their use, did not sit well with the Reformers, if they considered them at all. (2.) (The Reformers were far more impressed by Josiah’s reform of the incredibly corrupt worship in the Temple as described in II Kings 22-23; in fact, they took it as the divine authorization and prototype for Reformation–and a large degree of destruction of pre-Reformation images in the churches-- under and by the Crown of the Church of England.) A mere glimpse at the (inordinately long) Elizabethan Homily

“Against Peril of Idolatry” (3.) (doubtless by Jewel) would make clear just how vehement was the Reformers’ rejection of images, let alone anything like icons in the Eastern sense.

Later was certainly closer to that of Lutherans in retaining the use of the arts in church, including three-dimensional images, without encouraging shrines to saints or the like (though Anglo-Catholics have built or re-built some, e.g., ), but

Puritans and Nonconformists continued and sharpened English iconoclasm.

The further claim of St. John Damascene that the deeper reason for the prohibition of portrayals of the Divine in human form was that Israel (and indeed mankind) had to wait for the perfect revelation of God in the Incarnate Son who was Jesus Christ, who 317

perfectly mirrors the Image of God (Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3) and whose human features may now indeed be depicted and venerated, as may those of the Theotokos and the saints divinized by grace. Direct depictions of the transcendent and invisible Deity are, of course, still prohibited. While we may (and in fact, must) disagree with the

Reformers in their rejection of iconodulia [see Reading XIII, C], we should recognize that their position was predicated on not teaching anything as necessary for salvation beyond what is explicitly taught in the Scriptures, just as our ordination vows today still specify.

But of course the fully-articulated doctrines of the Trinity and of the two natures in one

Person of Christ also had to be developed in the course of long and acrimonious controversies over the centuries, before a position could be brought out that was true to the essential internal thrust and meaning of the Scriptures. Orthodox advocates of the 7th

Council certainly believe that the Iconoclastic Controversy represented a similar testing point for the Church to make a true confession of Christ just as much as did the

Trinitarian and Christological controversies. It is in fact an extension of them: may the incarnate 2nd Person of the Trinity be legitimately depicted as a Man and worshiped as

God in icons that are to be venerated in the Church? Perhaps it is no less difficult and 318

just as necessary to defend icons, as it was to develop the full-blown doctrines of the

Trinity and of the natures and Person of Christ.

It remains incumbent on us in the Continuing Anglican tradition and in the ACC to take up as an ecumenical task an evaluation and appreciation of the iconophile Orthodox position on this point, and make their confession our own to the extent that we can, and not simply glibly and smugly assume that we have already done so, when in fact we have not done so in any fashion recognizable to the Orthodox. This whole area is another one of ACC’s self-deception and false advertising. Consultation with the Orthodox might open our eyes in this regard.

We should either stick to the first four Councils, and then only as to their Trinitarian and

Christological doctrines, or actually take five through seven seriously. There is even some doubt that we do want to or could take this latter course. We could approach the

Orthodox for dialog and clarification on these points. There might be surprises in store for us. (They in turn would be appalled by the Articles, which sound much too much like

Cyril Lucaris, and either the Reformation or the Western Catholic approach to the

Councils; sometimes we don’t realize just how parochially Western we are theologically, 319

whether Catholic or Reformed.)

Invocation of the authority of the seven Councils in the ACC has little immediate value or effect and is mainly a weapon to beat opponents (both inside the ACC and outside in other Continuing Anglican Churches) over the head with, rather than to ask whether the purported decisions of the Councils really are in accordance with the Word of God and thus require implementation in our churches. Mostly, however, in Anglo-Catholic use, mention of the Councils is used to cloak using the decisions or canons of later Western councils (particularly the so-called 8th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople IV, 869-870

(4.), on the supposed Photian Schism, which slipped in an approval of the Filioque, as well, it is claimed, of the infallible magisterium of the Roman pontiff, and the 4th Lateran,

1215) as if they possessed any real authority in the Anglican Church, whereas they are largely superseded by Reformation formularies, or the Canons of 1604, and remain in any case subject to the Word of God written. It is absurd to think that ACC laity, for instance, would or do conform to any canon requiring yearly auricular confession to a priest, or to declarations demanding accession to all the “Marian doctrines.” The same may be true with respect to demands to worship the (consecrated eucharistic) Bread as if it were God and to hound out of the ACC those who reject that practice. 320

Much talk about Councils and Canons (usually actually meaning Western medieval ones, whether from later “ecumenical” councils recognized only by Rome, or from local or provincial synods) in the ACC is not just sentimentalist or antiquarian or arcane and fetishistic, but manipulative and domineering. It is worse than mere theological oneupmanship; it verges on the tyrannical and dictatorial, especially since copies of the texts of those supposedly authoritative Councils and canons are simply not available to the normal run of clergy and parish councils or diocesan or provincial synods. There is simply no one authoritative text to appeal to, nor are there any duly accredited and certified canon lawyers in the ACC, apart from self-appointed ones (often lawyers, but not university- or seminary-trained canon lawyers, though one wonders why we should even want such people).

Calling ourselves “bound both as to Custom and the General Canon Law, by the

Common Law of the Church,” as the ACC does in the Preamble to its Constitution and

Canons, is to little avail (except to punish dissenters when needed), since there is no specification as to what body of texts is considered authoritative, and no general distribution of those texts to relevant bodies or persons in the ACC. It is easy enough to 321

say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when there is no promulgation of the law there can be no crime.

Does the notion of Common Law of the Church refer to (Western Catholic) Canon Law before the Reformation? If so, why do we have married priests and bishops and reject the authority of Rome? Or does the notion refer to the collection of Canon Law (and doctrine, for the two reflect one another) after Trent? Or Vatican I? Or Vatican II? Or any other successive editions of Roman Canon Law? Why do we not simply adopt the present edition, and also the Catechism of the

Catholic Church (1992) (5.), as our sufficient statements of both law and doctrine? What about the 1604 Canons of the Church of England, which by no means correspond one-to- one with Western Catholic Canon Law? Have they no status at all, even if they were never functional in the American church? On the other hand, why are not synods and councils and Confessions of the Eastern Church given an equivalent status with Western ones or preferred over them? Perhaps we could simply declare those councils and canons which we don’t like “inoperative” or fallen into desuetude.

It is absurd to think that the ACC has to be governed by canons which assume or assert 322

that we are the medieval Catholic Church, or an autocephalous or autonomous province thereof. (Provisions for the election of bishops are so absurdly complex and arcane that appointment of bishops by the Pope or the Crown or even by casting lots would seem preferable!) How long will we continue to play this game of adopting the canon law and doctrines (and clerical gear) of a Church which does not recognize us, while ignoring our own Reformation corpus of documents and practices?

We also trample on the rights of American citizens to have full access to knowledge about both the records and the positions of candidates for whom we might vote. The provisions in ACC canons attempting to make episcopal elections “non-political” are absurd: electioneering goes on in one covert way or another. Labeling as “simoniacal” approaching men to have them consider being nominated or campaigning for them makes sense only in a medieval or state-church or Vatican/papal Conclave context. Usually all that such restrictions accomplish is assuring the election of rectors of large churches or of others endorsed by the clerical power-structure or the diocesan “good-old-boy” or

“regular-fellow” network. No wonder the rest of Christendom pays no attention to us and dismisses our petty mummeries and mystifications.

323

As to the doctrines and canons of the first seven Councils, we again have no binding text prescribed for us. These canons are most conveniently gathered in the Pedalion or

Rudder of the , (6.) but these texts do not agree in all details with Western texts, especially those concerning the Quinisext or Trullan Synod and

Nicaea II. There is thus a serious problem about both doctrinal and canonical authority in the ACC which has been brought about precisely by a chimerical and quixotic pursuit of ancient and catholic canonical purity in spite of the fact that loyalty to medieval Western canon law has largely been superseded by Church of England Reformation standards. An entire edifice has been built on –and out of-- sand.

Most importantly, the ACC claim to our being under the seven (Eastern) Ecumenical

Councils and (simultaneously) the (Western) Canon Law points to an inherent ambiguity and dissonance, not to say contradiction, in our appeal to the authority of the primitive and catholic Church. It is not surprising that no outside body or jurisdiction takes seriously our claims to catholicity and apostolicity on these bases. Our only solid claim to legitimacy is through our subjection to the Scriptures and our preserving our

Anglican/Reformation doctrinal heritage and our episcopal succession. Neither Rome nor Constantinople lends much credence to those either. Perhaps we should just stick to 324

our own heritage without trying to camouflage ourselves to look like one or the other while reaching out in humility to other Churches for a common witness to Christ.

Increased dialog and study in common with other Christians rather than intensified isolation and nostalgia about lost medieval or even Reformation or 19th-century Oxford

Movement glories would also help.

Meanwhile, let us resolve not to exchange the Gospel and the “freedom of a Christian man” (Luther) (7.) for the yoke of (medieval Western canon) Law and, it might be added, canon lawyers. The

Church of Christ is founded on his Gospel, not on canon law. Let us “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and ...not [be] entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1). 325

XII. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

It is tragic that traditional Episcopalians and continuing Anglicans, first of all, were driven out from their Churches, and, secondly, that they were unable to come together in any sort of united front against the forces which caused them to be expelled or to leave of their own accord. The result was a number of small, not to say minuscule, groups which were divided (and kept dividing!) because of party spirit, politics, episcopal ego or ambition, and sheer sore-headedness. As a further result, the different groups could survive only by appealing to various niche markets. The ACC mainly chose the Anglo-Catholic niche.

Appeal to an extremely selective literature and view of Church history and theology as transmitted by an insular, spottily-staffed, non-degree-granting, and unaccredited seminary further cemented this isolation, which admittedly built upon a previous

American Anglo-Catholic determination to distance and differentiate itself as much as possible from American Protestantism–and even from other brands of Anglicanism.

American Protestantism was particularly anathema for its non-episcopal, anti-sacerdotal, 326

non-sacramental, non-liturgical emphases, and liberal or modernist versus conservative battles, Calvinist versus Arminian battles, and revivalist versus social-activist character.

Older forms of Anglicanism, on the other hand, were seen as too Protestant, not sufficiently opposed to the “merely-a-memorial” and “Real Absence” views of the Lord’s

Supper largely obtaining in American Protestantism (though not in classical Continental or Confessional Protestantism, of which Anglo-Catholics remained ignorant, in a rather studied fashion, and insufficiently attuned to or even indifferent or hostile to the recently re-discovered or invented “Catholic” nature and history of Anglicanism).

An exaggerated (or “Corporal”) doctrine of the Real Presence and even the practice of

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament thus became symbolic social boundary markers for inclusion in true (i.e., Anglo-Catholic) Anglicanism. And terms pejoratively used such as

“Protestant,” “Reformation,” “Zwinglian,” “Calvinist,” “Puritans,” “Low-Church,” or

“Receptionist” were used to label social deviants and further secure group boundaries and identity. (The denigrating terms are seldom used in any academically accurate or theologically informed sense.) Attempts to establish small Anglo-Catholic Zions in monochrome dioceses or urban enclaves in PECUSA were zealously pursued in various places, and once things began to break up after the 1976 General Convention, it became 327

altogether more likely that one or more splinters of the Continuing Church would follow similar paths to establish exclusively Anglo-Catholic or liberated zones where one could pursue unmolested the kinds of practices and doctrines which had long been dreamed of as really “Catholic.”

Many obviously thought the ACC was such a place, and any perceived assaults on the sanctuary are seen as heretical and blasphemous and thus fiercely resisted, and dissenters are persecuted or ostracized, or they are labeled “rabid sectarians” for refusing to accept such atavistic and antiquarian oddities as “Catholics’” reintroducing such bizarre and non-Anglican practices as the veneration of relics. Much of this is recognizable as an out- group identity-survival strategy, but the anti-heretical and inquisitorial zeal of some

“Catholics” is obsessive and excessive by any accounting.

One must frankly and gratefully state, on the other hand, that it was principally Anglo-

Catholics of some degree or another who stood up against women’s ordination and the gutting and bowdlerizing of the Prayer Book in 1976-1977 when secession became necessary. Anglo-Catholics had a deeper and broader sense of allegiance and loyalty to the Apostolic and Catholic faith of the 328

Church of the first six centuries (and later) that kept them, unlike so many others, from supinely acquiescing to or trying to sleepwalk through the malignant changes that came over the Anglican Communion from the 70's onward. Not surprisingly, Anglo-Catholics thus form the core of the Continuing Church movement in general and the ACC in particular. And it is to their everlasting credit that they led this resistance, and equally not surprising when they react negatively against any perceived attacks. Reasserting traditional Anglicanism, however, should not be so perceived, especially inasmuch as it has its own Scriptural and doctrinal grounds for rejecting women’s ordination and the evisceration of the Prayer Book.

Though there were other than extreme Anglo-Catholic elements in the groups that found their way to the ACC, it ended up dominated by “Catholic” sympathizers, especially outside of the of the Mid-Atlantic States. The illusion that the only surviving true Anglicans were Anglican Catholics (or that, as Bishop Haverland says, “Anglo-

Catholicism is the only viable form of Anglicanism remaining after we renounced the various of the Church of England and PECUSA”) was easy to maintain in the hot-house atmosphere of the ACC and (the former) Holyrood. But it is not just an illusion, but a dangerous delusion that should be excised. Or at least room should be left 329

for the practice of older, more historically and theologically Anglican (i.e., acknowledging the Reformation and Restoration) kinds of Anglicanism.

This paper has contended that the proposed and now defeated canons are part of a trend to restrict the ACC to this very narrow brand of churchmanship and, further, that this kind of restriction would be not only theologically and historically unjustifiable, but disastrous as far as ACC growth and stability and expansion of ecumenical fellowship and, finally, witness to the Gospel are concerned.

First of all, one should acknowledge, however, that there have been genuinely beneficial contributions of the Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival, and the Anglo-Catholic movement generally to Anglicanism and, in fact, the broader ecumenical scheme of things. The entire agenda of the ecumenical “Faith and Order” Movement has been largely shaped by Anglo-Catholic attempts to restore the beliefs and practices of the apostolic and primitive Church of the Creeds and the Councils (although the ACC today, partly because of some very prejudicial statements in the Affirmation, is strongly anti- ecumenical [1.]). Practically all Anglicans today (with important hold-outs in the and in large parts of and in Conservative Evangelical circles 330

generally) have been positively influenced by the Catholic Revival of the 19th and early

20th centuries, frequently in ways of which they are only subliminally aware nowadays.

Indeed, most Continuing Anglicans are Anglo-Catholic to one degree or another, though occasional thoroughgoing Evangelicals or Broad churchmen are also found. But there are also degrees of Anglo-Catholicism within the ACC.

Compared to the earlier (and much drearier!)19th century standards of Anglicanism, not only have beauty and dignity and color and light (and vestments and incense!) been restored to worship by the Catholic Revival, but the integrity of the Book of Common

Prayer Liturgy and indeed the centrality of the Eucharist as the principal worship on every Sunday and Holy Day have largely been re-asserted in Anglicanism everywhere, just as, in fact, the Reformers had desired, and the Prayer Book had provided for. And the standard of eucharistic belief and practice has risen to such an extent that Anglican participants of all persuasions in ecumenical discussions and dialog everywhere openly talk positively of the Real Presence and of the eucharistic Sacrifice as well as of

Apostolic Succession in terms that were hardly possible in the past. Many doctrines and practices that would have seemed extreme in the 19th century pass without comment or even notice today. 331

Not all of the progress towards recovery of primitive Church norms is attributable directly to Anglo-Catholic influence, however, and recognizing this is important for the future of ACC relations to other Churches and to our growth in America. Anglo-

Catholicism, first in England and then in America, seems to have been part of a larger and more pervasive trend beginning in the 19th century towards the restoration of

“Primitive Apostolic Christianity” and enjoying the profundities of sacrament and liturgy and communion in worship of God. This tendency was quite manifold, and certainly not every sub-movement was agreeable to Anglo-Catholic tastes, or even obviously historically influenced by Anglo-Catholicism.

There were, for example, several currents of a “Restorationist” stream in American

Christianity, particularly in areas on the continually Westward- moving frontier. Barton

Stone, Alexander Campbell, and James O’Kelley headed groups that became the precursors of the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church(es), and the Churches of

Christ. Not at all “high church,” these (anti-paedobaptist) groups did, however, insist upon a (very minimalist) observance of the ordinance (not sacrament!) of the Lord’s

Supper in every Sunday service of theirs, and they in many other ways eschewed 332

identification with ordinary Establishment Protestant Christianity of every sort. (2.)

Similarly, the Mormons under Joseph Smith and others stood for the “restoration” of a

(very bizarre and eccentric and mostly imaginary) version of primitive Christianity, complete with apostles, bishops, prophets, tongues, healings, etc. And a brand new

Melchizedek Priesthood was “restored” or inaugurated (by divine revelation, of course) to make clear Mormons’ total lack of dependence on all other previous churches or ministries (considered simply apostate or fraudulent by the Mormons.) (3.) (The early

Mormons, incidentally, had great success with their missionary campaigns in England, and in Denmark, of all places.)

Even the Baptists had a “Landmarkist” movement in which their leaders endeavored to re-discover the footprints (“landmarks”) of previous Baptists from the apostolic age through medieval persecutions down to the present age, in a kind of non-episcopal

“apostolic succession” and “unbroken Tradition.” (4.)

Although there are obviously huge differences between these groups and Anglo-

Catholicism, nonetheless, one can descry certain similarities in pattern which set the 333

context for the rise of Anglo-Catholicism and to indicate that there was a certain

“market” to which it could appeal. And, judging from the enormous influence and size of the Mormons or the Southern Baptists today, their versions of “primitive Christianity,” without any Creeds or Councils, and with Scriptures interpreted extremely literally or supplemented by a new revelation, proved much more appealing (numerically, at any rate) than that of Anglo-Catholics.

Perhaps the Anglo-Catholics fared so poorly statistically in comparison with Mormons and Southern Baptists because “Catholics” were enthralled not by primitivism or populism but by a rather pretentious and quite romantic and/or academic and elitist medievalism, a much more esoteric and recondite area, and one far less accessible and assuring and authoritative (and plainly for most–certainly for the American masses-- less exciting and dynamic) than a literalistically interpreted Bible or a new revelation in the form of the and the Doctrines and Covenants. Also, one should note that the somewhat belated and much needed turn of a later generation of Anglo-Catholics to a more critical stance towards the Scriptures and the Fathers, as exemplified by Lux

Mundi and and still later Essays Catholic and Critical (5.), did little to commend itself to people like the fundamentalists and the Mormons (nor to older Anglo- 334

Catholics such as Liddon, for that matter). (6.)

There were other movements and leaders which, while not necessarily directly influenced by Anglo-Catholicism, stood for some of the same things, and in a far more orthodox and traditional fashion than those groups mentioned above. The “Mercersburg Theology,” roughly contemporary with the Oxford Movement but apparently not much influenced by it directly, was a movement in the (American) German Reformed Church that sharply opposed American revivalism and a-sacramentalism and stood instead for a strong re- emphasis on and renewal and restoration of Calvinistic liturgical forms and sacramental practice partly under the inspiration of deepened Patristic and Reformation studies, but probably mostly owing the influence of German Romanticism and Idealism. (7.)

One of the group’s leaders, Philipp Schaff went on to become perhaps the first great

American church historian, and J. W. Nevin became a famous advocate of a Calvinist form of the doctrine of Real Presence, especially as seen in his work The Mystical

Presence in 1846.(8.) Even older Reformed and Calvinistic eucharistic doctrine and liturgies are far richer than typical Anglican propaganda would have us believe; see, for example, Reading VI, Article XXI, The Sacraments, in the 1560 Scots Confession, in its 335

way a more satisfactory–and immensely warmer–sacramental and eucharistic doctrine than Cranmer’s). (8a.)

Modern liturgical and sacramental renewal in Churches of the Reformed tradition has produced some estimable works. Liturgical works as distant from each other chronologically as the 1940 Church of Scotland’s , the Church of

South India’s Book of Common Worship (1962), and the 1993 Presbyterian (U.S.A.) and

Cumberland Presbyterian Churches’ Book of Common Worship are simply outstanding.

And one should look at Lutheran and other modern liturgies as well and not just dismiss them out of court. Anglicans–here including Anglo-Catholics-- are still too enamored of their “incomparable liturgy.” (There is no suggestion here that we should reconsider the truly execrable 1976/1979 so-called Book of Common Prayer of ECUSA.) Of course, the WCC document called BEM (“Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry”) and the so-called

Lima Liturgy were very strong influences on ecumenical liturgical development in the

‘80's and ‘90's, and one should not underestimate Anglican and Episcopal contributions to these excellent documents (9.)

Other movements too, in Europe and America, can be found in the 19th and 20th centuries that wanted a revival of sacramentalism, of historical orthodoxy as tested by the Creeds 336

and Councils (to a greater or lesser extent), and of a learned ministry in visible continuity with that of earlier centuries than their own, and of a liturgical worship with intensity and dignity. The Confessional Lutheran movements of Wilhelm Loehe (of Neuendettelsau) on the one hand, and C. F. W. Walther and what came to be the Lutheran Church–

Missouri Synod, on the other, represented an effort to retrieve orthodox and sacramental

Lutheranism from the sterility and aridity of Enlightenment rationalism.

The later High Church movements in German and Swedish Lutheranism, associated with such figures as Brilioth and Nygren and Friedrich Heiler, and groups such as the

Berneuchener movement, the Evangelische Michaelisbruderschaft, and the

Hochkirchliche Vereinigung, plus several religious brotherhoods and sisterhoods, all gave testimony to a there for a renewed apostolic and sacramental orthodoxy.

Even the rather odd –and ultimately schismatic and heretical--movement of the Irvingites, or Catholic Apostolic Church, (and its successor “New Apostolic Church”) in England and Germany, testified to the same search for a renewed presence of early Christianity in the contemporary world.

337

Today in America one can see strong evidence of the same hunger in groups and theologians opposed to the ongoing corrosiveness of modern liberalism, and gender- and other identity-theologies, which are frequently nothing more than leftist political and ideological platforms masking themselves as new theologies. The influence of the later writings of Thomas C. Oden, and of the “Evangelical Catholicism” of such men as

Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten and those associated with the very high-powered theological journal Pro Ecclesia, all continue making headway against the main current of American Christianity, which is itself but a side eddy far from the mainstream of traditional and historical Christian orthodoxy. The “mainline” Presbyterian, United

Methodist, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, and even Episcopal churches, all dominated in their hierarchies and superstructure by liberals or radicals, each have their own organized resistance groups, which stress the need for return to doctrinal and ethical orthodoxy. All of these groups are in constant danger of expulsion or of being driven to defection to more orthodox bodies.

Thomas Oden, in a recent example of his prolific theological publishing career, has brought out The Rebirth of Orthodoxy : Signs of New Life in Christianity (c2003), (10.) which chronicles many of these movements and provides a handy list of websites of the 338

more important such organizations. The book is a useful tool for introducing those in the

ACC to options other than the rigid Anglo-Catholicism now being purveyed to us. Oden asserts that there is a “new ” which is free from the anti-traditional and liberalizing agenda from the old agenda of the WCC bureaucracy.

Nor are the above groups the only ones interested in a doctrine, discipline, and worship parallel to what we can already offer in the Book of Common Prayer. One should mention first of all the editorial team and the readership of Touchstone, a journal of

“ecumenical orthodoxy” dedicated foremost to C. S. Lewis’s “mere Christianity,” but which has taken strong stands against to the historic priesthood and which serves as a clearing-house for many with views quite amenable to ours, if we would only listen to them and get our noses out of Ritual Notes (12.), or Francis J. Hall’s

Theological Outlines (13.), works much favored by Anglo-Catholics of the more intransigent sort.

The influence of Thomas C. Oden’s work in the last decade or so, especially his three- volume systematic theology, The Living Word, The Word of Life, and Life in the Spirit

(13.), a work heavily promoting solid Patristic and Reformation teachings, is most 339

gratifying and praiseworthy, as is his general editorship of the Ancient Christian

Commentary on Scripture (14.), consisting mainly of a series of patristic catenae on the different books of Scripture. His work on John Wesley’s theology, John Wesley’s

Scriptural Christianity (15.), is also very important as an example of recovery and re-synthesis of classical .

One should remember that Wesley himself was not just an itinerant evangelist, but an

Anglican priest throughout his life, a very strong theologian with an extremely impressive eucharistic theology (best seen perhaps in his and his ’s Hymns on the

Lord’s Supper, 1st ed., 1745), [see Readings XI A] (16.) and the man who single- handedly showed Establishment Anglicanism how to be “optimists for grace” and turn thereafter from Calvinist to Arminian in basic theological sympathies, but his basic loyalty to consensus Anglican theology is seen in such things as his editing of certain of the Homilies into his Doctrine of Salvation, Faith, and Good Works (1738).(17.) (See

Article XI, which gives Cranmer’s Homily of Justification–here excerpted by Wesley–a certain continuing authority in the Church of England.) His Sunday Service of the

Methodists in North America (1784) provided a core liturgy and an Order for the

Administration of the Lord’s Supper, based on 1662 and deviating from it only in minor 340

ways, that was Anglican in most essential respects, except, of course, for his rejection of the necessity of ordination of elders at the hands of Church of England bishops. One too easily overlooks the fact that Wesley intended his superintendents and elders to be the functional equivalents of “primitive” or “Apostolic” bishops and , without any subservience to what he saw (and had experienced) as the inevitably corrupting and deadening and even persecutorial influences of the English Establishment.

His revision for American use of the Articles of Religion (appended to the Sunday

Service) (18.), which reduced their number from 39 to 26, most noticeably excised not only Articles on the power of the Crown but also Article XVII, Of Predestination and

Election, articles which few Anglicans today would insist upon. Wesley also had an apostolic zeal for the restoration and renewal of primitive Christianity that put other Anglicans to shame. (Indeed Wesley thought of himself as something of an Apostle, with an “ordination” or calling hardly less irregular than St. Paul’s.) We Anglicans need to pay at least as much attention to Wesley’s theology and works, and his “catholic spirit” (Wesley’s phrase) of loyalty to the core of apostolic Christianity coupled with ecumenical openness, as we have done to the Oxford

Movement. American has had many more streams of influence shaping it 341

than Wesley, not all of them helpful, unfortunately, but we can still find Methodists with interests similar to our own.

Any list of kindred spirits must include those neo-Pentecostalist or charismatic “post-

Anglican” Churches just now coming into our ken, like the Communion of Evangelical

Episcopal Churches (19.), and the Charismatic Episcopal Church (20.). Both Churches now quite justly preface their titles with International, because they have extensive missionary work and new alliances with indigenous Third World Churches that have increasingly turned away from what they see as apostate Western main-line Churches.

The Charismatic Episcopal Church is especially close to us in doctrine and practice, and has a ministry in valid apostolic succession which explicitly limits the priesthood to males, though they are significantly different from us in ethos and history. At one time, during the tenure of John T, Cahoon as Metropolitan of the ACC, it was anticipated that they could enter into a concordat of communion with the ACC in the foreseeable future.

Such hopes have been dashed since the regressive turn of the ACC after Cahoon’s premature death.

One should remember that neo-Pentecostals and Charismatics by definition are 342

primitivists for the early Church and a direct relationship with God, rather than medievalists who expect ecclesiastical formalism and ritualism to save them.

We must mention here also the strong core of traditional Anglicans and Episcopalians still remaining, often under the most severe circumstances, in the Anglican Communion.

The most promising of these groups is at present the Anglican Mission in America

(AMiA) (21.), which, while determinedly orthodox, cannot yet bring itself to break altogether with ECUSA, nor renounce its 1976/79 “Prayer Book,” nor definitively denounce women’s ordination to the presbyterate, nor positively endorse the 1928 Book of Common Prayer as standard and normative (along with 1662, which it does endorse as its doctrinal standard). We cannot enter here into why AMiA and other similar groups such as FIF-UK and FIF-NA (22.) stay nominally in the Anglican Communion or what it would take to help them leave, though we must note that many even of the otherwise orthodox and traditionalist remnant, have come to accept, often mainly because they have grown up with, liberal and modernist liturgies and women’s ordination (sic).

Most especially, they seem not to have perceived that women’s ordination and the bowdlerization of the Book of Common Prayer liturgy were not just indispensable first 343

steps in destroying the Anglican tradition of Scriptures, Councils, Creeds, Fathers, and historic episcopate and three-fold ministry; they are the cause and instrument of that ongoing destruction in the present-day Anglican Communion. The basic confusion of sex roles, and the determination to label them but cultural products and to deny even the possibility of divine ordinance, led inevitability to the present crisis over homosexuality in ECUSA and elsewhere in the Anglican communion. Even “flying bishops,” parallel provinces, impaired communion, and perhaps outright schism will not alone repair the damage. Only a return to the traditional liturgy and doctrines of the Book of Common

Prayer and to the exclusively male and heterosexual priesthood and episcopate will suffice. The ACC could effectively stand for that, did it not obscure the important issues with a demand to use such things as the , perform the Eucharist as if it were an pre-Vatican II Roman Mass, and press for the use of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

In the Church of England, traditionalist Anglo-Catholics are beset by defections (even a former ) and dwindling numbers and credibility (especially after

Vatican II and Rome’s vernacular liturgical reforms); there are no men of the caliber of

Pusey and Keble, or Gore and Ramsey or Ferrar anymore. (W. S. F. Pickering’s Anglo- 344

Catholicism : a study in religious ambiguity is an extremely enlightening look at the sad state of Anglo-Catholicism in England, caused especially by its inherent internal contradictions of identity and authority.) (23.)

The more “progressive” Anglo-Catholics adhere to the movement called “Affirming

Catholicism” and are strongly for women’s and apparently homosexuals’ ordination.

There is nothing for us here, though many of the Oxbridge elite and the London clergy adhere to it. (24.)

On the Evangelical side, however, there is great strength. The mere mention of such men as , J. I. Packer, Alister McGrath, N.T. Wright, , and Gerald Bray tells of the immense influence of , or, as many of them would put it, Anglican . These men witness strongly to the Church of the

Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Councils, though they do not necessarily share the doctrines of the apostolic ministry and of the sacraments that obtain in most parts of the

Continuing Church.

Some more radical Evangelicals, such as those associated with Reform England, and 345

Reform Ireland, or with the Australian archdiocese of , while otherwise strong on the Book of

Common Prayer and Articles, have in effect rejected its and ecclesiology for something like Cromwell’s Independency or Alexander Campbell’s teachings, and advocate, indeed demand, lay presidency at the Eucharist.

While one can hardly imagine any support from such people, nonetheless, we are more likely to find a sympathetic hearing from (other kinds of) Evangelicals than from Affirming Catholics!

And Evangelicals do increasingly represent the dominant party in the Church of England, though they are rare and somewhat beleaguered in ECUSA, except for those gathered about the Trinity School for Ministry.

Also in the U.S., the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) (25.), which left the Protestant

Episcopal Church in 1877 in favor of a strongly Reformed theological platform very much in opposition to the tenets of the Oxford Movement, represents a brand of Anglican

Evangelicalism that is trying to get back into the mainstream of centrist Anglicanism.

The ACC’s Anglo-Catholic inclinations unfortunately blind it to the possibilities even of 346

dialog with this long isolated body, obviously because we are too far away from centrist

Anglicanism ourselves, though on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Many of the “Confessing” groups mentioned by Oden above represent our natural allies and possible constituencies and “market,” if we would but be open to them. All would simply be lost to us if the “Catholics” take over the ACC. Transubstantiation and

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament would be even more off-message and off-putting to them than to the bulk of continuing Anglicans and traditional Episcopalians in the

ACC.

There is, however, considerable hunger and interest already on the part of many persons and groups at present outside of Anglicanism for a Church that is loyal to the confession of the Holy Trinity, Christ as one Person in two natures, the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Councils, teaches traditional values and practices traditional worship, and maintains an episcopate and priesthood and ministry of Word and Sacrament in continuity with the early Church. Of course, our own exclusivity and ethnic narrowness and considerable priggishness (not to mention liturgical pompousness, preciousness, punctiliousness, and prissiness) often keep others from willingly paying much attention to us, but it is also true 347

that many of those turned off by us are turned off precisely by our keeping to an authentic confession and not simply being trendy and with-it.

But we could stick to the message of our own Bible and Prayer Book and English

Reformation heritage in a more open-hearted and evangelistic fashion, and offer it to these other Christians already attuned to the Word and Sacraments and to the need for an apostolic ministry and an orthodox liturgy to enshrine and promote the Gospel to the world that needs it so desperately. We are at present, however, acting like nothing more than an exclusivist sect. And we would keep on doing so were the radical “Catholic” agenda to take over in our Church. And then we would simply shrivel and die.

What in addition to maintaining our own integrity that we really need to learn is that it is possible to form a united front and make common cause with many of the groups moving in the same direction that we are without compromising our position. A common witness on the important things may help draw people to us who would have never previously taken us seriously. That is at least worth trying, something we are not doing now.

We need to emphasize our possibilities held in common with similar groups, particularly 348

in view of the attempted “Catholic” coup in the ACC. With whom would radical Anglo-

Catholics make common cause? Are “Catholics” willing to talk to Lutherans,

Methodists, Presbyterians, neo- Pentecostals, etc. who are alienated from their main-line churches, but who are not interested in Anglo-Catholic bells and incense? If the

“Catholics” take over the ACC, with whom besides the Roman Catholic Church will they able to talk? (And it is futile to talk to the Roman Catholics about anything more than a surrender with honor.) Perhaps with small non-canonical Old Catholic groups, practically all of which are much smaller and even more desperate than the ACC (and with defective orders to boot)? The only exception is the (Polish) National Catholic

Church, which is not interested in us at all. All of the central core of Old Catholic churches (i.e., those with valid orders and in communion with Utrecht) have gone over to or are in the process of going over to women’s ordination. There is not much there for us, except to pick up a few stray defectors.

What about other Continuing Anglican groups? The strongly individualistic and fissiparous, not to say wildly eccentric, nature of the many minuscule bodies in the

“Continuum” makes generalization difficult. There are the two reasonably viable groups, the ACC and the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) (26.), which claim a 349

direct and unbroken existence from the Affirmation of Saint Louis. Both are mainly

Anglo-Catholic and could plausibly unite or merge in the near future on the basis of that document. Probably they would then expel their less-than-“Catholic” clergy or congregations or force them to conform.

Other more moderate groups such as the Anglican Church in America (ACA) (27.), which has a not inconsiderable international membership, might then be attracted by the gravity of the resulting larger mass. The Anglican Province of America (APA) (28.) might hold out longer, as it appears to be more centrist Anglican than the previously mentioned groups. (It also is in communion with the REC.) The United Episcopal Church in North America (29.), truly a tiny group, will probably become extinct before it corporately unites with anybody else.

(It has been at various times in communion with the ACC and the APA.) Other smaller groups, of which there are a score or so, will either be absorbed or wither away, after maintaining a quixotic existence for an indefinite, though distinctly finite, number of years.

There is little dynamism or outward reach in these groups, though there seems to be 350

constant furious chattering and bickering and altercations, and they seem unable to unite about a single straightforward message. Having to resolve a mare’s nest of issues of different styles of churchmanship, genuine theological differences, validity of various lines of episcopal succession, jurisdictional or diocesan boundaries, degree of allowable congregational , health insurance and pension plans (or more usually, the lack thereof), etc., etc., makes the whole project of Continuing Anglican union and unity seem very improbable.

.

The ACC could show the way by reclaiming its Reformation vision of the Word truly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered, and its Restoration vision of the

Church and Ministry rightly ordered. This is the way through the divisive and chimerical pursuit of a true and pure “primitive” (i.e., medieval and mostly imaginary)

“Catholicism” that never existed before the 19th century. Return to the classical Anglican eucharistic doctrine of spiritual reception and communion with the true Body and Blood of Christ, in connection with a liturgy that commemorates Christ’s once-for- all, all- sufficient Sacrifice and which allows us as church to join to it through the unity of the

Holy

Spirit our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and supplication can be the way out of the 351

impasse of overly realistic doctrines of Christ’s “objective” Presence and false doctrines of the priest’s offering a sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood in addition to that of the

Cross. This is the single straightforward message that can unite us and allow others to unite with us in the Gospel.

Outside of the spectrum of various orthodox Protestant and Anglican-derived groups, there are also various Traditionalist Catholic groups, anti-Vatican II and vociferously for the . These groups are simply hopeless for dialog or common causes.

Most in fact would reject our orders and our liturgy. But maybe our “Catholics” could cut a deal with them someday, if we act Tridentine enough and beg for them to supplement or nullify the defects of our episcopal succession with theirs. In fact, most of these groups have very questionable orders. But of course all this is too absurd even to think about.

There are also a few Orthodox options. But none of the canonical Orthodox really want to have anything to do with us, except point to their “Western-rite” parishes, many of which use a Roman- or Sarum-derived Canon of the Mass rather than anything from

Cranmer. In addition, some Greek Orthodox theologians deny even the possibility of 352

anything like a valid Western-rite liturgy or parish and certainly not a diocese! We should be clear that the Orthodox want not so much dialog with us as our conversion to them, and they don’t really even care for the dialog, particularly since they see through the pretensions of Anglo-Catholics so clearly. They are willing to talk with Anglicans globally and at the ecumenical level, since the Church of England at least is a genuine national Church, but they will not have anything to do with dissident Anglican groups with grandiose claims. This refusal dates back as far as the Orthodox rejection of

Nonjuror overtures in the early 18th century! We need expect nothing better in our own days.

Who is left? An exclusively “Catholic” coloration to the ACC would be absolutely disastrous for future growth or dialog or union. The fact of the matter is simply that the

“Catholic” wing (even if it is a majority) of the ACC represents a very narrowly sectarian point of view that is based on little more than a rather skewed and unimaginative reading of Vatican I Roman Catholicism, especially with regard to liturgical or eucharistic theology, or which has failed to keep pace with Rome since Vatican II with regard to other areas of doctrine, and particularly so with respect to the Catholic social ethics and sexual ethics of more recent Papal . Not that post-Vatican II Roman 353

Catholicism is all that desirable either, as traditional Anglican priests who go over to

Rome quickly discover when they are taught how to preside at guitar masses with the guidance of their liturgy committees (and possibly their female )!

The only real hope for the ACC is to try to get our own liturgical and doctrinal act together, get working on an agreed new American Book of Common Prayer (revised along conservative and traditional lines, it goes without saying) and on a Statement of

Faith worked out with other Continuing Anglican Churches (as much as possible), and then standing up with other traditional orthodox or post-Anglican groups willing to confess the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Councils, and the

Apostolic ministry, and face the modern world with that to proclaim and offer. A

Council of confessing orthodox groups, or at least a Consultation among like-minded groups acknowledging the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Councils, and looking for a renewal of the ministry of Word and Sacrament should be a first step building upon and furthering the “rebirth of orthodoxy” that Oden and many others have seen and are calling for.

And attention must be paid to the wealth of documentation from ongoing ecumenical 354

conversations. The Continuing Church needs to take a more positive orientation to the seriousness of most of the Reports and Agreed Statements collected in Growth in

Agreement (30.) and Growth in Agreement II (31.), and also to such semi-official documents as Evangelicals and Catholics Together (32.) and This We Believe (33), just to get an appreciation of the dynamism and determined confession of orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of these Evangelical groups, and of more mainline groups working in ecumenical conversations and dialog.

The very negative statements (arguably stemming more from political than from actual theological investigation) about the WCC and the NCCCUSA in the

Affirmation of St. Louis should not stop Continuing Anglicans from listening to and joining up with and participating in the sincere efforts of the other Christians and

Churches of the world to respond to Christ’s prayer to his Father that “they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21).

Frankly, none of these things are possible if we let an aggressive, and retrogressive,

Anglo-Catholic party in the ACC knock out our traditional Doctrine, Discipline, and 355

Worship, as found in our Bible and Book of Common Prayer, replace them with some still largely undisclosed agenda of making us over into a putative “Catholic” Church, and also cut us off from any possibility of encounter or even discussion with any other

Churches, except possibly with the one Church to which obedience to the Gospel of

Christ will not permit us to submit ourselves. God save our Church! 356

XIII. TEN CONCLUSIONS AND TEN SUGGESTIONS:

We conclude finally that:

First of all, “Catholics’” doctrine of the Real Presence (or as we have more pejoratively dubbed it, extreme or “naive” realism) is neither in the Book of Common Prayer nor the

Articles of Religion, nor in any other authoritative Anglican pronouncement, except to the extent that the Windsor Statement has palpably moved in a more “realist” direction. The official doctrine of the Church of England, however, remains that of the 39 Articles, the

Catechism, and the Communion Service itself.

Secondly, the Windsor Statement, however, gives short shrift to the standard Anglican

(and Reformed) doctrine (embodied in Article XXIX) that the “wicked do not partake of the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.” The Windsor Statement is admittedly a far more balanced position, theologically, historically, and ecumenically, than anything that ever comes out of Traditional Anglicanism, but it does downplay this important and historic Anglican assertion. The controversy still swirls about whether there is an “ontological” (usually defined in terms of “substance”) Presence of Christ in 357

the eucharistic elements or whether the Gift of the salvific and Self-communicating

Presence of Christ is only apprehended and received by faith and the celebrating eucharistic community (though not posited by or conjured up by subjective dispositions of the communicant). Classical Anglicanism asserts that the Gift comes only through

Christ’s Word of Promise and institution attached to the elements and action of the

Sacrament.

Thirdly, the Book of Common Prayer from 1549 on (as demonstrated in Cranmer’s 1550

Defence) and the Articles of Religion, the normative formularies of Anglicanism, were expressly written to exclude precisely those doctrines which obtained in the late Middle

Ages and which “Catholics” now again triumphantly (and quite triumphalistically) assert.

Fourthly, it is absurd historically and indefensible theologically for “Catholics” to assert that only “realist” interpretations of the eucharistic Presence in a “corporal” or “natural” sense are acceptable and to reject, disallow, or delegitimize interpretations of a “dynamic symbolist” sort, inasmuch as the latter are the standard, historic, and traditional Anglican position.

358

Fifthly, to do what “Catholics” want is simply to exalt to normative status the position of a party which came into existence in the train of the Oxford Movement, and to un-church every other form of Anglicanism, or Reformation-based Evangelical belief, including that of the earliest Reformers and Apologists of the C of E, as well as of the Caroline Divines and Restoration and Nonjuror thinkers, and of other faithful Anglican believers.

Sixthly, it is manifestly absurd to bring forth an apologetics for the Anglican Catholic

Church or Traditional Anglicanism which simply jettisons three or four centuries of

Anglican eucharistic faith and practice. It would then be impossible to maintain, except by way of a pious fraud, the validity of Anglican Orders and Apostolic Succession, on which “Catholics” depend as much as other Anglicans, if there were such a hiatus of legitimate eucharistic doctrine.

Seventhly, Newman, converts from Anglo-Catholicism to Roman Catholicism,

“Anglican-Use” Catholics and “Western-Rite” Orthodox have rightly seen through this scam.

Eighthly, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a late 19th or early 20th century exotic 359

importation into Anglicanism, in imitation of Counter-Reformation, very aggressively anti-Protestant practices. It is used by “Catholics” as a signature practice to show just how un-Protestant they are. It is manifestly unfair thus to delegitimize other Anglicans proud of their Reformation and Evangelical heritage.

Ninthly, if these other Anglicans, who in fact represent something closer to normative

Anglicanism, are expelled from the ACC or the Continuing Church at large, then all that is left is a pathetic rump recognized by neither Catholics nor Orthodox nor Anglicans nor

Protestants. This is not even in “Catholics’” best interests. The only option left is to become an uneasy satellite or auxiliary of the Roman Catholic Church or some smaller body with “Catholic” pretensions like those of the ACC.

Tenthly, Traditional Anglicans’ future lies first of all in resolutely proclaiming the

Gospel of free grace and justification through faith in Christ alone according to the doctrines of the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Councils, and the Fathers, and to the truths of the English Reformation and Restoration. Next, however, Continuing Anglicanism needs

(1.) To get its own Pan-Anglican act together as a Confessional body, form a Continuing

Church Consultation Group to help all Continuing Anglicans talk to each other, provide a 360

united front as an alternative to those portions of official Anglicanism now in free fall, serve as a point of contact for further ecumenical discussions, act as an ecclesiastical endorsing agency for military and hospital and the like, etc. (2.) Continuing

Anglicans need to show an openness to Confessional Protestantism and a willingness to make common cause with Evangelical resistance to the corrosive acids of the older ecumenism and theological liberalism and secular humanism in the mainline churches and in American society at large. This cannot be done if we relish only the guise of a

“Catholic” sect or even a “Branch” co-equal with Roman

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, a ploy which fools nobody.

And ten final suggestions or recommendations:

1. The ACC should re-affirm that in doctrinal matters the Word of God written is authoritative and normative (norma normans), and declare that the Reformation and

Restoration Book of Common Prayer tradition (principally the 1549 BCP in a place of historical honor, the 1662 English BCP, the English Proposed Book of Common Prayer of 1928, --which contains the 1662 Book virtually in its entirety--, and certainly the 1928

American BCP with its Nonjuror-influenced Prayer of Consecration) is derivatively doctrinally and liturgically normative (norma normata). The ACC is a Continuing 361

Anglican Church and is dedicated to preserving a Biblically faithful Book of Common

Prayer. Our present official and semi-official brochures and public offerings should also be accordingly revised or dropped where not in conformity with the above.

2. The “Missals” and other “devotional manuals” should be permissible and tolerable only on a local option basis, but they are not to be used to determine ACC doctrine or liturgical practice where they differ from the Book of Common Prayer. They are as the

Apocrypha is to the Scriptures. They are merely liturgical supplements and enrichments and allowable variations. They are not to be understood as official doctrinal additions or expansions. They are an unfortunate liturgical dead-end and a failed development and a historical curiosity appealing to nobody but the usual suspects of extreme Anglo-

Catholics and the users of the Orthodox Missal (1995) of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. (Of course, this latter is also a very curious document, and the Vicariate itself does not even have its own bishop, and doubtless never will, as one can hardly imagine that the American Antiochian

Christian Orthodox, who have not yet even achieved autonomy of their own from the Old

World, would ever trust their tame Franks with a bishop of their own!)

362

3. The Ordo Kalendar is to be published with the imprimatur of the Metropolitan, and its basis is to be the 1928 BCP Calendar and that of the 1963 Lesser Feasts and Fasts already approved by the Bishops for use in the ACC, rather than the calendars in the

Missals, which are too dependent on English recusant calendar models. Certain N.T. worthies and events (St. Mary the Virgin herself, St. Joseph, St. , St.

James of Jerusalem, Ss. Timothy and Titus, the Visitation, , Mary and of Bethany, Joseph of Arithmathaea, and Philip, Deacon and Evangelist), all inexplicably ignored by Cranmer and Church of England liturgical observance thereafter, could now be duly celebrated with Collect, Epistle, and Gospel. (The in Lesser

Feasts and Fasts, incidentally, are not those of the Missals and do not invoke the merits of the respective saints as intercessors or patrons. They are thus compatible with theology of Prayer Book and the Articles, as many of those in the Missals are not.)

Also, many saints of the early Church, East and West, also in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, could be observed in weekday or commemorated on Sundays. Both medieval saints (with a concentration on Celtic and English saints) and Reformation worthies

(specifically including Wyclif and Huss, Tyndale, Frith, and Cranmer, Latimer, and

Ridley) and later Anglican figures should be commemorated. Recognition of people such 363

as John Fisher and Thomas More should be kept only as a matter of reparation. The excessive number of Counter-Reformation saints and festivals is to be discarded or drastically pared. Perhaps “English Saints and Martyrs of the Reformation Era” could be commemorated together as in Common Worship.

There should also be liturgical recognition of the broader Christian and the ecumenical scene. It is absurd not to recognize (or, for that matter, Bucer–who even died in the Church of England! --or Melanchthon or Bullinger or Calvin, all of whom clearly influenced the Church of England) or while celebrating

Ignatius of Loyola or or Therese of Lisieux. While the last three saints might meaningfully be recognized in an ecumenically-minded Anglican calendar, surely

John Henry Newman ought also to be, especially if Pusey and Keble have commemorations. Post-1054 Eastern saints also need recognition.

Feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary should be kept down to observances of Biblical events, though there should be at least one feast devoted to the BVM herself that is not also primarily a feast of our Lord. (August 15 and September 8 and December 8 come to mind, though the Roman and Orthodox titles of these days are unacceptable.) The new 364

calendar of the Church of England Common Worship would be a helpful and suggestive guide for revision of the calendar, or that in A Manual of Anglo-Catholic Devotion (2001) if a still fuller calendar is desired.

Care should be taken, however, that the number of saints’ commemorations and Red

Letter Days do not supplant or overwhelm the course readings of daily for

Morning and Evening Prayer. The ACC and other Continuing Churches should prayerfully consider using something like a two-year for the Offices and the three-year Common Lectionary, so that there may be an enriched variety of readings from the Holy Scriptures. Conservative modern translations such the

Revised Standard Version, the New , the English Standard Version, and the Third Millennium Bible should be authorized for reading at the Eucharist and in the Offices. It is probably time to give up the notion that everything necessary for the

Eucharist, the Offices and , and the Pastoral offices can all be confined within two covers in one book. It would also be a good thing if more Anglican parishes developed the custom of having in the so that congregants could follow the lessons.

4. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament may be allowed strictly on a local option basis 365

if the local congregation and priest request it, and the bishop licenses it. (See the Amer.

BCP, pg. vii.) More extensive reading of the Scriptures and preaching are to be required in the context of, say, . Communion from the reserved Sacrament in both kinds ought always to be available upon confession and absolution.

5. Interested parties are requested to draw up a definitive list of all Book of Common

Prayer doctrines, services, practices, phrases, or words which they find unacceptable in their obvious and plain meaning and want proscribed or changed. Interested parties are also requested to draw up a definitive and finite list of Catholic practices and doctrines in the “” (however defined) (not a term normally used in Anglican theology but dredged up in imitation of Tridentine doctrine by the committee that recommended these defeated proposed canons) and not in the Book of Common Prayer which they want preserved, established, and adopted by the ACC as a whole.

A similar process ought to be undertaken with respect to precisely which medieval councils and canons are recognized (by “Catholics,” at least) as authoritative and binding.

Appropriate texts ought to be pointed out, made available, or even gathered up if necessary, for perusal by provincial, diocesan, and parish officials and councils. Such a 366

process would stop, or at least discourage, ecclesiastical gamesmanship in the matter of canon law and the ACC’s relation to it.

All of the above, of course, are intended as heuristic exercises and as devices for exposing just how much of Anglicanism “Catholics” reject and what is their hidden agenda and program for the future of the ACC. The results should be most edifying, especially when our laymen and discover just what is actually intended by our

“Catholic” friends.

6. A “grandfather clause” must be in effect protecting all Reformation and Anglican views held in the Book of Common Prayer and its Articles of Religion; no members holding such views etc. may be liable to penalty or disability in the ACC in perpetuity, for so doing. In particular, of course, those holding the Book of Common Prayer’s doctrine of the spiritual presence of Christ as the Messianic Host and Food at his Banquet and Supper and in real Communion with him for those who receive him in faith and penitence (rather than a purported “Real Presence” interpreted in a quasi-material fashion or as transubstantiation or consubstantiation) must be protected. The basic

Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist, as expounded in this paper, is a foundation to be built 367

upon, not something to be torn down or jettisoned. There must be no exclusion of communicants for believing about the Eucharist what the Anglican Reformers did and which the plain sense of the Prayer Book, its Catechism, and the Articles of Religion teach.

7. A committee should be set up to put forth an ACC- or Province-wide Book of

Common Prayer, using traditional English and revised along conservative lines, to be approved and then used by all ACC churches as their liturgical and doctrinal standard.

Other Continuing Anglican Churches may be invited into this project with the hope of bringing forth a pan-Continuing Anglican Book of Common Prayer to further unity and to serve as a common ground in ecumenical contacts and dialogue. Non-Anglican traditional orthodox or Confessing Protestants and “post-Anglican” Churches like the

Charismatic Episcopal Church could be invited as observers with voice but not vote. We should then get this printed up and distributed to our parishes as quickly as possible. We should not ban the use of the 1928 and 1962 Books of Common Prayer where desired by the congregation, even after the new Book of Common Prayer is approved.

8. As an interim matter, the use of a genuinely consecratory Invocation, such as that 368

from Laud’s Liturgy of 1637 (itself derived from 1549), or of the Invocation in Seabury’s

(Scottish derived) Communion Service, or that of the 1928 English Proposed Book of

Common Prayer or Scottish 1928 Book of Common Prayer, may be used instead of that in the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer. And the Catechism question and answer concerning what is signified by the Bread and Wine in the Lord’s Supper should be as in the English 1662/1928 versions. The prayer, “Hear us, O merciful Father, and grant that we, receiving these thy [gifts and] creatures of Bread and Wine, according to thy Son our

Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood,” should be detached from the Invocation and restored to its original place (1552) immediately before the Words of Institution, for its wording expresses essential Anglican eucharistic doctrine and should therefore be retained.

9. The Articles of Religion in their 1571 version are to be retained in the new Book of

Common Prayer as an “historic formulary” for reference to the authentic 16th century

Anglican expression of the Catholic faith. One should insist upon the continuing value of the Articles for Christian faith without demanding subscription to them. The Articles and other examples of classical Anglican doctrine should be taught in a positive fashion in 369

Holyrood or its successor and to those reading for Orders.

10. A new Statement of Faith, comprehensive in scope and irenic in tone (unlike this polemic), should first be drawn up and used as the basis for the Catechism in the new

ACC Book of Common Prayer. This Statement shall be included in the new Book of

Common Prayer and serve as the authoritative basis, subject to the Scriptures, for ecumenical contacts and discussions. A new Book of Homilies and Church Year Sermons could also be compiled for use by lay readers and catechists, but also as a less formal reference for the belief of the ACC. The corpus of Archbishop Cahoon’s sermons could be the core of such a work, but a work featuring sermons for days of the Christian year or on various appropriate doctrines could be collected from other bishops and priests of the

ACC.

Account should also be taken of ongoing ecumenical ventures in doctrinal and liturgical clarification and convergence. In particular, ARCIC Reports, BEM, the Lima Liturgy, the

Leuenberg Agreement and the Porvoo Agreement should be investigated by a pan-

Continuing Anglican doctrinal and liturgical commission charged with drawing up such a new Statement of Faith and where possible received by the ACC and other Continuing 370

Churches. We need to do a great deal of catching up and learning not to judge other Churches simply by our own narrow and frequently out-dated and ill-informed preconceptions.

*********************

There is much serious work to be done. Let us move on from the detour, or the impasse, of these defeated canons and of the continuing attempts of some to “Catholicize” the

ACC. by bringing in strange teachings and by canonizing an overly-realistic and basically non-Anglican doctrine of the eucharistic Presence. The Bible and the Prayer Book are sufficient for our faith.

EPILOGUE

371

Our survey is concluded. We believe that we have sufficiently demonstrated that an overly “realistic” doctrine of the Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, such as that typically held by self-confessed “Catholics” in the Continuing Church, one that does not pay due regard to “dynamic symbolist” view of the Eucharist, especially that evidenced in the 16th and 17th century Reformers and restorers of the Church of

England (and which even denies its lawfulness), is implicated in most, if not all, of the problematic areas of life in the ACC and in certain other Anglo-Catholic leaning

Continuing churches.

To give the most blatant example, Anglo-Catholics in the ACC practice Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, in a form identical with the pre-Vatican II Roman rite, in their flagship parishes and in large gatherings of like-minded clergy and laity, Synods, conferences, retreats, etc. The fact that the practice is at best baffling, and at worst loathsome to any one other than committed Anglo-Catholics, and is off-putting or deeply alienating to classical Anglicans and Protestants, is doubtless part of the rationale for this signature practice. BBS, which celebrates an extremely “realistic” notion of the Presence of the eucharistic Body of Christ as an entity to be worshipped in the monstrance, could hardly be more offensive to non-Catholics. And so BBC enhances group cohesiveness 372

among “Catholics,” affirms their identity, and reinforces group boundaries.

The problem is, of course, that Anglo-Catholics represent a shrinking and tottering constituency worldwide, and the ACC itself is truly minuscule. Anglicanism in general is in serious crisis, but its areas of growth and liveliness do not appear, to put it mildly, to be those where Anglo-Catholics prosper. Re-emphasizing and underlining those areas of doctrine and practice where Anglo-Catholicism disagrees with Protestantism and even classical Anglicanism does not appear to be a sound strategy for and growth.

Worse still, Anglo-Catholicism puts itself in the strange position of having to discard or at least downplay at least four or five centuries of its history and doctrinal development while nonetheless claiming to be continuous with the previous years of church history back to the Apostles. The result is denigration or rejection or even willful ignorance of the stated doctrines and formularies of the C of E at the Reformation and onwards. The ideal then becomes frequently only a romanticized view of the medieval Church and nostalgia for the restoration of real “Catholicism” after the fashion of the Tractarians.

The restoration of a doctrine of the real Presence becomes a key idea in this agenda. The unmistakable rejection by the C of E of transubstantiation then becomes an obstacle, until 373

the introduction of some sort of functional equivalent of transubstantiation, aided and abetted by the fostering of “naïve realism” in its various forms and guises.

Once the mindset of hankering after real “Catholicism” or “our Apostolic descent” takes hold, Anglo-Catholicism has a genuine entry to the board of play, but in point of fact it has not been as successful as certain other 19th and 20th restorationist or primitivist movements (Mormons, Baptists, Methodists, Charismatics, etc.) have been. Most unfortunately, Anglo-Catholicism and the ACC specifically have failed to find common ground with those people of good will, including also classical and Evangelical

Anglicans, as well as orthodox Protestants, who likewise wish to stem the tide of our post-modern cultural relativism, and attendant culture of death, and would relish the faith of the ancient catholic and apostolic Church of the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Fathers, and the Councils. These people are not even being approached anymore by Anglo-

Catholics or the ACC, and they are in fact put off by the cult-like aspects of our elitism and exclusivism, epitomized in Anglo-Catholic doctrines of the Real Presence, shared by no one but Roman Catholics and denying historical Anglicanism and un-churching any kind of Evangelicalism. Most intolerable is the fact that although Anglo-Catholics have never on a national or Anglican Communion-wide basis been able to put their distinctive 374

doctrines into legal and canonical effect, to the exclusion of classical Anglican views, not even in the ACC (witness the failure of the proposed canons), they often assume such to be so, or keep trying to slip in their newfangled and exotic doctrines and practices.

So there are practical and prudential and historical reasons for criticizing Anglo-Catholic doctrines of the Real Presence. But there are theological and exegetical reasons also for so doing, and the greater part of this paper has been devoted to bolstering and re- affirming the classical Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist in a necessarily polemical fashion, considering the hostility of Anglo-Catholics in the ACC to genuine dialog. The first thing to do is to get the ACC to admit that its doctrine of the eucharistic Real

Presence is not that of the Book of Common Prayer, and we think that we have sufficiently proved that.

Philip E. Barber, III (the Rev.)

Rector, The Church of the Ascension

Centreville,

Conversion of St. Paul, 2006

375

376

377

378

ENDNOTES

References to the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer (including the Ordinal and the Articles of Religion) are given internally. References to the Readings are given in that appended document, with its own bibliographical data. All bibliographical references are given in an adapted and abbreviated form of Library of Congress (LC) descriptive cataloging, which conforms essentially to Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules Two (AACR2).

PREFACE

1. The original paper can be found at http://thechurchoftheascension.org/dissuasive.html.

2. The eucharistic liturgies of most BCPs down through the 1960's are conveniently available in: The liturgy in English / edited by Bernard Wigan. London: , c1962, 1964. The ACC normally does not even consider Anglican liturgies more recent than the 1960's.

The “Book of Common Prayer” website at http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/ contains many BCPs on-line, and also certain services not included in a BCP; e.g. Bishop Seabury’s Communion Service: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Seabury.htm.

The following are links to the Lord’s Supper service (in authorized text editions) of each BCP with which we will be dealing.

1549 English BCP:http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Communion_1549.htm 1552 BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1552/Communion_1552.htm 1559 BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/Communion_1559.htm 1662 BCP: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html 1928 C of E Proposed BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/CofE1928/CofE1928_Communion.htm 1928 American BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/HC.htm 379

There is a convenient Everyman’s Library ed. of The first and second Prayer Books of Edward VI. London : J.M. Dent, 1910. Full texts of 1549 and 1552 are included.

THE ARGUMENT 1. 1928 C of E Proposed BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/CofE1928/CofE1928_Communion.htm

INTRODUCTION: WHAT DO THE PROPOSED CANONS SAY?

1, The Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church may be found in successive Journals of the Provincial and Diocesan Synods of the ACC.(e.g., “Journal of the Twenty-fourth Synod, Anglican Catholic Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States, held at Piney Point, Md., June 15-16, 2001.” [S.n., s.l.]

I. TEN THESES CONCERNING THE TWO PROPOSED CANONS AND BENEDICTION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

1. Baptism and Eucharist : Ecumenical convergence in celebration / Edited by Max Thurian and . (Faith and Order Paper No. 117.) Geneva : WCC Publications, c1983. Pp.241-251. This work contains a wealth of texts of ancient, historical, and contemporary Baptismal and Eucharistic liturgies.

2. Welker, Michael. What happens in Holy Communion? Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmanns ; London: SPCK. c2000.

3. Thurian, Max.. L’Eucharistie, : memorial du Seigneur, sacrifice d’action de grace et d’. Neuchatel, 1959.

Thurian’s work almost single-handedly brought to the forefront of ecumenical discussion. the zeker/Anamnesis, in all of its Biblical and liturgical richness, as the corporate Memorial by the Church of the Son to the Father to which is joined our sacrifice of praise and of supplication. 380

4. Wainwright, Geoffrey, 1939- Doxology : the praise of God in worship, doctrine, and life : a systematic theology / by Geoffrey Wainwright. : Oxford University Press, 1980. An outstanding work by a British Methodist ecumenist; as focused on liturgy and sacraments as on systematic theology as a whole.

5. Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Gott ist uns nah. English God is near us : the Eucharist, the heart of life / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; edited by Stephan Otto Horn and Vinzenz Pfnür ; translated by Henry Taylor. : Ignatius Press, c2003 Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Fest des Glaubens. English. The feast of faith : approaches to a theology of the liturgy / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; translated by Graham Harrison. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, c1986. Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Einführung in den Geist der Liturgie. English. The spirit of the liturgy / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; translated by John Saward.. San Francisco, CA : Ignatius Press, c2000.

Works assured now of wider readership.

6. Nichols, Aidan. The holy Eucharist : from the New Testament to Pope John Paul II. Dublin, Ire. : Veritas, c1991. (Oscott 6) A brief but highly skilled history and theology of the Eucharist. This work has a valuable Appendix: “The Eucharist in Anglicanism,” p. 125-132..He concludes with the final quotation:

“If challenged further as to what ‘receiving Christ’s body and blood’ means, then, [R.P.C. Hanson] assures us: ‘...the great majority of Anglican theologians and of Anglican communicants would say that it means being made sharers in Christ’s life.’ The difficulty of the text, for the Catholic reader who does not wish to be thought ungrateful for the steps taken thus officially by Anglicans (with varying degrees of enthusiasm), towards the Catholic position, lies in its reluctance to enter upon either the salvific ontology of the real presence or the question of the practical implications of that presence for such matters as the cultus of the Reserved Sacrament.”

381

Nichols touches on many themes to be explored in this paper. Note however that he seems to think that “being made sharers in Christ’s life” is a concept of Communion recently entered into Anglican thought, and that by contact with Catholics ecumenically. This is not true, as our Readings and argument will show.

He says further on the same page: “...it was this approach by way of ressourcement [i.e., going back to the N.T. sources and the earliest patristic and liturgical texts, and leaping over the 16th and 17th century controversies] which enabled some important advances to be made, but at the same time, that approach disqualified the [Anglican-Roman Catholic International] Commission from doing justice to the post-patristic developments. It may be said that, in this respect, the teaching of ARCIC I [see Reading XIII A] is actually a representation in modern ecumenical idiom of the position of the seventeenth-century high churchmen who looked precisely to the Bible and the Fathers over against the Middle Ages and Catholic Reformation, and the contemporary practice of Rome.”

It goes without saying that this is not thought of as a problem by those who reject the magisterium of Rome or the normative nature of Medieval Councils’ pronouncements..

See also his: The panther and the hind : a theological history of Anglicanism / Aidan Nichols, with a foreword by Bishop . Edinburgh : T&T Clark, c1993. This work is an outstanding example of unfailingly civil polemical and controversial theology. Nichols has many almost uncanny insights into the varieties and difficulties of Anglican thought and practice, . Nichols, Aidan. Looking at the liturgy : a critical view of its contemporary form / Aidan Nichols. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, c1996.

7. Alexander Schmemann: of his many works, see first: Schmemann, Alexander, |d 1921- For the life of the world : sacraments and Orthodoxy / Alexander Schmemann. 2nd rev. and expanded ed. [Crestwood, N.Y.] : St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1961 (1982 printing) Then: Schmemann, Alexander, 1921- Evkharistiia--tainstvo tsarstva. English. The 382

Eucharist--sacrament of the Kingdom / Alexander Schmemann ; translated by Paul Kachur. Crestwood, N.Y. : St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, |c 1988, c1987. Also: Schmemann, Alexander, 1921- Introduction to liturgical theology / translated from the Russian by Asheleigh E. Moorhouse. London, Faith P.; Portland (Maine), American Orthodox Press., 1966. (Library of Orthodox theology no. 4) Schmemann, Alexander, 1921- Liturgy and tradition : theological reflections of Alexander Schmemann / edited by Thomas Fisch. Crestwood, N.Y. : St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1990

8. Edward Kilmartin: Kilmartin, Edward J. : theology and practice / Edward J. Kilmartin. Kansas City, Mo. : Sheed & Ward, c1988- (v. 1. Systematic theology of liturgy). Kilmartin, Edward J. The Eucharist in the West : history and theology / Edward J. Kilmartin ; edited by Robert J. Daly. Collegeville, Minn. : Liturgical Press, c1998.. (“A Pueblo Book”)

9. David Power: Power, David Noel. The eucharistic mystery : revitalizing the tradition / David N. Power. New York : Crossroad, | 1992. A promise of presence / [Michael Downey, Richard Fragomeni, editors]. Washington, D.C. : Pastoral Press, c1992. "Studies in honor of David N. Power, O.M.I." – Cover. Includes "A bibliography of David Power's work": p. 313-321.

10. McAdoo, Henry R. (Henry Robert), 1916- and Stevenson, Kenneth (Kenneth W.). The mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican tradition. Norwich, Eng. : Canterbury Press, c1995. McAdoo’s essay, “The Mystery of Presence,” p. 3-109, is most relevant here.

11. The Canons of the Church of England : canons ecclesiastical promulgated by the Convocation of Canterbury and York in 1964 and 1969. London: SPCK, 1969. Canons A2 and A3.

383

II. WHAT BENEDICTION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT (BBS) IS NOT :

1. See here esp. McGrath, Alister. A passion for truth : the intellectual coherence of Evangelicalism. Downers Grove, Ill. : IVP, c1996 Pp. 140-141. Over against George Lindbeck, McGrath defends the cognitive meaningfulness of the non-literal tropes of speech: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony.

2. Cf. Wybrew, Hugh. The Orthodox Liturgy : the development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the . Crestwood, N.Y. : St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press ; London : SPCK , c1989, 2000. See Index on the Great Entrance, esp. p. 155-158. The Great Entrance precedes the epiklesis, at which point it came to be believed that the consecration occurs. 3. The writings are widely available. Many are online in the Project Canterbury: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc. A convenient edition is :The Oxford Movement / Edited by Eugene R. Fairweather. New York, N.Y. : Oxford University Press, c1964. (A Library of Protestant Thought.) P. 183-367, Robert Isaac Wilberforce. The Doctrine of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its Relation to Mankind and to the Church (Selection). P. 368-376, . the Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist (Selection). P. 377-383. John Keble. On Eucharistical adoration (Selection).

III. THEOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS TO BBS :

1. Macquarrie, John. Paths in spirituality – 2nd ed.. Harrisburg, Pa. : Morehouse, c1972, 1992. P. 106-115, “Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.”

2. Mascall, E. L. Corpus Christi : essays on the church and the Eucharist. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1953. P.168-177, ‘Adoration’ and ‘Benediction’.

3. Early Christian Fathers / edited by Cyril C. Richardson. (The Library of Christian Classics, v. I.) The First Apology of Justin, the Martyr. Para. 67, p. 287.

4. Two fascinating recent books on the innumerable manifestations of the cult of Jesus in 384

America are appropriate here. Neither has any mention of BBS.

Prothero, Stephen. American Jesus : how the Son of God became a national . New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. c2003.

Fox, Richard Wightman. Jesus in America : personal Savior, cultural hero, national obsession. San Francisco, Calif.: HaperSanFrancisco, c2004.

5. Popular Anglican Catholic manuals of devotion containing a BBS service are:

Knowles, Archibald Campbell. The practice of religion : a short manual of instructions and devotions, illustrated . New York, N.Y. : Morehouse-Gorham Co., 1950. BBS, p. 236-239.

Saint Augustine’s prayer book : a devotional manual for members of the Episcopal Church / the Rev. Loren Gavitt, editor. West Park, New York: Holy Cross Publications, 1947, revised 1967. BBS, p. 139-143.

A manual for priests of the American church : complementary to the occasional offices of the Book of Common Prayer. Swedesboro, N.J.: Preservation Press, 1996. Preservation Press edition. Reprinted from an edition [5th, 1968] originally published [1944] by the Society of Saint , , Md. BBS, p. 212-216. c

The significant thing to notice is that, according to the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church, Article XIV – Of Worship, Section 1. Of the Book of Common Prayer, “other missals and devotional manuals, based on and conforming to those editions [i.e., mainly Amer. 1928 and Canadian 1962] of The Book of Common Prayer” are given an official liturgical status in the ACC along with various acceptable editions of the Book of Common Prayer. Of course, the contention of this paper is that BBS is precisely not “based on and conforming to” any BCP.

6. The Anglican service book : a traditional language adaptation of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer together with the Psalter or Psalms of David and additional devotions. [S.l.], 1991. BBS, p. 708-710.

7. A manual of Anglo-Catholic devotion / compiled by . Norwich, 385

Eng.: Canterbury Press, c2001. BBS, p. 320-322.

8. Encyclical of Pope Paul VI “Mysterium fidei” (1963) in: The Christian faith in the doctrinal documents of the Catholic Church / revised edition edited by J. Neuner and J. Dupuis. New York, N.Y. : Alba House, c1982. Para.1577-1580. P. 436-438.

9. Note that certain of the objections addressed to BBS concern its Roman practice (and Anglo-Catholic imitation) prior to the ongoing liturgical reforms in RCism beginning after Vatican II and their realization in new vernacular texts in the 1970's and onward.. These objections are to a large extent answered in more recent RC thought and practice. BBS is encompassed now in “worship of the Eucharist outside Mass”; i.e., usually in terms of a longer Exposition of the Sacrament during which there are extensive songs, prayers, , Scriptural and other readings, time for silent prayer, perhaps a sermon, etc. Exposition held exclusively for the purpose of giving Benediction is prohibited. In other words, current Anglo-Catholic celebrations of BBS are based upon an outdated and superceded and no longer extant RC practice. And, of course, they are not in the contemporary vernacular, as RC celebrations have to be.

Cf. Catholic Church. Rituale romanum. De sacra communione et de cultu mysterii eucharistici extra missam. English. Holy Communion and worship of the Eucharist outside Mass / approved for use in the dioceses of the United States of America by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and confirmed by the , with complete biblical readings ; English translation prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. Holy Communion--outside Mass . New York : Catholic Book Pub. Co., 1976 Also: Groeschel, Benedict J. In the presence of our Lord : the history, theology, and psychology of / Benedict J. Groeschel and James Monti. Huntington, Ind. : Our Sunday Visitor, c1997.

Groeschel has a very effective apology for Adoration of the Eucharist, p. 18-175, and Monti gives a history of the practice. Cf. esp. chapter 12: “Eucharistic adoration from the eighteenth century to the present”, p. 258-286. One can be grateful for changes in RC eucharistic adoration which highlight the Word as well as the Sacrament, but the point for classical Anglicans is still that there is no compelling Biblical evidence, either historically or theologically, for the adoration of the Sacrament per se outside of the Eucharist, and that such adoration misses the point of the 386

Sacrament itself.

IV. “REALISM VS “DYNAMIC SYMBOLISM” IN THE EUCHARIST

1. Encyclopedia of early Christianity / editor, Everett Ferguson ; associate editor, Michael McHugh, Frederick W. Norris – 2nd ed. (Garland reference library of the humanities ; vol. 1839) New York ; London : Garland Publishing, c1997, 1999. “Eucharist” article by Everett Ferguson, p. 392-398, “dynamic symbolism vs. realism emphasi[zing] a change by which the sign and the reality became virtually identical”, p. 396. See also “Real presence,” by Ferguson, p. 972-975.

2. A similar distinction is made by: Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian doctrines. San Francisco: Harper & Row, c. 1960, 1978. Rev. ed. P. 440-449. Typical of the “realist” or “conversionist” position are especially and Ambrose. Users of “symbolical” or “figurative” language are typically , , Origen, and, above all, Augustine. Obviously, the 16th century Reformers (of the Reformed churches and nascent Anglicanism) were attracted to this latter sort of language

See: Dugmore, C. W. the Mass and the English reformers. London: Macmillan ; New York, N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press, c1968. Dugmore believes that there were in Patristic eucharistic thought contrasting tendencies, one towards “realist-symbolism,” and the other towards “conversionist realism,” sometimes even of a materialist bent. He traces these tendencies down to 16th century England and says the English Reformers took the former position and rejected the latter, quite apart from any influence of the Continental Reformation.

Note also: Pelikan, Jaroslav. The : a history of the development of doctrine. 1. The emergence of the Catholic tradition (100-600). : the University of Chicago Press, c1971.v

Pelikan states that “no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record either declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of these excluded extremes 387

was the doctrine of the real presence.” P. 167. Pelikan believes that Patristic eucharistic terminology was still quite fluid, and that it took the crises of the 9th and the 16th centuries to force Christians to take explicit dogmatic positions vis-a-vis the real presence. We are speaking only of tendencies, not movements or schools, in the Patristic era.

3. Harnack, Adolf von, 1851-1930. Dogmengeschichte. English. Outlines of the history of dogma, New York, London and Toronto : Funk & Wagnalls company, 1893.

4. Here see esp .Danielou, Jean. The Bible and the liturgy. (Liturgical studies, vol. 111). Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, c1956. “The figures of the Eucharist,” p. 142-161, is the essential chapter.

5. Obviously John 6 states that Jesus long before the Last Supper spoke of himself as the Bread of Life and of the necessity of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood. Bruce Chilton goes so far as to say that even before the Last Supper, whenever Jesus ate and drank communal meals of fellowship and forgiveness with his disciples he was already indicating that the bread was his flesh and the wine his blood, in contradistinction to the sacrificial offerings in the Temple.

Chilton, Bruce. Jesus’ Prayer and Jesus’ Eucharist : his personal practice of spirituality. Valley Forge, Penn. : Trinity Press International, c1997. P.72-75.

See also Chilton’s Rabbi Jesus. P. 36, 76-77, 186-188, 254-257.

Chilton interprets Jesus entirely from his Jewish, Galilean, Aramaic/Hebrew background and decries interpretations of the Eucharist that derive from the post-Jesus, post-Paul apologetics of the church’s accommodating its message to an audience understanding things only from a Gentile / Hellenistic / Roman / pagan sacrificial meal / mystery-religion complex of points of view.

6. MacCulloch, Cranmer, p. 242, 244, 246.

7. The Act of Six Articles, 1539 (31 Hen. VIII, c.14) in The Reformation in England : to the Accession of Elizabeth I / edited by A.G. Dickens and Dorothy Carr. London: Edward Arnold, c1967. (Documents of modern history). P. 108-112.

388

Also: Documents of the English Reformation / edited by Gerald Lewis Bray. Minneapolis, Minn. : Fortress Press, 1994.

V. WHAT IS (WRONG WITH) TRANSUBSTANTIATION? SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS VS. THOMAS CRANMER

1. Thomas, Aquinas, Saint,, 1225?-1274.. / literally translated by fathers of the English Dominican province. New York, N.Y. : Benziger, c1947. Volume Two: Part III, Question 60, Article 4, Sed contra. P. 2347.

2. Ibid., Art. 4, ad 1. P. 2347.

3. Ibid., Article 2 , Respondeo. P. 2346.

4. S. T., Pt. III, Q. 73, Art. 1. Respondeo. P. 2434.

5. Luther, Martin, 1483-1546. [Selections. English. 1989] Martin Luther’s basic theological writings / edited by Timothy F. Lull. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, c1989. “Babylonian captivity of the Church” Part I (1520). P. 267-323.

6. Ibid., “The Small Catechism (1529)” P. 472-496. Baptism: P. 484-485. The Sacrament of the Altar: P. 488-489. Luther’s foundational writings on the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist are found in Lull, op.cit., p.242-340, p. 375-403; public worship and Communion, p. 445-470..

7. S.T., Pt. III, Q. 76. “Of the way in which Christ is in this Sacrament.” All eight Articles are relevant here. P. 2454-2462. Christ is really and literally, not just figuratively, present in the Sacrament, but only by way of substance and not physically or locally.

8. Schillebeeckx, Edward, 1914- Christ, the sacrament of the encounter with God / translation by Paul Barrett. English text rev. by Mark Schoof and Laurence Bright. New York : Sheed and Ward, [1963] Schillebeeckx, Edward, 1914- The eucharist / E. Schillebeeckx, translated by N. D. 389

Smith. New York, N.Y. : Sheed and Ward, c1968.

9. “Mens impletur gratia” from the prayer “O sacrum convivium (Ad Sacrosanctum sacramentum)” in The Aquinas prayer book / the prayers and hymns of Saint Thomas Aquinas. / translated and edited by Robert Anderson and Johann Moser. Manchester, N. H.: Institute Press, c1993, 2000. P. 60-63.

10. Chilton, Bruce. Rabbi Jesus : an intimate biography. 1st ed. New York : Doubleday, 2000.

11. Ashton, John, 1931- The religion of Paul the Apostle. New Haven, Conn.. : Press, c2000.

12. Eliade, Mircea, 1907- Patterns in comparative religion. 1979, c1958.

13. S.T. III, Q. 73, Art. 6.

14. Calvin, Jean, 1509-1564. Institutio Christianae religionis. English. Institutes of the Christian religion. / edited by John T. McNeill,. translated by Ford Lewis Battles, in collaboration with the editor and a committee of advisers. Philadelphia, Penn.: Westminster Press , c1960. 2 v. (The Library of Christian classics, v. 20-21). Vol. 2: Book IV, 40. “Of unworthy partaking of the Sacrament.” P. 1417-1418.

Consensus Ttigurinus, see note 10, below: “Article 16. All Who Partake of the Sacraments Do Not Partake of the Reality: Besides, we carefully teach that God does not exert his power indiscriminately in all who receive the sacraments, but only in the elect. For as he enlightens unto faith none but those whom he hath foreordained to life, so by the agency of his Spirit he makes the elect receive what the sacraments offer.”

15. Melanchthon and Bucer. / Pauck, Wilhelm, 1901- , comp. Philadelphia, Penn. : Westminster Press, 1969. (The Library of Christian classics, v. 19) Loci communes theologici, by P. Melanchthon, Melanchthon, Philipp, 1497-1560. Loci communes rerum theologicarum. English. P. 10 .

390

16.c MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Thomas Cranmer : a life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale, c1996. P. 486-492.

17. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The boy king : Edward VI and the English Reformation. New York, N.Y. : Palgrave, c1999. Cf. esp. p. 142-143.

18. Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556. The work of Thomas Cranmer / Introduced by J. I. Packer. Edited by G. E. Duffield. Philadelphia: Fortress Press , 1965. “Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament (1550). P. 45-231.

19. Calvin, John. Consensus Tigurinus 1549. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Online at “Consensus Tigurinus,” http://www.creeds.net/Tigurinus/tigur-bvd.htm.

20. R.T. Beckwith’s essay “The Anglican Eucharist: From the Reformation to the Restoration, p. 309-318, is a helpful guide. It is found in: The study of liturgy / edited by Cheslyn Jones...[et al.] New rev. ed. London ; New York, N.Y. : Oxford University Press, c1992. Also very helpful: Echlin, Edward P. The Anglican Eucharist in ecumenical perspective : doctrine and rite from Cranmer to Seabury. New York, N.Y. : Seabury, c1968. P. 9-103. Older standard works are: A new history of the Book of Common Prayer : with a rationale of its offices / on the basis of former work of Francis Procter, revised and rewritten by Walter Howard Frere. London : Macmillan & Co. , 1965 1st ed., 1855. Revised and rewritten, 1901. P. 45-204. Also: Liturgy and worship : a companion to the Prayer Books of the Anglican Communion / edited by W. K. , with the assistance of Charles Harris. London : S.P.C.K., 1959. 1st ed. 1932. See esp. “the history of the Book of Common Prayer down to 1662" by Frank Edward Brightman; and “The Holy Communion service” by James Herbert Srawley.

More modern but out of print and no longer permitted by the author (an advocate of the Amer. 1976/1979 BCP) to be re-printed: 391

Shepherd, Massey Hamilton. The Oxford American Prayer Book commentary. New York : Oxford University Press, c1950. Still the authoritative commentary on the 1928 Amer. BCP. Facing-page commentaries on the history and theology of the Holy Communion, p. 65-89. Widely used in the ACC.

21. S.T., III, Q. 76, Art. 6, ad 3.

22. Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556. The work of Thomas Cranmer / Introduced by J. I. Packer. Edited by G. E. Duffield. Philadelphia: Fortress Press , 1965. P. 298-299.

VI. THE AUTHENTIC ANGLICAN DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST AND OF JESUS’ PRESENCE

1. Newman, John Henry, 1801-1890. Parochial and plain sermons / John Henry Newman. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, c1987. "Previously published in eight volumes by Longmans, Green, and Company, London and New York, 1891" – T.p. verso. “The Eucharistic Presence,” P. 1262-1271.

VI. “BUT ISN’T THIS RECEPTIONISM?”

1. The Affirmation of St. Louis: http://www.anglicancatholic.net/stlouis.htm.

2. Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church, Solemn Declaration.

3. Cranmer. Defence: Book I Chap. III -XVII, P.68-76.

4. Cranmer, Defence. P 76-80.

5. Bainton, Roland H.. The church of our fathers. New York, N.Y. : Scribner’s, c1950, 1969. P. 163.

6. The 1940 : according to the use of the Episcopal Church. New York, N.Y. :the Church Hymnal corp, c1940, 1961. Hymn # 204, Adoro Devote... 392

7. Doctrine in the Church of England : the report of the Commission on Christian Doctrine appointed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York in 19221. London: S.P.C.K., 1938. P. 182.

8. Luther, Martin, 1483-1546. Works. English. 1955. [American ed.] Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis : Concordia Pub. House, [1955-1986] Supplemented by "Companion volume. Luther the expositor : introduction to the Reformer's exegetical writings, by Jaroslav Pelikan".: Saint Louis, Concordia Pub. House [1959]. Part Two. The Practice of Luther’s Exegesis: A Case Study, P. 135-254, is entirely devoted to the development of Luther’s eucharistic doctrines from the Scriptures.

9. Herbert, George, 1593-1633. The country ; The temple / edited, with an introduction by John N. Wall, Jr. ; preface by A.M. Allchin. New York : Paulist Press, c1981. (The classics of Western spirituality). P.327-328. The major of the seventeenth century: , George Herbert, , and ; an anthology / edited by Edwin Honig and Oscar Williams.New York: Washington Square Press, 1968. P. 495-496.

VIII. ANGLICAN EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE AND LITURGY SINCE THE REFORMATION

1. The liturgy of the Church of England before and after the Reformation : together with the service of the Holy Communion of the Episcopal Church in the United States / edited with an introduction and notes by Stephen a. Hurlbut.. Grand Rapids, Mich ; Eerdmans Pubishing Co., c1941. Quam oblationem, p. 28

2. Op. cit., p. 29.

3. Laud’s liturgy 1637: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/Communion_1637.htm

393

4. See in both cases the part of the Prayer of Consecration labeled “Invocation”: Bishop Seabury’s Communion Service: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Seabury.htm

The Nonjurors liturgy for the Communion in 1714: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Communion_Nonjurors.htm

5. 1928 C of E Proposed BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/CofE1928/CofE1928_Communion.htm

6. Orthodox Missal : according to the use of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Stanton, N.J. : Saint Luke’s Press, 1995. “The Mass, according to the Rite of St. Tikhon,” p. 172-194.

Saint Andrew Service Book : the administration of the Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies according to the Western Rite usage of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America [S.l.] : Antiochian Orthodox Christian archdiocese of North America, c1996. “The Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, commonly called the Mass,” p. 57-78.

(The corresponding version of the Roman Mass is called the Liturgy of Saint Gregory [the Great, or Dialogus]).

7. The Book of Divine Worship : being elements of the Book of Common Prayer Comment [1]: 7. The Book of Divine Worship : being elements of the Book of revised and adapted according to the Roman Rite for use by Roman Catholics coming Common Prayer revised and adapted from the Anglican tradition / approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops according to the Roman Rite for use by Roman Catholics coming from the of the United States of America and confirmed by the Apostolic See. Pocono, PA : Anglican tradition. / approved by the Newman House, c2003. “The Holy Eucharist: Rite One. The Eucharistic Prayer”, p. National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United states of American and 303-320. (All other current authorized Eucharistic Prayers may be used in Rite Two.) confirmed by the Apostolic See. Pocono, PA : Newman House Press, c2003. P. 8. The People’s Anglican Missal : containing the liturgy from the Book of Common 277-326. Prayer together with other devotions and with liturgical and ceremonial notes. Athens, Ga. : Anglican Parishes Association, c1995. P. B49a (page 280a). “The Gregorian Canon.”

Anglican Service Book, the Gregorian or Sarum Canon, p. 678-683. The translation is here attributed to Miles Coverdale. (The attribution to Coverdale, already a “Gospeller” 394

by ca. mid- , is very questionable, nor is there any evidence that this translation of the Sarum or Henrician Canon of the Mass was actually ever used anywhere during the Reformation era.)

9. Echlin, op. cit., p. 205-232.

10. Ladd, William Palmer. Prayer Book interleaves : some reflections on how the Book of Common Prayer might be made more influential in our English-speaking world. New York, N.Y. : Seabury, c1942, 1957

11. See also: Davies, Michael. Cranmer’s Godly Order : the destruction of Catholicism through liturgical change / part one of Liturgical revolution. Ft. Collins, CO : Roman Catholic Books, c1976, 1995. (Rev. and expanded ed. 1995, the Liturgical Revolution– Volume One) for a convincing Roman Catholic scholarly denial of the Catholic acceptability of 1549. See esp p. 64-96 and 193-220.

12. Dix, Gregory. The shape of the liturgy. London : Dacre Press, 1945. P. 640-674. Dix sees Cranmer as basically a Zwinglian from the beginning..

13. Brilioth, Yngve. Eucharistic faith & practice Evangelical and Catholic . London : S.P.C.K, 1930, 1956. P. 199-206. Brilioth sees 1549 as reformed but still ambiguous, but accounts1552 and following as clearly Reformed.

14. Bouyer, Louis. Eucharist : theology and spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, Ind. : University of Notre Dame Press, 1966, c1968. P. 407-419. Bouyer sees nothing Catholic in 1549, still less so in 1552.

15, Echlin, op. cit., p.

16. Buchanan, Colin. What did Cranmer think he was doing? Bramcote, Nottingshire : Grove Books, c1973. (Grove liturgical study no. 7) Cranmer only made more explicit in 1552 what he already believed in 1549 and perhaps as early as 1546.

See also the author’s editions: Eucharistic liturgies of Edward VI : a text for students. 1983. (Grove liturgical study no. 34). 1549 and 1552 texts in full.

395

And his: Background documents to liturgical revision 1547-1549. 1983. (Grove liturgical study no. 35).

17. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Thomas Cranmer. P. 391-392, 407-409, 467. Cranmer’s eucharistic theology was reasonably settled on the issue of “spiritual communion” rather than “real or corporal presence’ certainly by 1548.

Also: MacCulloch. The Reformation. Viking Penguin : New York, N.Y. ; London, c2003. P. 249-250. This work is likely to be the definitive general history of the Reformation for a generation.

18. Bromiley, Geoffrey William. Thomas Cranmer, theologian.New York, N.Y. : Oxford University Press, 1956. P.69-83. A sympathetic exposition; clearly brings out the Reformed character of Cranmer’s thought.. Also his: Sacramental teaching and practice in the Reformation churches. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 1957. P 82-94. And his article “Lord’s Supper” in: The Westminster handbook to Reformed theology / edited by Donald K. McKim. (The Westminster handbooks to Christian theology). Louisville, Ky. : Westminster Press, c2001. P. 142-146.

19. Dickens, A. G. (Arthur Geoffrey), 1910- The English Reformation. 2nd ed. University Park, Penn. : Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1991. "First published 1964, 2nd ed. first published 1989." P. 209-212, 242-247, 276-278..

20. Hughes, Philip Edgecombe Hughes. Theology of the English reformers. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, c1965. P. 189-223. A sympathetic Anglican Evangelical exposition.

21 Brooks, Peter Newman. Thomas Cranmer's doctrine of the Eucharist : an essay in historical development. New York, N.Y. : Seabury Press , c1965. See also his: Cranmer in context : documents from the English Reformation Minneapolis, Minn. : Fortress Press, c1989. Passim. The work contains a great deal of exposition and synthesis as well as supporting documents. He sees Cranmer’s eucharistic theology as basically set before the rather stopgap 1549 Book and altered thereafter in 1552 only to make his meaning clear and his conformity with Continental or refugee writers such as 396

Bucer and Peter Maryr Vermigli and John a Lasco and the Consensus Tigurinus, as well as English Reformers such as Hooper and Ridley..

22. Leuenberger, Samuel, 1942- Archbishop Cranmer's immortal bequest : the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England : an evangelistic liturgy / by Samuel Leuenberger ; translated from the German by Samuel Leuenberger and Lewis J. Gorin, Jr. ; with a foreword to the English edition by James I. Packer. Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans, 1990."Originally published in the German language in Basel with the title Cultus Ancilla Scripturae." P. 1-127 on 1549 and 1552. A fascinating and outstanding appreciation from a contemporary Swiss Reformed author.

23. Wesley, John, 1703-1791. Sunday service of the Methodists in North America / with an introduction by James F. White. [Nashville, Tenn.] : Quarterly Review, c1984. Quarterly review reprint series. Facsimile originally published: Sunday service of the Methodists in North America : London, 1784. “The order for the administration of the Lord’s Supper.” P. 125-138.

24. Bouyer’s findings in Eucharist, p. 15-135 about the origin of the primitive Eucharist in the Jewish berakoth are by now commonplace. They are not, however, universally accepted: cf. Bradshaw, Paul F. The search for the origins of Christian worship : sources and methods for the study of early liturgy. Oxford, Eng. : OUP, c1992, 2002. (2nd ed.) P. 128-129.

25. Dix, op. cit. P. 48-103.

Dix’s influence is not universally welcomed. Cf. the strong attack against doing liturgical revision or eucharistic theology by way of establishing the alleged “shape” of the Eucharist in:

Tarsitano, Louis R. Neither orthodoxy nor a formulary : shape and content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church / Louis R. Tarsitano & Peter Toon. Philadelphia, PA : The Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A., 2004. P. 25-36.

See also: Bradshaw, op .cit., p. 122-125. Also, p. 61-72 on what we actually know about The Last Supper and the transition to the Christian Eucharist. Cf. His chapter 397

Conclusion, p. 72:

“This chapter has offered many more questions than answers, and that indeed was its purpose. Too often in the past, over-confident assertions have been made about the nature of Christian worship in the first century on the basis of false assumptions and methods, or of dogmatic rather than historical criteria. There is relatively little about which we can be sure with regard to this subject, and so the New Testament generally cannot provide the firm foundation from which to project later liturgical developments that it has frequently been thought to give. We therefore must be content to remain agnostic about many of the roots of Christian worship practices which we observe clearly for the first time in the following centuries.”

26 The King's book or, A necessary doctrine and erudition for any Christian man, 1543, with an introduction by T. A. Lacey. Published for the Church historical society. London : Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1932. Church historical society. [Publications. New series]. A statement of doctrine of the Church of England, "with a preface written in the King's name, and to all appearance by his own hand." "Much more than a revision of ‘The institution of a Christian man’, issued by T. Bertelet, September, 1537, and popularly known as The bishops' book. cf. Introd..”

IX. ROMANTICIZING MEDIEVALISM, AND OTHER ANGLO-CATHOLIC MYTHS:

1. Staley, Vernon, 1852-1933. The Catholic religion : a manual of instruction for members of the Anglican Communion / by Vernon Staley. Golden jubilee memorial ed. / revised by Brian Goodchild. Wilton, Conn. : Morehouse-Barlow, c1983. “First published 1893.” See esp. p. 56-67.

2. Practice of religion. P 4-5. A simple statement of the Branch theory of the Catholic Church which un-churches all Protestants except Anglicans (and possibly Swedish Lutherans)..

3. http://www.anglicancatholic.org/main/brochure/index.php. Notice from the section “The Church restored”: 398

“Henry VIII died in 1547 and was succeeded by his son, Edward VI, during whose reign a number of reforms were introduced into the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. In general these reforms were rather less radical than those introduced into the Roman Catholic Church since the in modern times.” A statement which would justify flunking any undergraduate who made it.

4. Haverland, Mark. Anglican Catholic faith and practice. [Cover title] Athens, Ga. : Anglican Parishes Association, c1996. Note esp. “The Reformation: England and Anglicans,” p. 43-46. (The Reformation was an unfortunate interlude. Only Anglo- Catholicism is now a viable form of Anglicanism.) “The Reformation and beyond: Protestantism,” p. 45-46. (There is no hope for Protestantism except conversion to the Catholic faith.) Perhaps Haverland ought not to be criticized for what he says in what is, after all, only a book of instructions for adult confirmands. But one needs to accurate and well-informed even when presenting before such an audience.

5. Notice how Pelikan treats nascent Anglican eucharistic doctrine under Cranmer and Jewel etc. as simply a sub-set of Reformed doctrine. Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan, 1923- The Christian tradition. V. 4 Reformation of church and doctrine (1300-1700). “Word and Spirit.’ P. 187-203.

6. “The Second Helvetic Confession”: http://www.creeds.net/helvetic/

7. The Library of Christian classics, Volume XXIV : Zwingli and Bullinger / selected translations with introductions and notes by G.W. Bromiley.: P. 284. Bullinger is excerpted p. 288-325 from one (!) sermon “The Holy Catholic Church” of the Decades.

8. MacCulloch, Reformation, treats Elizabethan England, p. 371-382. “Queen Elizabeth was determined to defend her idiosyncratic Religious Settlement of 1559 without any further progress toward the best Reformed Churches, the movement that had been proceeding so rapidly during the reign of Edward VI. The English bishops who in the had seen themselves as the natural leaders of such change...now found themselves defending a status quo in which many of them did not believe.” Elizabeth while keeping England firmly in the Protestant camp religiously and politically kept her bishops on a short leash and discouraged radical Puritanism, but she was not disposed to proceed against her “loyal Catholic subjects” until Catholic plots against her 399

throne required her to..

9. MacCulloch, Reformation. Chapter II, 12: “Coda: a British Legacy, 1600-1700.” P. 485-527.

10. Bouyer, Eucharist. P. 424-429.

Also: Tavard, George. The quest for catholicity : a study in Anglicanism. New York, N.Y. : Herder and Herder, c1964. P. 45-68.

11. “Porvoo 1993": http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/porvoo/eng/cont.htm. See also: Together in mission and ministry : the Porvoo Common Statement with essays on church and ministry in Northern Europe. : conversations between the British and Irish Anglican churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches. London : Church House Publishing, c1993.

12. Duffy, Eamon. The stripping of the altars : traditional 1400- 1580. New Haven, Conn. ; London : Yale, c1992. P. 377-593. The book, which is about the destruction of traditional Catholic popular devotion in England, has no references to Benediction, but quite a few to Corpus Christi processions and their paraphernalia (), which were being openly attacked and destroyed by 1547 and were officially forbidden by 1548. Cf. MacCulloch, Boy king, p.73-75.

13. Dickens, English Reformation. P. 380.

14. See 10. supra. See also Preface, note 2, supra. Bishop Seabury’s Communion Service: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Seabury.htm. Scottish Communion office of 1764:http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/Scot1764_Communion.htm.

15. Bess, Douglas. Divided we stand : a history of the Continuing Anglican movement. Riverside CA : Tractarian Press, c2002. P. 264.

400

16. A good critical edition of 1559, which is in most respects the pivotal BCP before the 20th century, is found in: Church of England. Book of common prayer. The Book of common prayer, 1559 / edited by John E. Booty. Charlottesville, Va. : University Press of Virginia for the Folger Shakespeare Library, c1976.

P 327-384 Booty addresses the “History of the 1559 Book of Common Prayer”. P. 342 on the two-fold Sentences of Administration: “Clearly, the Queen was still trying to comprehend different points of view, her own included, and trying to let her more Protestant subjects know that she would not be pushed into an extreme position.” (She also rejected the 1552 version of the “Black Rubrick.”)

This much may be conceded to Bess, but that does not mean that the BCP Eucharist is either a Roman Mass or a bare memorial supper. It is neither, but intends to be a recrudescence of N.T. and early church practice. That, of course, is very questionable nowadays, given the parlous state of critical N.T. and early church liturgical scholarship. But the intention may be taken for the deed. . 17. Haverland, op. cit., p. 43.

18. The Christian faith: “The Fourth Lateran Council (1215),” p.453. Para. 453: the universal obligation of annual confession.

19. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s theological writings. “Small Catechism : V. Confession and absolution : How plain people are to be taught to confess,” p.486-488.

The Augsburg Confession says that no one is admitted to communion unless they first confess and are absolved.. Art. XXV Von der Beicht / De confessione, p. 97-100 in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche / herausgegeben im Gedenkjahr der augsburgischen Konfession 1930. Goettingen, Ger. : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. II. Die augsburgische Konfession...Anno 1530 = Confessio fidei...MDXXX. Also: Op. cit. [Melanchthon’s] Apologia confessionis. Apologie der Confession, Art. XI De confessione / Von der Beicht. P. 249-252.

20. Book of Divine worship. Rite One, p. 101.

21. Op. cit., Rite One, p. 283. 401

22. Library of Christian classics : volume XIX, Melanchthon and Bucer / edited by Wilhelm Pauck. Bucer: De regno Christi : pg. 328.

Also: Bucer, Martin, 1491-1551. The ivdgement of Martin Bucer, concerning divorce, writt'n to Edward the sixt, in his second book of the Kingdom of Christ. And now Englisht. Wherin a late book restoring the doctrine and discipline of divorce, is heer confirm'd and justify'd by the authoritie of Martin Bucer. To the Parlament of England ... Publisht by authoritie. London, Printed by Matthew Simmons, 1644. First edition. The 1st (anonymous) edition of the "late book" mentioned in the title, Milton's Doctrine and discipline of divorce, was published in 1643; the second edition in 1644.

23. The study of Anglicanism / edited by , John Booty, and Jonathan . Rev. ed. [London] : SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. “Ministry and priesthood,” by John Webster, esp. p.321-324. Also: “Ordinals,” by Paul F. Bradshaw, p. 155-165.

24. A simple but accurate account is in: Doran, Susan. Princes, pastors and people : the church and religion in England, 1529-1689 / Susan Doran and Christopher Durston. London ; New York, N.Y. : Routledge, c1991. Esp. p. 13-34.

25. Anglican orders : essays on the centenary of , 1896-1996 / edited, with an introduction by R. William Franklin ; foreword by . London : Mowbray ; Harrisburg, PA, c1996. "Also published by Anglican Theological Review, volume LXXVIII, number 1, Winter 1996." “With an English translation of the Document and the Anglican Response.”

26 Newman, John Henry, 1801-1890. Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic teaching considered. New ed. Westminster, Md., Christian Classics, 1969. His Works. Title on spine: Difficulties of Anglicans. V. 1. Twelve lectures addressed in 1850 to the party of the religious movement of 1833.

Cf. Jaki, Stanley L. Newman’s challenge. 1st ed. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans’s, c2000. Chapter 6, “Anglo-Catholics”, p. 106-149.(Originally a preface to an Amer. ed. of Anglican difficulties. 402

27. Newman, John Henry, 1801-1890. Apologia pro vita sua.: An authoritative text, basic texts of the Newman-Kingsley controversy, origin and reception of the Apologia [and] essays in criticism ./ edited by David J. DeLaura. [1st ed.] New York, Norton, [1968] Norton critical editions

X. STATUS OF THE THIRTY NINE ARTICLES OF RELIGION :

1. The godly kingdom of Tudor England : Great books of the English Reformation / by John Booty, editor, David Siegenthaler, John N. Wall, Jr. Wilton, CT. : Morehouse- Barlow, c1981.

2. Newman’s Tract XC: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/tract90/index.html

3. Canons of the Church of England, A2.

4. Ibid., A5.

5. Common worship : services and prayers for the Church of England. London : Church House Publishing, c2000. P. xi.

6. Haverland, pg. 43

7. Ibid., p.45.

8. Hock, Ronald F., 1944- The life of Mary and birth of Jesus : the ancient Infancy Gospel of James / Ronald F. Hock. Berkeley, Calif. : Ulysses Press, c1997. Includes English translation of the Protevangelium Jacobi (Infancy Gospel of James). A useful vade mecum: Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the church : the Blessed Virgin Mary in patristic thought. San Francisco, Calif. : Ignatius Press, c1999. Ital. orig. 1991. A helpful history with extensive Readings of the original texts from the Apostolic 403

Fathers through St. John Damascene.

9. The Biblical texts are esp. : Mt. 1:25 (Joseph did not have marital relations with Mary until she brought forth her first-born); and Mt. 12:45-50 and Mk. 6:1-3 (Jesus’ brothers), also Mk. 6:1-3 (Jesus’ brothers and sisters).

10. Hock, op. cit., p.

11. Jerome ( Hieronymus, d. 420). De perpetua virginitate Beatae Mariae virgine Adversus Helvidium. Eng. trans.: Saint Jerome : dogmatic and polemical works / translated by John N. Hritzu. Washington, D.C. : Catholic University of America Press, c1965. (The Fathers of the Church) “On the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mary against Helvidius”: p.3-43.

Cf. Kelly, J. N. D. Jerome : his life, writings, and controversies.. Peabody, Mass. : Hendrickson, c1998, orig. pub. 1975. P. 104-107.

Joseph Barber Lightfoot, in the famous “Dissertation: The Brethren of the Lord” in his commentary on Galatians distinguishes between Epiphanian (see n. 14 below), Helvidian, and Hieronymian interpretations of “brethren of the Lord.” The first point of view is that they were children of Joseph before he married Mary; the second is that they were the natural children of Joseph and Mary, and the third is Jerome’s; the brethren are cousins to various degrees, etc., i.e., other kinfolk of Jesus but not biological siblings in any degree. After an extremely thorough investigation of the N.T. and Patristic sources, Lightfoot decides that only the first has credible Biblical and Patristic support. This point of view does not logically include the perpetual virginity but is certainly necessary to establish that doctrine). He finds no credible evidence for the latter two positions in the first three centuries.:

“The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Galatians”: http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/nt/jbl/gal/gal-Index.html

Lightfoot, J. B. (Joseph Barber), 1828-1889. St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A revised text with introduction, notes, and dissertations. 4th ed.. London, Macmillan and co., 1874. 404

12. The seven Ecumenical councils of the undivided church : their canons and dogmatic decrees. In: A select library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series / under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, and . Volume XIV II. Constantinople A.D. 553, the Sentence of the Synod, p. 311 “...God the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary...” Also: Quinisext A.D. 693, Canon LXXIX: “Mary was ever-virgin, even after she brought forth the incarnate Son.” P. 399.

13. Ibid., Ephesus. A.D. 431. The anathematisms of St. Cyril against Nestorius. P. 206 “If anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel...let him be anathema.” “This anathematism breaks to pieces the chief strength of the Nestorian impiety. For it sets forth two facts, The one that the Emmanuel, that is he who born of a woman and dwelt with us, is God : and the second, that Mary who bare such a one is Mother of God.”

14. Maximovich, John, Saint, 1896-1966. The Orthodox veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God. [S.l.] : St. of Alaska Brotherhood, c1994. Originally published in Russian in 1934.A wholly pre-critical and uncritical work which does show the Orthodox belief (from Epiphanius of Salamis [], and ultimately from the Infancy Gospel of James) that the “so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord” are offspring of Joseph from an earlier marriage. P. 33-34.

14. Graef, Hilda. Mary : a history of doctrine and devotion. London :Sheed and Ward : Westminster, Md. : Christian Classics , (Vol. 1) c1962, (vol. 2), c1965. Vol. 1. Combined ed., 1985. Vol. 1: P. 33-203.

15. Graef, op.cit., Vol. 2: p. 6-17, 62-67, 77, 106-117. 133-134.

See also: Tavard, George H. (George Henry), 1922- The thousand faces of the Virgin Mary.

Collegeville, Minn. : A Michael Glazier Book/The Liturgical Press, c1996. P. 103-152.

16. Graef, op. cit., Vol. 1: p. 215-221, 298-302.

405

17. Hymnal 1940, #599; stanza two is adapted from the prayer () in the Divine Liturgy immediately after the Epiklesis: alethos makaridzein se hos ten Theotokon. (It is also sung at the conclusion of each of the Hours)

17a. Cf. http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/80256FA1003E05C1/httpPublicPages/4BC1B2EC0DDF7 1868025700600488B21?opendocument

18. Cf. one out of a host of examples: Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- ( = Ratzinger, Joseph). Daughter Zion : meditations on the Church’s Marian belief. San Francisco : Ignatius, c1983. (German orig. 1977.)

19. Graef, op. cit.

20. Mary in the New Testament. Philadelphia : Fortress Press ; New York : Paulist Press, c1978.

21. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Mary through the centuries : her place in the history of culture. New Haven, Conn. ; London : Yale University Press, c1996.

22. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. Mary : glimpses of the mother of Jesus / Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina Press, c1995. (Studies on personalities of the New Testament)

23. Blessed one : Protestant perspectives on Mary / Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Cynthia L. Rigby, editors. 1st ed. Louisville, Ky. : Westminster John Knox Press, c2002.

24. Blancy, Alain. Marie dans le dessein de Dieu et la communion des saints. English Mary in the plan of God and in the communion of the saints : toward a common Christian understanding / by Alain Blancy and Maurice Jourjon and the Dombes Group ; translated by Matthew J. O'Connell ; foreword by Joseph A. Fitzmyer. New York : Paulist Press, c2002.

25. Mary, Mother of God / edited by Carl E. Braten and Robert W. Jensen.. Grand Rapids, Mich. ; Cambridge, U.K. : Eerdmans, c2004. “Originally addresses given at a 406

conference held June 9-11, 2002 at St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minn. Contributors included Pelikan, Gaventa, Jenson, Braaten, and Timothy George.

26. It is worth mentioning that the first commentary on the 39 Articles written in Elizabethan times was distinctly “Calvinistic.” Rogers, Thomas, d. 1616. The Catholic doctrine of the Church of England. Cambridge [Eng.] : Printed at the University Press, 1854. Clearly the author meant something rather different by the adjective from what Newman’s Tract XC did, a work which has perhaps permanently de-railed serious study by Anglo-Catholics of the Articles in their historical contexts and original intent. (Or rather, the original intent is to be ignored and replaced by an acceptable “Catholic” reading,).

Of relatively contemporary and available works in this Reformed tradition of interpretation of the Articles, see Thomas, W. H. Griffith (William Henry Griffith), 1861- 1924. The principles of theology : an introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles, by the late W. H. Griffith Thomas. London, New York [etc] : Longmans, Green and co., 1930.

See also Peter Toon, “The Articles and Homilies,” p. 144-155, in The study of Anglicanism, op. cit. Bicknell, E. J. A theological introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England / 3rd. ed. revised by H.J. Carpenter London : Longmans, Green and Co., 1919. 3rd rev. ed., 1955. Bicknell/Carpenter, a moderate Anglo-Catholic work which does pay close attention to the historical context and does not simply dismiss Reformation doctrine, is still fairly widely used.

XI. STATUS OF THE GENERAL COUNCILS, AND OF (WESTERN) CANON LAW :

1. Brown, Peter Robert Lamont. The body and society : men, women, and sexual in early Christianity / Peter Brown. New York : Press, 1988. : (Lectures on the history of religions ; new ser., no. 13)

407

2. John, of Damascus, Saint. On the divine images. English On the divine images : three apologies against those who attack the divine images / St. John of Damascus ; translated by David Anderson. Crestwood, N.Y. : St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980.

3. Sermons or homilies appointed to be read in churches. London : Printed for the Prayer-Book and Homily Society, 1833. Reprinted 1986. Book Two: An homily against peril of idolatry, and superfluous decking of churches. p. 119-184. The 1st Book of the Homilies is chiefly attributable to Cranmer, and the 2nd to Jewel.

4. Orthodox do not recognize the council of Constantinople in 869-870 as an ecumenical council or even as a legitimate council, but as one hi-jacked by Western sympathizers and delegates. In addition, Orthodox recognize St. Photius as Orthodox and hail his Mystagogy for its “detailed refutation of the double procession.” Cf. Meyendorff, John, 1926- Byzantine theology : historical trends and doctrinal themes / . 2nd ed. New York : Fordham University Press, 1979. P. 91-94. Orthodox reject the unauthorized addition of the Filioque by the (Western) council of Toledo (3rd, 589) and its subsequent adoption by the See of Rome in its official versions of the Creed.

See: Pelikan, Jaroslav. Credo : historical and theological guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. Vol. 4 of Creeds & confessions of faith in the Christian tradition /edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss. New Haven, Conn. : Yale University Press, c2003. The “Comparative Creedal Syndogmaticon” ( topical index) in the IVth vol., pg. 557, 8.6 gives the location of conciliar, etc. documents on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

5. Catholic Church. Catechismus Ecclesiae Catholicae. English. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Rev. ed. London : Geoffrey Chapman, 1999.

6. See: “Canons”: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/5478/Canons.html. Also: “The Oecumenical Councils”: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/5478/Councils.html.

See also: The seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church... Ut supra: n. X, 12. 408

7. Lull, ed. Martin Luther’s basic theological writings. “On the freedom of a Christian.” (1520). P. 585-629.

XII. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

1. “Affirmation of St. Louis” : “Non-Involvement with Non-Apostolic Groups: We recognize that the World Council of Churches, and many national and other Councils adhering to the World Council, are non-Apostolic, humanist and secular in purpose and practice, and that under such circumstances, we cannot be members of any of them. We also recognize that the Consultation of Church Union (COCU) and all other such schemes, being non-Apostolic and non-Catholic in their present concept and form, are unacceptable to us, and that we cannot be associated with any of them.”

2. Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A religious history of the American people / Sydney E. Ahlstrom. 2nd ed. / foreword and concluding chapter by David D. Hall. New Haven, [Conn.] : Yale University Press, 2004. and the Disciples of Christ: p. 449- 452. Churches of Christ: p. 822-823.

Cf. Holifield, E. Brooks. Theology in America : Christian thought from the age of the Puritans to the Civil War / E. Brooks Holifield.. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, c2003. “Restoration,” p. 291-305.

3. Ahlstrom, op.cit. “Mormonism” p. 501-509. There was a strong Restorationist flavor to early Mormon thinking.

Cf. Holifield, op. cit, p. 331-340.

4.Ahlstrom, op.cit., Landmark movement, p. 722-725. Cf. Holifield, op. cit., p. 277-278.

5.Gore, Charles, 1853-1932. Lux mundi, a series of studies in the religion of the Incarnation, edited by Charles Gore. From the 5th English ed. New York, United States book company, [1890?] . 409

6. Essays catholic & critical / by members of the Anglican Communion, edited by Edward . London : S.P.C.K., c1958. First published, 1926.

See also: Ramsey, Michael, 1904- An era in Anglican theology, from Gore to Temple : the development of Anglican theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War, 1889-1939. New York : Scribner’s , c1960. ( The Hale memorial lectures of Seabury- Western Theological Seminary, 1959). P. 1-110.

7. Nichols, James Hastings, 1915- The Mercersburg theology. New York : Oxford University Press, 1966.( A Library of Protestant thought). Consists chiefly of works and articles by John W. Nevin and Philip Schaff. Nichols, James Hastings, 1915- Romanticism in American theology : Nevin and Schaff at Mercersburg. [Chicago] : University of Chicago Press , 1961.

Cf. Ahlstrom. Religious history... P. 615-621, 630 (the latter on parallels between Mercersburg and similar movements in Anglicanism and Lutheranism).

See also: Holifield, E. Brooks. Theology in America : Christian thought from the age of the Puritans to the Civil War. New Haven, Conn. ; London : Yale University Press, c2003. P. 467-481.

8. Nevin, John W. The mystical presence : a vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Philadelphia, Penn. : [S.n..], 1846. See also: Ahlstrom, Sydney E. Theology in America : the major Protestant voices from Puritanism to Neo-Orthodoxy / edited by Sydney E. Ahlstrom. Indianapolis : Bobbs- Merrill Co,. c1967. (The American Heritage Series) P. 371-425. (Mystical Presence excerpted.)

8.a. See Boyer, op. cit., “The First Rediscovery of Tradition by the English Calvinists”, p. 419-424. Bouyer sees the Puritans as having a textually better appreciation of the Real Presence than did those who adhered to 1559 or 1662. He does, however, see material advances in “The Restoration of the Anglican Eucharist in Scotland and with the Non-Jurors”, p. 424- 410

429. He goes on to praise “The Return to Tradition with the French Reformers: from Osterwald to Taize,” p. 429-435. Church of Scotland. Book of Common Order of the Church of Scotland / by authority of the General Assembly.. London : Oxford University Press, 1940.

The . The Book of Common Worship /as authorized by the Synod 1962. London : OUP, 1963.

Perhaps the most extraordinary praise of the Reformed grasp of the Real Presence is to be found in the joint document “the Presence of Christ in Church and world : final report of the dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, 1977" in Growth in agreement, note 30 below. P. 433-463. P. 456: “Thus we gratefully acknowledge that both traditions, Reformed and Roman Catholic, hold to the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and both hold at least that the Eucharist is, among other things: (1.) A memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord; (2.) A source of loving communion with him in the power of the Spirit (hence the in the liturgy), and (3.) A source of the eschatological hope for his coming again.”

9. Cf. note I, 1, supra.

10. Pro ecclesia : a journal of Catholic and Evangelical theology / Carl E. Braaten & Robert W. Jenson, editors. Delhi, NY : American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, c2000-.

11. Oden, Thomas. The rebirth of Orthodoxy : signs of new life in Christianity. c2003. Websites: p. 201-203.

12. Ritual notes : a comprehensive guide to rites and ceremonies of the Book of Common Prayer of the English church, interpreted in accordance with latest revision of the Western Use / edited and largely re-written by E.C.R. Lamburn. London : W. Knott & Son, 1964. “First published 1894.”

Hall, Francis J. (Francis Joseph), 1857-1932. Theological outlines / by the Rev. Francis J. Hall, revised by the Rev. Frank Hudson Hallock. New York, N.Y. : Morehouse- 411

Barlow, c1933, 1961. “First edition 1892.” The work is a condensed version of Hall’s Dogmatic theology in 10 vols. (1907-1922) Both works are solid, scholarly, pedestrian, outdated, and predictable.

13. Oden, Thomas C. The living God / Thomas C. Oden. San Francisco : Harper & Row, c1987. (Systematic theology ; v. 1.) Oden, Thomas C. The word of life / Thomas C. Oden. 1st ed. San Francisco : Harper & Row, c1989. (Systematic theology ; v. 2) Oden, Thomas C. Life in the Spirit / Thomas C. Oden. 1st ed. [San Francisco] : HarperSanFrancisco, c1992. (Systematic theology : vol. 3.)

14. Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture / Thomas C. Oden, gen. ed. Downer’s Grove, Ill. : InterVarsityPress, c2000- 15. Oden, Thomas C. John Wesley’s scriptural Christianity : a plain exposition of his teaching on Christian doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, c1994. Communion: P. 185-186.

16. Wesley, John, 1703-1791. Hymns on the Lord’s Supper / by John Wesley and , with a preface concerning the Christian Sacrament and sacrifice, extracted from Doctor Brevint. Bristol, Eng. : Felix Farley, 1745. Facsimile reprint of the 1st ed.. Introduction by Geoffrey Wainwright. Madison, N.J. : The Charles Wesley Society, c1995.

17. Wesley, John, 1703-1791. John Wesley : [a representative collection of his writings] / edited by Albert C. Outler. New York, Oxford University Press, 1964. “The doctrine of faith, salvation, and good works, extracted from the Homilies of the Church of England” (1784). P. 123-133.

18. Cf. note VIII, 23, supra. Sunday service...

19. “The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches”: http://www.theceec.org.

20. “International Charismatic Episcopal Church”: http://www.iccec.org.

412

The two churches are “Convergence” churches: they represent a fusion of Scriptural, Evangelical, Charismatic, and Sacramental/Liturgical/Episcopal/Catholic emphases. While “post-Anglican,” both of these churches appeal to a much broader constituency than only ex-Anglicans. They generally do not use the 1928 Amer. BCP but more modern forms.

21. “Welcome to the Anglican Mission in America!” : http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org

22. “Forward in Faith International”: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/ “Forward in Faith UK” : http://www.forwardinfaith.com/about/uk_index.html “Forward in Faith North America”: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/about/na_index.html 23 Pickering, W. S. F. Anglo-Catholicism : a study in religious ambiguity / W.S.F. Pickering.. London ; New York : Routledge, 1989. c

24. “”: http://www.affirmingcatholicism.org.uk/

25. “The Reformed Episcopal Church”: http://www.recus.org/

Also: The Book of common prayer according to the use of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Philadelphia : The Reformed Episcopal Publication Society, 1932. “The Declaration of Principles,” p. v, is quite unequivocal: Declaration of Principles of the Reformed Episcopal Church, adopted December 2nd, 1873: i. The Reformed Episcopal Church, holding "the faith once delivered unto the saints," declares its belief in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God, and the sole Rule of Faith and Practice; in the Creed "commonly called the Apostles' Creed;" in the Divine institution of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and in the doctrines of grace substantially as they are set forth in the Thirty–nine Articles of Religion. ii. This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of Divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of Church polity. 413

iii This Church, retaining a Liturgy which shall not be imperative or repressive of freedom in prayer, accepts The Book of Common Prayer, as it was revised, proposed, and recommended for use by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, A. D. 1785, reserving full liberty to alter, abridge, enlarge, and amend the same, as may seem most conductive to the edification of the people, "provided that the substance of the faith be kept entire." iv This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to God's Word; First, That the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form of : Second, That Christian Ministers are "priests" in another sense than that in which all believers are "a royal priesthood:" Third, That the Lord's Table is an altar on which the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ is offered anew to the Father: Fourth, That the Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is a presence in the elements of the Bread and Wine: Fifth, That Regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism.

Leaving aside questions of the aggressive and extremely provocative nature of this polemical language, it may be noted that the “Declaration” is, on the face of it, clearly closer to the position of the 16th cent. Reformers of the C of E than were the Tractarians. The Declarations’s language, however, would exclude a William Muhlenberg, or an F. D. Maurice, not to mention the equally authentically Reformed theology of Mercersburg. The Declaration also seemingly precludes much of a dialog with modern Ecumenical liturgical and sacramental thought.

Also, however, there is more than a hint of the 18th century rationalism and reductionism (particularly the rejection of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds) that was behind the American 1786 Proposed (and rejected) BCP, which is itself the basis of the REC BCP. In short, the 1786 BCP was rather than Evangelical, and the REC, in spite of its vaunted Reformed bias, caught much of that. The rejection of such terms as “priest” and “absolution” and of the necessity for episcopacy are definitely out of the Anglican mainstream and are as beholden to rationalism (no priestcraft!) and Latitudinarianism as to Calvinism.

414

Significantly, the 1662 Communion Service is the basis for the eucharistic liturgy in both 1786 and the REC BCP; there is no hint of the Nonjuror influences so loved by Seabury.

Cf. “The 1786 Proposed Book of Common Prayer” : http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1786/BCP_1786.htm

The REC now permits use of the 1928 Amer. BCP, a far superior work “Anglican Belief and Practice : A Joint Affirmation of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America October 4, 2001" at the website in n. 28 below represents a considerable step forward for REC. The Affirmation is a substantial piece of theology.

26. “Anglican Province of Christ the King”: http://anglicanpck.org/

27. “Anglican Church in America (Traditional Anglican Communion)” : http://www.acahome.org/

28. “The Anglican Province of America”: http://www.anglicanprovince.org/

29. “The United Episcopal Church of North America”: http://united-episcopal.org/

30. Growth in agreement : reports and agreed statements of ecumenical conversations on a world level / edited by Harding Meyer and Lukas Vischer. New York ; Paulist Press ; Geneva : World Council of Churches c19843. (Faith and Order paper ; no. 108).

31. Growth in agreement II : reports and agreed statements of ecumenical conversations on a world level, 1982-1998 / edited by Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, William G. Rusch. Growth in agreement 2. Geneva : WCC Publications ; Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub., c2000. (Faith and order paper ; no. 187)

32. Evangelicals & Catholics together : towards a common mission / Charles Colson, , editors. Dallas, Texas : Word Publishing . 1995. Not primarily a doctrinal work, but a coming together of Catholics and Evangelicals in dialog and common witness in the culture wars. There is nothing comparable for Catholics and 415

“Catholics.” Why should the Roman Catholic Church bother to talk with “Catholics”?

33. This we believe : the good news for Jesus Christ for the world / John N. Akers, John H. Armstrong, and John Woodbridge, general editors. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan Pub. House, 2000. A strongly Evangelical statement, but one not particularly open to dialog with Catholics of any stripe.

Cf. also: One faith : the Evangelical consensus / J. I. Packer and Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, c2004. An important collection of Evangelical confessional and systematic doctrinal statements. Not surprisingly, there is little on areas in which Evangelicals do not agree: election and predestination, sacraments, orders of ministry, etc.

416

READINGS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE FROM ANGLICAN AND OTHER SOURCES

Spelling, capitalization, and punctuation are as in the originals, except as noted. Full bibliographic data on the sources cited are in the Bibliography. The biographies are derived and synthesized from information in prefatory material for the texts themselves, or from The Proper for the Lesser Feasts and Fasts 2000 [ = Lesser Feasts and Fasts] (New York, N.Y. : Church Publishing, c2001), or from relevant articles in the 3rd ed. of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford, Eng. : OUP, c1997).

Contents: I. Early Medieval 308 II. Thomas Aquinas 311 III. Cranmer 314 IV. Ridley 320 V. Jewel 324 VI. Scots Confession 1560 329 VII. Hooker 331 VIII. Laud 334 IX. Taylor 335 X. Cosin 337 XI. John and Charles Wesley 338 XII. Frederick Denison Maurice 342 XIII. 20th Century Ecumenical Agreements 344 XIV. The Leuenberg Agreement 349 XV. Baptism Eucharist Ministry 351

READING # I Early Medieval Figures

A. Ratramnus (or “Bertram”) was a 9th century Carolingian at the important of Corbie in France. He involved himself in a number of controversies and suffered several condemnations but was never seriously punished. The work important 417

for our purposes is “Christ’s Body and Blood,” written at the behest of Charles the Bald. Ratramnus is the best known Medieval representative of a “dynamic-symbolist” interpretation of the Eucharist: He sees the consecrated Bread and Wine on the altar as mystic symbols of Christ’s body and blood, but not as Christ’s body and blood in truth so (that is, empirically or according to the senses.) But consecration does give these symbols more than a merely figurative value; faith receives them as the (spiritual) body and blood of Christ. Ratramnus had an obvious impact on Ridley, Cranmer, and other Reformers.

Ratramnus, “Christ’s Body and Blood,” in Early Medieval Theology, Vol..IX of The Library of Christian Classics, edited by George McCrackin and Alan Cabaniss, c1957. P. 109-147:

(1.) ...That bread which through the ministry of the priest comes to be Christ’s body exhibits one thing outwardly to human sense, and it proclaims another thing inwardly to the minds of the faithful. Outwardly it has the shape of bread which it had before, the color is exhibited, the flavor is received, but inwardly something far different, much more precious, much more excellent, becomes known, because something heavenly, something divine, that is Christ’s body, is revealed, which is not beheld, or received, or consumed by the fleshly senses but in the gaze of the believing soul.

The wine also, which through priestly consecration becomes the sacrament of Christ’s blood, shows, so far as the surface goes, one thing; inwardly it contains something else. What else is to be seen on the surface than the substance of wine? Taste it, and it has the flavor of wine; smell it, and it has the aroma of wine; look at it, and the wine color is visible. But if you think of it inwardly, it is now to the minds of believers not the liquid of Christ’s blood, and when tasted it has flavor; when looked at, it has appearance; and when smelled it is proved to be such. Since no one can deny that this is so, it is clear that that bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood in a figurative sense. For as to outward appearance, the aspect of flesh is not recognized in that bread, nor in that wine is the liquid blood shown; when, however, they are, after the mystical consecration, no longer called bread or wine, but Christ’s body and blood...

(2.) ...Let them say in what respect the elements have been changed [by consecration], for nothing is really seen to have been changed in them in a bodily sense...[Therefore] this change did not take place in a corporeal sense but in a spiritual, it must now be said 418

that this was done figuratively, since under cover of the corporeal bread and of the corporeal wine Christ’s spiritual body and spiritual blood do exist. Not that they are actually two substances differing in themselves, namely, body and spirit, but one and the same thing from one point of view has the appearance of bread and wine; from another, however, it is Christ’s body and blood. For as far as the physical appearances of both are concerned, the appearances are those of things created in a corporeal sense; but as far as their power is concerned, inasmuch as they have been spiritually made, they are the mysteries of Christ’s body and blood...

(3.) ...For it cannot be thought otherwise than that He is that one and the same Christ who then in the desert fed with his flesh the people who had been baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and gave them to drink of his blood and now in the church feeds the people who believe with the bread of his body and gives them to drink of the stream of his blood,

This is what the apostle wished to suggest, when, after he said that our fathers ate this same spiritual food, and drank this same spiritual drink...

B. Berengar(ius) of Tours (ca. 1010-1088) at first had a teaching of eucharistic Presence similar to that of Ratramnus. He was severely condemned for that by several councils and . His recantation before the Council of Rome (1079) is cited from The Christian Faith in Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, eds., c1981), pg. 407 (Denzinger-Schoenmetzer 700):

I, Berengar, believe in my heart and confess with my lips that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the , substantially changed into the true and proper and life-giving body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord; and that, after consecration, they are Christ’s true body, which was born of the Virgin and hung on the Cross, being offered for the salvation of the world, and which sits at the right hand of the Father; and Christ’s true blood, which was poured forth from His side; not only by way of sign and by the power of the sacrament, but in their true nature and in the reality of their substance (in proprietate naturae et veritate substantiae)...

419

An earlier recantation in 1059, also before a Synod of Rome and the powerful ecclesiastic Humbert of Silva Candida, was formulated in a still more realistic fashion, radically so, in fact. Quoted from Gary Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom : A Short History of the Theologies of the Lord’s Supper (c1992), pg. 77:

...The bread and wine which are laid on the altar are after consecration not only a sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and they are physically taken up and broken in the hands of the priest and crushed by the teeth of the faithful, not only sacramentally but in truth.

C. Innocent III, 1160-1216, Pope from 1198, stood at the high-water mark of the religious and the secular power of the medieval papacy. A considerable theologian himself, as well as the commanding figure of the politics of his day, Innocent presided over the epochal 4th Lateran council in 1215. We note here only his formulation of the three aspects of the Eucharist, and of the sacraments in general. Cited from The Christian Faith...(as above), pg. 408 (Denzinger-Schoenmetzer 783): We must, however, distinguish accurately between three (elements) which in this sacrament are distinct; namely: the visible form, the reality of the body, and the spiritual power. The form is of bread and wine; the reality is the flesh and blood; the power is for unity and charity. The first is ‘sacrament and not reality’; the second is ‘sacrament and reality’; the third is ‘reality and not sacrament ’. But, the first is the sacrament of a twofold reality; the second is the sacrament of one (element) and the reality of the other; the third is the reality of a twofold sacrament. Therefore, we believe that the apostles have received from Christ the words of the formula found in the Canon [of the Mass], and their successors have received them from the apostles....

READING # II Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas.(ca. 1225-1274) was the greatest theologian of the , though his central and normative status as a was not fully recognized until the 19th century. He assimilated Aristotle’s substantialist metaphysics into Catholic doctrinal theology in a compelling and authoritative fashion.

420

St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica : First complete American edition, in three volumes / literally translated by fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York, N.Y. : Benzinger, c1947. Volume II.

(1.) S. T., Pt. III, Q. 60, Art. 4, Sed Contra:

On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx, sup. Joan): The word is added to the element and this becomes a sacrament; and he is speaking there of water which is a sensible element. Therefore sensible things are required for the sacraments.

(2.). (Ibid., ad 1) ..Now a sensible effect being the primary and direct object of man’s knowledge (since all our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very natures leads to knowledge of something else; whereas intelligible effects are not such as to be able to lead us the knowledge of something else except in so far as they are manifested by some other thing, i.e., by certain sensibles. It is for this reason that the name sign is given primarily and principally to things which are offered to the senses; hence Augustine says (De Doctrina Christ. ii) that a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses....

(3.) S. T., , Part III, Q. 62, Art. 5 Whether the Sacraments of the New Law Derive their Power from Christ’s Passion?

...I answer that,...a sacrament in causing grace works after the manner of an instrument...Now the principal efficient cause of grace is God Himself....the saving power must needs be derived by the sacraments from Christ’s Godhead through His humanity ...Christ delivered us from our sins principally through His Passion, not only by way of efficiency and , but also by way of satisfaction. Likewise by His Passion He inaugurated the Rites of the Christian Religion by offering Himself –an oblation and a sacrifice to God (Ephesians v.2). Wherefore it is manifest that the sacraments of the Church derive their power specially from Christ’s Passion, the virtue of which is in a manner united to us by our receiving the sacraments. It was in sign of this that from the side of Christ hanging on the Cross there flowed water and blood, the former of which belongs to Baptism, the latter of the Eucharist, which are the principal sacraments

421

(4.) Ibid., ad 1. The Word, forasmuch as He was in the beginning with God, quickens souls as principal agent; but His flesh, and the mysteries accomplished therein, are as instrumental causes in the process of giving life to the soul: while in giving life to the body they act not only as instrumental causes, but also to a certain extent as exemplars....

(5.) Ibid., ad. 2 Christ dwells in us by faith (Eph. iii, 17). Consequently, by faith Christ’s power is united to us. Now the power of blotting out sin belongs in a special way to His Passion. And therefore men are delivered from sin especially by faith in His Passion, according to Rom. iii 25: Whom God has proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His Blood. Therefore the power of the sacraments which is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived principally from faith in Christ’s Passion.

(6.) Ibid., ad 3 Justification is ascribed to the Resurrection of reason of the term whither, which is newness of life through grace. But it is ascribed to the Passion by reason of the term whence, i.e., in regard to the forgiveness of sin.

(7.) S. T., III, Q. 62, Art. 6 Whether the Sacraments of the Old Law Caused Grace?

...Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ’s Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the Old Law were a kind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified Christ’s Passion and its effects...

(8.) S. T., III, Q. 73, Art. 1, respondeo) Whether the Eucharist is a Sacrament?...I answer that, the Church’s sacraments are ordained for helping man in the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the corporeal, since corporeal things bear a resemblance to the spiritual. Now it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal life, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the preservation of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life there had to be Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual food.

(9.) S. T., III, Q. 76. Of the Way in Which Christ Is in This Sacrament:...Art. 1.: respondeo: It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament... 422

Reply Obj. 2. By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones, the nerves, and the like. ...the word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or like.

Reply Obj. 3:...it is clear that the body of Christ is in this sacrament by way of substance, and not by way of quantity, but the proper way of totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity...

Second Article: Whether the Whole Christ is Contained under Each Species of This Sacrament?...

Reply Obj. 1. Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is so not without purpose...Christ’s body must be shown apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as drink...The body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul.

Third Article. Whether Christ is entire under Every Part of the Species of the Bread and Wine?... I answer that ....the whole nature of a substance is under every part of the dimensions under which it is contained.... And therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is under every part of the species of the bread, even while the host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken...

Fourth Article: Whether the Whole Dimensive Quantity of Christ’s Body is in this Sacrament? ...the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament...[only] after the manner of substance...

Fifth Article: Whether Christ’s Body Is in This sacrament As in a Place?...... Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place...Hence in no way is Christ’s body locally in this sacrament....But to be in a place is an when compared with the extrinsic 423

container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a place.

Ad. 1: Christ’s body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed; whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity...[but only] to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine...

Sixth Article: Whether Christ’s Body Is in This Sacrament Movably?...... On the contrary, it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and at rest...But Christ’s body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this sacrament...Christ, strictly speaking, is immovably in this sacrament...The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only until the morrow, but also in the future, so long as the sacramental species remain: and when they cease, Christ’s body ceases to be under them, not because it depends on them, but because the relationship of Christ’s body to those species is taken away...

Seventh Article: Whether the Body of Christ, As It Is in This Sacrament, Can Be Seen by Any Eye, at Least by a Glorified One?...... Christ’s body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye...But it can be seen by a wayfarer by faith alone, like other supernatural things...

Eighth Article: Whether Christ’s Body Is Truly There When Flesh or a Child Appears Miraculously in This Sacrament?...... when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this sacrament...

READING # III Cranmer

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556): educated at Cambridge and then a Fellow, Cranmer sometime shortly after 1524 became convinced that the pope had no authority in England, 424

and by 1529 was organizing University resistance in favor of Henry VIII’s “Great Cause” of annulment from . Secretly married to the niece of the Nuremberg Lutheran reformer Osiander on a trip to Germany futilely to entreat Charles V to support Henry, Cranmer returned at the death of Archbishop Ware and was quickly made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1532. He pronounced Henry’s annulment the following year. While supporting the Crown and Parliament’s ongoing rejection of Roman authority over the English Church, Cranmer’s Biblical and patristic studies, and his correspondence with Continental Reformers, drove him more and more to become a supporter of the Reformation. After Henry’s death in 1547 Cranmer began a deliberate campaign to create a vernacular liturgy, and to turn the medieval Mass into a Protestant Communion by shearing it of its doctrines of Real Presence as previously understood (Transubstantiation) and of the purported sacrifice of Christ for the living and the dead at the hands of the priest. The BCPs of 1549 and, more radically, 1552 were the result. After the death of Edward VI and the accession of Mary Tudor in 1553, Cranmer’s plans were brought to naught by the new papist Queen, the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, who for obvious reasons detested the Reformation. Imprisoned and tried for heresy, Cranmer famously recanted his “errors” but was sentenced to death nonetheless. At the stake he recanted his recantation, however, and was martyred in Oxford. He is commemorated along with Ridley and Latimer on October 16 in Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament, 1550, in The Work of Thomas Cranmer. Introduced by J. I. Packer. Edited by G. E. Duffield. c1965.

A. [The Third Book teacheth the manner how Christ is present in his Supper.] Chapter II. [The difference between the true and the papistical doctrine concerning the presence of Christ’s body.] (Pp. 124-126.)

And although we affirm according to God’s word, such sort, that with his flesh and blood he doth spiritually nourish them and feed them, and giveth them everlasting life, and doth assure them thereof, as well by the promise of his word, as by the sacramental bread and wine in his holy Supper, which he did institute for the same purpose, yet we do not a little vary from the heinous errors of the papists.

(1.) For they teach, that Christ is in the bread and wine, but we say, according to the truth, that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. 425

(2.) They say, that when any man eateth the bread and drinketh the cup, Christ goeth into his mouth or stomach with the bread and wine, and no further: but we say, that Christ is in the whole man, both in the body and soul of him that worthily eateth the bread and drinketh the cup, and not in his mouth or stomach only.

(3.) They say, that Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine: we say, that he is received in the heart, and entereth in by faith.

(4.) They say, that Christ is really in the sacramental bread, being reserved an whole year, or so long as the form of bread remaineth; but after the receiving thereof, he flyeth up, they say, from the receiver unto heaven, as soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach; but we say, that Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth it, so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ.

(5.) They say, that in the sacrament, the corporal members of Christ be not distant in place one from another, but that wheresoever the head is, there be the feet, and wheresoever the arms be, there be the legs; so that in every part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head, whole feet, whole flesh, whole blood, whole heart, whole lungs, whole breast, whole back, and altogether whole, confused and mixed without distinction or diversity. O, what a foolish and abominable invention is this, to make of the most pure and perfect body of Christ such a confused and monstrous body! And yet can the papists imagine nothing so foolish, but all Christian people must receive the same as an oracle of God, and as a most certain article of their faith, without whispering to the contrary.

(6.) Furthermore the papists say, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, if they by chance do eat the sacramental bread; we say, that no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ nor drink his blood, but only man.

(7.) They say, that every man, good and evil, eateth the body of Christ: we say, that both do eat the sacramental bread and drink the wine, but none do eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood, but only they that be lively members of his body.

(8.) They say, that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, only at that time when they receive the sacrament: we say, that they eat, drink, and feed of Christ continually, so long as they be members of his body. 426

(9.) They say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament, hath his own proper form and quantity: we say, that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually, without form or quantity.

(10.) They say, that the fathers and prophets of the Old Testament did not eat the body nor drink the blood of Christ: we say, that they did eat his body and drink his blood, although he was not yet born or incarnated.

(11.) They say, that the body of Christ is every day many times made, as often as there be masses said, and that then and there he is made of [i.e., from] bread and wine; we say, that Christ’s body was never but once made, and then not of the nature and substance of bread and wine, but of the substance of his blessed mother.

(12.) They say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, by the devotion of the priest that offereth, and not by the thing that is offered: but we say, that their saying is a most heinous lie and detestable error against the glory of Christ. for the satisfaction for our sins is not the devotion nor offering of the priest; but the only host and satisfaction for all the sins of the world is the death of Christ, and the oblation of his body upon the cross, that is to say, the oblation that Christ himself offered once upon the cross, and never but once, nor never none but he. And therefore that oblation, which the priests make daily in their papistical masses, cannot be a satisfaction for other men’s sins by the priest’s devotion, but it is a mere elusion and subtle craft of the Devil, whereby Antichrist hath many years blinded and deceived the world. (13.) They say, that Christ is corporally in many places at one time, affirming that his body is corporally and really present in as many places as there be hosts consecrated; we say, that as the sun corporally is ever in heaven, and no where else; and yet by his operation and virtue the sun is here in earth, by whose influence and virtue all things in the world be corporally regenerated, increased, and grow to their perfect state; so likewise our Saviour Christ bodily and corporally is in heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father, although spiritually he hath promised to be present with us upon earth unto the world’s end. And whensoever two or three be gathered together in his name, he is there in the midst among them, by whose supernal grace all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerated, and after increase and grow to their spiritual perfection in God, spiritually by faith eating his flesh and drinking his blood, although the same corporally be in heaven, far distant from our sight. 427

B. Book III, Chapter 11 (Pg. 150.)

The same authors [i.e., the Fathers, here esp. Augustine] did say also, that when Christ called the bread his body and the wine his blood, it was no proper speech that he then used; but as all sacraments be figures of other things, and yet have the very names of the things which they do signify: so Christ, instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and blood, did use figurative speeches, calling the bread by the name of his body, because it signified his body; and the wine he called the blood, because it represented his blood.

C. Ibid. pp. 154-156.

Thus doth St. Augustine most plainly open this matter in his Epistle to Bonifacius.

Of this manner of speech, (wherein a sign is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth,) speaketh St. Augustine also right largely in his questions Super Leviticum (quest. 57] and Contra Adamantium, declaring how blood in Scripture is called the soul. “A thing which signifieth,” saith he, “is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, as it is written in the Scripture: The seven ears be seven years, the Scripture saith not signifieth seven; and seven kine be seven years, and many other like. And so said Paul, that the stone was Christ, [I Cor. x] and not that it signified Christ; but that even as it had been he in deed, which nevertheless was not Christ by substance, but by signification. Even so, saith Augustine, “because the blood signifieth and representeth the soul, therefore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soul.

(...)

And therefore St. Augustine saith, Contra Maximinum [lib. iii, cap. 22] that “in sacraments we must not consider what they be, but what they signify. For they be signs of things, being one thing, and signifying another.” Which he doth show especially of this sacrament, saying, “The heavenly bread, which is Christ’s flesh, by some manner of speech is called Christ’s body, when in very deed it is the sacrament of his body...”

428

D. Cranmer found one fifth-century writer (in addition to St. Augustine, who is his chief inspiration) whose thought he could especially mine. That writer was of Cyrrhus in , (ca. 393-ca. 460). Aware that Theodoret was one of the men condemned in the “Three Chapters Controversy,” who was indeed posthumously anathematized by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, Cranmer made a defense in passing against charges that Theodoret had been a Nestorian. (Theodoret had indeed been a representative of Antiochene Christology, had written against and the Council of Ephesus of 431, but was reconciled to the in 451 after a rather lukewarm denunciation of , He died in undisputed possession of his see.) After a very long (pp. 156-161) set of quotations from Theodoret’s Dialogues, Cranmer summarizes in his own words Theodoret’s teachings (and shades them in support of Cranmer’s own teaching) and adopts them as his own (pp. 162-163):

{Five principal things to be noted in Theodoretus):

(1.) First, that our Saviour Christ in his last supper, when he gave bread and wine to his Apostles, saying, this is my body, this is my blood, it was bread which he called his body, and wine mixed in the cup which he called his blood; so that he changed the names of the bread and wine, which were the mysteries, sacraments, signs, figures, and tokens of Christ’s flesh and blood, and called them by the names of the things which they did represent and signify, that is to say, the bread he called by the name of his very flesh, and the wine by the name of his blood.

(2.) That although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification, yet nevertheless the things themselves remained the self-same that they were before the sanctification, that is to say, the same bread and wine in nature, substance, form, and fashion.

(3.) Seeing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed, why be then their names changed, and the bread called Christ’s flesh, and the wine his blood? Theodoretus showeth, that the cause thereof was this, that we should not have so much respect to the bread and wine, which we see with our eyes and taste with our mouths, as we should have to Christ himself, in whom we believe with our hearts, and feel and taste him by our 429

faith, and with whose flesh and blood, by his grace, we believe that we be spiritually fed and nourished.

These things we ought to remember and revolve in our minds, and to lift up our hearts from the bread and wine unto Christ that sitteth above. And because we should so do, therefore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ.

(4.) It is in these sacraments of bread and wine, as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after, is all one in nature, substance, bigness, form, and fashion, and yet it is not called as another common body, but with addition, for the dignity of his exaltation, it is called a heavenly, a godly, an immortal, and the Lord’s body: so likewise the bread and wine, before the consecration and after, is all one in nature, substance, bigness, form, and fashion, and yet it is not called as other common bread, but for the dignity whereunto it is taken, it is called with addition, heavenly bread, the bread of life, and the bread of thanksgiving.

(5.) That no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirm for a certain truth in religion, any thing which is not spoken of in holy Scripture. And this is spoken to the great and utter condemnation of the papists, which make and unmake new articles of our faith from time to time, at their pleasure, without any Scripture at all, yea quite and clean contrary to Scripture. And yet will they have all men bound to believe whatsoever they invent, upon peril of damnation and everlasting fire.

And they would constrain with fire and fagot all men to consent, contrary to the manifest words of God, to these their errors in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christ’s body and blood.

E. Ibid., The Fourth Book is of the Eating and Drinking of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ. (Pp. 193 -196.)

The gross error of the papists, is of the carnal eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood with our mouths.

For they say, that whosoever eat and drink the sacraments of bread and wine, do eat and drink also with their mouths Christ’s very flesh and blood, be they never so ungodly and 430

wicked persons. But Christ himself taught clean contrary in the sixth of John, that we eat not him carnally with our mouths, but spiritually with our faith...(long quotes from John 6 follow)

What need we any other witness? When Christ himself doth testify the matter so plainly, that whosoever eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, hath everlasting life; and that to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, is to believe in him; and whosoever believeth in him, hath everlasting life. Whereof it followeth necessarily, that ungodly persons, being limbs of the Devil, do not eat Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood : except the papists would say, that such hath everlasting life.

(...)

And every good and faithful Christian feeleth in himself how he feedeth of Christ, eating his flesh and drinking of his blood. For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and salvation in that only sacrifice which Christ made upon the cross, having his body there broken, and his blood there shed for the remission of his sins. And this great benefit of Christ the faithful man earnestly considereth in his mind, chaweth and digesteth it with the stomach of his heart, spiritually receiving Christ unto him, and giving again himself wholly unto Christ.

And this is the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood, the feeding whereof is to every man the feeling how he eateth and drinketh Christ, which none evil man nor member of the Devil can do.

For as Christ is a spiritual meat, so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spiritual part of us, and giveth us spiritual and eternal life, and is not eaten, swallowed, and digested with our teeth, tongues, and bellies. (...)

And according to the same, St. Austen [Augustine] saith, “Prepare not thy jaws, but thy heart.” And in another place, he saith, “Why dost thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before, where it is proved that “to eat Christ’s flesh” and “drink his blood” be figurative speeches

F. Ibid., (pg. 201) [the internal quotes are from various In Joan. Tractates.) 431

And in the same place St. Augustine saith further “The Sacrament of the unity of Christ’s body and blood is taken in the Lord’s table of some men to life, and of some men to death; but the thing itself, whereof it is a sacrament, is taken of all men to life, and of no man to death.” And moreover he saith, “this is to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwelling in him. And for that cause, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, although carnally and visibly with his teeth he bite the sacrament of his body and blood.”

G. The Fifth Book is of the Oblation and Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ. Concluding paragraphs, pg. 231.

But thanks be to the eternal God, the manner of the holy communion, which is now set forth within this realm, is agreeable with the institution of Christ, with St. Paul and the old primitive and apostolic Church, with the right faith of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for our redemption, and with the true doctrine of our salvation, justification, and remission of all our sins by that only sacrifice.

Now resteth nothing but that all faithful subjects will gladly receive and embrace the same, being sorry for their former ignorance; and every man repenting himself of his offences against God, and amending the same, may yield himself wholly to God, to serve and obey him all the days of his life, and often to come to the holy Supper, which our Lord and Saviour Christ hath prepared; and as he there corporally eateth the very bread, and drinketh the very wine; so spiritually he may feed of the very flesh and blood of Jesu Christ his Saviour and Redeemer, remembering his death, thanking him for his benefits, and looking for none other sacrifice at no priest’s hands for remission of his sins, but only trusting to his sacrifice, which being both the High Priest, and also the , prepared from the beginning to take away the sins of the world, offered up himself once for ever in a sacrifice of sweet smell unto his Father, and by the same paid the ransom for the sins of the whole world; who is before us entered into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, as a Patron, Mediator, and Intercessor for us; and there hath prepared places for all them that be lively members of his body, to reign with him for ever, in the glory of his Father; to whom with him, and the Holy Ghost, be glory, honour, and praise, for ever and ever. Amen.

432

[Note: no one can read these two paragraphs, which conclude his Defence, without realizing that Cranmer is referring to the 1549 The Boke of the Common Prayer and specifically to its liturgy for “the Supper of the Lorde and the Holy Communion” which is (only) “Commonly called the Masse.” It is also clear that he holds this office to have overthrown the previous Roman and Henrician Mass and to have rejected its doctrines of transubstantiation, carnal and corporal presence of the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar, and the purported sacrifice of Christ in the Mass by the priest. Apparently, however, the text of 1549 and Cranmer’s 1550 Defence in answer to Gardiner were still not sufficient for Reformers such as Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Ridley, and 1552 was an attempt to make the Reformation principles of 1549 all the more inescapably clear. 1559 and 1661 were only slight, but not insignificant, revisions of 1552, and they thus carry forward Cranmer’s principles of eucharistic theology, which remain foundational and normative for the C of E and Anglicanism in general.]

READING # IV Ridley

Nicholas Ridley (1500-1555): also a Cambridge man, inclined to the Continental Reformation from c.1535 onwards, was made bishop in 1547 and then bishop of London in 1550. Long associated with Cranmer, and an advocate of Ratramnus’ eucharistic teachings, he influenced Cranmer in this regard and had a role in the compilation of the 1549 BCP. Under Mary he was excommunicated for denying transubstantiation and was burned at the stake with Latimer in 1555. He and Cranmer and Latimer are commemorated on October 16 in Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

Nicholas Ridley : A Treatise Agaynst the Errour of Transubstantiation [1555?], and Extracts from His Examinations [1554], from English Reformers, edited by T. H. L. Parker, in The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XXVI ( c1956).

A. (Pp. 298-300) It is neither to be denied nor dissembled, that in the matter of this sacrament there be divers points, wherein men counted to be learned cannot agree. As whether there be any transubstantiation of the bread or no? Any corporal and carnal presence of Christ’s substance or no? Whether adoration only due unto God is to be done to the sacrament or no? And whether Christ’s body be there offered in deed unto the 433

heavenly Father by the priest or no? Or whether the evil man receive the natural body of Christ or no?

Yet nevertheless, as in a man diseased in divers parts, commonly the original cause of divers diseases which are spread abroad in the body do come from one chief member, as from the stomach or from the head; even so, all those five aforesaid points do chiefly hang upon this one question, which is, what is the matter of the sacrament, whether is it the natural substance of bread, or the natural substance of Christ’s own body?

The truth of this question, truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt shall cease the controversy in all the rest. For if it be Christ’s own natural body, born of the Virgin then assuredly....they must needs grant transubstantiation, that is, a change of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ’s body: then also they must grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ’s body: then must the sacrament be adored with the honour due unto Christ himself, for the unity of the two natures in one person: then, if the priest do offer the sacrament, he doth offer indeed Christ himself; and finally, the murderer, the adulterer, or wicked man, receiving the sacrament, must needs then receive also the natural substance of Christ’s own blessed body, both flesh and blood.

Now, on the other side, if, after the truth shall be truly tried out, it be found that the substance of bread is the material substance of the sacrament; although, for the change of the use, office, and dignity of the bread, the bread is indeed sacramentally changed into the body of Christ, as the water in Baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet the material substance thereof remaineth all one as was before; if ( I say) the true solution of that former question, whereupon all these controversies do hang, be that the natural substance of bread is the material substance in the holy sacrament of Christ’s blessed body; then must it follow of that former proposition, (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know, in England) which is, that there is but one material substance in the sacrament of the body, and one only likewise in the sacrament of the blood; that there is no such thing indeed and in truth as they call transubstantiation, for the substance of bread remaineth still in the sacrament of the body, and one only likewise in the sacrament of the blood; then also the natural substance of Christ’s human nature which he took of the Virgin Mary, is in heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here inclosed under the form of bread; then that godly honour which is due unto God the Creator and may not be done to the creature without idolatry 434

and sacrilege, is not to be done to the holy sacrament; then also the wicked ( I mean the impenitent murderer, adulterer, or such-like) do not receive the natural substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ; finally, then doth follow that Christ’s blessed body and blood, which was once only offered and shed upon the cross, being available for the sins of all the world, is offered up no more in the natural substance thereof, neither by the priest nor any other thing.

But here, before we go any further to search in this matter and to wade, as it were, to search and try out, as we may the truth thereof in the scripture, it shall do well by the way to know, whether they that thus make answer and solution unto the former principal question, do take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christ’s body and blood fro the sacrament ordained by Christ, and duly ministered according to his holy ordinance and institution of the same. Undoubtedly they do deny that utterly, either so to say, or to mean the same. And thereof if any man do or will doubt, the books which are written already in this matter of them that thus do answer will make the matter plain.

Now then you will say, what kind of presence do they grant, and what do they deny? Briefly, they deny the presence of Christ’s body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature, and grant the presence of the same by grace. That is, they affirm and say that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in heaven, and so shall be unto the latter day, when he shall come again in glory, accompanied with the angels of heaven, to judge both the quick and the dead. And the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christ, because it is united to the divine nature in Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, therefore it hath not only life in itself, but is also able and doth give life unto so many as be, or shall be, partakers thereof; that is, that to all that do believe on his name, (which are not born of blood, as St. John saith, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but born of God) though the self- same substance abide still in heaven, and they, for the time of their pilgrimage, dwell here upon the earth, by grace (I say), that is, by the life mentioned in John and the properties of the same meet for our pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ is present with us. Even as, for example, we say the sun, which in substance never removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light, and natural influence, where it shineth upon the earth. For God’s Word and his sacraments be as it were the beams of Christ, which is Sol justitiae, the Sun of righteousness...

435

B. (Pp. 304-305) Now then, if you grant me that Paul did use the form of words which he writeth, let us then rehearse and consider Paul’s words, which he saith Christ spake thus upon the cup: “This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do as often as ye shall drink it in the remembrance of me.”

Here I would know whether that Christ’s words spoken upon the cup were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in signification, to all intents, constructions, and purposes (as our Parliament men do speak), as they were, spoken upon the bread? If this be granted, which thing, I think, no man can deny, then further I reason thus: But the word “is” in the words spoken upon the Lord’s bread, doth mightily signify (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it, into the substance of that which followeth after; that is, of the substance of the bread into Christ’s body, when Christ saith, “This is my body.” Now then if Christ’s words, which be spoken upon the cup, which Paul here rehearseth, be of the same might and power both working and signifying, then must this word “is,” when Christ saith, “this cup is the new testament, &c.” turn the substance of the cup into the substance of the new testament. And if thou wilt say that this word “is” neither maketh nor signifieth any change of the cup, although it be said of Christ that this cup is the new testament, yet Christ meant no such change as that. Marry, sir, even so say I, when Christ said of the bread which he took, after thanks given, brake, and gave them, saying, “take, eat, this is my body,” he meant no more any such change of the substance of bread into the substance of his natural body, than he meant of the change and transubstantiation of the cup into the substance of the new testament.

And if thou wilt say, that the word “cup” here in Christ’s words doth not signify the cup itself, but the wine, or thing contained in the cup, by a figure called metonymy, for that Christ’s words meant, and so must needs be taken; thou sayest very well. But I pray thee by the way, here note two things: first, that this word “is” hath no such strength or signification in the Lord’s words, to make or to signify any transubstantiation: secondly, that in the Lord’s words, whereby he instituted the sacrament of his blood, he useth a figurative speech. How vain then is it, that some so earnestly do say, as it were an infallible rule, that in doctrine and in the institution of the sacraments Christ useth no figures, but all his words are to be strained to their proper significations; when as here, whatsoever thou sayest was in the cup, yet neither that nor the cup itself was (taking every word in his proper signification) the new testament: but in understanding that which was in the cup, by the cup, that is a figurative speech. Yea, and also thou canst not verify, or truly say of that (whether thou sayest it was wine or Christ’s blood) to be the 436

new testament, without a figure also. Thus, in one sentence spoken of Christ in the institution of the sacrament of his blood, the figure must help us twice. So untrue is it that some do write, that Christ useth no figure in the doctrine of faith, nor in the institution of his sacraments.

C. (Pp. 305-306) But some say: if we shall thus admit figures in doctrine, then shall all the articles of our faith, by figures and allegories, shortly be transformed and unloosed. I say, it is like fault, and even the same, to deny the figure where the place so requireth to be understood, as vainly to make it a figurative speech, which is to be understanded in his proper signification.

The rules, whereby the speech is known when it is a figurative, and when it is none, St. Austin in his book called De doctrina christiana (III, 16), giveth divers learned lessons, very necessary to be known of the student in God’s word. Of the which one I will rehearse, which is this: “If,” saith he, “the Scripture doth seem to command a thing which is wicked or ungodly, or to forbid a thing that charity doth require, then know thou (saith he) that the speech is figurative.” And for example he bringeth the saying of Christ in the sixth chapter of St. John: “except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye cannot have life in you.” It seemeth to command a wicked or an ungodly thing. Wherefore it is a figurative speech, commanding to have communion and fellowship with Christ’s passion, and devoutly and wholesomely to lay up in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.

D. Examinations on the Eucharist, from the Disputation at Oxford in April, 1555, between Ridley and a number of opponents, chiefly Dr. Richard Smith. ( Pp. 317-318.)

Smith:....Me seemeth you did in your supposition abuse the testimonies of Scripture concerning the ascension of Christ, to take away his presence in the sacrament, as though this were a strong argument to enforce your matter withal: Christ did ascend unto heaven. Ergo, he is not in the sacrament. Now therefore I will go about to disprove this reason of yours. Christ’s ascension is no let to his real presence in the sacrament. Ergo, you are deceived, whereas you do ground yourself upon those places. 437

Ridley: you import as though I had made a strong argument by Christ’s going up into heaven. But howsoever mine argument is made, you collect it not rightly. For it doth not only stay upon his ascension, but both upon his ascension and his abiding there also. Smith: Christ’s going up into heaven and his abiding there hinder not his real presence in the sacrament. Ergo, you are deceived. Ridley: Of Christ’s real presence there may be a double understanding. If you take the real presence of Christ according to the real and corporal substance which he took of the virgin, that presence being in heaven cannot be on the earth also. But if you mean a real presence...according to something that doth appertain to Christ’s body–certes the ascension and abiding in heaven are no let at all to that presence. Wherefore Christ’s body after that sort is present to us in the Lord’s Supper; by grace, I say, as Epiphanius speaketh it. Weston: I will cut off from henceforth all equivocation and doubt. For whensoever we speak of Christ’s body, we mean that which he took of the Virgin. Ridley: Christ’s ascension and abiding in heaven cannot stand with this presence.

E. Ibid., continued, pg. 320.

Curtop: Reverend sir, I will prove and declare that the body of Christ is truly and really in the eucharist. And whereas the holy fathers both of the west and east church have written many things and no less manifest of the same matter, yet I will bring forth only Chrysostom. The place is in cap. X. Corinth. I. Hom. XXIV: That which is in the cup is the same that flowed from the side of Christ. Ergo, his true and pure blood is in the cup. Ridley: It is his true blood which is in the chalice, I grant, and the same which sprang from the side of Christ. But how? It is blood indeed, but not after the same manner after which manner it sprang from his side. For here is the blood, but by the way of the sacrament. Again, I say, like as the bread of the sacrament and of thanksgiving is called the body of Christ given for us, so the cup of the Lord is called the blood which sprang from the side of Christ. But that sacramental bread is called the body, because it is the sacrament of that blood which flowed out of his side, instituted of the Lord himself for our singular commodity, namely, for our spiritual nourishment; like as baptism is ordained in water to our spiritual regeneration. Curtop: The sacrament of the blood is not the blood. 438

Ridley: The sacrament of the blood is the blood; and that is attributed to the sacrament which is spoken of the thing of the sacrament. [Note: “thing” = res sacramenti or res-et-non- sacramentum.] Here Weston repeateth Curtop’s argument in English. Weston: That which is in the chalice is the same which streamed out of Christ’s side. But there came out very blood. Ergo, there is blood in the chalice. Ridley: The blood of Christ is in the chalice indeed, but not in real presence, but by grace and in a sacrament. Weston: Why, then we are glad we have blood in the chalice. Ridley: It is true. But by grace and in a sacrament.

READING # V Jewel

John Jewel (1522-1571) : a member of the Reforming or “Gospeller” party in the C of E from 1547, he at first conformed under Mary but then fled to the Continent in 1555 with Peter Martyr. He returned upon Elizabeth’s accession and so distinguished himself that he was appointed bishop of in 1560. His most famous work was his Apology of the Church of England, first published in Latin in 1562. It became the standard semi- official compendium of 16th century Anglican belief and a trusted weapon in the Crown and Bishops’ campaign for the de-Romanization of the English Church and occasioned a long literary battle with the papist controversialist and Louvain expatriate Thomas Harding. Jewel’s Defence of the Apology directed against Harding came to have such an official character that it became one of the “chained books”distributed to English cathedrals and parish churches. He was also author of most of the Second [Elizabethan] Book of the Homilies of the C of E, an official compilation of sermons to be read in the churches; the Homilies are listed in the Articles and thus retain some degree of doctrinal and disciplinary authority, though they mostly remain unread (and unreadable) today.

I. Jewel, John. An Apology of the Church of England. Edited by J. E. Booty. c1963.

A. Pp. 30-31: [Moreover,] we allow the sacraments of the church, that is to say, certain holy signs and ceremonies, which Christ would we should use, that by them he might set before our eyes the mysteries of our salvation, and might more strongly confirm the faith 439

which we have in his blood, and might seal his grace in our hearts. And these sacraments, together with Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Basil, Dionysius, and other catholic fathers, do we call figures, signs, marks or badges, prints, copies, forms, seals, signets, similitudes, patterns, representations, remembrances, and memories. And we make no doubt, together with the same doctors, to say that these be certain visible words, seals of righteousness, tokens of grace; and we do expressly pronounce that in the Lord’s Supper there is truly given unto the believing the body and blood of our Lord, the flesh of the Son of God, which quickeneth our souls, the meat that cometh from above, the food of immortality, of grace, truth and life; and the same supper to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ by the partaking whereof we be revived, we be strengthened, and be fed unto immortality; and whereby we are joined, united, and incorporate unto Christ, that we may abide in him, and he in us.

B. Pp. 31-32: We say that Eucharistia, the supper of the Lord, is a sacrament, that is to wit, an evident token of the body and blood of Christ, wherein is set, as it were, before our eyes the death of Christ and his resurrection, and what act soever he did whilst he was in his mortal body; to the end we may give him thanks for his death and for our deliverance; and that, by the often receiving of this sacrament, we may daily renew the remembrance of that matter, to the intent we, being fed with the body and blood of Christ, may be brought into the hope of the resurrection and of everlasting life and may most assuredly believe that the body and blood of Christ doth in like manner feed our souls, as bread and wine doth feed our bodies. To this banquet we think the ought to be earnestly bidden, that they may all communicate among themselves and openly declare and testify both the godly society which is among them and also the hope which they have in Christ Jesus. For this cause, if there had been any which could be but a looker-on and abstain from the Holy Communion, him did the old fathers and Bishops of Rome in the primitive church, before private Mass came up, excommunicate as a wicked person and a pagan. Neither was there any Christian at that time which did communicate alone whiles others looked on...

C. Pp. 33-34: We affirm that bread and wine are holy and heavenly mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, and that by them Christ himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so presently given unto us as that by faith we verily receive his body and blood. Yet say we not this as though we thought that the very nature of bread is changed and goeth to nothing, as many have dreamed in these later times which yet could never agree among themselves upon their own dreams. For that was not Christ’s meaning, that the 440

wheaten bread should lay apart his own nature and receive a certain new divinity, but that he might rather change us, and (to use Theophylact’s words) might transform us into his body. For what can be said more plainly than that which Ambrose saith, “Bread and wine remain still the same they were before and yet are changed into another thing”; or that which Gelasius saith, “the substance of the bread, or the nature of the wine, ceaseth not so to be”; or that which Theodoret saith, “After the consecration the mystical signs do not cast off their own proper nature, for they remain still in their former substance, form, and kind”; or that which Augustine saith, “That which you see is the bread and cup, and so our eyes tell us, but that which your faith requireth to be taught is this: the bread is the body of Christ, and the cup is his blood”; or that which Origen saith, “Bread which is sanctified by the word of God, as touching the material substance thereof, goeth into the belly. And is cast out into the privy”; or that which Christ himself said, not only after the blessing of the cup, but also after he had ministered the communion: “I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine”? It is well known that the fruit of the vine is wine and not blood.

D. Pp.34-35: For we affirm that Christ does truly and presently give himself wholly in his sacraments; in baptism, that we may put him on; and in his supper, that we may eat him by faith and spirit and may have everlasting life by his cross and blood. And we say not, this is done slightly and coldly, but effectually and truly. For, although we do not touch the body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet we hold him fast and eat him by faith, by understanding, and by spirit. And it is no vain faith which doth comprehend Christ; and that is not received with cold devotion which is received with understanding, and by spirit. For Christ himself altogether is so offered and given us by these mysteries that we may certainly know we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones; and that Christ continueth in us and we in him. And therefore in celebrating these mysteries, the people are to good purpose exhorted, before they come to receive the Holy Communion, to lift up their heart and to direct their minds to heavenward; because he is there by whom we must be full fed and live. Cyril saith, when we come to receive these mysteries, all gross imaginations must be quite banished....And Augustine, “How shall I hold him,” saith he, “which is absent? How shall I reach my hand up to heaven, to lay hold upon him that sitteth there?” He answereth, “Reach thither thy faith, and then thou hast laid hold on him.”

E. Pp. 35-36: We can also away in our churches with the shows, and sales, and buying and selling of Masses, nor the carrying about and worshiping of bread; nor such other 441

idolatrous and blasphemous fondness which none of them can prove that Christ or his apostles did ever ordain or left unto us. And we justly blame the Bishops of Rome, who, without the word of God, without the authority of the holy fathers, without any example of antiquity, after a new guise, do now set before the people the sacramental bread to be worshiped as God, but do also carry the same about upon an ambling horse, whithersoever themselves journey...and have brought the sacraments of Christ to used now as a stage play and a solemn sight; to the end that men’s eyes should be fed with nothing else but with mad gazings and foolish gauds, in the selfsame matter wherein the death of Christ ought diligently to be beaten into our hearts, and wherein also the mysteries of our redemption ought with all holiness and reverence to be executed.

F. Pg. 36: Besides, where they say, and sometime do persuade fools, that they are able by their Masses to distribute and apply unto men’s commodity all the merits of Christ’s death, yea, although many times the parties think nothing of the matter and understand full little what is done, this is a mockery, a heathenish fancy, and a very toy. For it is our faith that applieth the death and cross of Christ to our benefit, and not the act of the Massing priest. “Faith had in the sacraments,” saith Augustine, “doth justify, and not the sacraments.” And Origen saith, “ Christ is the priest, the propitiation, and sacrifice; which propitiation comes to everyone by means of faith.” So that by this reckoning we say that the sacraments of Christ without faith do not once profit those that be alive; a great deal less do they profit those that be dead.

G. Pg. 49: And as for those persons whom they upon spite call Zwinglians and Lutherans, in very deed they of both sides be Christians, good friends, and brethren. They vary not betwixt themselves upon the principles and foundations of our religion, nor as touching God, or Christ, or the Holy Ghost, nor of the means of justification, nor yet everlasting life, but upon one only question which is neither weighty nor great [Booty’s note: The mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist]; neither mistrust we, or make doubt at all, but they will shortly be agreed. And if there be any of them which have other opinion than is meet, we doubt not but, or [=ere] it be long, they will put apart all affections and names of parties, and that God will reveal the truth unto them; so that by better considering and searching out of the matter, as once it came to pass in the Council of Chalcedon, all causes and seeds of dissension shall be thoroughly plucked up by the root and be buried and quite forgotten forever; which God grant.

442

[Jewel’s confidence in the speedy reconciliation of Lutheran and Reformed was in the event misplaced, and his belief that Chalcedon settled matters in the East is wildly inaccurate, witness the secession of the Jacobites and Copts and .]

H. Pg. 101: We have brought again the Lord’s Supper unto Christ’s institution, and will have it to be a communion in very deed, common and indifferent to a great number, according to the name. But these men have changed all things, contrary to Christ’s institution, and have made a private Mass of the Holy Communion. And so it cometh to pass that we [the Reformed C of E] give the Lord’s Supper unto the people, and they [the Papists] give them a vain pageant to gaze upon.

We affirm, together with the ancient fathers, that the body of Christ is not eaten but of [=by] the good and faithful and of those that are endued with the Spirit of Christ. Their doctrine is that Christ’s very body effectually and, as they speak, really and substantially may not only be eaten of the wicked and unfaithful men but also (which is monstrous to be spoken) of mice and dogs.

II. An Homilie of the Worthy Receiving and Reverent Esteeming of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, from Certaine Sermons or Homiles, Appointed to be read in Churches in the Time of Queen Elizabeth I (1547-1571) : a Facsimile Reproduction of the Edition of 1623... c.1968, pp. 199-200. (I have modernized the spelling.) 443

A. (pp. 199-200.)...Neither need we to think that such exact knowledge is required of every man, that he be able to discuss all high points in the doctrine thereof: but thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent: But, as the Scripture saith, the Table of the Lord: the Bread and Cup of the Lord; the Memory of Christ; the Annunciation of his death; yea, the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvelous incorporation; which by the operation of the Holy Ghost–the very bond of our conjunction with Christ–is, through faith, wrought in the souls of the faithful; whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality. The true understanding of this fruition and union, which is betwixt the body and the Head, betwixt the true believers and Christ, the ancient Catholic Fathers both perceiving themselves, and commending to their people, were not afraid to call this supper, some of them, the salve of immortality, and sovereign preservative against death; others, a deifical communion, others, the sweet dainties of our Saviour, the pledge of eternal health, the defense of faith, the hope of the resurrection; others, the food of immortality, the healthful grace, and the conservatory to everlasting life. [Jewel has been quoting Irenaeus, , Dionysius, Cyprian, and Athanasius.] All of which sayings, both of the Holy Scripture and godly men, truly attributed to this celestial banquet and feast, if we would often call to mind, O how would they inflame our hearts to desire the participation of these mysteries and oftentimes to covet after this bread, continually to thirst for this food. Not as especially regarding the terrene and earthly creatures which remain, but always holding and cleaving by faith to the rock, whence we may suck the sweetness of everlasting salvation.

And, to be brief, thus much more the faithful see, hear, and know the favorable mercies of God sealed, the satisfaction by Christ towards us confirmed, and the remission of sin established. Here they feel wrought the tranquility of conscience, the increase of faith, the strengthening of hope, the large spreading abroad of brotherly kindness, with many other sundry graces of God. The taste whereof they cannot attain unto, who be drowned in the deep dirty lake of blindness and ignorance. From the which, O beloved, wash yourselves with the living waters of God’s word; whence you may perceive and know, both the spiritual food of this costly supper, and the happy trusting and effects that the same doth bring with it. 444

B. (Pp. 200-201) That faith is a necessary instrument in all these holy ceremonies, we may thus assure ourselves , for that, as St. Paul saith, without faith it is impossible to please God. When a great number of the Israelites were overthrown in the wilderness, Moses, , and Phineas did eat manna, and pleased God; for that they understood, saith St. Augustine, the visible meat spiritually. Spiritually they hungered it; spiritually they tasted it, that they might be spiritually satisfied. And truly, as the bodily meat cannot feed the outward man, unless it be let into a stomach to be digested, which is healthful and sound; no more can the inward man be fed, except his meat be received into his soul and heart, sound and whole in faith. Therefore, saith Cyprian, when we do these things, we need not to whet our teeth; but with sincere faith we break and divide the whole bread. It is well known, that the meat we seek for in this supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of our soul; a heavenly refection, not carnal; so that to think that without faith we may enjoy the eating and drinking thereof, or that that is the fruition of it, is but to dream a gross carnal feeding, basely objecting, and binding ourselves to, the elements and creatures. Whereas, by the advice of the Council of Nicene, we ought to lift up our minds by faith, and, leaving these inferior and earthly things, there seek it where the Sun of Righteousness ever shineth. Take then this lesson, O thou that art desirous of this table, of [Eusebius] Emissenus, a godly father; that when thou goest up to communion, to be satisfied with spiritual meats, thou look up with faith upon the holy body and blood of thy God; thou marvel with reverence; thou touch it with thy mind; thou receive it with the hand of thy heart; and thou take it fully with thy inward man.

READING # VI The Scots Confession of 1560

This was the clearly Reformed confession of faith which governed the until its supersession by the Westminster Confession. Although it is not an Anglican document, the similarity of its eucharistic teaching to that of Cranmer and the Articles is to be noted; it teaches a real and spiritual communion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and denies both transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass, which was abolished. Those who were episcopalians in Scotland also long espoused this confession, dissenting from the view of polity expressed in it, at least until the Civil War and Commonwealth or perhaps the Restoration or until they were expelled from the Kirk in 445

1689. Scottish Jacobites and Nonjurors did not accept it, but neither did they take the (purely English) 39 Articles to themselves.

The Scots Confession (1560), from the Book of Confessions : Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ; Study edition, c1999

A. Chapter XXI. The Sacraments (pp. 43-44): As the fathers under the Law, besides the reality of the sacrifices, had two chief sacraments, that is circumcision and the Passover, and those who rejected these were not reckoned among God’s people; so do we acknowledge and confess that now in the time of the gospel we have two chief sacraments, which alone were instituted by the Lord Jesus and commanded to be used by all who will be counted members of his body, that is, Baptism and the Supper or Table of the Lord Jesus, also called the Communion of his Body and Blood. These Sacraments both of the Old Testament and of the New were instituted of God, not only to make a visible distinction between his People and those who were without the Covenant, but also to exercise the faith of his children and, by participation of these sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union, and society, which the chosen have with their Head, Christ Jesus. And we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ’s body, and of wine into his natural blood, as the Romanists have perniciously taught and wrongly believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by means of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, once broken and shed for us but now in heaven, and appearing for us in the presence of his Father. Notwithstanding the distance between his glorified body in heaven and mortal men on earth, yet we most assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body and the cup which we bless the communion of his blood. Thus we confess and believe without doubt that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus that he remains in them and they in him; they are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone that as the eternal Godhead has given to the flesh of Christ Jesus, which by nature was corruptible and mortal, life and 446

immortality, so the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ Jesus does the same for us. We grant that this is neither given to us at the time, nor by the power and virtue of the sacrament alone, but we affirm that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s table, have such union with Christ Jesus that the natural man cannot apprehend. Further we affirm that although the faithful, hindered by negligence and human weakness, do not profit as much as they ought in the actual moment of the Supper, yet afterwards it shall bring forth fruit, being living seed sown in good ground; for the Holy Spirit, who can never be separated from the right institution of the Lord Jesus, will not deprive the faithful of the fruit of that mystical action. Yet all this, we say again, comes of that true faith which apprehends Christ Jesus, who alone makes the sacrament effective in us. Therefore, if anyone slanders us by saying that we believe the sacraments to be symbols and nothing more, they are libelous and speak against the plain facts. On the other hand, we readily admit that we make a distinction between Christ Jesus in his eternal substance and the elements of the sacramental signs. So we neither worship the elements, in place of that which they signify, nor yet do we despise them or undervalue them, but we use them with great reverence, examining ourselves diligently before we participate, since we are assured by the mouth of the apostle that “whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

READING # VI I Hooker

Richard Hooker (1554?-1600), a protege of Jewel, became the greatest apologist of the Elizabethan Settlement and of its (1559) Book of Common Prayer, and, in the judgment of most, of Anglicanism generally with his great work, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, designed mainly to defend liturgical worship against Puritan scruples, and episcopal polity against the presbyterian or congregationalist version. Hooker’s fair and equitable style of theologizing earned him the sobriquet “the judicious,” although he engaged in controversy (quite fierce at times) against both the Puritans of his day and against Roman Catholic opponents. In his writings can be seen the lines of a classical Anglicanism distinct and self-confident of its position over against opponents on the Left (Puritans) and on the Right (popish recusants), but sure both of its descent from the primitive Church and of its Reformation inheritance. His is an Anglicanism, however, that will strike contemporary readers as being far more on the “Reformed” than on the “Catholic” side of the ledger. Modern day Anglicans may indeed be shocked in particular to see that he focuses the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the 447

sacramental action, not in the elements themselves, but in the hearts of the faithful recipients, but this was in fact the central Anglican position before the Oxford Movement and its epigones shifted attention so fatefully to the consecrated elements.

A. Laws, Book V (published 1597), LXVII, [5.] If we doubt what those admirable words [This is my body, etc.] may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ was himself a schoolmaster, let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication, My body, the communion of my body, My blood, the communion of my blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear, and easy than that as Christ is termed our life because through him we obtain life, so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood for that they are so to us who receiving them receive that by them which are termed? The bread and the cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth...Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, his body and blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth. So that his body and blood are in that very subject whereunto they minister life....by a far more divine and mystical kind of union, which maketh us one with him even as he and the Father are one.

B. Laws, Book V, LXVII, [6.] The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.

And with this the very order of our Saviour’s words agreeth, first “take and eat;” then “this is my Body which was broken for you:” first “drink ye all of this;” then followeth “this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” [Hooker is citing :22-24, where both the distribution and the eating and drinking actually precede the declaration “This is my Body..,” etc.] I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when and where the bread is His body or the cup His blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them it pleaseth God to bestow.

448

If on all sides it be confessed that the grace of Baptism is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it although it be neither seated in the water nor the water changed into it, what should induce men to think that the grace of the Eucharist must needs be in the Eucharist before it can be in us that receive it?

C. Laws, Book V, LXVII, [7.]: Take therefore that wherein all agree, and then consider by itself what cause why the rest in question should not rather be left as superfluous than urged as necessary. It is on all sides plainly confessed, first that this sacrament is a true and real participation of Christ, who thereby imparteth himself even his whole entire Person as a mystical Head unto every soul that receiveth him, and that every such receiver doth thereby incorporate or unite himself unto Christ as a mystical member of him, yea of them also whom he acknowledgeth to be his own; secondly that to whom the person of Christ is thus communicated, to them he giveth by the same sacrament his Holy Spirit to sanctify them as it sanctifieth him which is their head; thirdly that what merit, force or virtue soever there in his sacrificed body and blood, we freely fully and wholly have it by this sacrament; fourthly that the effect thereof in us is a transmutation of our souls and bodies from to sin to righteousness, from death and corruption to immortality and life; fifthly that because the sacrament being of itself but a corruptible and earthly creature must needs be thought an unlikely instrument to work so admirable effects in man, we are therefore to rest ourselves altogether upon the strength of his glorious power who is able and will bring to pass that the bread and the cup which he giveth us shall be truly the thing which he promiseth.

D. Laws, Bk. V, Chap. LXVII, [12.]: These things considered, how should that mind which loving truth and seeking comfort out of holy mysteries hath not perhaps the leisure, perhaps not the wit nor capacity to tread out so endless mazes, as the intricate disputes of this cause have led men into, how should a virtuously disposed mind better resolve with itself than thus? “Variety of judgements and opinions argueth obscurity in those things whereabout they differ. But that which all parts receive for truth, that which every one having sifted is by no one denied or doubted of, must needs be matter of infallible certainty. Whereas therefore, there are but three expositions made of This is my Body: the first, ‘This is in itself before participation really and truly the natural substance of My Body by reason of the coexistence which My omnipotent Body hath with the sanctified element of bread,’ which is the Lutherans’ interpretation; the second, “this is itself and before participation the very true and natural substance of My Body, by force of that Deity which with the Words of Consecration abolisheth the substance of bread and 449

substituteth in the place thereof My Body,’ which is the Popish construction; the last, ‘this hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and truth unto faithful receivers instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby, as I make Myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as My sacrificed Body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them and in them My Body.’ Of these three rehearsed interpretations the last hath in it nothing but what the rest do all approve and acknowledge to be most true, nothing but that which the words of Christ are on all sides confessed to enforce, thought necessary, nothing but that which alone is sufficient for every Christian man to believe concerning the force of this Sacrament, finally nothing but that wherewith the writings of all antiquity are consonant and all Christian confessions agreeable. And as truth in what kind soever is by no kind of truth gainsayed, so the mind which resteth itself on this is never troubled with those perplexities the other do both find, by no means of so great contradiction between their opinions and true principles of reason grounded upon experience, nature, and sense...

E. ibid. Let it therefore be sufficient for me presenting myself at the Lord’s table to know what there I receive from him, without searching or inquiring of the manner how Christ performeth his promise....What these elements are in themselves it skilleth not, it is enough that to me which take them they are the body and blood of Christ, his promise in witness hereof sufficeth, his word he knoweth which way to accomplish; why should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communicant but this, “O my God thou art true, O my soul thou art happy!”.

READING # VIII Laud

William Laud (1573-1645): An Oxford man, early associated with anti-Puritan attempts to restore the doctrinal and ceremonial integrity of the pre-Reformation C of E, constantly run afoul of Puritan opponents but, already a bishop since 1621, early gained the ear of Charles I (King from 1625) and then in 1633 became Archbishop of Canterbury. An earnest exponent of both episcopacy and the , Laud increasingly became the bete noir of the Puritans, whom he often persecuted (sometimes quite savagely and unfairly) in ecclesiastical courts where civil liberties and human rights (terms unrecognized then in canon law) were hardly observed. In 1637 he proposed a BCP for the Church of Scotland that, in spite of its scholarly and liturgical merits, was roundly detested by Lowland Calvinist Scots who rose in rebellion against him, made 450

common cause with his opponents in England, and brought about the Civil War which overthrew the Crown, Episcopacy, and the Prayer Book. Laud was prosecuted on a bill of attainder and executed by Parliament in 1645. He is commemorated in Lesser Feasts and Fasts on . It is to be noted that his eucharistic doctrine, however “high” that it intended or was taken to be, rejected transubstantiation, any change in the substance of the bread and wine, any corporal Presence in the elements, and any worship of the consecrated eucharistic elements in themselves. It is not “Catholic,” in other words.

A. William Laud, Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini, quoted from The Anglican Mind : a theological compendium of the classic statements (of the 17th century) edited with an Introduction by John H. Morgan.. Bristol, IN : Wyndham Hall Press, c1991.P 235-237.

It is perfectly clear that Transubstantiation, which has lately been born in the last four hundred years, never existed in the first four hundred...In opposition to the Jesuit [i.e., Bellarmine, whom he is here disputing] our men deny that the Fathers had anything to do with the fact of transubstantiation, any more than with the name. He regards the fact of Transubstantiation as a change of substance (substantialis transmutatio). And he calls certain witnesses to prove this. And yet on this point, whether there is a change in substance, not long before the Lateran council the Master of the Sentences [] himself says : I am not able to define.” But all his witness speak of some kind of change (pro mutatione, immutatione , transmutatione). But there is no mention there of a change in substance, or of the substance. But neither do we deny in the matter the preposition trans; and we allow the elements are changed (transmutari). But a change in substance we look for, and we find it nowhere...

At the coming of the almighty power of the Word, the nature is changed so that what before was the element now becomes a Divine Sacrament, the substance nevertheless remaining what it was before....There is that kind of union between the visible Sacrament and the invisible reality (rem) of the Sacrament which there is between the Manhood and the Godhead of Christ, where unless you want to smack of , the Manhood is not transubstantiated into the Godhead....

About the adoration of the sacrament he stumbles badly at the very threshold. He says “of the Sacrament, that is, of Christ the Lord present by a wonderful but real way in the Sacrament.” Away with this. Who will allow him this ? “Of the sacrament, that is, of 451

Christ in the Sacrament.” Surely, Christ Himself, the reality (res) of the sacrament, in and with the sacrament, outside and without the sacrament, wherever He is, is to be adored. Now the King [i.e., James I] laid down that Christ is really present in the Eucharist and is really to be adored, that is, the reality of the sacrament; but not the Sacrament, that is the “earthly part,” as Irenaeus says, the “visible,” as Augustine says. We also, like Ambrose, “adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries,” and yet not it but Him Who is worshipped on the altar. For the cardinal puts his question badly, “What is there worshipped?”since he ought to ask, “Who?”, as Nazianzen says, “Him,” not “it.” And like Augustine, we “do not eat the flesh without first adoring.” And yet we none of us adore the Sacrament...

B. Edward P. Echlin, S.J. The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective : Doctrine and Rite from Cranmer to Seabury. (New York, c1968), pg. 115 , quoting Laud’s examination by Parliamentary accusers concerning the meaning of the epiklesis in the 1637 Liturgy (narrative connection by Echlin; internal quotes from Laud’s History of the Troubles in the Works of William Laud, vol. 3., pp.353-354):

Laud vehemently denied the teaching of corporal presence either in 1549 or 1637:

“They say, ‘the corporal presence of Christ’s body in the Sacrament, is found in this Service-book.’ But they must me; I know it is not there. I cannot be myself of a contrary judgment, and yet suffer that to pass. But let’s see their proof. ‘The words of the Mass-book serving to that purpose [i.e., ut fiant nobis...], which are sharply censured by Bucer in King Edward’s liturgy and are not to be found in the Book of England [i.e., the English BCP of 1552/1558/1604], yet are taken into this Service-book [1637].’ I know no words tending to this purpose in King Edward’s liturgy, fit for Bucer to censure so severely; and therefore not tending to that purpose: for did they tend to that, they could not be censured too sharply.”

Laud definitely held a consecration of the elements, but one that did not effect corporal Presence. In his doctrine, the epiclesis invoked God’s omnipotence on the bread and wine that in use they would be the Body and Blood of Christ. But the reception was a spiritual one by faith.

“For less than Omnipotence cannot change those elements, either in nature or in use, to so high a service as they are put to that great Sacrament. And therefore the 452

invocating of God’s Almighty goodness to effect this by them, is no proof at all of intending the ‘corporal presence of Christ in this Sacrament.’ ‘Tis true, this passage is not in the Service-book of England; but I wish with all my heart it were.”

READING # IX Taylor

Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667): originally a Cambridge man, he attracted the notice of Archbishop Laud, who got him a fellowship at All Souls’ College, Oxford, and later a chaplaincy to King Charles I.. A royalist the Civil War, he was forced to retire from public life in 1645. Thereafter he made use of a private chaplaincy to devote himself to writing. At the Restoration he was made Bishop of Down and Connor and then also Dromore in Ireland, where he had many fierce controversies with both Presbyterians and Roman Catholics. One of the last Caroline Divines, he is commemorated in Lesser Feasts and Fasts on . Taylor, with Cranmer and Ridley and other Anglican divines, expresses the relation of the sacramental elements which stand for and convey the Body and Blood of Christ as logically one of metonomy and synecdoche but sacramentally one of instrumentality.

A. Jeremy Taylor. The Worthy Communicant : Chapter 1 Of the Nature, Excellencies, Uses and Intention of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, in Jeremy Taylor : Selected Works / edited with an introduction by Thomas K. Carroll, preface by John Booty. New York : Paulist, c1990. (Classics of Western spirituality). Taylor acknowledges the role of metonymy and synecdoche in eucharistic language:

...In conclusion, the sum is this. The sacraments and symbols, if they be considered in their own nature, are just such as they seem, water, and bread, and wine; they retain the names proper to their own natures, but because they are made to be signs of a secret mystery, and water is the symbol of purification of the soul from sin, and bread and wine of Christ’s body and blood, therefore the symbols and sacraments receive the names of what themselves do sign; they are the body and they are the blood of Christ; they are metonymically such. But because yet further; they are the instruments of grace in the 453

hand of God, and by these his Holy Spirit changes our hearts and translates us into a divine nature; therefore the whole work is attributed to them by a synecdoche; that is, they do in their manner the work for which God ordained them, and they are placed there for our sakes, and speak God’s language in our accent, and they appear in the outside; we receive the benefit of their ministry, and God receives the glory.

B. Ibid., pp. 212-213: God in Christ made the sacrament to be the means of communion and union with him for the preservation of our bodies and souls unto everlasting life:

By the means of this sacrament, our bodies are made capable of the resurrection to life and eternal glory. For when we are externally and symbolically in the sacrament, and by faith and the Spirit of God internally united to Christ and made partakers of His body and His blood, we are joined and made one with him who did rise again, and when the head is risen, the members shall not see corruption for ever but rise again after the pattern of the Lord. If by the sacrament we are really united and made one with Christ then it shall be to us in our proportion as it was to Him; we shall rise again, and we shall enter into glory. But it is certain we are united to Christ by it; we eat His body and drink His blood sacramentally by our mouths, and therefore really and spiritually, by our spirits and by spiritual actions cooperating. [Taylor is quoting Cyril of Alexandria here.] for what good will it do us to partake of His body, if we do not also partake of His spirit: But certain it is, if we do one we do both; cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfecta sacramentum sit unitatis, as St. Hilary’s expression is [St. On the Trinity], “the natural propriety,” viz., the outward elements, “by the sacrament,” that is, by the institution and blessing of God, “become the sacrament of a perfect unity”; which, beside all the premises, is distinctly affirmed in the words of the apostle, “We which are sanctified and He which sanctifies are all of one”; and , again, “the bread which we break, is it not the communication of the body of Christ; and the cup which we drink, is it not the communication of the body of Christ?” Plainly saying, that by this holy ministry we are joined and partake of Christ’s body and blood; and then we become spiritually one body; and therefore shall receive in our bodies all the effects of that spiritual union; the chief of which in relation to our bodies, is resurrection from the grave. And this is expressly taught by the ancient church. So S. Irenaeus teaches [Against Heresy], “As the bread which grows from the earth, receiving the calling of God,” that is, blessed by prayer and the word of God, “is now not common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and an heavenly: so also our bodies receiving the eucharist, are not now corruptible, but have the hope of resurrection.” And again, “When the mingled 454

chalice and the made bread receives the word of God,” viz. is consecrated and blessed, “it is made the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ out of those things by which our body is nourished, and our substance does consist; and how shall any one deny that the flesh is capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, which is nourished by the body and blood of Christ?” And S. Ignatius [of Antioch in his ] calls the blessed eucharist “the medicine of immortality”; for the drink is His blood who is “incorruptible love and eternal life”; so the fathers of Nicene council, “the symbols of our resurrection”; the meat nourishing to immortality and eternal,” so S. Cyril of Alexandria; “for this is to drink the blood of Jesus, to be partakers of the Lord’s incorruptibility,” said S. Clement. For “bread is food, and blood is life; but we drink the blood of Christ, Himself commanding us, that together with Him we may by Him be partakers of eternal life,” so S. Cyprian... 455

READING # X Cosin

John Cosin (1594-1672) was befriended by Laud, deprived by the of his offices, fled with royalists to France, became chaplain to the Anglican members of the Queen’s retinue, returned to England at the Restoration, under which he became . He long engaged in controversies with Puritans, Popish recusants, , and Nonconformists. He was instrumental in forging the Restoration Prayer- Book in 1660-1661. He represents a link between the Caroline Divines and the Restoration C of E, as does Jeremy Taylor, and his eucharistic theology, however representative of the “Old High-Church” school of the 17th century, is in clear continuity with that of the 16th century, however much it may be nuanced by later controversies.

John Cosin, Bishop of Durham, The History of Popish Transubstantiation : To which is Opposed the Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Scripture, the Ancient Fathers, and the Reformed Churches. [Written in Latin in 1656, posthumously published in English in 1675; reprinted as Tracts 27 and 28 of the Tracts for the Times. The eucharistic doctrine of the Oxford Movement evolved so quickly into a “corporal” reading of “Real Presence” between 1833 and 1845, that one can hardly imagine that this work would have been included among the latter numbers of the Tracts. In other words, Cosin represents that core Anglican eucharistic belief which the “Catholic” heirs of the Oxford Movement came to reject, even if, ironically enough, it had appeared in the Tracts for the Times.] Tracts for the Times 27: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/tracts/tract27.html.

Chapter I. The Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Those words which our Blessed SAVIOUR used in the institution of the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, “This is My Body which is given for you; this is My Blood which is shed for you, for the remission of sins” are held and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible; and if any one dares to oppose them, or call in question CHRIST’s veracity, or the truth of His words, or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them, except he be allowed to make a mere figment, or a bare figure of them, we cannot and ought not, either excuse or suffer him in our Churches; for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture. And therefore we can as little doubt of what CHRIST saith, John vi. 55, “My Flesh is meat 456

indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed;” which, according to St. Paul, are both given to us by the consecrated Elements; for He calls the Bread, “the Communion of CHRIST’S Body,” and the Cup, “the Communion of His Blood.”

Hence it is most evident, that the Bread and Wine (which according to St. Paul are the Elements of the holy Eucharist) are neither changed as to their substance, nor vanished, nor reduced to nothing, but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ, that by them His blessed Body and Blood can be communicated to us.

And further it appears from the same words, that the expression of CHRIST and the Apostle is to be understood in a sacramental and mystic sense; and that no gross and carnal presence of body and blood can be maintained by them.

And though the word Sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signify the blessed Eucharist, yet the Christian Church, ever since its Primitive ages, hath given it that name, and always called the Presence of CHRIST’S Body and Blood therein, Mystic and Sacramental. Now a Sacramental expression doth, without any inconvenience, give to the sign the name of thing signified; and such is as well the usual way of speaking, as the nature of Sacraments, that not only the names, but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibit, are given to the outward Elements. Hence (as I said before) the Bread is as clearly or positively called by the Apostle, the Communion of the Body of CHRIST.

This also seems very plain, that our Blessed SAVIOUR’S design was not so much to teach, what the Elements of Bread and Wine are by nature and substance, as what is their use and office and signification in this mystery; for the Body and Blood of our SAVIOUR are not only fitly represented by the Elements, but also, by virtue of His institution, really offered to all, by them, and so eaten by the faithful mystically and sacramentally; whence it is, that “He truly is and abides in us, and we in Him.”

This is the spiritual (and yet no less true and undoubted than if it were corporal) eating of CHRIST’S Flesh, not indeed simply as it is flesh, without any other respect, (for so it is not given neither would it profit us), but as it is crucified and given for the redemption of the world; neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the thing, that this eating of CHRIST’S body is spiritual, and that by it the souls of the faithful, and not their stomachs, are fed by the operation of the HOLY GHOST; for this none can deny, but 457

they who being strangers to the Spirit and the divine virtue, can savour only carnal things, and to whom, what is spiritual and sacramental, is the same as if a mere nothing.

As to the manner of the Presence of the Body and Blood of our LORD in the Blessed Sacrament, we that are Protestant and Reformed according to the ancient Catholic Church, do not search into the manner of it with perplexing inquiries; but after the example of the Primitive and purest Church of CHRIST, we leave it to the power and wisdom of our LORD, yielding a full and unfeigned assent to His words. Had the Romish maintainers of Transubstantiation done the same, they would not have determined and decreed, and then imposed as an article of faith absolutely necessary to salvation, a manner of presence, newly by them invented, under pain of the most direful curse, and there would have been in the Church less wrangling, and more peace and unity than now is.

READING # XI John and Charles Wesley

John and Charles Wesley: John Wesley (1703-1791) and Charles Wesley (1707-1788), both educated at , Oxford and priests of the C of E, were the founder and chief itinerant preacher and organizer, and the great hymn-writer, respectively, of the Methodist Movement. Both lived and died as members and priests of the C of E, but ran increasingly afoul of the Establishment and its bishops to such an extent that John (much to the disapproval of Charles) eventually found it necessary to ordain elders for his conferences of preachers and class-members (at first only for those outside of England), and eventually even to furnish superintendents (who promptly dubbed themselves “bishops”) for his followers in America. Both Wesleys were high sacramentalists, however, and these Hymns (probably written mostly by Charles) are both Anglican and Methodist at the same time, and also show traces too of a Nonjuror influence through John’s friendship with William Law. The influence of the Restoration priest Daniel Brevint, whose The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice (1673) is prefaced to these hymns, is also evident. The hymns were written to help raise the level of eucharistic worship in the C of E; at the time of their writing, the Wesleys still expected their Methodist converts to receive communion in the local Anglican parish churches. The fact that many were repelled from Anglican altars by suspicious of anyone tainted by “Enthusiasm” led eventually to the withdrawal of the Methodists into a Connexion separate from the C of E. This tragedy has not been rectified. 458

A. Hymns on the Lord’s Supper / by John Wesley and Charles Wesley, with a preface concerning the Christian sacrament and sacrifice, extracted from Doctor Brevint. Bristol, Eng. : Felix Farley, 1745 A Facsimile of the 1st ed., with introduction by Geoffrey Wainwright. Madison, N.J. : The Charles Wesley Society, c1995. c

Hymn LVIII:

Angel and Son of God come down, Thy sacramental Banquet crown, Thy Power into the Means infuse. And give them now their sacred Use.

Break to me now the hallow’d Bread, And bid me on thy Body feed, Give me the Wine, Almighty God, And let me drink thy precious Blood.

Surely if Thou the Symbols bless, The Cov’nant Blood shall seal my Peace, Thy Flesh e’en Now shall be my Food, And all my Soul be filled with God.

Hymn LIX:

How He did these Creatures raise, And make this Bread and Wine Organs to convey his Grace To this poor Soul of mine, I can not the Way descry, Need not know the Mystery. Only this I know that I Was blind, but now I see.

459

Hymn LXVI:

JESU, my Lord and God bestow All which thy sacrament doth shew, And make the real Sign A sure effectual Means of Grace, Then sanctify my Heart and bless, And make it all like thine.

Great is thy Faithfulness and Love, Thine Ordinance can never prove of none Effect and vain. Only do Thou my Heart prepare to find thy Real Presence there, And all thy Fullness gain.

Hymn LXXI:

Draw near, ye blood-besprinkled race, And take what God vouchsafes to give, the Outward Sign of Inward Grace, Ordain’d by Christ himself receive. The Sign transmits the Signified, The Grace is by the Means applied.

Sure Pledges of his dying Love, Receive the Sacramental Meat, And feel the Virtue from above, The Mystic flesh of Jesus eat, Drink with the Wine his healing Blood, And feast on the Incarnate God..

Gross Misconceit be far away! Thro’ faith we on his Body feed, 460

Faith only doth the Spirit convey, and fills our Souls with living Bread, Th’Effects of Jesu’s Death imparts, And pours his Blood into our Hearts.

Hymn LXXII:

Come, Holy Ghost, thine Influence shed, And realize the Sign. Thy Life infuse into the Bread, Thy Power into the wine.

Effectual let the Tokens prove, And made by Heavenly Art, Fit Channels to convey thy Love To every faithful Heart.

Hymn CIII:

‘Take and eat, the Saviour saith, This my sacred Body is.’ Him we take and eat by Faith, Feed upon that Flesh of his. All the Benefits receive which his Passion did procure, Pardon’d by his grace we live, Grace which makes Salvation sure.

Title to eternal Bliss, Here his precious Death we find, This the Pledge, the Earnest This Of the Purchas’d Joys behind: Here he gives our Souls a Taste, Heaven into our Hearts He pours; Still believe and hold him fast, 461

GOD and CHRIST and All is Ours!

B. The Duty of Constant Communion: originally written in 1732 for his students when John Wesley was a tutor at Lincoln College, Oxford, this sermon was later only slightly revised and re-issued by Wesley in 1787, fifty-five years later! Plainly he still intended his Methodist society to reverence and frequent the Anglican Holy Communion, and Wesley did not allow his preaching to take place at the same time as C of E parish Communion. In other words, Wesley taught his people to use the ordained means of grace, the Sacraments, as well as hear and believe the preached Word. He emphasized “mediated grace,” grace conveyed by the ordained and covenanted means and instruments and rite and ceremony and outward signs of the sacraments, to such an extent that he even recognized the Lord’s Supper as a converting (and not just a confirming) ordinance; that is, those still seeking the Lord’s love and mercy and forgiveness as if for the first time (for those to whom Wesley preached were generally now alienated from God and unchurched even if already baptized long ago in a parish church) would there find Jesus Christ himself awaiting them to feed them with his Body and Blood and make them living members of his Church. Holy Communion thus fulfilled and completed Wesley’s evangelistic efforts.

The passages are excerpted from Albert Outler (ed.), John Wesley, c1964, pp. 334-344.

I. I am to show that it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord’s Supper as often as he can.

1. The first reason why it is the duty of every Christian so to do is because it is a plain command of Christ. That this is his command appears from the words of the text–“Do this in remembrance of me”–by which, as the apostles were obliged to bless, break, and give the bread to all that joined with them in these holy things, so were all Christians obliged to receive those signs of Christ’s body and blood. Here, therefore, the bread and wine are commanded to be received in remembrance of his death, to the end of the world. Observe, too, that this command was given by our Lord when he was just laying down his life for our sakes. They are, therefore, his dying words to all his followers.

2. A second reason why every Christian should do this as often as he can is because the benefits of doing it are so great to all that do it in obedience to him–namely, the forgiveness of our past sins, the present strengthening and refreshing of our souls... 462

. 3. The grace of God given herein confirms to us the pardon of our sins and enables us to leave them. As our bodies are strengthened by bread and wine, so are our souls by these tokens of the body and blood of Christ. This is the food of our souls: this gives strength to perform our duty and leads us on to perfection.... 4. Let every one, therefore, who has either any desire to please God, or any love of his own soul, obey God, and consult the good of his own soul, by communicating every time he can–like the first Christians, with whom the Christian sacrifice was a constant part of the Lord’s-day service. And for several centuries they received it almost every day: four times a week always, and every saint’s day beside. Accordingly, those who joined in the prayers of the faithful never failed to partake of the blessed sacrament...

5. (...) Hence we learn that the design of this sacrament is the continual remembrance of the death of Christ, by eating bread and drinking wine, which are the outward signs of the inward grace–the body and blood of Christ.

READING # XII Frederick Denison Maurice

F. D. Maurice (1805-1872) was perhaps the greatest theological thinker of the 19th century England, whose only peer (and perhaps superior) was John Henry Newman, and Maurice was hardly less controversial. Raised a Unitarian, he was at first refused a degree from Cambridge for declining to subscribe the Articles. Later he did become an Anglican, was re-baptized, graduated Oxford, and was ordained in the C of E. His greatest work was his early The Kingdom of Christ; or Hints to a Quaker concerning the Principles, Constitution, and Ordinances of the Catholic Church (1838). Maurice is best known for his controversies against the notion of the endlessness of future punishment and for his defining eternity as “timelessness” and not “everlasting life,” which led to his expulsion from his theological professorship at King’s College. He also was extensively involved in what developed into Christian . A prolix but rewarding writer, his positions attained wide currency after his death and contributed to the growth of the movement.

The Kingdom of Christ...New edition based on the second edition of 1842, edited by , c1958. Vol. II, pp. 94-95. The following passage is relevant both to the notion of 463

“spiritual presence” and to the Sursum Corda character of the eucharistic consecration rather than one of a “descent into the elements.”

It is evident from these remarks, and from all which I have said..., that I do not seek to get rid of the papal notion respecting a real Presence, merely by saying that what is spiritual is also most real. I do indeed look upon that proposition as nearly the most important one which a theological student can think of or remember, and also as the one which Romanism is most habitually denying. But I have maintained that in order to the full acknowledgment of Christ’s spiritual presence, we must distinctly acknowledge that he is clothed with a body; that if we lose this belief, we adopt a vague pantheistic notion of a presence hovering about us somewhere in the air, in place of clear spiritual apprehension of a Person in whom all truth and love dwell; that the spiritual organ therefore does demand an actual body for its nourishment; that through that spiritual organ our bodies themselves are meant to be purified and glorified; that this sacrament meets and satisfies the needs both of the human spirit which is to be redeemed, and of the body which is waiting for its redemption. But all these admissions only bring out the difference with the Romanist into stronger relief. To enter into fellowship with Christ as he is, ascended at the right hand of God, in a body of glory and not of humiliation, this must be the desire of a Christian man, if he seek the presence of a real, not an imaginary object, if he desire his body as well as his spirit to be raised and exalted. On this ground then he must reject all theories which involve the imagination of a descent into the elements [i.e., transubstantiation or its equivalent]; on this ground, also, he must feel that the intellectual contradiction which such theories contain, and even boast of, is the counterpart of a spiritual contradiction still more gross and dangerous.

READING # XIII 20th Century Ecumenical Agreements

Growth in Agreement : Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level. c1984.

464

A. Anglican-Roman Catholic (ARCIC) conversations : Eucharistic Doctrine (Windsor Statement), 1971: [(III.) The Presence of Christ]

(6.) Communion with Christ in the Eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood. [Commission’s footnote: The word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the Eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements. The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ’s presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In contemporary Roman it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place.] The real presence of his body and blood can, however, only be understood within the context of the redemptive activity whereby he gives himself, and in himself reconciliation, peace and life, to his own. On the one hand, the eucharistic gift springs out of the paschal mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, in which God’s saving purpose has already been definitively realized. On the other hand, its purpose is to transmit the life of the crucified and risen Christ to his body, the church, so that its members may be more fully united with Christ and with one another.

(7.) Christ is present and active, in various ways, in the entire eucharistic celebration. It is the same Lord who through the proclaimed word invites his people to his table, who through his minister presides at that table, and who gives himself sacramentally in the body and blood of his paschal sacrifice. It is the Lord present at the right hand of the Father, and therefore transcending the sacramental order, who thus offers to his church, in the eucharistic signs, the special gift of himself.

(8.) The sacramental body and blood of the Saviour are present as an offering to the believer awaiting his welcome. When this offering is met by faith, a lifegiving encounter results. Through faith Christ’s presence, which does not depend on the individual’s faith in order to be the Lord’s real gift of himself to his church–becomes no longer just a presence for the believer, but also a presence with him Thus, in considering the mystery of the eucharistic presence, we must recognize both the sacramental sign of Christ’s presence and the personal relationship between Christ and the faithful which arises from that presence.

465

(9.) The Lord’s words at the last supper, “Take and eat; this is my body,” do not allow us to dissociate the gift of the presence and the act of sacramental eating. The elements are not mere signs; Christ’s body and blood become really present and are really given. But they are really present and given in order that, receiving them, believers may be united in communion with Christ the Lord. (10.) According to the traditional order of the liturgy the consecratory prayer (anaphora) leads to the communion of the faithful. Through this prayer of thanksgiving, a word of faith addressed to the Father, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit, so that in communion we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood.

(11.) The Lord who thus comes to his people in the power of the Holy Spirit is the Lord of glory. In the eucharistic celebration we anticipate the joys of the age to come. By the transforming action of the Spirit of God, earthly bread and wine become the heavenly manna and the , the eschatological banquet for the new man: elements of the first creation become pledges and of the new heaven and the new earth.

Conclusion

(12.) We believe that we have reached substantial agreement on the doctrine of the Eucharist. Although we are all conditioned by the traditional ways in which we have expressed and practiced our eucharistic faith, we are convinced that if there are any remaining points of disagreement they can be resolved on the principles here established. We acknowledge a variety of theological approaches within both our communions. But we have seen it as our task to find a way of advancing together beyond the doctrinal disagreements of the past. It is our hope that, in view of the agreement which we have reached on eucharistic faith, this doctrine will no longer constitute an obstacle to the unity we seek.

B. Elucidation (1979)

Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist

(6.) Criticism has been evoked by the statement that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (Para. 10 above). The word become has been 466

suspected of expressing a materialistic conception of Christ’s presence, and this seemed to some to be confirmed in the footnote on the word transubstantiation which also speaks of change. It is feared that this suggests that Christ’s presence in the eucharist is confined to the elements, and that the real Presence involves a physical change in them.

In order to respond to these comments the Commission recalls that the Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine affirmed that: (a.) It is the glorified Lord himself whom the community of the faithful encounters in the eucharistic celebration through the preaching of the word, in the fellowship of the Lord’s supper, in the heart of the believer, and, in a sacramental way, through the gifts of his body and blood, already given on the cross for their salvation. (b.) His body and blood are given through the action of the Holy Spirit, appropriating bread and wine so that they become the food of the new creation already inaugurated by the coming of Christ (paragraphs 7, 10, and 11 above).

Becoming does not here imply material change. Nor does the liturgical use of the word imply that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood in such a way that in the eucharistic celebration his presence is limited to the consecrated elements. It does not imply that Christ becomes present in the Eucharist in the same manner that he was present in his earthly life. It does not imply that this becoming follows the physical laws of this world. What is here affirmed is a sacramental presence in which God uses realities of this world to convey the realities of the new creation: bread for this life becomes the bread of eternal life. Before the Eucharistic Prayer, to the question: “What is that?”, the believer answers: “It is bread.” After the Eucharistic Prayer, to the same question he answers: “It is truly the body of Christ, the Bread of Life.”

In the sacramental order the realities of faith become present in visible and tangible signs, enabling Christians to avail themselves of the fruits of the once-for-all redemption. In the Eucharist the human person encounters in faith the person of Christ in his sacramental body and blood. This is the sense in which the community, the Body of Christ, by partaking of the sacramental body of the risen Lord, grows into the unity God intends for his Church. The ultimate change intended by God is the transformation of human beings into the likeness of Christ. The bread and wine become the sacramental body and blood of Christ in order that the Christian community may become more truly what it already is, the Body of Christ.

467

Gift and Reception

(7.) This transformation into the likeness of Christ requires that the eucharistic gifts be received in faith. In the mystery of the Eucharist we discern not one but two complementary movements within an indissoluble unity: Christ giving his body and blood, and the communicants feeding upon them in their hearts by faith. Some traditions have placed a special emphasis on the association of Christ’s presence with the consecrated elements; others have emphasized Christ’s presence in the heart of the believer through reception by faith. In the past acute difficulties have arisen when one or other of these emphases has become almost exclusive. In the opinion of the Commission neither emphasis is incompatible with eucharistic faith, provided that the complementary movement emphasized by the other position is not denied. Eucharistic doctrine must hold together these two movements since in the Eucharist, the sacrament of the New Covenant, Christ gives himself to his people so that they may receive him through faith.

Reservation

(8.) The practice of reserving the sacrament for reception after the congregation has dispersed is known to date back to the second century. (Cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 65 and 67.) In so far as it maintains the complementary movements already referred to (as for example, when communion is taken to the sick) this practice clearly accords with the purpose of the institution of the Eucharist. But later there developed a tendency to stress the veneration of Christ’s presence in the consecrated elements. In some places this tendency became so pronounced that the original purpose of reservation was in danger of becoming totally obscured. If veneration is wholly dissociated from the eucharistic celebration of the community it contradicts the true doctrine of the Eucharist.

Consideration of this question requires clarification of the understanding of the Eucharist. Adoration in the celebration of the Eucharist is first and foremost offered to the Father. It is to lead us to the Father that Christ unites us to himself through our receiving of his body and blood. The Christ whom we adore in the Eucharist is Christ glorifying his Father. The movement of all our adoration is to the Father, through, with, and in Christ, in the power of the Spirit.

468

The whole eucharistic action is a continuous movement in which Christ offers himself in his sacramental body and blood to his people and in which they receive him in faith and thanksgiving. Consequently communion administered from the reserved sacrament to those unable to attend the eucharistic celebration is rightly understood as an extension of that celebration. Differences arise between those who would practice reservation for this reason only, and those who would regard it as a means of eucharistic devotion. For the latter, adoration of Christ in the reserved sacrament should be regarded as an extension of eucharistic worship, even though it does not include immediate sacramental reception, which remains the primary purpose of reservation. (Cf. The Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium n. 49, of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, ASS 59, 1967.) Any dissociation of such devotion from this primary purpose, which is communion in Christ of all his members, is a distortion of eucharistic practice.

(9.) In spite of this clarification, others still find any kind of adoration of Christ in the reserved sacrament unacceptable. They believe that it is in fact impossible in such a practice truly to hold together the movements of which we have spoken: and that this devotion can hardly fail to produce such an emphasis upon the association of Christ’s sacramental presence with the consecrated bread and wine as to suggest too static and localized a presence that disrupts the movement as well as the balance of the whole eucharistic action. (Cf. Article 28 of the Articles of Religion.)

That there can be a divergence in matters of practice and in theological judgements relating to them, without destroying a common eucharistic faith, illustrates what we mean by substantial agreement. Differences of theology and practice may well coexist with a real consensus on the essentials of eucharistic faith--as in fact they do within each of our communions.

C. Growth in Agreement : Moscow Statement 1976, Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions

[IV. The Authority of the Councils] (14.) We note that Anglican members, while accepting the dogmatic decrees of the fifth, sixth, and seventh Councils, have long been accustomed to lay more emphasis on the first four, and believe the concept of ‘an order or “hierarchy” of truths’ can usefully be applied to the decisions of the Councils. The Orthodox members find this concept to be 469

in conflict with the unity of the faith as a whole, though they recognize gradations of importance in matters of practice.

(15.) The Orthodox regard the Seventh Council as of equal importance with the other Ecumenical councils. They understand its positive injunctions about the veneration of icons as an expression of faith in the Incarnation.

The Anglican tradition places a similarly positive value on the created order, and on the place of the body and material things in worship. Like the Orthodox, Anglicans see this as a necessary corollary of the doctrine of the Incarnation. They welcome the decisions of the seventh Council in so far as they constitute a defence of the doctrine of the Incarnation. They agree that the veneration of icons as practised in the East is not to be rejected, but do not believe that it can be required of all Christians.

It is clear that further discussion of the Seventh Council and of icons is necessary in the dialogue between Orthodox and Anglicans, as also of Western three-dimensional images and religious paintings, which we have not adequately discussed..

[VI. The Church as the Eucharistic Community]

(23.) The eucharistic understanding of the Church affirms the presence of Jesus Christ in the Church, which is his Body, and in the Eucharist. Through the action of the Holy Spirit, all faithful communicants share in the one Body of Christ, and become one body in him.

(24.) The Eucharist actualizes the Church. The Christian community has a basic sacramental character. The Church can also be described as a ‘’ or an ‘ecclesia,’which is, in its essence, a worshiping and eucharistic assembly. The Church is not only built up by the Eucharist, but she is also a condition for it Therefore one must be a believing member of the Church in order to receive the Holy Communion.

The Church celebrating the Eucharist becomes fully itself; that is , fellowship– communion. The Church celebrates the Eucharist as the central act of its existence, in which the , as a living reality confessing its faith, receives its realization.

470

(25.) Through the consecratory prayer, addressed to the Father, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the glorified Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit in such a way that the faithful people of God receiving Christ may feed upon him in the sacrament (1 Cor. 10.16). Thus the Church is continually renewed and fulfilled in its members. The Church depends upon the action of the Holy Spirit and is the visible community in which the Spirit is known.

(26.) The eucharistic action of the Church is the Passover from the old to the new. It anticipates and really shares in the eternal Rule and Glory of God. Following the apostolic and Patristic teaching, we affirm that the eucharistic elements become, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Body and Blood of Christ, the bread of immortality, to give to us the forgiveness of sins, the new creation, and eternal life. The celebration of the Church in liturgy carries with it the sense of the eternal reality which precedes it, abides in it, and is still to come.

(27.) In the Eucharist the eternal priesthood of Christ is constantly manifested in time. The celebrant, in his liturgical action, has a twofold ministry: as an icon of Christ, acting in the name of Christ, towards the community and also as a representative of the community expressing the priesthood of the faithful. In each local eucharistic celebration the visible unity and catholicity of the Church is manifested fully. The question of the relationship between the celebrant and his bishop and that among bishops themselves requires further study.

[VII. The Invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist]

(29.) The Eucharist is the action of the Holy Trinity. The Father gives the Body and Blood of Christ by the descent of the Holy Spirit to the Church in response to the Church’s prayer. The Liturgy is this prayer for the eucharistic gifts to be given. It is in this context that the invocation of the Holy Spirit should be understood.. The operation of the Holy Spirit is essential to the Eucharist whether it is explicitly expressed or not. When it is articulated, the Epiclesis voices the work of the Spirit with the Father in the consecration of the elements as the Body and Blood of Christ.

(30.) The consecration of the bread and the wine results from the whole sacramental liturgy. The act of consecration includes certain proper and appropriate moments– thanksgiving, anamnesis, Epiclesis. The deeper meaning of the hallowing of the 471

elements rejects any theory of consecration by formula–whether by the Words of Institution or Epiclesis. For the Orthodox the culminating and decisive moment in the consecration is the Epiclesis.

(31.) The unity of the members of the Church is renewed by the Spirit in the eucharistic act. The Spirit comes not only upon the elements, but upon the community. The Epiclesis is a double invocation: by the invocation of the Spirit, the members of Christ are fed by his Body and Blood so that they may grow in holiness and may be strong to manifest Christ to the world and to do his work in the power of the Spirit. ‘We hold this treasure in earthen vessels.’ The reception of the Holy Gifts calls for repentance and obedience. Christ judges the sinful members of the Church. The time is always at hand when judgement must begin at the household of God. (2 Cor. 4:7, I Pet. 4:17).

D. Growth in Agreement: Athens Statement 1978

[II. The Filioque]

(3.) The delegates gathered at Pendeli unanimously reaffirm the resolution passed at the Moscow Conference in August 1976:

“(a) Because the original form of the Creed referred to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, (b) because the Filioque clause was introduced into this creed without the authority of an Ecumenical Council and without due regard for Catholic consent, and (c) because this Creed constitutes the public confession of faith by the People of God in the Eucharist, the Filioque clause should not be included in this creed.”

(4.) Both the Orthodox and the Anglican members of the Joint commission consider this to be a matter of grave importance, and we hope that the Churches of the Anglican Communion will implement the Moscow resolution as soon as is pastorally and constitutionally possible. We ask the bishops of the to issue a clear recommendation , that the Filioque be omitted from the text of the creed by all the member Churches of the Anglican Communion.

472

READING # XIV The Leuenberg Agreement

Decades of ecumenical conversations between various Protestant and Evangelical Churches on the Continent, primarily Lutheran and Reformed State or Folk Churches led to the signing at Leuenberg, Switzerland in 1973 of the quite fundamental Leuenberg Agreement (LA) or Leuenberg Concord, which remains basic for all further European ecumenical efforts. A very positive confession of Jesus’ Presence and self-impartation of his body and blood in the Supper is made and agreed to by the Churches, without recourse to language about consubstantiation or virtualism or receptionism. http://www.leuenberg.net/english/en-a-002.html

ON THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

In the Leuenberg Agreement, the participating churches (Lutheran, Reformed, United, Czech Brethren, Waldensian, etc.) have described their mutual understanding of preaching, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper in the following words.

“The fundamental witness to the Gospel comes through the word of apostles and prophets in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Church has the task of spreading this Gospel both by word of mouth in preaching and individual counseling and also through Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Jesus Christ is present by the Holy Spirit. Thus is justification in Christ communicated to man and thus does the Lord gather his people.” (LA13)

“In the Lord’s Supper Jesus Christ, the Risen One, imparts himself in his body and blood, given in death for all, through his word of promise with the bread and wine. He assures us thereby of the forgiveness of sins and sets us free for a new life of faith. He allows us to experience anew the fact that we are members of his body. He strengthens us for service to humankind.

When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, we proclaim the death of Christ through which God has reconciled the world to himself. We confess the presence of the Risen Lord in our midst. Rejoicing that the Lord has come to us, we wait for his glory yet to be.” (LA 15 and 16)

473

In view of traditional differences between the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches about the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper the Churches have declared:

“In the Lord’s Supper the risen Jesus Christ imparts himself in his body and blood, given up for all, through his word of promise with bread and wine. He thus gives himself unreservedly to all who receive the bread and wine; faith receives the Lord’s Supper for salvation, unfaith for judgment.

We cannot separate communion with Jesus Christ in his body and blood from the act of eating and drinking. To be concerned about the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper in abstraction from this act is to run the risk of obscuring the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

Where such a consensus exists between the churches, the condemnations pronounced by the Reformation confessions are inapplicable to the doctrinal position of these churches.” (LA 81-20)

READING #XV Baptism Eucharist Ministry (BEM)

The Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches delivered this report in Lima, in 1982. It has been a fundamental document of the Ecumenical Movement ever since and represents an extraordinary convergence and consensus in doctrine between the Churches. Of course, since the Affirmation of St. Louis rejects the WCC and many other ecumenical bodies and consultations as simply “non-apostolic,” the ACC and other Continuing Church bodies have nonchalantly ignored the existence of such groups (which include participation, if not outright membership, by the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Old Catholic Churches) as beneath notice. In fact, BEM is a remarkably encouraging document which could be of great value to Continuing Church theologians, except that they would probably approach it in a triumphalist manner and claim that anything good it represents we already have and anything else is to be rejected as non-apostolic. The attitude of the ACC to ecumenical dialog is reminiscent of that of anti- War (and later, it appears, anti-Iraqi War) protesters who regarded all of their demands as non-negotiable. The document is quite long, and we cite only a single passage, consisting of a schematism of the [normative] eucharistic celebration put forth by the Commission. Its 474

similarity to that of the BCP 1928, esp. in the Prayer of Consecration, is clear. Modern liturgical scholarship has moved in the direction that the Scottish bishops and later the Nonjurors saw in the 17th and 18th centuries. But even so, certain elements in the schema suggest further study on our part, in dialog, it is to be hoped, with other Churches. Encounters with the eucharistic thought of other Churches might not only increase our respect for their doctrine and practice but might also cross-fertilize our own teaching and modify some of our hyper-correctness and help end our isolation and aloofness. But this is precisely what certain of our purported co-religionists fear.

Growth in Agreement, edited by Harding Meyer and Lukas Vischer, c1984, pp. 480-481.

[III.] The Celebration of the Eucharist

[27.] The eucharistic liturgy is essentially a single whole, consisting historically of the following elements in varying sequence and of diverse importance:

* Hymns of praise; * Act of repentance; * Declaration of pardon; * Proclamation of the Word of God, in various forms; * Confession of faith (creed); * Intercession for the whole Church and for the world; * Preparation of the bread and wine; * Thanksgiving to the Father for the marvels of creation, redemption, and sanctification (deriving from the Jewish tradition of the berakah); * The words of Christ’s institution of the sacrament according to the New Testament tradition; * The anamnesis or memorial of the great acts of redemption, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, which brought the Church into being; * The invocation of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis) on the community, and the elements of bread and wine (either before the words of institution or after the memorial, or both, or some other reference to the Holy Spirit which adequately expresses the “epikletic” character of the Eucharist); * A consecration of the faithful unto God; * Reference to the communion of saints; * Prayer for the return of the Lord and the definitive manifestation of his Kingdom; 475

* The Amen of the whole community; * The Lord’s Prayer; * A sign of reconciliation and peace; * The breaking of the bread; * Eating and drinking in communion with Christ and with each member of the Church: * Final act of praise; * A blessing and sending. 476

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. General Works:

Bouyer, Louis. Eucharist : theology and spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, Ind. : University of Notre Dame Press, 1966, c1968.

Brilioth, Yngve. Eucharistic faith & practice Evangelical and Catholic . London : S.P.C.K, 1930, 1956.

The Christian faith in the doctrinal documents of the Catholic Church / revised edition edited by J. Neuner and J. Dupuis. New York, N.Y. : Alba House, c1982.

Dix, Gregory. The shape of the liturgy. London : Dacre Press, 1945.

Eliade, Mircea, 1907- Patterns in comparative religion. 1979, c1958.

Oden, Thomas C. The living God / Thomas C. Oden. San Francisco : Harper & Row, c1987. (Systematic theology ; v. 1.) Oden, Thomas C. The word of life / Thomas C. Oden. 1st ed. San Francisco : Harper & Row, c1989. (Systematic theology ; v. 2) Oden, Thomas C. Life in the Spirit / Thomas C. Oden. 1st ed. [San Francisco] : HarperSanFrancisco, c1992. (Systematic theology : vol. 3.)

Oxford dictionary of the Christian church / edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, Eng. : Oxford University Press,c1997. 3rd ed.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian tradition: a history of the development of doctrine. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, c1971- 477

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Credo : historical and theological guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. Vol. 4 of Creeds & confessions of faith in the Christian tradition /edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss. New Haven, Conn. : Yale University Press, c2003. Vol. IV contains also a valuable “Comparative Creedal Syndogmaticon” ( topical index) of all doctrines treated in all important Creeds and Confessions.

Thurian, Max.. L’Eucharistie, : memorial du Seigneur, sacrifice d’action de grace et d’intercession. Neuchatel, 1959.

Wainwright, Geoffrey, 1939- Doxology : the praise of God in worship, doctrine, and life : a systematic theology / by Geoffrey Wainwright. New York : Oxford University Press, 1980.

Welker, Michael. What happens in Holy Communion? Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmanns ; London: SPCK. c2000.

. II. The Book of Common Prayer Tradition:

A. Texts:

The liturgy in English / edited by Bernard Wigan. London: Oxford University Press, c1962, 1964.

The “Book of Common Prayer” website at http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/ contains many BCPs on-line, and also certain services not included in a BCP; e.g. Bishop Seabury’s Communion Service: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Seabury.htm.

478

The following are links to the Lord’s Supper service (in authorized text editions) of each BCP with which we will be dealing.

1549 English BCP:http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Communion_1549.htm 1552 BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1552/Communion_1552.htm 1559 BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/Communion_1559.htm 1662 BCP: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html 1928 C of E Proposed BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/CofE1928/CofE1928_Communion.htm 1928 American BCP: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/HC.htm http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Seabury.htm.B. General:

A new history of the Book of Common Prayer : with a rationale of its offices / on the basis of former work of Francis Procter, revised and rewritten by Walter Howard Frere. London : Macmillan & Co., 1965 1st ed., 1855. Revised and rewritten, 1901. Liturgy and worship : a companion to the Prayer Books of the Anglican Communion / edited by W. K. Lowther Clarke, with the assistance of Charles Harris. London : S.P.C.K., 1959. 1st ed. 1932. See esp. “the history of the Book of Common Prayer down to 1662" by Frank Edward Brightman; and “The Holy Communion service” by James Herbert Srawley.

The book of common prayer : five commentaries. [CD-ROM.] Philadelphia, Pa. : Prayer Book Society U.S.A. , c2004. {Includes 3 on 1662 (Daniel, Barry, Neil and Willoughbury) and 2 on Amer. 1928 (Parsons and Jones, and )}

McAdoo, Henry R. (Henry Robert), 1916- and Stevenson, Kenneth (Kenneth W.). The mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican tradition. Norwich, Eng. : Canterbury Press, c1995.

479

The study of liturgy / edited by Cheslyn Jones...[et al.] New rev. ed. London ; New York, N.Y. : Oxford University Press, c1992.

C. 1549/1552:

Everyman’s Library ed. of The first and second Prayer Books of Edward VI. London : J. M. Dent, 1910. Full texts of 1549 and 1552 are included.

R.T. Beckwith’s essay “The Anglican Eucharist: From the Reformation to the Restoration,”in Cheslyn Jones, The study of liturgy. Found in: The study of liturgy / edited by Cheslyn Jones...[et al.] New rev. ed. London ; New York, N.Y. : Oxford University Press, c1992.

Dugmore, C. W. The Mass and the English reformers. London: Macmillan ; New York, N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press, c1968.

Echlin, Edward P. The Anglican Eucharist in ecumenical perspective : doctrine and rite from Cranmer to Seabury. New York, N.Y. : Seabury, c1968.

The liturgy of the Church of England before and after the Reformation : together with the service of the Holy Communion of the Episcopal Church in the United States / edited with an introduction and notes by Stephen a. Hurlbut. Grand Rapids, Mich ; Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1941.

Buchanan, Colin. What did Cranmer think he was doing? Bramcote, Nottingshire : Grove Books, c1973. (Grove liturgical study no. 7) See also his edition: Eucharistic liturgies of Edward VI : a text for students. 1983. (Grove liturgical study no. 34). 1549 and 1552 texts in full. 480

And his: Background documents to liturgical revision 1547-1549. 1983. (Grove liturgical study no. 35).

Davies, Michael. Cranmer’s Godly Order : the destruction of Catholicism through liturgical change / part one of Liturgical revolution. Ft. Collins, CO : Roman Catholic Books, c1976, 1995. (Rev. and expanded ed. 1995, the Liturgical Revolution–Volume One)

Leuenberger, Samuel, 1942- Archbishop Cranmer's immortal bequest : the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England : an evangelistic liturgy / by Samuel Leuenberger ; translated from the German by Samuel Leuenberger and Lewis J. Gorin, Jr. ; with a foreword to the English edition by James I. Packer. Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans, 1990."Originally published in the German language in Basel with the title Cultus Ancilla Scripturae."

D. 1559/1662

Church of England. Book of common prayer. The Book of common prayer, 1559 / edited by John E. Booty. Charlottesville, Va. : University Press of Virginia for the Folger Shakespeare Library, c1976

E. American 1928:

Shepherd, Massey Hamilton. The Oxford American Prayer Book commentary. New York : Oxford University Press, c1950.

Ladd, William Palmer. Prayer Book interleaves : some reflections on how the Book of Common Prayer might be made more influential in our English-speaking world. New York, N.Y. : Seabury, c1942, 1957. 481

III. Early and Medieval Church:

A. Early: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture / Thomas C. Oden, gen. ed. Downer’s Grove, Ill. : InterVarsityPress, c2000-

The seven Ecumenical councils of the undivided church : their canons and dogmatic decrees. In: A select library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series / under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace. Volume XIV.

Bradshaw, Paul F. The search for the origins of Christian worship : sources and methods for the study of early liturgy. Oxford, Eng. : OUP, c1992, 2002. (2nd ed.)

Danielou, Jean. The Bible and the liturgy. (Liturgical studies, vol. 111). Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, c1956.

Early Christian Fathers / edited by Cyril C. Richardson. (The Library of Christian Classics, v. I.)

Encyclopedia of early Christianity / editor, Everett Ferguson ; associate editor, Michael McHugh, Frederick W. Norris – 2nd ed. (Garland reference library of the humanities ; vol. 1839) New York ; London : Garland Publishing, c1997, 1999.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian doctrines. San Francisco: Harper & Row, c. 1960, 1978. Rev. ed.

482

B. Medieval:

Early Medieval Theology, Vol..IX of The Library of Christian Classics, edited by George McCrackin and Alan Cabaniss, c1957.

Thomas, Aquinas, Saint. 1225?-1274.. Summa theologica / literally translated by fathers of the English Dominican province. New York, N.Y. : Benziger, c1947.

IV. The Continental Reformation:

A. General: MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation. Viking Penguin : New York, N.Y. : London , c2003.

B. Luther and Lutheranism:

Luther, Martin, 1483-1546. Works. English. 1955. [American ed.] Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis : Concordia Pub. House, [1955-1986] Supplemented by "Companion volume. Luther the expositor : introduction to the Reformer's exegetical writings, by Jaroslav Pelikan".: Saint Louis, Concordia Pub. House [1959] Luther, Martin, 1483-1546. [Selections. English. 1989] Martin Luther’s basic theological writings / edited by Timothy F. Lull. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, c1989.

Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche / herausgegeben im Gedenkjahr der augsburgischen Konfession 1930. Goettingen, Ger. : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.

483

C. Reformed:

Zwingli and Bullinger : The Library of Christian classics, Volume XXIV / selected translations with introductions and notes by G.W. Bromiley.

Bromiley, Geoffrey William. Sacramental teaching and practice in the Reformation churches. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 1957. And his article “Lord’s Supper” in: The Westminster handbook to Reformed theology / edited by Donald K. McKim. (The Westminster handbooks to Christian theology). Louisville, Ky. : Westminster John Knox Press, c2001.

Calvin, John. Consensus Tigurinus 1549. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Online at “Consensus Tigurinus,” http://www.creeds.net/Tigurinus/tigur-bvd.htm Calvin, Jean, 1509-1564. Institutio Christianae religionis. English. Institutes of the Christian religion. / edited by John T. McNeill,. translated by Ford Lewis Battles, in collaboration with the editor and a committee of advisers. Philadelphia, Penn.: Westminster Press , c1960. 2 v. (The Library of Christian classics, v. 20-21).

Melanchthon and Bucer. / Pauck, Wilhelm, 1901- , comp. Philadelphia, Penn. : Westminster Press, 1969. (The Library of Christian classics, v. 19) Loci communes theologici, by P. Melanchthon, Melanchthon, Philipp, 1497-1560. Loci communes rerum theologicarum. English

“The Second Helvetic Confession”: http://www.creeds.net/helvetic/

V. The English Reformation and the Development of Classical Anglicanism:

A. General: 484

Documents of the English Reformation / edited by Gerald Lewis Bray. Minneapolis, Minn. : Fortress Press, 1994.

The godly kingdom of Tudor England : great books of the English Reformation / by John Booty, editor, David Siegenthaler, John N. Wall, Jr. Wilton, CT. : Morehouse-Barlow, c1981.

Dickens, A. G. (Arthur Geoffrey), 1910- The English Reformation. 2nd ed. University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1991. "First published 1964, 2nd ed. first published 1989."

Hughes, Philip Edgecombe Hughes. Theology of the English reformers. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, c1965.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The boy king : Edward VI and the English Reformation. New York, N.Y. : Palgrave, c1999.

The study of Anglicanism / edited by Stephen Sykes, John Booty, and Jonathan Knight. Rev. ed. [London] : SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998.

B. Henry VIII:

The Act of Six Articles, 1539 (31 Hen. VIII, c.14) in The Reformation in England : to the Accession of Elizabeth I / edited by A.G. Dickens and Dorothy Carr. London: Edward Arnold, c1967. (Documents of modern history).

The King's book or, A necessary doctrine and erudition for any Christian man, 1543, with an introduction by T. A. Lacey. Published for the Church historical society. London : Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1932. Church historical society. [Publications. New series]. A statement of doctrine of the Church of England, "with a preface written in the King's [Henry VIII] name, and to all appearance by his own hand." 485

"Much more than a revision of ‘The institution of a Christian man’, issued by T. Bertelet, September, 1537, popularly known as The bishops' book. cf. Introd..”

C. Ridley:

Nicholas Ridley : A Treatise Agaynst the Errour of Transubstantiation [1555?], and Extracts from His Examinations [1554], from English Reformers, edited by T. H. L. Parker, in The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XXVI ( c1956).

D. Cranmer:

Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556. The work of Thomas Cranmer / Introduced by J. I. Packer. Edited by G. E. Duffield. Philadelphia: Fortress Press , 1965. Includes his “Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament (1550).

Sermons or homilies appointed to be read in churches. London : Printed for the Prayer- Book and Homily Society, 1833. Reprinted 1986. The 1st Book of the Homilies is chiefly attributable to Cranmer, and the 2nd to Jewel.

Bromiley, Geoffrey William. Thomas Cranmer, theologian. New York, N.Y. : Oxford University Press, 1956.

Brooks, Peter Newman. Thomas Cranmer's doctrine of the Eucharist : an essay in historical development. New York, N.Y. : Seabury Press , c1965. See also his: Cranmer in context : documents from the English Reformation Minneapolis, Minn. : Fortress Press, c1989.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Thomas Cranmer : a life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale, c1996.

E. Jewel

486

Jewel, John. An Apology of the Church of England. Edited by J. E. Booty. c1963.

An Homilie of the Worthy Receiving and Reverent Esteeming of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, from Certaine Sermons or Homiles, Appointed to be read in Churches in the Time of Queen Elizabeth I (1547-1571) : a Facsimile Reproduction of the Edition of 1623... c.1968.

See also: Duffy, Eamon. The stripping of the altars : traditional religion in England 1400-1580. New Haven, Conn. ; London : Yale, c1992.

F. Hooker:

Hooker, Richard, 1554?-1600. Laws of ecclesiastical polity.

G. Herbert:

Herbert, George, 1593-1633. The country parson : The temple / edited, with an introduction by John N. Wall, Jr. ; preface by A.M. Allchin. New York : Paulist Press, c1981. (The classics of Western spirituality).

H. Laud: William Laud, Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini, quoted from The Anglican Mind : a theological compendium of the classic statements (of the 17th century) edited with an Introduction by John H. Morgan.. Bristol, Ind. : Wyndham Hall Press, c1991

I. Jeremy Taylor: Jeremy Taylor : Selected Works / edited with an introduction by Thomas K. Carroll, preface by John Booty. New York : Paulist, c1990. (Classics of Western spirituality).

J. Cosin: John Cosin, Bishop of Durham, The History of Popish Transubstantiation : To which is Opposed the Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Scripture, the Ancient Fathers, and the 487

Reformed Churches. [Written in Latin in 1656, posthumously published in English in 1675; reprinted as Tracts 27 and 28 of the Tracts for the Times.]

:VI. Modern and Ecumenical:

A. Church of England and Anglicanism: The Canons of the Church of England : canons ecclesiastical promulgated by the Convocation of Canterbury and York in 1964 and 1969. London: SPCK, 1969. Canons A2 and A3..

Nichols, Aidan. The panther and the hind : a theological history of Anglicanism / Aidan Nichols, with a foreword by Bishop Graham Leonard. Edinburgh : T&T Clark, c1993.

The Wesleys: Hymns on the Lord’s Supper / by John Wesley and Charles Wesley, with a preface concerning the Christian sacrament and sacrifice, extracted from Doctor Brevint. Bristol, Eng. : Felix Farley, 1745 A Facsimile of the 1st ed., with introduction by Geoffrey Wainwright. Madison, N.J. : The Charles Wesley Society, c1995. Wesley, John, 1703-1791. Sunday service of the Methodists in North America / with an introduction by James F. White. [Nashville, Tenn.] : Quarterly Review, c1984. Quarterly review reprint series. Facsimile originally published: Sunday service of the Methodists in North America : London, 1784. Wesley, John, 1703-1791. John Wesley : [a representative collection of his writings] / edited by Albert C. Outler. New York, Oxford University Press, 1964.Oden, Thomas C. John Wesley’s scriptural Christianity : a plain exposition of his teaching on Christian doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, c1994

Maurice: 488

Maurice, F. D. (Frederick Denison), 1805-1872. The Kingdom of Christ. New edition based on the second edition of 1842, edited by Alec Vidler, c1958.

Anglo-Catholicism:

Project Canterbury: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc.

The Oxford Movement / Edited by Eugene R. Fairweather. New York, N.Y. : Oxford University Press, c1964. (A Library of Protestant Thought.)

The Affirmation of St. Louis: http://www.anglicancatholic.net/stlouis.htm.

Anglican orders : essays on the centenary of Apostolicae curae, 1896-1996 / edited, with an introduction by R. William Franklin ; foreword by Hugh Montefiore. London : Mowbray ; Harrisburg, PA, c1996. "Also published by Anglican Theological Review, volume LXXVIII, number 1, Winter 1996." “With an English translation of the Document and the Anglican Response.”

(Anglo-Catholic devotional or priests’ manuals:) Knowles, Archibald Campbell. The practice of religion : a short manual of instructions and devotions, illustrated . New York, N.Y. : Morehouse-Gorham Co., 1950. BBS, p. 236-239. The People’s Anglican Missal : containing the liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer together with other devotions and with liturgical and ceremonial notes. Athens, Ga. : Anglican Parishes Association, c1995. Saint Augustine’s prayer book : a devotional manual for members of the Episcopal Church / the Rev. Loren Gavitt, editor. West Park, New York: Holy Cross Publications, 1947, revised 1967. A manual for priests of the American church : complementary to the occasional offices of the Book of Common Prayer. Swedesboro, N.J.: Preservation Press, 1996. Preservation 489

Press edition. Reprinted from an edition [5th, 1968] originally published [1944] by the Society of Saint John the Evangelist, Cambridge, Md.

Bess, Douglas. Divided we stand : a history of the Continuing Anglican movement. Riverside CA : Tractarian Press, c2002..

Haverland, Mark. Anglican Catholic faith and practice. [Cover title] Athens, Ga. : Anglican Parishes Association, c1996.

Macquarrie, John. Paths in spirituality – 2nd ed.. Harrisburg, Pa. : Morehouse, c1972, 1992. Mascall, E. L. Corpus Christi : essays on the church and the Eucharist. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1953.

Newman, John Henry, 1801-1890. Parochial and plain sermons / John Henry Newman. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, c1987. "Previously published in eight volumes by Longmans, Green, and Company, London and New York, 1891. Newman’s Tract XC: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/tract90/index.html Newman, John Henry, 1801-1890. Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic teaching considered. New ed. Westminster, Md., : Christian Classics, 1969. His Works. Title on spine: Difficulties of Anglicans. V. 1. Twelve lectures addressed in 1850 to the party of the religious movement of 1833. Also: Jaki, Stanley L. Newman’s challenge. 1st ed. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans’s, c2000. Chapter 6, “Anglo-Catholics”, p. 106-149.(Originally a preface to an Amer. ed. of Anglican difficulties. Newman, John Henry, 1801-1890. Apologia pro vita sua.: An authoritative text, basic texts of the Newman-Kingsley controversy, origin and reception of the Apologia [and] essays in criticism ./ edited by David J. DeLaura. [1st ed.] New York, Norton, [1968] Norton critical editions. 490

(Two important essay collections): Gore, Charles, 1853-1932. Lux mundi : a series of studies in the religion of the Incarnation, edited by Charles Gore. From the 5th English ed. New York : United States book company, [1890?] Essays catholic & critical / by members of the Anglican Communion, edited by Edward Gordon Selwyn. London : S.P.C.K., c1958. First published, 1926.

Pickering, W. S. F. Anglo-Catholicism : a study in religious ambiguity / W.S.F. Pickering. London; New York : Routledge, 1989.

Ramsey, Michael, 1904- An era in Anglican theology, from Gore to Temple : the development of Anglican theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War, 1889-1939. New York : Scribner’s , c1960. (The Hale memorial lectures of Seabury- Western Theological Seminary, 1959).

Staley, Vernon, 1852-1933. The Catholic religion : a manual of instruction for members of the Anglican Communion / by Vernon Staley. Golden jubilee memorial ed. / revised by Brian Goodchild. Wilton, Conn. : Morehouse-Barlow, c1983. “First published 1893.” .

Recent Roman Catholic thought:

Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Gott ist uns nah. English God is near us : the Eucharist, the heart of life / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; edited by Stephan Otto Horn and Vinzenz Pfnür ; translated by Henry Taylor. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, c2003 Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Fest des Glaubens. English. The feast of faith : approaches to a theology of the liturgy / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; translated by Graham Harrison. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, c1986. Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Einführung in den Geist der Liturgie. English. The spirit of the liturgy / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; translated by John Saward.. San Francisco, CA : Ignatius Press, c2000. 491

Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Gott ist uns nah. English God is near us : the Eucharist, the heart of life / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; edited by Stephan Otto Horn and Vinzenz Pfnür ; translated by Henry Taylor. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, c2003 Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Fest des Glaubens. English. The feast of faith : approaches to a theology of the liturgy / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; translated by Graham Harrison. San Francisco : Ignatius Press, c1986. Benedict XVI, Pope, 1927- Einführung in den Geist der Liturgie. English. The spirit of the liturgy / Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ; translated by John Saward.. San Francisco, CA : Ignatius Press, c2000.

The book of divine worship : being elements of the Book of Common Prayer revised and adapted according to the Roman Rite for use by Roman Catholics coming from the Anglican tradition / approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States of America and confirmed by the Apostolic See. Pocono, Pa. : Newman House, c2003.

Catholic Church. Catechismus ecclesiae catholicae. English. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Rev. ed. London : Geoffrey Chapman, 1999.

Nichols, Aidan. The holy Eucharist : from the New Testament to Pope John Paul II. Dublin, Ireland : Veritas, c1991. (Oscott 6)

Schillebeeckx, Edward, 1914- Christ, the sacrament of the encounter with God / translation by Paul Barrett. English text rev. by Mark Schoof and Laurence Bright. New York : Sheed and Ward, [1963] Schillebeeckx, Edward, 1914- The eucharist / E. Schillebeeckx, translated by N. D. Smith. New York, N.Y. : Sheed and Ward, c1968.

America:

492

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A religious history of the American people / Sydney E. Ahlstrom. 2nd ed. / foreword and concluding chapter by David D. Hall. New Haven, [Conn.] : Yale University Press, 2004. Holifield, E. Brooks. Theology in America : Christian thought from the age of the Puritans to the Civil War / E. Brooks Holifield.. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, c2003.

Nichols, James Hastings, 1915- The Mercersburg theology. New York : Oxford University Press, 1966.( A Library of Protestant thought). Consists chiefly of works and articles by John W. Nevin and Philip Schaff. Nichols, James Hastings, 1915- Romanticism in American theology : Nevin and Schaff at Mercersburg. [Chicago] : University of Chicago Press , 1961. Nevin, John W. The mystical presence : a vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Philadelphia, Penn. : [S.n..], 1846. See also: Ahlstrom, Sydney E. Theology in America : the major Protestant voices from Puritanism to Neo- Orthodoxy / edited by Sydney E. Ahlstrom. Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill Co,. c1967. (The American Heritage Series) (Includes Nevin’s Mystical Presence excerpted.)

Ecumenical Discussions and Agreements:

Oden, Thomas. The rebirth of Orthodoxy : signs of new life in Christianity. c2003.

Together in mission and ministry : the Porvoo Common Statement with essays on church and ministry in Northern Europe. : conversations between the British and Irish Anglican churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches. London : Church House Publishing, c1993.

493

Growth in agreement : reports and agreed statements of ecumenical conversations on a world level / edited by Harding Meyer and Lukas Vischer. New York ; Paulist Press ; Geneva : World Council of Churches c1983. (Faith and Order paper ; no. 108)

Growth in agreement II : reports and agreed statements of ecumenical conversations on a world level, 1982-1998 / edited by Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, William G. Rusch. Growth in agreement 2. Geneva : WCC Publications ; Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub., c2000. (Faith and order paper ; no. 187)

Evangelicals & Catholics together : towards a common mission / Charles Colson, Richard John Neuhaus, editors. Dallas, Texas : Word Publishing . 1995.

One faith : the Evangelical consensus / J. I. Packer and Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, c2004.

494

Curriculum Vitae:

PHILIP ERNEST BARBER III (The Rev.)

Philip E. Barber was born in Houston, Texas, 14 December 1937, of typical Anglo- Celtic Texan stock. He was raised in Texas, Louisiana, and Virginia. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy (minoring in German and History) from Rice University in 1959 (summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa). He was a Fulbright Student in Philosophy for 1959-60 at the Universitaet Heidelberg. He then studied at Yale University Divinity School, where he earned a Bachelor of Divinity (now upgraded to Master of Divinity) in 1963, and Master of Sacred Theology (S.T.M.) in 1964. He then studied in the Department of and passed his doctoral preliminary examinations in 1967. He was a Teaching Assistant at Yale College and Brown University. From 1967 to 1972 he was Instructor in History and taught freshman History of Western Civilization and several upper-division courses at Southeastern University.

Baptized and confirmed in the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1955, he was then made deacon in 1963 and ordained priest in 1964. He was a guest member of the in Germany in 1959-60. He left the Episcopal Church in 1982 and was then chrismated into the Orthodox Church in America where he served as a layman, choir member, reader, and parish officer (including congregation president) from then until 1994, when he was received into the priesthood (presbyterate) of the Anglican Catholic Church, Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States, where he now serves as of the Church of the Ascension in Centreville, Virginia.

He is a 1977 graduate of a Clinical Pastoral Internship in in the Protestant Chaplains Office and the Clinical Pastoral Education Program at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C. He retired as Lieutenant Commander in the Chaplain Corps of the United States Naval Reserve in 1982. He graduated “with highest distinction” from the Naval War College (via the Washington Off-Campus Seminar) in 1981. Since 1977 he has been employed as a full-time Cataloger at the Library of Congress and is now a Senior Cataloging Specialist (GS-13), doing only part-time Church work. 495

He is married to Diane Capetz Barber. She is a Team Leader (GS-14) and Acting Assistant Division Chief at the Library of Congress.

He has two children and five grandchildren, who all live nearby in Northern Virginia.