Thomas Cranmer (1489”“1556), the martyred Archbishop of Canterbury who wrote and compiled the first two editions of The Book of Common Prayer, wanted laity ”” not just priests ”” to participate in the Holy Eucharist regularly, as was done in Jesus’ time.
“The 1979 prayer book has gotten us back to our Reformation roots and to our ancient roots,” [the Rev. Dr. Patrick Malloy, professor of liturgics at the General Theological Seminary in New York]… said.
Returning to early Christian roots is beneficial and can help parishioners know that they, as well as priests, can draw near to the holy, Malloy said. He cautioned, however, that with more frequent celebration of the Eucharist some reverence and humility, the “balanced Eucharistic piety” that should attend the sacred, may have been lost.
“I cannot read your souls, so I don’t know if the fact that the Eucharist is now the normative Sunday pattern has changed people,” Malloy said. “Cranmer did not take Communion lightly. Today, I fear that sometimes ”¦ many of us do approach the sacrament very lightly.”
Timely, with today’s Office reading from I Corinthians.
My sense is that our people “like” the Eucharist in that vague way they say “nice sermon” at the door. Most Western Anglicans are very private and “inner” about spirituality – and having the Eucharist at every service gives everybody their “personal space” without building unity. As today’s lesson shows, teaching, exhortation and correction must accompany the Sacrament – not just in the Eucharistsic liturgy, but in the daily life of the congregation.
Notice that all those appeals to “Unity in the Eucharist” and “Baptismal Covenant” did zero to head off chaos and fragmentation?
Hey, Fr. Tim (#1),
I heartily agree with you. While there have been many, many gains that I cherish with the 1979 BCP and the common restoration of weekly eucharist as the main service in most Episcopal congregations, Dr. Malloy is certainly right that there have also been some losses. And yes, familiarity with the Daily Office tends to be one of them. It used to be the special pride of Anglicans that we did the office in the form of Morning and Evening Prayer more than any other tradition in the Christian world. Yes, RCs have their Liturgy of the Hours, but it’s mostly observed just by clergy and monastics. And the Eastern Orthodox have their Divine Office, but it seems to be even more restricted to the clergy and monastics.
Personally, I think that the Daily Office is the part of our tradition that still needs the most revision. The 1979 BCP brought in much restoration of ancient liturgical practices and helpful modern updates with the Eucharist and with the drastically reformed rites of Christian initiation, but the Daily Office was left basically untouched. I contend that there is a great need to recover the richness of the full tradition of daily prayer (the so-called “cathedral office,” better called “the people’s office” as opposed to the monastic style one).
So I heartily agree with Dr. Mallory, when he said, [i]”We have made the Eucharist so normative on Sundays that we must be careful not to lose the rest of our liturgical heritage.”[/i] But I’d add two further clarifying points.
1. We need to recover a truly [b]balanced[/b] liturgical piety, period. And that means balancing weekly eucharist with DAILY celebrations of the office, especially by families at home. And it means balancing a eucharistically-center piety with an equal emphasis on a lively baptismal piety, i.e., the sacraments of Christian initiation (washing, anointing, feeding).
After all, Eph 4 talks of “one Lord, one faith, one BAPTISM,” not one eucharist. And the Nicene Creed mentions baptism but not eucharist. Both of which go to show that the patristic church had a much more balanced liturgical mindset than we do, where BOTH gospel sacraments were central (since they lived as a minority group in a largely non-Christian world where baptism really meant something).
2. We need to recover more of the sense of reverence and humility that comes with a renewed sense of being forgiven sinners, utterly dependent on the sheer mercy and grace of God. The Cranmerian eucharist was imbalanced in one way, so strongly stressing our depravity and sinfulness that some of the joy of being FORGIVEN sinners was lost. But we’ve gone to the opposite extreme and it’s symbolized in how rarely the Prayer of Humble Access is prayed in Rite II congregations. That’s another sort of balance we really need to recover somehow. And Lent is a great time to try.
Keep praying the Office yourself, Tim. I have very fond memories of meeting with Fr. Shoberg and a few of the faithful and chanting the office on an almost daily basis at Holy Apostles in Sioux Falls when I lived there.
David Handy+
David+, it was such a great blessing to have that Daily Office together. God “redeployed” most of the group, so I miss it but can’t second guess his plan.
I read the offices daily (Melissa sometimes joins in but I’m the family’s early riser, so mainly the dog and the cats hang out with me for the morning office – Melissa and I manage a night office and that’s been by the fireplace during this long winter!)
I was not blown away by much of the John MacQuarrie we read in seminary, but I’ve retained his idea that our offices and devotions during the week prepare us for the Eucharist. I remind the people of that frequently – some listen sometimes 🙂
Dr. Malloy’s observations do deserve to be taken seriously, but the fundamental problem has not been dealt with. That has to do with the wide range of understanding in Anglicanism about what the Eucharist is. Just recently, I listened to two “orthodox” low churchmen describing their delight that their bishop had permitted them to omit the Epiclesis in their celebrations of the Holy Communion. (Personally, if I were attending their services and noticed the omission of the Epiclesis, I would probably not take Communion.) It’s hard to develop a Eucharistic piety when you’re not really sure what it is you’re supposed to be pious about. One might appeal to the Thirty-Nine Articles about the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament, but there seems to be no real agreement about the Article’s “plain meaning”. If I believe the Eucharist is little more than a memorial meal whose reality depends on my belief, I would tend to regard genuflections, crossing oneself and other devotional practices as superstition (as a bishop proclaimed to my congregation). If I believe that what I receive in Communion is really the Body and Blood of Christ given and shed for me, I will tend to regard genuflections, crossing oneself and other devotional practices as almost normative. But Anglicans, I’m afraid, have a long way to go before they come to any consensus about the rite which is supposed to be the central act of worship in the Church.
[blockquote]I fear that sometimes … many of us do approach the sacrament very lightly.â€[/blockquote]
Oh this is music to my ears and refreshment for my eyes and soul. I am not the only one who feels this way….I thought I was becoming an extinct dinosaur in thinking that the majority of communing parishioners approach the altar rail and partake with very little understanding of the deep true meaning of this central part of our worship or in better terms very little reverence. Some come with issues against their brothers and sisters without them being resolved between them and we are warned not to do this. Some come just thinking that this is just a part of the service so I have to go. And I can not stand passing the peace in the middle of the service. That was the worse idea anyone has ever come up with in my humble opinion. It turns into a “coffee hour” and many that do have issues with others in the congregation that all they have to do is to shake hands with them and say [i]”Peace be with you[/i], and think that that resolves everything….it is generic. Plus, if someone comes to church sick…and they do…..I do not want to shake their hand or hug them and have their germs passed all over me.
Dan,
The lack of the Epiclesis does not equate to a memorialist view. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer does not have an Epiclesis in it. It remains the official BCP of the Church of England and the standard for the Anglican Communion today. Thomas Cramner intentionally left it out, and he was not a memorialist in the Zwinglian sense. He wanted to follow the pattern of the Last Supper and believed the Words of Institution were sufficient. So just as the disciples partook of the bread and wine following Jesus’ words, we should too.
And the 1662 also includes the Black Rubric. This gives ample reason for Eucharistic Piety while denying Transubstantiation at the same time.
[blockquote] WHEREAS it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby 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. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.” [/blockquote]
the author references the Prayer for Humble Access but fails to mention the Exhortation. (page 316 in the BCP). He also fails to bring up the differences between the 1928 prayer for humble access and the one in the 1979.
My point is that there have been two simultaneous movements: 1) to make the Eucharist the central focus of worship in TEC and 2) to diminish its seriousness, such that few parishioners, or clergy for that matter, ever worry about unworthy reception anymore.
At my last parish I restored reading the Exhortation at Advent 1, Lent 1, and Trinity Sunday. One parishioner, a life-long member of the Episcopal Church, approached me after the first time I read it and commented, “that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that read in church.”
I think the author has a very good point. I think Dan Crawford (#4) also is on the right track, except I would add this: Anglicanism hasn’t worked out its Eucharistic theology in 400 years and our theology doesn’t appear to be getting any clearer.
Great informative read and comments. Thank you Dr. Harmon.
Intercessor
[blockquote]Still, the prayer book requires occasional revision. “Over time liturgy tends to lose meaning; it’s like a ship that needs righting,†Price said. [b]I do not agree with this[/b]
He added that liturgies need to accommodate changing ways of life. [b]Again, NO WAY! TEc is already doing this[/b] [/blockquote]
[blockquote]Price said he wonders what effect the digital revolution will have on liturgy: “Will there be leather-bound Kindles with the liturgy? Will prayer book revisions be an Internet download?â€[/blockquote]
I can already download the prayer book in its entirety on the net. Where has he been?
Tim+ (#3),
I miss you too, my friend. The Daily Office is so much more fun to do together. Although even when we pray it by ourselves, we’re not really alone for we’re joining in the prayer of the whole Church, and entering into the ceaseless worship of all the saints in heaven and on earth.
Give my love to Melissa. And keep up the good work in Sioux Falls.
David Handy+
My first cursory read (I am at work at the moment) through Dr. Malloy’s sense of short comings in the 1979 BCP were the strengths of the 1928 BCP that I use. When worshiping the two versions in different services for a while it is clear to me why the sacredness of Eucharist is now watered down.
We do not need to change the 1979 BCP…we need to rediscover the beauty of the 1928 BCP.
Intercessor
Shane,
If I may respectfully ask, what then is so offensive about the Epiclesis that it would so delight clergyman to specifically ask permission to omit it- it has had a long history in both the Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic liturgical traditions. As for Cranmer’s views, I’ve read the arguments that claim he was not a Zwinglian – he may not have been a mere memorialist, but he certainly did not believe much more than that.
Finally, I know enough Catholics who understand the doctrine of transubstantiation and they would be appalled to hear themselves described as adoring bread and wine. They would tell you that they adore the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ under the signs of bread and wine. Whether Anglicans want to believe them is up to the Anglicans, but then Anglicans can believe just about anything they want about the Eucharist.
Dan Crawford….THANK YOU…THANK YOU…..THANK YOU!
I know that many Anglicans I worship with view the Eucharist much like a Protestant/Baptist/Presbyterian/Methodist/…etc… does. Sadly!
I see that leavened host and chalice of wine as being the Body & Blood of Christ Jesus. I must approach the table with much reverence and respect and make sure my accounts of sins are reconciled and are short when I approach…asking forgiveness each and every time before I approach. If I have an issue with a brother or sister or clergy who is celebrating and I have not reconciled with them I will not approach the alter. The business at the alter of teh Eucharist is serious business and should never ever be viewed or looked upon as just something that we do or something that will restore me. Do not get me wrong …it will restore and refresh one but, one must do their part before approaching and approach as if Christ Himself is standing right there in front of you.
Dan,
There is nothing offensive about the Epiclesis. I’m just trying to point out that it was not part of the Church of England, and the majority of the the Anglican Communion, for some 450 years (since the 1552 BCP). So it is completely a valid, Anglican Eucharist to not include the Epiclesis. It bothers me that some would insist or imply otherwise. By the way, even the Tractarians continued using the 1662 BCP with its lack of Epiclesis. I know that it has been part of the American Anglican tradition since 1789 and the first BCP of the Protestant Episcopal Church. So I freely acknowledge it’s usage as valid. So obviously we are not going to solve the differences over the Real Presence here.
The Black Rubric was first written in 1552 and was dealing with the corruption of the Medieval Church. I’m not accusing any Roman Catholics of today of doing so. I don’t really have any opinion on that. It was written that way, at that time, to correct what authors of the BCP felt was a grave error.
TJDillon,
The reason I posted the Black Rubric is because I wanted to show that the lack of Epiclesis, or a particular view of the Real Presence, does not mean that one can approach the Table without much reverence and respect. Just the opposite. Again, if you read the first part, it states, “the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;).”
Thank you Dan….but I stand by my beliefs and others may stand by theirs. I do believe in the Real Presence..I believe that God can do anything. If He can raise my Savior His Son Jesus Christ from the dead, create this wonderful world and all the stars in the heavens He can make that bread and wine turn into of the Real Presence through one of His chosen priests.