The Form for the Celebration of the Holy CommunionBy Robin G. JordanIn this third article in my series on
A Modern Language Version of the Reformed Episcopal Book of Common Prayer I examine the Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion in the Communion Office of the Reformed Episcopal Book of Common Prayer and its Modern Language Version. I had originally intended to examine both the Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion and the Alternative Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion in the same article. Among my aims were to give readers a better idea of where the Communion Office of these two books stands in relation to the Communion Service of the 1662 BCP, the Communion Office of the preceding Reformed Episcopal BCPs, and the Communion Office of the 1928 BCP; and to provide them with a clearer picture of the theology of the Communion Office of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version. I soon discovered that in order to examine each form in detail and to fulfill these aims, I would need to tackle each form in a separate article. This also accounts for the length of this particular article.
The Form for the Celebration of Holy Communion brings together elements from the Communion Offices of several Prayer Books, including the 1662 BCP, the 1785 Proposed BCP, the 1928 BCP and its predecessors, and the 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its predecessors. When compared with the Communion Office of the 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP and the 1956 Free Church of England BCP, another Prayer Book that stands in the Reformed Episcopal Prayer Book tradition, it reveals a decided shift in theology from the Communion Offices of earlier Reformed Episcopal Prayer Books.
The Celebration of the Holy Communion in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office begins with an Invitation to the Lord’s Table in these or similar words.
Our fellow Christians of other branches of Christ’s Church, and all who love our Divine Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in sincerity, are affectionately invited to the Lord’s Table.
This Invitation is a longstanding feature of the Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and is also found in the 1956 Free Church of England Communion Office. In the latter the Invitation to the Lord’s Table follows the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church militant and the Warning for the Celebration of the Holy Communion or the First Exhortation and precedes the Second Exhortation (if said) and the Invitation to Confession. A branch of the Reformed Episcopal Church was established in England in 1877. The Free Church of England and the Reformed Episcopal Church in England merged in 1927, and the Free Church of England Prayer Book incorporates material from the 1874 Reformed Episcopal BCP.
In the Modern Language Version of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office, the Invitation to the Lord’s Table has been changed. It extends an invitation to the Lord’s Table only to the members of other denominations baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is a departure from the Reformed Episcopal Church’s longstanding practice and the practice of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office, which requires only a sincere love of Jesus Christ for admission to Holy Communion in Reformed Episcopal churches. This alteration excludes Quakers, Pentecostals, and Salvation Army members from Holy Communion in Reformed Episcopal churches. The Society of Friends and the Salvation Army do not practice water baptism. A number of Pentecostal churches baptize in the name of Jesus. The historic Reformed Episcopal practice was, until the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP’s Modern Language Version, to admit to the Lord’s Table those who believed in their own hearts that they were followers of Jesus Christ irrespective of whether they were baptized. It was similar to the practice of the Congregational churches of the nineteenth century. This is not the same practice as modern-day open communion, which admits non-believers as well as believers to the Lord’s Table. The Reformed Episcopal practice was to open the Lord’s Table to all followers of Jesus Christ. This practice was one of the Reformed Episcopal Church’s distinctives as a denomination.
The rubric that follows the Invitation to the Lord’s Table and precedes the General Intercession, which is also known as the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church militant, is taken from the 1928 BCP and authorizes the Presbyter to make Special Biddings before the Bidding of the General Intercession. In the Modern Language Version of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office “private intercessions” has been substituted for “secret intercessions” in this rubric.
The rubrics of the 1962 Canadian Communion Office permit the Minister making the Special Biddings to provide short periods for silent prayer. The rubrics of number of more recent service books also allow members of the congregation to ask the prayers of the congregation and permit them to pray extemporaneously as well as silently in response to prayer requests and concerns of their fellow congregants. The Communion Office in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version would benefit from similar provisions.
After making Special Biddings, the rubric directs the Presbyter to say the Bidding of the General Intercession and then the General Intercession. The 1962 Canadian Communion Office permits a minister other than the priest to make the Special Biddings and the Bidding of the General Intercession before the General Intercession. More recent service books, for example,
An Australian Prayer Book (1978), the Episcopal Church’s
Book of Common Prayer (1979), the Church of England’s
The Alternative Service Book 1980, the Church of Ireland’s
Alternative Prayer Book 1984, the Anglican Church of Canada’s
Book of Alternative Services (1985), the Church of Nigeria’s Book of Common Prayer (1990), the Anglican Church of Kenya’s
Our Modern Services (2002, 2003),
A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), the Church of England’s
Common Worship (2000), the Diocese of Sydney’s
Supplemental Sunday Services (2001), and the Church of Ireland’s Book of Common Prayer (2004) permit deacons and authorized laypersons to say the General Intercession. This is attributable to the Liturgical Movement that sought to restore the roles of the deacon and the laos, the people of God, in the celebration of the Holy Communion, as they were in the Primitive Church, with the deacon and the assembled people of God playing a much greater role in the liturgy.
During the Middle Ages the priest gradually usurped the roles of the deacon and the other ministers in the liturgy. The Mass became something that the priest did for the church for the dead and the living. It ceased to be a service of public corporate worship in which the faithful participated and became a magic ritual that the priest performed. The laity, if present, was reduced to the role of passive spectators who played no part in the liturgy. Their presence, however, was not required. Masses were offered privately in chantries and side chapels as well as “publicly” in the chancel. In the latter case the priest said the Mass inaudibly, hidden from the profane gaze of the laity behind a rood screen. After the consecration the priest showed the consecrated elements to the laity and elevated the elements so that the laity might adore the bread and wine. The Medieval Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation taught that with the priest’s recitation of the Words of Institution Christ had entered them and they became his Body and Blood. The priest then immolated Christ again by consuming the bread and wine, repeating once more Christ’s sacrifice for the remission of sins.
The laity did not receive communion except at Easter and then only in one kind—the bread—and outside of the Mass. The chalice was withdrawn from the laity in part out of the belief that if they drank the wine as well as the bread, they too would be immolating Christ, something that only priests should do, having been set apart to make offerings for the church, as the priests of the Temple had been set apart to make offerings for the people of Israel.
The English Reformers rejected the companion doctrines of Eucharistic Sacrifice, Transubstantiation, and the sacerdotal character of the priesthood. Archbishop Cranmer’s liturgical reforms translated the services of the Church into a language understandable to the people, made them in to services of public corporate worship, gave the people a corporate vocal part in the services, and transformed the Mass into a Communion service, in which the communion of the people replaced the display and elevation of consecrated elements for their adoration.
While the reformed services gave a much greater role to the people than their role in the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic services, in which their role was negligible if non-existent, the priest continued to play a dominant role in the reformed services. In this regard they are not entirely free of the sacerdotalism of the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Church.
A number of the earlier proposals for further reform of the Church’s services that the Puritans championed would have given an even greater role to the presbyter. These proposals would have done away with versicles and responses, eliminated the people’s response after each Commandment in the Decalogue and each Suffrage in the Litany, and would have replaced the Collects with the longer prayers that the Puritans preferred.
The Puritan’s later proposals would have reduced the role of the people to singing metrical Psalms and saying “Amen” after the presbyter’s lengthy extemporaneous prayers. This would become their role when the Book of Common Prayer was abolished during the Interregnum and replaced by a Directory of Public Worship. The pastor read the lessons, preached the sermon, and said the prayers.
The rubrics of the Celebration of the Holy Communion—both in 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and its Modern Language Version, follow the rubrics of 1928 Communion Office. The large vocal part they give to the presbyter, or priest, cast him in a sacerdotal role as an intermediary between the congregation and God, making prayers and offerings for the congregation. The rubrics substitute “priest” where “minister” is used in the 1662 Communion Service, and make no provision for a minister other than the priest to say the first two Exhortations or lead the people in saying the General Confession as does the 1662 Communion Service.
The rubrics of the Celebration of Holy Communion also represent a departure from the historic practice of the Reformed Episcopal Church as well as that of the Church of England. The 1785 Proposed BCP, the 1874 Reformed Episcopal BCP, 1956 Free Church of England BCP, and the 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP substitute “minister” for “priest” in the rubrics throughout the book. Where “minister” is used, it is implied that the minister may be a deacon or licensed lay reader as is the case in the 1662 BCP. As late as 1983 the Reformed Episcopal Church permitted its bishops to license deacons to administer the sacrament of the Holy Communion. Since that time the practice has been quietly dropped. It was one of the Reformed Episcopal Church’s denominational distinctives, a practice that the REC shared with the Church of England in South Africa.
The Bidding of the General Intercession is taken from 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and omits the phrase “here in earth,” which Cranmer added to this bidding to make emphatic his excision of every vestige of commemoration of the saints and prayer for the dead from the 1552 BCP. Both the 1662 Communion Service and 1956 Free Church of England Communion Office retain this phrase.
The General Intercession in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office is an adaptation of the General Intercession in the 1928 Communion Office and represents a significant change in the theology of the Reformed Episcopal Communion Office. The General Intercession in the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office substitutes the phrase “…to accept our alms, and…” for the phrase “…to accept our alms and oblations, and…” in the 1662 General Intercession. The phrase “…and oblations” was omitted from the General Intercession in the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and the 1956 Free Church of England Communion Office due to the controversy over the meaning of the term “oblations” in the nineteenth century and reflects the influence of the 1874 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office upon the two books. Anglo-Catholics interpreted “oblations” to mean the bread and wine while the received understanding was that the “oblations’ referred to the people’s devotions, their gifts of money for other purposes than relieving the needs of the poor. If there are no alms or oblations, the rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service direct that the phrase “…to accept our alms and oblations, and…” should be “left out unsaid.” If there are no alms, the rubrics of the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and the 1956 Free Church of England also direct that the phrase “to accept our alms” should likewise be “left out unsaid.”
The General Intercession in the 1928 Communion Office and the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office retain the phrase “…to accept our alms and oblations, and…” and adopt the Anglo-Catholic interpretation of “oblations.” As in the General Intercession in the 1928 Communion Office the phrase “…alms and…” is italicized and bracketed in the General Intercession in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office. The rubric directing the leaving out unsaid of the phrase “…alms and…” is retained from the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office. This change represents a complete turnaround in the theology of the Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and comprises a repudiation of the doctrinal position of the Reformed Episcopal Church’s Declaration of Principles. As in the 1928 Communion Office the presbyter, or priest, is praying not only that God accept the oblation of bread and wine but also the oblation of the Body and Blood Of Christ offered anew to the Father.
In the Modern Language Version of the General Intercession “we humbly beseech thee most mercifully to accept our [
alms and] oblations, and to receive these prayers, which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty…” has been altered to, “In Your mercy accept our [
alms and] holy offerings, and receive these our prayers, which we offer unto Your Divine Majesty….” Having substituted “beg” for “beseech” elsewhere in the book the REC Standing Liturgical Commission abruptly for no apparent reason reverts to “beseech” in the next petition of the General Intercession:
“…..beseeching You to inspire continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and harmony….” “Beseech” is also used subsequently in the prayer for all those in authority. The Standing Liturgical Commission three petitions later goes back to using “beg” in place of “beseech.”
As noted in my previous articles, “beseech” could have been retained as in a number of other more recent service books or other synonyms for “beseech” could have been used such as “entreat” or “implore.”
See my first article on Morning and Evening Prayer in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version for a discussion of the drawbacks of substituting “beg” for “beseech” The General Intercession contains no petition for the Queen, her Council, and all those in authority for use in the Dominion of Canada in place of the petition for civil rulers. The Church of Ireland has parishes in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the General Intercession in the 1926 Irish Communion Office contains such a prayer for use in Northern Ireland and a prayer for civil rulers for use in the Republic of Ireland. The prayer for use in Northern Ireland is taken from the General Intercession in the 1662 Communion Service.
NI. [We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and especially ELIZABETH our Queen; that under her we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto her whole Council, and all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion and virtue.]
The prayer for use in the Republic of Ireland is the identical to the prayer for civil rulers used in the General Intercession in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office.
The late Massey Shepherd Jr. in
The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary discusses the General Intercession under the heading, “The Prayer for the Church.” He points to our attention:
It is noteworthy…that the prayer for civil rulers refers only to those who are ‘Christian,’ since this is a prayer for the Church and its several members. Non-Christian rulers may be well expected to administer justice impartially, and to punish wickedness and vice, but they cannot be thought of as maintaining ‘thy true religion and virtue.’
The REC Standing Liturgical Commission in substituting “all those in authority” for “all Christian rulers” in the Communion Office in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP’s Modern Language Version fails to make this important distinction. With this alteration in the General Intercession the Commission appears to lose sight of the fact that the General Intercession is a prayer for the Church as the Bidding of the General Intercession affirms.
The General Intercession in the Communion Office in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern language Version omits the petition for the departed, “…to grant them continual growth in thy love and service….” This prayer, along with the petition for acceptance of the oblation of bread and wine and the oblation of the Body and Blood Of Christ offered anew to the Father, is a particular feature of the General Intercession in the 1928 Communion Office.
The rubric permitting the Presbyter to say an Exhortation—an adaptation of the First Exhortation from the 1928 Communion Office—after the General Intercession and requiring it to be said on the First Sunday in Advent, the First Sunday in Lent, and Trinity Sunday is adapted from the rubrics of the 1928 Communion Office. The First Exhortation from the 1928 Communion Office is itself an adaptation of the Third Exhortation from the 1662 Communion Service. The requirement that the people should stand for this Exhortation is peculiar to the Reformed Episcopal Communion Office. It is found in the 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP as well as 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version.
The rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service and the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office requires that the Exhortation should be said at all celebrations of the Holy Communion. The rubrics of the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Office modifies the language of the Exhortation, abbreviate it, and permit the omission of the second half of the shortened Exhortation except at the first Communion in Advent, in Lent, and after Whitsunday. A comparison of this Exhortation with the Exhortation in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office shows that the latter is closer to the First Exhortation in the 1928 Communion Office.
The rubric before the Invitation comes from the rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service. The same rubric also precedes the Invitation in the 1928 Communion Office. In the Modern Language Version of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office’s Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion, the rubric has been altered as follows:
Then shall the Presbyter say to those who come to receive the Holy Communion. And note, That is the Exhortation above has not been said, the people may remain kneeling, the Presbyter using the words devoutly saying in place of devoutly kneeling.
In addition to containing a typographical error, the addition to the rubric is unnecessary. In the 1926 Irish BCP, the 1928 BCP, the 1928 Proposed English BCP, and 1962 Canadian BCP the preceding Exhortation may be omitted on most Sundays. These Prayer Books make no provision for the alteration of the words of the Invitation on Sundays when the Exhortation is omitted, and none is needed.
A rubric permitting the substitution of alternative wording is needless because this kind of substitution falls in the category of variations that a minister may at his discretion make and use that are not of substantial importance in any form of service prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer or elsewhere. In this particular case the minister might omit the phrase “devoutly kneeling” if it was warranted. Such variations have historically been canonically allowable provided they are reverent and seemly and are neither contrary to nor indicative of any departure from the doctrine of the Church.
This addition to the rubric preceding the Invitation is very revealing in regards to how the REC Standing Liturgical Commission sees rubrics. The rubrics of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version are much more prescriptive than is desirable on the North American mission field. In a Prayer Book designed for the North American mission field, flexibility is definitely a must. Where they occur in the rubrics, directions to stand, sit, or kneel should be suggestions only. The phrase “meekly kneeling upon your knees” or “devoutly kneeling” should be omitted from the Invitation altogether, as in
An Australian Prayer Book (1978).
You who do truly and earnestly repent of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking in His holy ways, draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to strengthen and comfort you. But first, let us make a humble confession of our sins to Almighty God.
This version of the Invitation recognizes that the Invitation is first an invitation to Communion and second an invitation to confession. It may be used in both traditional and non-traditional settings. It makes allowances for circumstances in which kneeling is not practicable.
I have been involved in two Anglican (Episcopal) church plants over the past 25 years, as well as four non-Anglican new church starts. In none of the settings in which we gathered for worship was kneeling feasible. We tried hassocks, or kneeling cushions, but people had difficulty lowering themselves onto the hassocks without the back of a pew in front of them; they also had trouble getting off their knees. Kneeling was especially challenging for the older, heavier, and less physically active members of the congregation and those who had arthritis or rheumatic joint disease, or had undergone hip and knee replacement surgery. The struggle to kneel and to rise from kneeling became a serious disruption in the flow of the service and interfered with the whole atmosphere of the service at a critical juncture.
The rubric preceding the Confession in the Communion Office in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version is taken from the rubrics of the 1928 Communion Office. The Confession comes from the 1662 Communion Service, and is also used in the 1928 Communion Office.
The Modern Language Version of the Confession substitutes “deeply mourn” for “bewail” and “many” for “manifold.” Even though the sentence “we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness” contains the same number of syllables with these substitutions, it looses the cadence of the Tudor English version. A dynamic equivalency translation of this sentence from Tudor English into contemporary English might have been a more effective use of language. The Modern Language Version of the Confession also substitutes “many sins” for “misdoings.” One of the reasons that the Confession is so eloquent in Tudor English is Cranmer’s use of synonyms, often in pairs, for example, “sins and wickedness.” This eloquence is lost with the substitution of “many sins” for “misdoings” as “many sins’ had been used earlier in the Confession. The contemporary English version of the Confession in
An Australian Prayer Book (1978), the
Prayer Book of the Church of England in South Africa (1992), and
A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) retain “misdoings.”
The aim of the REC Standing Liturgical Commission appears to have been to keep as much as possible of the language to which existing REC congregations are accustomed rather than making the language more understandable to those for whom Tudor English is not a second language and thereby making the services of the Prayer Book more accessible to them. While the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP’s Modern Language Version replaces the second person familiar “thou” and “thee” and a small number of other unfamiliar and archaic words, it retains many words like “unto,” “grievous,” and “hereafter” that other more recent service books also replace along with grammatical structures and phraseology that are no longer used in contemporary English. Consequently, its language is tends to sound contrived, formal, and old-fashioned to the modern ear. Where word substitutions are made, they are apt to be rather pedestrian. The REC Standing Liturgical Commission might have done better to assemble in a single book the best of the contemporary English versions of the Tudor language texts from the historic Prayer Books, those that are both eloquent and theologically sound, than to attempt its own translation of these texts or to use one of the earlier word-for-word translations of the texts into contemporary English.
The rubric preceding the Absolution is also taken from the rubrics of the 1928 Communion Office. The Absolution comes from the 1662 Communion Service, and is also used in the 1928 Communion Office. The 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office omits the Absolution, a rejection of the notion of priestly absolution and a peculiarity of that Communion Office. However, the 1956 Free Church of England Communion Office retains the Absolution.
The Modern Language Version adds “singing” to the rubric preceding the Sursum Corda. This permits the Anglo-Catholic practice of singing the Sursum Corda. The Modern Language Version also prefixes the Salutation to the Sursum Corda. As noted in the first article in this series, the frequent use of the Salutation is one of the characteristics of unreformed Catholic liturgies. Medieval Catholics believed and modern day Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics continue to believe that the Salutation is more than a greeting or an introduction to a call to prayer but is a prayer for the priest, in which the congregation ask God to arouse the special grace given to the priest in ordination so that God will accept the offerings that the priest makes on the behalf of the people, at the Daily Offices, in the form of prayers and intercessions, and at the Mass, in the form of the representation or reiteration of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. This interpretation of Salutation is closely tied to the Medieval Catholic view of the sacerdotal character of the ministry of the priest who acts as an intermediary between the faithful and God, and is intimately associated with the Medieval Catholic doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Real Presence. This special grace is believed not only to infuse the water in the baptismal font with power to remove sin when the priest blesses the water but also to transmogrify the bread and wine of the Holy Communion into the substance of the body and blood of our Lord when the priest recites the Words of Institution over the elements. Having brought Christ into being in the bread and wine in this manner, the priest extinguishes Christ by eating the bread and drink the wine, thereby by repeating Christ’s death and sacrifice for the remission of sin for the living and the dead. Before consuming the elements priest elevates them for the faithful to adore.
The Modern Language Version substitutes “good” for “meet” in the Sursum Corda and the Preface. “Meet,” however, means “proper, fitting.” The Modern Language substitutes “required” for “bounden” in the Preface. This also is a mistranslation. “Bounden” means “binding.” The root word is “bind.” “Required” has three syllable; “bounden,” two. A paraphrase of “it is very meet…duty” that retains the eleven syllables of the original would be “It is very fitting, right, and our duty….” This omits the word “bounden,” or “binding.” “Bounden,” or “binding,” is used as a qualifying adjective to make the word “duty” more emphatic, and therefore its omission does not change the essential meaning of the phrase. Substituting “good” for “meet” and “required” for “bounden,” however, does alter its meaning.
The rubrics preceding the Proper Preface and the
Sanctus are taken from the rubrics of the 1928 Communion Office. They direct the priest to say or sing the Proper Preface and “Therefore with Angels and Archangels…” and the priest and the people to say or sing the
Sanctus.
The Communion Offices of the 1552 BCP, 1559 BCP, 1604 BCP, 1637 Scottish BCP, 1662 BCP, 1785 Proposed BCP, 1789 BCP, 1874 Reformed Episcopal BCP, and the 1956 Free Church of England BCP do not separate “Therefore with Angels and Archangels…” from the
Sanctus and in these Communion Offices the priest and the people say or sing “Therefore with Angels and Archangels…” and the
Sanctus. As the rubric following Proper Prefaces in the 1637 Scottish Communion Office states, “After which Preface, shall follow immediately this doxologie.” The 1637 Scottish BCP, sometimes erroneously described as the “Laudian Liturgy,” recognizes that “Therefore with Angels and Archangels…” and “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts…” comprise a single unified formula glorifying God.
The 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office also does not separate the words “Therefore with Angels and Archangels…” from the
Sanctus and, as in the 1789 BCP, the rubrics direct the minister and the people to say or sing “Therefore with Angels and Archangels….” and the
Sanctus. The rubrics of The Holy Communion, First Order, in
An Australian Prayer Book (1978) permit the people to say or sing “Therefore with Angels and Archangels…” with the priest. As we have seen, the rubrical change in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version is a departure from the historic practice of the Reformed Episcopal Communion Office, which is closer to the practice of the 1662 Communion Service than that of the 1928 Communion Office.
The Modern Language Version adds the
Benedictus to the
Sanctus. In the 1552 Prayer Book Cranmer dropped the
Benedictus because it suggested an objective presence in the consecrated elements. The 1559, 1604, 1637 Scottish BCP 1662, 1785 Proposed BCP, 1789 BCP, 1874 Reformed Episcopal BCP, 1928 BCP, 1956 Free Church of England BCP, 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP, and 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP all omit the
Benedictus. The 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book, which show the influence of the Anglo-Catholic movement, permit the optional use of the
Benedictus after the
Sanctus. The 1962 Canadian BCP, which also displays the same influence, permits its optional use after the
Sanctus or immediately before the Communion as a pre-Communion devotion. In this position the
Benedictus’ suggestion of an objective presence in the consecrated elements is unavoidable. As we shall see, the 1662 Declaration on Kneeling, also known as “the Black Rubric,” which is printed at the end of the 1962 Canadian Communion Office, does not preclude belief in such presence. In the Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP’s Modern Language Version,
the use of the Benedictus after the Sanctus is obligatory.
The Proper Prefaces and the rubrics that precede them come from the Proper Prefaces in the 1928 Communion Office. The number of Proper Prefaces have been increased to nine. The 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP, like the 1663 BCP, has only five.
As in the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and the 1662 Communion Service the rubric that follows the
Sanctus directs the priest to kneel down at the Lord’s Table and say the Prayer of Humble Access, in the name of all those who are to receive the Communion. The actual rubric is adapted from the rubric preceding the Prayer of Humble Access in the 1928 Communion Office. A number of the more recent service books such as
An Australian Prayer Book (1978), the Episcopal Church’s
Book of Common Prayer (1979), the Church of England’s
Alternative Service Book 1980, the Church of Ireland’s
Alternative Prayer Book 1984,
A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), the Church of England’s
Common Worship (2000), and the Church of Ireland’s
Book of Common Prayer (2004) permit the people to join the priest in saying the Prayer of Humble Access.
A longstanding feature of the Reformed Episcopal Communion Office, which is also a feature of the Free Church of England Communion Office is this Prayer of Humble Access.
We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to commemorate in this breaking of bread the death of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, that we may feed on him in our hearts by faith, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
It has been replaced by the Prayer of Humble Access from the 1662 Communion Office and relegated to the Prayers and Thanksgivings where it is titled “An Alternate Prayer of Humble Access to Holy Communion.” In the 1956 Free Church of England Communion Office it is printed in the Communion Office after the Prayer of Humble Access from the 1662 Communion Service. The language of the latter prayer has been altered
We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so spirituallyto eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and spirituallyto drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
A rubric follows the Prayer for Humble Access in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office, drawing attention to the rubric “at the end of this Form for Holy Communion,” a reference to the 1662 Declaration on Kneeling printed at the end of the form.
The rubric preceding the Prayer of Consecration is adapted from the rubric before the Consecration Prayer in the 1662 Communion Service. The omission of the word “before” and the rubric at the beginning of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office permit both the westward and the eastward positions. The priest may either face the congregation across the table—the position of the priest in the Primitive Church, or face the table with his back to the congregation, the position of the priest in the Medieval Catholic Church. The latter position has strong associations with the Medieval Catholic doctrines of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Transubstantiation, and the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood. The westward position, while it is more primitive than the eastward position has attracted these associations since its reintroduction in the 1960s. The priest is viewed as an icon of Christ, making prayers and offerings for the congregation. This view, however, has no basis in the teaching of the apostles of Christ found in the New Testament.
The Prayer of Consecration is taken from the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and begins with the words, “All glory be to thee…,” which were first used in the 1755 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration and is not used in the 1662 Consecration Prayer. As in the 1552, 1559, 1604, 1662, and 1785 Proposed BCPs the Consecration Prayer consists of the narrative of the Institution, introduced by an
Anamnesis of the Passion and an
Epiclesis, in which the priest calls upon God to grant that those who receive the bread and wine may be partakers of Christ’s Body and Blood. The Greek root word of
Epiclesis, which is
Epicleo, means to call upon. The particular form of this
Epeclesis is consistent with the teaching of the Bible and the Reformation. The English Reformers found no support in Scripture for the practice of blessing inanimate objects (e.g., bread, wine, water, oil, salt, medallions) or invoking the Holy Spirit upon them. The English Reformers, however, did find ample evidence that people, not inanimate objects, are blessed in the Bible. At the Last Supper Jesus gave thanks over the bread and wine, blessing the name of God, as was the Jewish custom.
The rubric in the Prayer of Consecration directing the presbyter to perform the Manual Acts and the rubrics following the Consecration Prayer permitting a hymn, directing the presbyter to first receive communion in both kinds and then deliver the same to any clergy present in like manner and after that to the people, “into their hands, all devoutly kneeling,” and requiring sufficient opportunity to be given to those present to communicate are taken from the 1928 Communion Office. The last rubric was added in the 1892 Communion Office due to the growing practice of Masses without communion in the Protestant Episcopal Church, one of the pernicious effects of the Anglo-Catholic movement in the late nineteenth century.
It is noteworthy that the Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version contains no rubric prohibiting the priest from elevating the consecrated elements or showing them to the people after the Words of Institution.
In the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP’s Modern Language Version of the Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion the
Agnes Dei is printed after the Prayer of Consecration and before the rubric permitting a hymn. Among the reasons that Cranmer dropped the
Agnus Dei and the Peace from the Communion Office of the 1552 BCP and placed the Exhortation, Invitation, Confession, Absolution, and Comfortable Words before the Preface and the Prayer of Humble Access after the
Sanctus was the belief that the long interval between the Words of Institution and the actual reception of the Communion ministered to the idea of an objective presence. The
Agnus De had strong associations with the practice of the elevation and adoration of the consecrated elements. The Medieval Catholic Church believed that Christ entered the Bread and Wine at the priest’s recitation of the Words of Institution and transformed them into his Body and Blood. The priest lifted up the elements for the people to gaze upon and worship while the choir or clerks sang the
Agnus Dei. In this position the
Agnus Dei not only ministers to the idea of an objective presence in the elements but also comprises an act of adoration of Christ present in the elements. This raises the question why the REC Standing Liturgical Commission placed the
Agnus Dei after the Prayer of Consecration in the Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP’s Modern Language Version. No rubric precedes the
Agnus Dei directing who is to say or sing it, and the absence of a rubric making its use optional means that its use is obligatory. While a number of more recent service books, which have been influenced by the Anglo-Catholic movement, permit its optional use, they do not make its use obligatory. Sensitive to its past associations with the doctrines of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Transubstantiation and the practice of eucharistic adoration, a number of these service books allow its use not before the distribution of the Communion but during the distribution of the Communion.
The Communion Office in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version drop the following rubrics related to the delivery of the Bread and Cup, which appear in the Communion Office in the 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP.
Then shall the Minister first receive the Communion himself, and proceed to deliver the same to the Ministers assisting, and, after that, to the People. And before delivering the Bread, he shall say, to al the Communicants then around the Table,
The Body of our LORD Jesus Christ, which was given for you, preserve your bodies and souls unto everlasting life.
And when he delivereth the Bread, he shall say,
Take and eat this bread in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart, by faith, with thanksgiving.
And before delivering the Cup, he shall say, to all the Communicants then around the 'Table,
The Blood of our LORD Jesus Christ, which was shed for you, preserve your bodies and souls unto everlasting life.
And when he delivereth the Cup, he shall say,
Drink this wine in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.
The rubrics of
An Australian Prayer Book (1978) permit the use of the 1552 Words of Distribution as alternative Words of Distribution at the delivery of the Bread and Wine.
The rubrics of the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office do not require the people to kneel to receive communion.
Similar rubrics are found in the Communion Office of the
Prayer Book of the Church of England in South Africa (1992). Its rubrics permit the people to receive communion kneeling at the Lord’s Table or in their seats.
A number of other more recent service books permit the people to stand or to kneel to receive communion. When the Holy Communion is celebrated in non-traditional settings, this kind of flexibility regarding the posture of the communicant’s body when receiving communion is highly desirable. What matters most when receiving communion is the posture of the communicant’s heart (See Articles XXV, XXVIII, and XXIX and the Catechism of the 1662 BCP).
The rubrics relating to the delivery of the Bread and Wine from the Communion Office of the 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP should have been retained as an alternative form for the delivery of the Bread and Wine in the Communion Office of the books that have succeeded it. They would prove quite useful in non-traditional settings where kneeling is not practicable.
The Communion Office in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version is poorly designed for use on the North American mission field. It assumes that the congregation celebrating Holy Communion will be using the traditional setting of a cathedral, collegiate chapel, or parish church, not the non-traditional setting of a private house, fire station, school cafeteria, apartment complex commons room, funeral home chapel, movie theater, hotel conference room, community center, or any of number of other suitable places where new congregations and even long-established congregations hold services of public worship.
A number of people are unable to leave their seats or kneel due to age, infirmity, and physical disability; the Communion Office in the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version make no provision for such persons.
The rubrics that precede the Words of Distribution at the delivery of the Bread and the Wine are taken from the 1928 Communion Office.
The 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version, unlike other more recent service books, make no provision for the singing of hymns, anthems, Psalms, canticles, and worship songs during the distribution of the Communion. The performance of choral music and the singing of congregational songs during the distribution of the Communion has become a widespread parochial custom in Anglican churches. In a number of congregations the distribution of Communion is not only accompanied by the singing of Communion songs but is also followed by a time of open worship. The absence of any provision for the singing of Communion songs during the distribution of the Communion limits the usefulness of the two service books on the North American mission field.
The rubric relating to the consecration of additional Bread and Wine come from the 1662 Communion Service, as does the rubric relating to the covering of any remaining elements with a fair linen cloth. The rubric directing the presbyter and the people to say the Lord’s Prayer appears to have been composed for the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office. The Preface to the Lord’s Prayer comes from 1928 Communion Office.
A peculiarity of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office is that that the rubrics require that the presbyter should say both Post-Communion Prayers. The latter prayers are taken from 1662 Communion Service, in which the rubrics direct the priest say one of the two prayers. The 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office has three Post-Communion Prayers, adapted from the 1662 Post-Communion Prayers, and the rubrics give the minister the option of saying one or more of these prayers. The rubrics of the Holy Communion, First Order, in
An Australian Prayer Book (1978) give the priest the option of saying one or both of the prayers. The rubrics of a number of more recent service books permit the people to join the priest in saying the Post-Communion Prayer.
The rubric preceding the
Gloria in Excelsis is adapted from the rubrics of the 1928 Communion Office. The rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service and those of the 1962 Communion Office do not direct all to stand nor do they permit the substitution of a suitable hymn in place of the
Gloria in Excelsis. Both provisions are two of the better features of the American Prayer Book. A number of more contemporary service books have adopted these features, permitting the substitution of other versions of the
Gloria in Excelsis, and when appropriate another suitable hymn of praise, including canticles like the
Te Deum,
Benedicite,
Benedictus es, Great and Wonderful, and Glory and Honour. They also allow use of metrical settings of the
Gloria in Excelsis and the other canticles. These provisions enable congregations to sing the canticles when the musical resources of the congregation, its composition, and/or the acoustical environment in which the congregation is worshiping precludes chant.
The Communion Office of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Prayer Book and its Modern Language Version drops the Prayer for Grace that was a feature of the close of the Communion Office of the 1963 Reformed Episcopal BCP. It omits the Blessing from the 1963 Reformed Episcopal Communion Office and retains the alternative Blessing.
In the Form for the Celebration of Holy Communion the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version make no provision for the priest with assistance of one or more communicants to reverently consume any remaining consecrated bread and wine after the Blessing. The omission of this rubric, which is found in the 1928 BCP as well as the 1662 BCP, is tacit recognition of the practice of the Reservation of the Sacrament. This practice is associated with belief in an objective presence in the consecrated elements.
The 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version drops the following rubrics from the end of the Reformed Episcopal Communion Office.
If among those who come to be partakers of the Holy Communion, the Minister shall know any to be an open and notorious evil liver, or to have done any wrong to his neighbors by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; he shall advise him, that he come not to the Lord’s Table until he have openly declared himself to have truly repented, and amended his former evil life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied; and that he hath recornpensed the parties to whom he had done wrong; or at least, declared himself to be in full purpose to do so, as soon as he possibly may.
The same order shall the Minister use with those betwixt whom
he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign.
In conducting this Service, except when kneeling, the Minister
shall face the People.
[Note.—The act and prayer of consecration do not change the
nature of the elements, but merely set them apart for a holy use:
and the reception of them in a kneeling posture is not an act of
adoration of the elements.]
In their place it substitutes a rubric permitting a hymn and the Declaration on Kneeling from the 1662 Communion Service. For comparison the adaptation of the same Declaration on Kneeling at the end of the 1956 Free Church of England Communion Office has been provided:
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 acknowledgement 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 Real, Essential, or Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood in, or with the Elements of Bread and Wine. 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.
The act and prayer of Consecration do not change the nature of the Elements, but only set them apart for a holy use.
The 1956 Free Church of England’s Declaration on Kneeling combines both the 1552 and 1662 Declarations on Kneeling. It goes even further than the 1662 Declaration on Kneeling to exclude the theory of Transubstantiation and to discourage any belief in an objective in the elements. Note the last sentence in which it is stated, “The act and prayer of Consecration do not change the nature of the Elements, but only set them apart for a holy use.” This is one of the rubrics that the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version dropped from the end of the Reformed Episcopal Communion Office. It precludes any kind of change in the nature of the elements.
The history of the Church of England from the 1830s to the present, partiularly the rise of the Anglo-Catholic movement in the nineteenth century, shows how ineffective the 1662 Declaration on Kneeling was in discouraging belief in an objective presence in the consecrated elements and the practice of eucharistic adoration. This accounts for the stronger language of the 1956 Free Church of England’s version of the Declaration on Kneeling.
The 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version in their adoption of the 1662 Declaration on Kneeling do not close the door to belief in the Real Presence in the consecrated elements. A number of twentieth century Anglo-Catholic theologians have argued that the 1662 Declaration on Kneeling exclude only belief in an immoderate realism, that is so say, that is, the belief that the words the Body and Blood of Christ mean the material body and blood of Christ. The 1662 Declaration on Kneeling, they maintain, does not exclude belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements, based upon moderate realism, “where sign and signified are identified and where the sign instantiates the signified.” C. B. Moss identifies the Real Presence as “the result of the change effected by consecration of the bread and wine.” He argues:
That the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is implied by Scripture and was explicitly taught by the Fathers. … We must hold that the living Christ is personally present and that we receive Him when we receive the consecrated bread and wine. It seems better to say “The Bread becomes the Body of Christ” than to say “The Body of Christ is present”, because the word “present” must be used not in the ordinary sense but in the mysterious sense, undefined because heavenly. It is easier to say what this “presence’” is not, than what it is. It is not natural, or physical, or local. The Body of Christ does not move through space. … The Body and Blood of Christ do not possess the properties of bread and wine.
Moss further argues that there is a change in the bread and wine. This change does not affect the natural qualities of Christ’s body and blood nor does it affect the natural qualities of the bread and wine. Rather it is a spiritual and heavenly change. While it is a spiritual and heavenly change, it is a real change. It is not imaginary. The presence of Christ is a spiritual and heavenly presence resulting from the change in the bread and wine in which they become the body and blood of Christ after a heavenly and spiritual manner.
In dropping the rubric denying any change in the nature of the elements from the Communion Office, the Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version permit this view of the Real Presence. The other changes in the Communion Office also permit the view of Eucharistic Sacrifice associated with this doctrine. In this theology of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the sacrifice of Christ is seen as being offered in the Eucharist. However, there is no repeating of the sacrifice of the cross. There is also no addition to that sacrifice. Rather Christ is viewed as perpetually offering his body and blood at the heavenly altar. The Church in its offering of alms, bread and wine, and selves participates in this perpetual offering and sacrifice of Christ through its mystical union with Christ. This theology of the Real Presence and its companion theology of the Eucharist Sacrifice is given expression in the 1979 BCP.
As J. I. Packer has shown in
The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, the notion of Christ’s perpetual offering of his body and blood and his sacrifice is neither consonant with Scripture nor the Thirty-Nine Articles. This includes the Carolinean and Wesleyan notion of pleading Christ’s death.
Anglo-Catholic theologians like Moss use selected expressions and phrases from the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 BCP to support their claims. However, they interpretation of these formularies is disconnected from the historical context of the formularies and the views of those who drafted them and sanctioned them.
In the omission of the rubric directing the presbyter, or priest, to bar from the Lord’s Table evil livers and those between whom he perceives malice and hatred sanctions the communion of the wicked, which the English Reformers and the Thirty-Nine Articles reject. This further shows the influence of the Anglo-Catholic movement.
What may be seen in the Communion Office of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal BCP and its Modern Language Version to this point is a good example of how Prayer Book revision may used to introduce significant changes in the eucharistic theology of a Prayer Book under the guise of enriching the services of the Prayer Book and adding a greater variety of options from which service planners may choose and, in the case of the Modern Language Version, of ostensibly making the Prayer Book more understandable and accessible. This happened with the 1928 BCP, the 1928 Proposed English BCP, the 1979 BCP, the Anglican Church of Canada’s
Alternative Book of Services (1985), and other more recent service books. In this particular case the changes made in the Reformed Episcopal BCP replace the conservative Reformed Evangelical theology of the earlier Reformed Episcopal BCPs with a liberal Anglo-Catholic theology akin to that in the 1979 BCP.
The Alternative Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion in the Communion Office of the 2003 Reformed Episcopal Prayer Book and its Modern Language Version is substantially the Communion Office of the 1928 BCP from the General Intercession through the Exhortations with a number of additions and alterations. In my next article I will examine this form with my focus primarily upon these additions and alterations along with the eucharistic theology of the Alternative Form for the Celebration of the Holy Communion.
