The language of 1662 and a deepened catholic, sacramental spirituality

We do not presume to come to this thy Table ... When the Priest, standing before the Table ... Take, eat; this is my Body which is given for you ... Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament ... And, when he delivereth the Bread to any one, he shall say, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee ... The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee ... If the consecrated Bread or Wine be all spent before all have communicated ... what remaineth of the consecrated Elements ... with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ - BCP 1662, Order for the Administration of the Holy Communion.

When comparing the Book of Common Prayer 1662 with revised liturgies, catholic-minded Anglicans tend to routinely point to the changes in the structure of the Eucharistic rite, particularly the welcome provision of Eucharistic Prayers which followed the pattern of 1549 rather than 1662. Cosin, indeed, had stated of 1549, "certainly it was the better and the more natural order of the two".

That said, liturgical text is obviously more than structure. In her Reading the Liturgy: An exploration of texts in Christian worship (2014), Juliette Day notes that "language is a conduit for meaning" and that this includes "formal, visible linguistic features". Similarly, Cally Hammond in The Sound of the Liturgy: How Words work in Worship (2015), explores repetition, rhythm, and punctuation in liturgical texts, saying that each of these are "communicators of the sacred".

This can also be said of the use of the upper-case in liturgical texts. The various phrases, shown above, from the 1662 rite use the upper-case to signify significance and depth of meaning in the holy Eucharist. The contrast with many contemporary Anglican rites is instructive. For comparison I will use equivalent texts from the Church of Ireland's BCP 2004, Order Two, although the same features are also apparent in Common Worship and Canada's BAS:

We do not presume to come to this your table ... The bread and wine shall be placed on the table for the communion ... Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you ... Drink this, all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant ... The minister who gives the bread and wine says ... The body of Christ keep you in eternal life ... If either of the consecrated elements is insufficient ... with the spiritual food of the body and blood of your Son Jesus Christ.

The contrast is very clear. Whereas 1662 consistently employs the upper-case to signify theological significance and depth of meaning, 2004 - in common with many other contemporary liturgies - does not. There is, therefore, a weakened ability to communicate the sacred. Part of the formational power of liturgy lies precisely in the fact that it is a text, repeated, and absorbed. As a result of this textuality, linguistic characteristics matter, not least in the liturgical text for the celebration of the holy Eucharist. In the words of Cally Hammond:

It may be said that such minutiae appear much too trivial to worry about; but one might say of eucharistic liturgy that 'the sanctity is in the detail'.

What better communicates the truth of our partaking of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Sacrament: The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, or, The body of Christ keep you in eternal life? What better signifies that the meaning and status of the consecrated Bread and Wine changes through consecration: consecrated Elements, or, consecrated elements? What better indicates the sacred quality of the Holy Table and the sacral ministry of the Priest: Table/Priest or table/priest?

TEC's BCP 1979 is an exception to this, retaining the use of the upper-case. Other contemporary Anglican liturgies, however, have 'flattened' such language, obscuring theological meaning and significance. Of course, this can be addressed if parishes are publishing service sheets or liturgical booklets for the Eucharist: the 1662 practice of using the upper-case can be retrieved, as a means of communicating the sacred. It is another case of how careful attention to 1662 can aid, not impede, a deepened catholic, sacramental spirituality.

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders. With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter. The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition). Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical). Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition. A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics". Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics. What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition. Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...

'Whether the Lutheran Churches have right Ordinations and perfect succession of Bishops': Jeremy Taylor, 'Episcopacy Asserted', and Lutheran orders

Amidst the bitter controversies over episcopacy in the Three Kingdoms during the early 1640s, controversies which had become war in Scotland in 1637 and then in England in 1642, Jeremy Taylor wrote his Laudian defence of episcopal order, The Sacred Order and Offices of Episcopacy Asserted and Maintained . He proposed in this work that the non-episcopal Reformed churches could have had episcopally-ordered clergy: Those good people might have had order from the bishops of England or the Lutheran churches, if at least they thought our churches catholic and Christian. Leaving aside the reality that, for example, French Protestants would have been placed in an invidious political position if they had done as Taylor proposed, it is the reference to "the Lutheran churches" which is significant. To begin with, a large portion of the Lutheran churches - those in the German lands - were governed by a system of superintendency. It is almost inconceivable that Taylor was not aware of th...

laudable Practice

Search This Blog