"Very meet, right, and our bounden duty": does 1662 lack a coherent Eucharistic Prayer?

Continuing with the correspondence in New Directions regarding The Young Tractarians, a second aspect of the criticism of being "wedded to sixteenth-century liturgy" is the suggestion that 1662 "lack[s] a coherent Eucharistic Prayer".

There is a touch of Apostolicae Curae about this remark, a sense that the 1662 Holy Communion is an inadequate rite:

under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers.

Indeed, Saepius Officio responded to this allegation with its defence of "the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the Holy Eucharist", and the coherence of the rite:

For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord’s Passion for all the whole Church; and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblations of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic sacrifice.

This was also the understanding evident in Sparrow's A Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer, when he says of the post-Communion Prayer of Oblation, "the Priest offers up the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist, or the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the whole Church".

In other words, the fact that the Sacrament is received following the words of Institution does not result in a rite lacking a coherent Eucharistic prayer, any more than the repeated Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen in the Roman Canon results in such a lack.  As for the reception of the Sacrament occurring immediately following the Narrative of the Institution, this can hardly be regarded as undermining coherence as the entire rite is oriented towards this action: the Eucharistic Prayer was made for receiving the Sacrament, not the Sacrament for the Eucharistic Prayer.

Another way to illustrate the coherence of the 1662 rite is to consider it in light of Thomas Aquinas's consideration of the Roman rite. What is apparent is that the key aspects of what Thomas describes as "the consecration" are present in the 1662 rite. (Unless otherwise indicated, all quotes from Summa Theologiae III.83.4.)

Thomas begins with the Sursum Corda and preface, as in 1662:

the people are first of all excited to devotion in the "Preface," hence they are admonished "to lift up their hearts to the Lord," and therefore when the "Preface" is ended the people devoutly praise Christ's Godhead, saying with the angels: "Holy, Holy, Holy".

What of the fact that this is followed by the Prayer of Humble Access? This reflects what Thomas sees in petitions made by the priest in the Canon:

he makes excuse for his presumption in obeying Christ's command.

The first paragraph of the Prayer of Consecration, with its setting forth of the Lord's sacrifice upon the Cross, echoes Thomas's description of the relationship between Sacrament and Sacrifice:

The celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ's Passion, which is His true sacrifice ... by this sacrament, we are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord's Passion (Summa Theologiae III.83.1).

The second paragraph, "Hear us, O merciful Father", with its petition for fruitful reception' similarly echoes what Thomas sees in the Canon:

the priest does not seem to pray there for the consecration to be fulfilled, but that it may be fruitful in our regard.

On the Narrative of the Institution, the Prayer of Consecration reflects Thomas's insistence:

The consecration is accomplished by Christ's words ... The consecration is accomplished by Christ's words only.

This flows from Augustine's words, quoted by Thomas:

for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament" (Summa Theologiae III.78.5).

This Augustinian understanding has a two-fold significance.  The first is that explains the absence of an epiclesis in the Roman Canon and the 1662 rite, because the Lord's words consecrate the Sacrament.  The second is that Augustine's words are also quoted by both Luther and Calvin in their sacramental teaching, indicating a shared Augustinian understanding.

Both post-Communion prayers in the 1662 rite also reflect Thomas's commentary on the Canon:

The priest does not pray that the sacramental species may be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ's true body may be borne thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ's mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament;

that we may be incorporated in Christ.

The echoes here in the 1662 post-Communion prayers are significant.

Thomas's account of the Roman Canon points to the coherence of the 1662 rite.  For all of its obvious Reformed emphasises, the 1662 rite also reflects key aspects of Thomas's account.  Above all, the Prayer of Consecration and the centrality of the Words of Institution embody the Augustinian and Thomist understanding.  Coherence hangs on this.  Indeed, as Thomas notes, "the other words must be added to dispose the people for receiving it".  The "other words" are, then, aids to devotion, not necessary elements to consecrate the Sacrament.  This is the purpose of the "other words" in the BCP.

The suggestion that 1662 "lack[s] a coherent Eucharistic Prayer" rests on a rather ahistorical, idealized notion of what a Eucharistic Prayer should be, rather than on the sacramental teaching and prayer of the Western Church over centuries with its Augustinian character, and - to use the only good words to be found in Apostolicae Curae - "the native character or spirit" of the Anglican tradition.  It is these which give a rich coherence to 1662 Holy Communion, including those elements which can described as the "Eucharistic Prayer".