"Decent uniformity": Laudian notes for the Prayer of Consecration (also known as the Eucharistic Prayer)
1. Versus populum
It is de rigueur within contemporary Anglicanism. The noble North End tradition (which only became associated with a low church stance in the later 19th century) has almost entirely died out across North Atlantic Anglicanism, with a few hold-outs in Ireland and England, and ad orientem is identified with a particular expression of minority Anglo-Catholicism.
What should the response be of a contemporary Laudianism to this state of affairs? While there is a good case for renewing the North End tradition as part of a rich classical Anglican Eucharistic theology and practice, it is unlikely that it will again become a widespread, unifying practice. As for ad orientem, Sarah Coakley's suggestion, that rather than embodying a Tridentine theology of priesthood it points to the priest "representing the laos", contributes to an understanding of facing East that can better cohere with classical Anglican concerns. Here again, however, it is unlikely to displace versus populum in the majority of Anglican contexts.
A contemporary Laudian understanding would echo Laud in noting that the position of the priest "varies according to the Nature of the Place, and the Position of the Table". Laud does state, "I am not of Opinion, that it is any End of the Administration of the Sacrament to have the Priest better seen of the People". From a Laudian perspective, such an ideological defence of versus populum misreads - in a rather unseemly fashion - the ministry of the priest at the Table. The Laudian priority is to ensure that the priest stands so that consecration may occur without "unseemly disordering", that the priest may "with more ease and decency" consecrate the elements. In some cases, a strict North End approach may not facilitate this for, as Laud notes, this can be "too narrow, and wants room, to lay the Service-Book open before him that Officiates, and to place the Bread and Wine within his reach".
If versus populum facilitates decent and orderly consecration - mindful of "the Nature of the Place, and the Position of the Table" - then a contemporary Laudianism can accept it as legitimate.
2. Orans
If previous posts (here and here) have been correct, and orans at the Prayer of Consecration was a gesture unknown to Laudianism and the Old High Church tradition, what are we to say regarding its conventional use in contemporary Anglicanism?
Precisely because it is now a conventional usage, no longer necessarily an expression of a ritual and theological tradition alien to Anglicanism, a contemporary Laudianism need not be overly-concerned with the practice.
That said, a few provisos may be necessary. If the traditional Laudian concern was to avoid fussy, unnecessary gestures which distracted from the manual acts, this should equate to a reserved, decent, undemonstrative use of orans, and would also exclude other hand movements at other moments contemporary Eucharistic prayers, distracting from the centrality of the manual acts.
To which we might add that orans is not necessary. The noble simplicity of the manual acts being the only movement by the priest during the Prayer of Consecration is a tradition worth renewing as a means of embodying a rightful focus on Word and elements.
3. Manual Acts
Contemporary Anglican Eucharistic prayers, in stark contrast to the Prayer of Consecration in the Prayer Book tradition, require no manual acts at the Words of Institution. Canada's Book of Alternative Services summarises the thinking implicit in this approach:
The Great Thanksgiving is a single prayer, the unity of which may be obscured by changes of posture in the course of it.
Of course, this does not prohibit the use of manual acts. What is more, in England, Canada and Ireland - not to mention other provinces - the BCP 1662 remains the doctrinal norm. For example, as Canada's Solemn Declaration states:
we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in his Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in ‘The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England ...'.
1662's theology of consecration and its associated practices can hardly therefore be rejected as a possible reading of the BAS. Contemporary Anglican liturgies differ from many Reformed examples by invariably including the Words of Institution within the Eucharistic prayer. At the very least, this makes possible holding to a 1662 theology of consecration while using a contemporary rite. That, in other words, a contemporary Anglican Eucharistic prayer remains a Prayer of Consecration.
The use of manual acts at the Words of Institution within contemporary Eucharistic prayers therefore reflects a classical Anglican theology of consecration and rightly emphasises the significance of the Lord's words in giving meaning to the gift bestowed in the Sacrament. Reflecting the fact that in such contemporary liturgies the fraction is separated from the Words of Institution, the 1549/1637 manual acts - the taking of the paten and then the chalice into the priest's hands - are perhaps more appropriate than the 1662 actions. Key, however, is that manual acts demonstrate the centrality of the Words of Institution in defining a Reformed Catholic Eucharistic teaching and spirituality.
4. No elevation
Which brings us to the matter of elevation, whether during the Words of Institution or at the doxology of contemporary Eucharistic prayers. At either point, Laud's words should be heeded:
For the Priest with us makes no Elevation; nor therefore the People any Adoration of those Elements.
Elevation confuses sign and thing signified, runs contrary to the exhortation to lift up our hearts to the heavenly realm where "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are", and overturns classical Anglican teaching that "no adoration ... ought to be done ... unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine". As Cosin reminds us, "it is but a novelty ... in the ancient fathers we do not read of any such custom".
(All quotations from Laud are taken from The History of the Troubles and Trial of William Laud, specifically his defence of the 1637 Scottish Book. The illustration is from the 1549 Communion. The rubrics indicate the manual acts and direct "without any elevation, or shewing the Sacrament to the people".)
Comments
Post a Comment