On how to celebrate Corpus Christi
Thus did the 1906 Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline say of the feast of Corpus Christi. It is, of course, factually correct. This alone, however, does not explain why classical Anglican liturgy made no provision for the feast nor does it give a rationale for the refusal to do so. Is it the case that any Anglican refusal to celebrate Corpus Christi is merely a case of a grim Protestant rejection of popular festivity, combined with a depressingly 'low' Eucharistic theology?
Let me offer three reasons which might suggest otherwise.
Firstly, the proper place for reflection on the gift of the Eucharist is the yearly celebration of the Paschal Mystery. The narrative of the Institution itself emphasises this: "Who, in the same night that he was betrayed". As Article 28 states, it "is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death". The Catechism also points to this, when it states that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained "For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby". It is, then, in the events of Maundy Thursday through to Easter Day that we see the meaning of this Sacrament. Hence, the traditional Prayer Book Epistle for the Thursday before Easter is St Paul's account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread ...
The proper preface for Easter Day, with its reference to Christ as "the very Paschal Lamb, which was offered for us", wonderfully relates the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the Paschal Mystery. Likewise, the Easter Anthems also set before us this relationship between the Holy Communion and the Lord's Cross and Resurrection:
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast.
A feast celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday lacks this focus and meaning. It is almost as if the Lord's Supper is set apart from those salvific events which alone give it meaning, rather than placed in their very midst: "Who, in the same night that he was betrayed". It is in the yearly celebration of the Paschal Mystery that we encounter the meaning of the Eucharist, not on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday.
Secondly, there are two Sacraments "generally necessary to salvation; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord". So why should only one of these Sacraments have a particular festival? As Hooker reminds us, Baptism and the Eucharist are both a participation in Christ:
We receive Christ Jesus in baptism once as the first beginner, in the Eucharist often as being by continual degrees the finisher of our life. By baptism therefore we receive Christ Jesus and from him that saving grace which is also proper unto baptism - LEP V.57.6.
It is true that some Anglican texts - e.g. the Proposed Book of 1928 and the Scottish Prayer Book 1929 - make provision for 'Thanksgiving for the Institution of Holy Baptism' alongside 'Thanksgiving for the Institution of Holy Communion'. This, however, has not resulted in a comparable feast or celebration of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. Having a festival to celebrate one sacrament obscures the truth, in Hooker's words, that "the same effects and benefits which grow unto men by the one sacrament may rightly be attributed unto the other". A feast of Thanksgiving for the Institution of Holy Communion, associated with the piety and ceremony of Corpus Christi, obscures the twin gift of the Sacraments. It fails to relate that, as Augustine and Chrysostom declare, both sacraments pour forth in the blood and water from the pierced side of the Crucified Lord:
from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church (Augustine);
being by water indeed regenerate, and nourished by the Blood and the Flesh (Chrysostom).
Thirdly, "the Sacred Mysteries of thy Body and Blood" has a richness of meaning which is not contained in the celebration of a festival dedicated to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. We can receive the sacramental gift of the Lord's Body and Blood because "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven". And receiving the sacramental gift we are renewed as "very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people". The triple meaning of corpus Christi requires the celebration of Good Friday, Easter Day, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday. To attach the term corpus Christi to a separate feast celebrating the Eucharist is to reduce the meaning and scope of this term. It is gloriously true that "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper" (Corpus Christi datur, acciptur, et manducatur in Coena), but this is entirely dependent upon the Lord's bodily Ascension and is bestowed so that we may be renewed as "the body of Christ's Church" (in the words of the Baptismal rite). We can reject a feast of Corpus Christi, focused entirely on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not because it claims too much, but because it claims too little.
The glorious truth of corpus Christi - of the Lord ascended into heaven, of His Body and Blood our sacramental food in the Lord's Supper, of the Church as His mystical Body - cannot be held or contained by a feast on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday with a focus on the Eucharist alone. Corpus Christi is greater than this. It is on Good Friday and Easter Day that we behold the saving meaning of corpus Christi graciously bestowed in the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. It on Ascension Day that we celebrate corpus Christi ascended to the Father's right hand on high. It is on Whitsunday that we celebrate the Church's life as corpus Christi. A feast on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday offers a poor alternative to such a rich celebration of corpus Christi.
Also - the development of Corpus Christi was part of a shift in understanding of what constituted the Body (real vs mystical) which gave rise to benediction and exposition, which is explicitly ruled out in the 39 Articles.
ReplyDeleteSam, many thanks for your comment. It is an excellent point. Your exploration of this in 'Let Us Be Human' was incredibly helpful. Brian.
DeleteI can't help but think that the root cause of what you describe very accurately, is the separation of Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist. Hooker's position, that of both Sacraments being a participation in Christ begs the question of why they began to be separated in the first place?
ReplyDeleteIan, many thanks for your comment. I do see where you are coming from and there is a sense in which the chronology does fit. What does leave me with questions, however, is the fact that the classical Anglican continuation of the Western practice included a heavy emphasis on the significance of Baptism, avoidance of the theology of the feast of Corpus Christi, and a fulsome theology of Confirmation. In other words, it was possible to hold to a 'separated' pattern of initiation and yet not end up with the lopsided focus of Corpus Christi. Brian.
DeleteBrian, I agree the focus of Corpus Christi is indeed lopsided. I wonder if that by the time of Reformation the graduated model of Christian initiation was becoming more aligned with the new idea of the state, that returning to the much older (and indeed authentically Western - St Francis of Assisi was Baptised, Confirmed and received Holy Communion as an infant) tradition of Christian initiation was not even considered. We celebrated Corpus Christi in my parishes this past Sunday, and I did try in my homily to emphasise being "very members incorporate" in the Body of Christ. Perhaps that is what we need to be reminded of at Corpus Christi more than anything.
DeleteIan, it is a good point about the graduated model of Christian initiation reflecting civic life - although my initial response is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. As Andrew Davison reminds us in his book on the sacraments, this can reflect the fact that grace perfects and does not destroy nature. In terms of the antiquity of the unified model, I think a number of questions arise. Above all, the emphasis in the patristic model was on the bishop administering initiation. This role of the bishop - as a sign of apostolic communion - is lost if initiation is entirely administered by a presbyter. In other words, the later Western model, with the bishop as the minister of Confirmation, retrieves something lost in the usual practice of the unified model and presbyteral administration: the participation of the bishop as a sign of apostolic communion.
DeleteAs regarding when the Eucharist should be received, again I think the later Western/classical Anglican model expresses something of the early Church's emphasis on due preparation before reception.
In other words, there are a range of ways in which the early Church's model of initiation can be understood and embodied in contemporary practice. I would maintain that the later Western/classical Anglican model captures aspects lost with unified presbyteral administration.
Brian.