Oct 27 2007
Now, my tongue, the mystery telling (art. XXVIII – Pt 1)
(This post is part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England)
I take the title of this post on the first of the articles about the Eucharist from the most common translation in Anglican hymn books of one of St Thomas Aquinas’ great Eucharistic hymns. The presence of this hymn, Pange lingua, gloriosi, in Anglican hymnals for over a century is a reminder that the developing tradition of Anglicanism has (whether others judge this as right or wrong) re-appropriated much of the Eucharistic devotion of the pre-Reformation Church.
Anglicans interact with this (and subsequent) articles from a diverse Eucharistic spirituality that has not been in every case constrained by the controversies of the Reformation. St Thomas’ Eucharistic theology was not confined simply to the Anglo-Catholics, but through Hymns Ancient and Modern, the most popular Anglican hymnbook across a broad spectrum, many Anglicans became acquainted with not just Pange lingua, but also Verbum supernum, and Adoro te devote. At the same time, most saw nothing inconsistent in continuing to reject, usually in a garbled form, the doctrine of transubstantiation – though poorly understood, it served to distinguish them form Roman Catholics. The background for approaching these articles is therefore complex.
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped.
I will save the discussion of the place of faith, and the question of worthy reception, to a later discussion of the twenty-ninth article, and here concentrate on the understanding of what change happens in the sacrament. Of course, there are those who say that no change happens in the sacrament, but only in the hearts of those who receive it in faith. I think myself, that the 1559 and 1662 revisions of the BCP somewhat ruled that out by entitling the prayer over the elements “The Prayer of Consecration.” Something was supposed to happen, though that something could be interpreted minimally or maximally.
In one sense, Anglicanism has tended to be reticent about spelling out what that something is, whether of political necessity at the time of the the Elizabethan settlement, or out of reverence for the mystery of God’s working. In that sense, the words attributed to Elizabeth still hold some force and appeal for Anglicans.
Christ was the Word that spake it.
He took the bread and brake it;
And what his words did make it
That I believe and take it.
On the one hand there is in those words a reluctance to embrace particular theories of consecration that has tended to characterise Anglicanism, whatever those theories be, Protestant or Catholic. Before we pray the Eucharistic Prayer, we speak of the elements as bread and wine; after we have prayed it we speak of them as Christ’s Body and Blood given for us. And we are not, on the whole, particularly interested in exactly how God accomplishes this. It is enough that he does.
On the other hand, in common with the mainstream Western tradition, Elizabeth’s words reflect an overwhelming emphasis solely on the words of institution as having power to consecrate, that modern Anglican rites have moved away from to some extent. Calvin was the only reformer to seek a significant role for the Holy Spirit, but his interest was more, I think, in preserving God’s sovereignty than asking about what happens. Modern rites, Anglican and Roman, learning from the early Church and the Orthodox, have returned to making more space for the work of the transforming Spirit in the Sacrament. In doing so, they reopen the eschatological context of the Eucharist as pointing not only back to the sacrifice that makes our peace with God, but to the eternal celebration of that life of peace in the feast of the kingdom.
It seems to me that this eschatological reframing of the Eucharist, together with a due attention to the work of the Spirit, are key elements in allowing us to move beyond the debates of the Reformation. In a subsequent post I intend to develop this further. At the same time, I want to err on the side of delineating mystery rather than trying to explain it away with over-precise theories, and that perhaps, is why I remain an Anglican.