Recently I read The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective: Doctrine and Rite from Cranmer to Seabury, by Edward Echlin, SJ. It was written in 1968, back, I guess, when there was still hope for some sort of a reunion between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. The book is a study of the development of the Anglican Eucharistic rite – specifically the canon of the mass – from the 1549 BCP to the American BCP of 1789. Fr. Echlin concludes that with the 1789 American BCP, all doctrinal requirements of the Roman Church with regard to the mass were fulfilled, and that the Anglican rite – in its American incarnation, anyway – has the right form, and so is a valid mass. He believes that the Eucharistic theology of each tradition has been steadily converging over the centuries, and at the end of the book he makes the radical suggestion that Roman priests should make use of the Anglican rite, and that Anglicans use the Roman rite as a way to show the unity in Eucharistic doctrine that the churches share. He also advocates concelebration of the Holy Eucharist as a further show of unity. Needless to say, the optimism of the late 1960’s gushes out of this book.
I’m sorry to say that I don’t think he really succeeds (much as I want him to) in doing what he set out to do, primarily because he doesn’t explain what the Roman Catholic position is, or what constitutes a valid Eucharist in that tradition. Presumably a valid Roman Eucharist has something to do with sacrifice and Real Presence, as he examines in great detail what a number of Anglican divines thought about those particular topics. But he doesn’t address the issue of Transubstantiation, which is kind of the “main thing”. The only time he addresses that doctrine is with regard to Real Presence, and all but one of the Anglican divines he looks at outright reject Transubstantiation. He also says in the introduction that, in his mind, Roman Catholic Eucharistic thought has been slowly moving closer to the Anglican, just as the Anglican has been moving closer to that of the Romans, but again, he doesn’t really explain how this is the case.
The main value of the book is that it briefly and succinctly examines the theology of Eucharistic sacrifice and Real Presence of a number of important Anglican divines (e.g. Cranmer, Laud, Cosin, Wren, Johnson, Deacon, White, Seabury, Brett, Smith, Forbes, etc.). While they all nitpick and disagree about things like the role of Holy Spirit, whether or not an invocation and oblation is necessary, the nature of the sacrifice, and so on, the one thing that they all seem to agree on is their complete repudiation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Only John Cosin has a somewhat open mind towards it, when he states that while it is certainly possible through God’s omnipotence, “…none would believe that He would do it as long as it appears to our senses that the substance of the bread still remains whole and entire.” I would agree with Cosin. I personally have no objections to Transubstantiation rightly understood, but I do not subscribe to it. It is best to let mysteries be mysteries.
One of the things that reading this book made me think about that is rather timely is how Samuel Seabury and the American Church used the Scottish non-Juror’s Eucharistic canon of 1764. This was part of a deal that Seabury struck with the Scots for consecrating him when the English bishops would not. In some recent issues of Mandate, Peter Toon suggests that the 1662 BCP Eucharistic rite should be used as the new standard of Anglican liturgies from here on out. His reasons are that it is the most widely used version, and because it is more biblical, with the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper being on the Words of Institution. I think that it would be a betrayal of the Non-Juror bishops to do such a thing here in the United States. If we truly are continuing Anglicans, then we are continuing the work and ministry of the Episcopal Church, and part that includes honoring such commitments that were made by our forefathers. Seabury, interestingly enough, said of the 1662 canon: “To confess the truth, I hardly consider the form to be used as strictly amounting to a consecration.” I don’t know if I would say that myself, but I do believe that we have a strong obligation to continue using the traditional American canon.
