A discussion starter
One thing I think is certain. It is impossible in 2004 to work out a satisfactory church doctrine of the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper [Eucharist], simply by reference to the Sacred Scripture. It was ALSO impossible in the 1590’s when Richard Hooker penned his “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” (in debate with the Puritans who wanted to bring revolutionary change into the Church of England) to work out such a doctrine simply by recourse to the Bible.
Why?
Because the Bible cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. It has to be interpreted now & it had been interpreted in the past. From the past we receive Tradition and traditions which affect the way we read the Bible and receive its contents. This is so in all situations but is particularly so with reference to the establishing of the reality of Sacraments and then of their meaning and purpose. Further, we know that insulated, privatized judgment in the reading and interpretation of the Bible is a common path to the origin of heresies!
The central Anglican [reformed catholic] method of approaching the doctrine of the Sacraments was identified and then given solidity by Hooker in Book V of The Laws. He taught that the Sacraments are related to the Incarnation of the Son of God, who gave them, and that only in the light of the Incarnation can they be understood, appreciated and received and become effectual.
Thus before he addresses the nature and purpose of the two Sacraments, Hooker engages in a most careful and engaging statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God as that doctrine was formulated (after much discussion and debate) by the early Fathers and in the dogma of ecumenical councils. Anyone who wishes to read a succinct & brilliant statement of the Church dogma of the Incarnation will find such in Bk V, 51-57.
Of course, in going to the Early Church (which after all was the Church that collected the books of, and decided the content of, the Canon of the New Testament) Hooker was following the Anglican method, often summarized since then by the use of the 1,2,3,4,5. Anglicans base doctrine, worship and church order on One Canon of Scripture with Two Testaments, doctrine summarized in Three Creeds, the dogma of Four General Councils and the developments of Five centuries of growth & experience (1-500). They seek to teach nothing contrary to the central doctrines of this formative period.
In the light of the Patristic Evidence, Hooker was able to dismiss the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation & the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation as not faithful to Scripture as received in the Early Church, and to propose a doctrine to which, he believed, the early Fathers testified. He proposed that “this is my body” meant Christ saying to the faithful receivers:
“This hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and in truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them and in them my body.”
This became the central Anglican doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It was the basis for the teaching on the Sacraments in the extension of the Catechism of the Prayer Book (done in 1604 and added to the BCP in 1662).
In historical terms, it is similar to that taught by John Calvin and the high Presbyterian divines and known as “Virtualism” – from virtus = strength/force/power (i.e., while the bread and wine continue to exist unchanged after consecration, the faithful communicant receives with the sacramental bread and wine the virtue/power/grace of the real Body and Blood of the crucified and exalted Saviour).
Another related approach to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and developed by 17th century writers such as Jeremy Taylor is often termed “Receptionism” – that along with the actual bread and wine the faithful communicant receives the true Body of Blood of the crucified and now exalted Saviour.
These reformed Catholic or Anglican doctrines of the real presence of the Exalted, once crucified Christ, were meant to avoid the literal identification of the bread and wine with the actual body and blood of Jesus, the doctrine of transubstantiation (the doctrine of Rome that had reigned supreme in the medieval Church) and also to insist on the need for worthy, faithful reception.
Later in English Church history, the Tractarians and then the Anglo-Catholics adopted doctrines of the real presence that were derived not from the standard divines of the Reformed Catholic Church of England but from Roman and Lutheran divines and these – transubstantiation and consubstantiation - are common place now amongst extreme Anglo-Catholics in the ECUSA and in the Continuing Churches.
Hooker & the BCP Catechism do not deal with modern questions such as what kind of a sacrifice is offered at the Eucharist, but rather with what is received from Christ therein. Here the primary question is Godward, a right relation with God, and concerns salvation and union with, and participation in, Christ.
The Early Church did certainly think of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, absolutely NOT in terms of a repeat of the unique Sacrifice at Calvary, but rather of the Church being united to Christ, the heavenly Lamb of God, as he presents himself as the Sacrifice to the Father. Then of course, the Fathers saw the Eucharist as an offering to the Father through the Son and by the Spirit of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving from the Church and also of the lives of all the members in consecration.
The point I am making is that there are TODAY no short cuts to the establishing of a sound doctrine of the Eucharist upon which we can create new liturgies and also officiate at and plan eucharistic liturgies today. To read one good book on the Doctrine of the Eucharist is not enough! It is a beginning.
In fact it is possible that today, with the extreme emphasis on celebration (as a kind of communal happy experience) and the sharing of the peace, the churches have become too Man-ward in their doctrine and experience of the Eucharist.
I would suggest that unless we are very familiar with the classic, patristic doctrine of the Incarnation and with the development of the structure & content of the Eucharist n the first five and more centuries, and thus in a position to judge the worth of the new shapes, contents and doctrines of the Anglican liturgies developed since the 1960s by appeal to the 3rd and 4th centuries, it is perhaps best for us to stay with the traditional service in The Book of Common Prayer in its 1662 C of E, or its 1928 ECUSA, form. And further, in so doing, to stay with tried and tested Anglican doctrines of “Virtualism” or “Receptionism” and to adjust our piety and communal sense of “Celebration” to fit these ends. Of course, if we move into the Anglican Missal or the Roman Missal then we are leaving behind the reformed catholic mindset of the BCP and the standard divines of the Anglican Way and we are probably adopting the Roman Catholic doctrine and approach to the “Sacrament of the Altar” (for which in modern terms see The Catechism of the R C Church).
What is clear is that the Anglican Formularies, while allowing for very high doctrines of the presence and action of Christ by the Holy Spirit in the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, do not in relation to the latter allow the old Roman doctrines of transubstantiation and the identification of the God-ward sacrifice of the Mass with the one Sacrifice of Calvary. At the same time, they also do not allow the “low” doctrines of some forms of Protestantism where Baptism is merely a human way of testifying to conversion and the Lord’s Supper is a mere remembering of the value of the Atonement of Christ at the Cross. In between the two extremes there is plenty of holy ground on which to stand in adoration of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, One God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment