On The Eucharist

“The holy communion, or supper of the Lord, is the most sacred, mysterious, and useful conjugation of secret and holy things in the religion,” wrote Jeremy Taylor in his 1660 treatise The Worthy Communicant. Taylor points out that many men have stared into the plain words of the New Testament on the subject of the Eucharist and have seen many different things there, much in the same way that two men staring at the same cloud might see different shapes. “So it is in this great mystery of our religion,” says Taylor, “in which some espy strange things which God intended not, and others see not what God hath plainly told.”

Taylor goes on to sketch out a typically Anglican theology of the Eucharist which he believes to be superior to that of other traditions for its reliance upon the plain words of Scripture and the Fathers. Of course, all of the theological traditions that emerged from the sixteenth century, post Tridentine Roman Catholicism included, claim to be simply interpreting the plain words of Scripture on the Eucharist. What is remarkable from the vantage point of our own day is not so much that Taylor makes this claim for his own tradition, but that Taylor believes that his own tradition has a teaching on this matter. As with so many other misunderstood doctrines, the multiplicity of viewpoints on the Holy Eucharist that can be found in modern Anglicanism has led to the common notion that Anglicanism has no real teaching on the subject, at least not any that is binding upon its adherents or that is not borrowed whole cloth from some other source. In fact, Taylor believed that what he was defending was a quintessentially Anglican teaching, what he called the Catholic teaching, as found first and foremost in Scripture read through the lens of the Fathers, but also as expressed forthrightly by the Anglican formularies. And this teaching was neither Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian, nor Roman Catholic, though it had things in common with the teaching of those other traditions in so much as they were working from the same original sources.

I have had many interesting and complicated questions sent my way in recent months regarding the Anglican teaching on the Holy Eucharist. Rather than go through the same material many times, it has occurred to me that a full series on the Eucharist is necessary to lay the groundwork for answering any future questions that may come about. I will not say that comprehending the Anglican position is easy. The Anglican Reformers and Divines utilize a different vocabulary when talking about the sacrament than their contemporaries do, which makes for difficult reading for those of us who have been taught to understand the Eucharist in the typical categories that we have inherited from the sixteenth century. Unsurprisingly, it is my contention that the reason that much of this is difficult for us to grasp today is because the Anglican tradition reaches back beyond the concerns of the Reformation to the worldview of the Fathers of the early Church. The desire of the Reformers and Divines was less for philosophical precision than for fidelity to the Bible and to the spirit of the patristic age.

The manner in which we will proceed is this: First, we will look at some of the primary texts in scripture that inform our understanding of the sacrament, bearing in mind the way the Fathers understood them. Next, we will examine the teaching of the prayer book in light of the scriptural and patristic teaching. We will then see how this teaching of the prayer book compares with the teaching found in the 39 Articles, paying special attention to the question of what the Articles mean when they speak of a “heavenly and spiritual” manner of receiving Christ’s Body and Blood. Finally, we will return to Taylor and a few others to look at how this teaching informed the great Anglican divines and where it has gone since the close of the classical era.

I am not sure yet how much of this will be written and how much will be done by video. If you have a preference, please let me know in the com box. My hunch at this point is that I will write out the first and last parts but make videos for the middle portions. However, as I dig in, I may find that the project lends itself more suitably to one medium or the other, so I reserve the right to change my mind.

This entry was posted in On The Eucharist and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to On The Eucharist

  1. Matt Marino says:

    Hello Fr. Jonathan. As a long time reader of your blog my preference would be written. Everyone has their most effective medium…and their most effective technology. You are superior in writing and good on video. You also have a great looking blog and, in an era where we are accustomed to watching videos filmed in megachurches with a swinging booms, multiple cameras and high end editing, your videos are a tad home job.

    • Fr. Jonathan says:

      So I shouldn’t quit my day job is what you’re saying. ;-)

      It’s alright, I’m still trying to learn how to use the video technology as effectively as I can. I definitely admit that I’m not an expert with it. The main reason I wanted to do the videos at all was that I thought it would reach a different and perhaps wider audience, which so far has been the case, so I’ll keep on with it. But I would be overjoyed if someone came along who could show me how to produce this stuff better.

  2. Robbie says:

    Fr. Jonathan,

    Very much looking forward to a series on the Eucharist! I love this bit: “it is my contention that the reason that much of this is difficult for us to grasp today is because the Anglican tradition reaches back beyond the concerns of the Reformation to the worldview of the Fathers of the early Church.” I’m curious to see how you’ll parse this out.

    For what it’s worth, I prefer text rather than video. I find that it’s a little easier to go back and reference.


  3. BC says:

    Many thanks indeed for this – I wonder if there can be some reference to the ARCIC agreement on the Eucharist (especially in light of Lambeth 98 referring to the “special status” for Anglicans of this agreement)? Also, perhaps some exploration of the tensions between the Formularies’ caution (at best) about the sacrificial nature of the eucharist and the quite explicit patristic affirmation of that sacrificial nature.

    I agree with the other commenters – it is easier to reference text and I am sure this series will provoke some thought on other blogs!

    • Fr. Jonathan says:

      Hi BC,

      I know that you tend to focus a lot on things like ARCIC and their meaning. Perhaps as this series emerges you will consider writing something that responds with some references to these much newer documents. I would enjoy reading that. It is, however, beyond the range of my own knowledge and personal interest to go there.

      The question of eucharistic sacrifice, however, is one that I am very interested in, particularly since it received so much attention throughout the seventeenth century. I will definitely be coming back to that theme several times over the course of the series.

  4. Bob says:

    Why not do both? I’m pretty sure Google has a free transcription service that can be implemented after the fact with just a little extra work.
    My preference is text – though you are clear in both mediums.

  5. Javier says:

    Father Jonathan:
    Just a great way to start this discussion. It lead to more questions. Could you recommend some anglican theologians of XXI century? Also, Father, how did the 42 articles of religion got into being 39? Thanks for the deep learning you are motivating in all of us.


Comments are closed.