For most American Anglicans—whether conservative or progressive, high-church or low-church—the celebrant’s invocation of the Holy Spirit on the eucharistic bread and wine is an unexceptional and uncontroversial element of the Communion service. Since 1789, American prayer books[1] have included such an “epiclesis” in their eucharistic prayers. In other words, American prayer books have had an epiclesis for almost as long as there has been such a thing as “American Anglicans.”
Epiclesis derives from the Greek for “to call upon” or “invoke.” More narrowly, epiclesis refers to a petition for the Spirit to sanctify the eucharistic elements (a “consecratory epiclesis”) or to sanctify the communicants (a “Communion” epiclesis). Despite the American epicletic consensus, the epiclesis historically has been perceived by some as contentious because of its implications for the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Though Anglicans today seem more apt to argue about the nature of marriage than the Eucharist, this issue of presence has itself been contentious within Anglicanism.
Anglican eucharistic theology in the 16th century developed against the backdrop of the medieval concept of transubstantiation. Drawing on Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas wrote that following the dominical words, the internal substance of the bread and wine are changed to the body and blood of Jesus while the visible and tangible accidents remain the same. Though the English reformers differed in their conceptions of how, specifically, Christ was communicated through the bread and wine, they joined with Luther and other evangelicals on the continent in rejecting this Thomistic understanding.
Receptionism, or the belief that the communicant partook in the body and blood of Christ upon worthy receipt, predominated among many early reformers, such as Thomas Cranmer. Here they were often taking their cue from the Zurich reformer Heinrich Bullinger. In a receptionist understanding, also known as parallelism, Christ becomes spiritually present to communicants when they faithfully receive. This is not the “bare memorialism” of Ulrich Zwingli in which communicants merely make an outward testimony of the membership in Christ’s body. But, on the other hand, for Cranmer, the material elements of bread and wine are not the instruments through which Christ is presented. In other words, Christ is given spiritually and parallel to receiving bread and wine, but not through these elements.
Other views developed, however, including John Calvin’s instrumentalism, a perspective adopted by Richard Hooker. In that understanding, the bread and wine do act as conduits; they are material instruments for the Holy Spirit to communicate the spiritual presence of Christ. In the eucharistic debates of the ensuing centuries, Anglicans would endeavor to express their reformed eucharistic beliefs through reformed liturgies.
In these theological debates, the Holy Spirit’s role in the Eucharist came to the fore. What, if anything, was the Spirit doing in the Eucharist? Was the Spirit transforming the elements, the communicants, or both? If the elements, how were these transformed, and for whom? In the ensuing liturgical reforms, the epiclesis—its inclusion, its verbiage, and its placement—also came to the fore.
Though a departure from the Roman liturgy, the first Book of Common Prayer (1549) was derided as insufficiently reformed, in part for its inclusion of an explicit consecratory epiclesis in its eucharistic prayer. The 1549 Canon prayed for the Father “with thy holy spirite and worde” to “blesse and sanctifie” by the “gyftes” that “they maie be unto us the bodye and bloude of thy … sonne Jesus Christe.” Though not intended as such by the receptionist Cranmer, the request that the Spirit “blesse and sanctifie” the elements such that they “maie be” Christ’s “bodye and bloude” was considered by both reformers such as Martin Bucer and conservatives such as Cranmer’s nemesis, Stephen Gardiner, as implying an objective change in the substance of the bread and wine. The epiclesis was thus excised from the 1552 prayer book and it did not reappear in the 1559 or 1662.
Still, the 1662 Holy Communion presented some significant changes from the 1552 and 1559 prayer books. The eucharistic prayer had new manual acts during the dominical words, namely the requirement that the priest touch the elements. Also, unlike in previous prayer books that intentionally had communicants receive during the prayer, almost as a mimetic action, the 1662 eucharistic prayer concludes with an Amen and presents a completed act of consecration.
The word consecration, which had not been in the Tudor prayer books, appeared now in the rubrics. Moreover, 1552 and 1559 specified that leftover bread and wine should be taken by the curate for his everyday use. Another important change was that 1662 differentiated between “unconsecrated” bread and wine that could be taken home by the curate and, on the other hand, remaining “consecrated” bread and wine that should be consumed reverently in the church. Thus, the 1662 book, unlike the 1552 and 1559, understood something was objectively different about the consecrated bread and wine even after the liturgy concluded.
But what about the words of the prayer and the Spirit? Despite the rubrics’ suggestion that the bread and wine were objectively different following the prayer of consecration, the 1662 prayer book enshrined an invocation (sometime termed the “implied epiclesis”) that explicitly references neither the Spirit nor his action in relation to the elements: the prayer asks for the Father to “graunt that we receivyng these thy creatures of breade and wine … may be partakers of his moste blessed body and bloude[.]” While the 1549 eucharistic prayer’s “may be” language suggested some effect on the elements—albeit tempered by the inclusion of subjective, receptionist language: “may be unto us”—the 1662 prayer suggested an effect on the communicants.
Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, several leading Church of England clergymen, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft, refused the oaths of allegiance to William and Mary. Known as “Non-Jurors” because they would not violate their existing oaths, these clerics, including bishops, were removed from office. Both the Non-Jurors and the Scottish Episcopalians (not to be confused with the Church of Scotland) engaged in liturgical revision in the 17th century and beyond. The epiclesis was thus reintroduced to Anglican liturgies via these groups, and ultimately to the emerging Anglican Communion as these liturgies were adapted by colonial churches, including the American Church.
When, in 1637, the Scottish Episcopal Church adopted its own prayer book, it included an epiclesis praying that the bread and wine “may be unto us” Christ’s body and blood. Like the 1662, however, the 1637 also included Communion language praying that the recipients “may be partakers” of that body and blood. In combining the emphases of the 1549 and the 1662, the 1637 established a model of moderation (or, as Anne McGowan has said, of “studied ambiguity”[2]) in epicletic language, and ultimately in eucharistic theology.
If the 1637 was a model of “studied ambiguity,” subsequent Scottish and Scottish-influenced revisions were much more emphatic. In 1718, Non-Jurors published an Office with highly objective language. The 1718 epiclesis prayed that the Holy Spirit “may make this Bread the Body of thy Christ, and this Cup the Blood of thy Christ; that they who are partakers thereof … may be made worthy of thy Christ[.]” Thus, whereas the 1549 had prayed that the elements “be made unto us” the body and blood of Christ, the 1718 eliminated the subjective, communicant-centered aspect of consecration entirely, praying that the Holy Spirit “may make” the elements into Christ’s body and blood; and, while the 1637, 1662, and, to an extent, the 1549 rites, insisted that only the worthy communicant received Christ, the 1718 reversed the relationship between worthiness and reception: reception made the partaker worthy rather than the reverse.
In 1764, when the Scottish Episcopal Church ratified a revised prayer book, it adopted neither the 1637 nor 1718 Canons, but rather incorporated elements of both. The 1764 eliminated the 1637’s phrase “unto us” and replaced “be” with “become”: whereas “may be unto us” suggested a subjective relationship between consecration and reception, “may become” indicated an objective transformation of the elements, independent of receipt or the recipient. When, therefore, the American Episcopal Church formally separated itself from the Church of England after the War of Independence, it had a range of liturgical resources, including a range of approaches to the work of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist, at its disposal.
In 1789, the American church adopted a Communion Office patterned on the Scottish rather than the English liturgy. In a master stroke of “studied ambiguity,” the 1789 adopted the placement of the 1764 epiclesis, while combining the verbiage of the 1549 and 1662 epicleses; this “American epiclesis,” which has been reproduced in American prayer books from 1789 onward, roughly reproduced the opening section of the 1549 epiclesis and the closing section of the 1662 implied epiclesis.
The American epiclesis thus included both the objective, consecratory aspects characteristic of the Non-Juror and Scottish traditions, and subjective, Communion aspects of the post-1552 English tradition, in its prayer that the Father “bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution … may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.”
Like the 1549, the American epiclesis invoked the Spirit on the elements; like the 1662, however, it associated God’s action with the recipients, who, the invocation prays, may not only be recipients but partakers. Thus, seen from one angle, the American epiclesis appears to be a prayer for the consecration of the elements and an affirmation of Christ’s objective presence in or through the sacrament, while, from another, it appears a petition for the consecration of the congregation and an embrace of something more subjective.
As a testament to its broad appeal, the American epiclesis has survived to today, virtually unchanged: it was reproduced verbatim in the 1892 book, the 1928 book, and in Rite I, Prayer I, of the 1979 prayer book. It also appears as an “Alternate Form of Holy Communion” in the Reformed Episcopal Church’s 2005 prayer book and in the contemporary idiom in the “Anglican Standard” Canon of the Anglican Church of North America’s 2019 prayer book. Whatever issues divide the various streams and schools of American Anglicanism, the Spirit’s action in Holy Communion does not appear to be chief among them. In sum, American Anglicans have had an epiclesis since the 18th century.
From this unity, diversity. Whereas the “whether” of an epiclesis is effectively a non-issue within American Anglicanism, recent liturgical revisions have reopened the question of the “which.” If the classic American epiclesis is a model of moderation, contemporary liturgical revisions have adopted a comprehensive range of epicleses reflecting the diversity of Anglican eucharistic theology.
The 1979 Book exemplifies this comprehensiveness. Of the 1979’s six eucharistic prayers, all contain an explicit, consecratory epiclesis. Rite I, Prayer I, reproduces the classic American epiclesis. Meanwhile, the remaining five epicleses reflect a range of more objective understandings. Rite I, Prayer II, reproduces the language of the 1549 epiclesis. Rite II, Prayer A, echoes 1549’s Rite I, Prayer II, in combining objective-subjective elements, praying for the Spirit to act on the elements, but “for [his] people.” This is followed by a request to sanctify the people.
Rite II Prayer B and Rite II Prayer C seem to echo the 1718. Prayer B prays that through the Spirit, the gifts “be … the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and his Blood.” Prayer C prays for the Spirit to sanctify the gifts “to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.” The subjective counterbalances of being “unto us” or to “your people” is absent. Prayers B and C also separate requests to sanctify us. Prayer C uniquely has the epiclesis for the elements before the dominical words and the corresponding request for the sanctification of God’s people: “Let the grace of this Holy Communion” is positioned after the dominical words. Rite II Prayer D unites the requests, praying that the “Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts, sanctifying them and showing them to be holy gifts for your holy people, … the Body and Blood of your Son Jesus Christ.” Thus, in concert, the epicleses of Rites I and II represent the range of views on eucharistic presence that have emerged within Anglicanism.
Though more compact than the 1979, the 2019 ACNA Book also reflects a degree of comprehensiveness. Whatever its differences with the Episcopal Church, the 2019’s “Renewed Ancient Text” for Holy Communion resembles Rite I Prayer II of the 1979: its epiclesis is identical, but for its contemporary idiom. Like the 1979, the 2019 thus reflects an openness to a range of views on eucharistic presence, with both the more objective classic American epiclesis coexisting with the more subjective 1549-inspired rendition. If ever the two Communions were to contemplate a reunion or a detente, the theology of the Spirit in the Eucharist, it seems, would likely be low on the list of “irreconcilables.”
Though the epiclesis has historically been a source of contention within worldwide Anglicanism, American Anglicans have largely avoided this line of dissension. From 1789 to today, American Anglicans have been an epicletic people. Though, sadly, American Anglicans cannot claim to be “one body united by one Spirit” in all things, when it comes to the Eucharist, American Anglicans are united in praying: “Come, Holy Spirit.”
—–
[1] —with the exception of the Reformed Episcopal Church’s pre-2005 prayer book, a variant of the Episcopal Church’s Proposed 1785 prayer book, whose Communion Office resembled that of the Church of England’s 1662 prayer book.
[2] Anne McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2014), 22.
Lorraine Mahoney is a Guest Writer. A recent graduate of Reformed Episcopal Seminary, she is currently a student at the Stevenson School for Ministry. She is a postulant for the priesthood in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. She is a parishioner at the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA and also regularly attends the Memorial Church of the Good Shepherd in East Falls, PA
