An Anglican Liturgy in The Orthodox Chur

AN ANGLICAN LITURGY IN THE
ORTHODOX CHURCH
THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE ANTIOCHIAN ORTHODOX
LITURGY OF SAINT TIKHON
Benjamin Joseph Andersen

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Master of Divinity
St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, N.Y.
May 2005
Author's Waiver
In presenting this thesis as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Divinity at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, I agree that the Seminary Library
shall make it available for inspection and circulation in accordance with its regulations
governing materials of this type. I agree that permission to copy from, or to publish, this thesis
may be granted by the professor under whose direction it was written, or, in his absence, by the
Dean of the Faculty, when such copying or publication is solely for scholarly purposes and does
not involve potential financial gain. It is understood that any copying from, or publication of,
this thesis which involves potential financial gain will not be a1lowed without written
permission.
____________________________________________
(Signature)
Notice to Borrowers
Unpublished theses deposited in the Seminary Library must be used only in accordance with the
stipulations prescribed by the author in the preceding statement.
The author of this thesis is:
BENJAMIN JOSEPH ANDERSEN
The director of this thesis is:
PROF. PAUL MEYENDORFF
Users of this thesis not regularly enrolled as students of St. Vladimir’s Seminary are required to
attest acceptance of the preceding stipulations by signing below. Libraries purchasing
photocopies of this thesis are required to see that each user is aware of these stipulations.
Name of user Address Date

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2
INTRODUCTION – 3
I. What is the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon? 3
II. The Adoption of the Liturgy within the Orthodox Church 7
III. An Brief Description of the Rite 15
IV. A Note on Sources 19
THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY – 20
V. The Genesis of the Anglican Eucharist (1549-1552) 20
VI. 1559: The Beginning of the Long Path away from Cranmer 33
VII. The Influence of the Caroline Divines 37
VIII. The Influence of the Non-Jurors 45
IX. The Influence of the Scottish-American Liturgical Tradition 53
X. The Influence of the Oxford Movement and Ritualism 63
CONCLUSION 71
APPENDICES –
I – Text of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon

II – A Liturgical Family Tree
III – A Comparison of Anglican Eucharistic Orders
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abstract
The Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, a Eucharistic Liturgy of substantially Anglican
origin, was approved for use within the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North
America in 1977. It was adopted to be used by communities of Anglo-Catholic converts to the
Orthodox Church who desire to retain all such aspects of their liturgical life and piety as are
judged to be consonant with the Orthodox Faith. In 1904, the Russian Holy Synod handed
down the first official Orthodox statement on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (in its 1892
American form). This was in response to a query by Saint Tikhon Bellavin, Archbishop of the
Russian Orthodox missionary Archdiocese in North America, as to the possibility of allowing
the use of the Liturgy in communities of Anglican converts to Orthodoxy. It was on the basis of
this official Russian Synodal response that the Antiochian Archdiocese, in 1977, revised and
adopted a form of the Anglican Liturgy as commonly celebrated within Anglo-Catholic
parishes of the American Episcopal Church. This thesis traces the development of the Anglican
Liturgy from its controversial origins in the sixteenth century until its adoption within the
Orthodox Church. Far from being the product of one man, one age, or one party, the Anglican
Liturgy underwent a long and complex history of constant reinterpretation, revision, and
enrichment and by Anglican High Churchmen (Elizabethan, Caroline, Non-Juring, Scottish,
American, Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic) in light of the writings of the Church Fathers and the
Liturgies of the ancient Church.
1
Acknowledgements
I would like thank the following persons for providing me with their gracious
assistance, encouragement and support in writing this thesis – His Grace, the Right Reverend
Bishop Basil (Essey) of Wichita; the Very Reverend John Charles Connely; Mr. Richard
Mammana; Professor Paul Meyendorff (director of this thesis); the Very Reverend Paul W. S.
Schneirla (Vicar General of the Western Rite Vicariate); the Andersen family (Larry, Katie, Buzz
and Bobby); and the clergy and faithful of Saint Mark’s Parish of Denver, to whom I dedicate
this work.
2
INTRODUCTION
I. What is the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon?
T HE Divine Liturgy (or, Mass)1 of Saint Tikhon is a eucharistic liturgy, substantially of
Anglican origin, approved for use in parishes of the Western Rite Vicariate, a ministry of
the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Founded in 1958 by the late
Metropolitan Antony (Bashir), with the approval of Patriarch Alexander III (Tahan) and the
Holy Synod of Antioch, the Western Rite Vicariate oversees parishes and missions of the
American Antiochian Archdiocese which do not worship according to the Byzantine Rite, but
according to traditional Western Catholic liturgical forms, “derived either from the Latin-
speaking Churches of the first millennium, or from certain later (post-schismatic) usages which
are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith.”2 Two slightly altered forms of the traditional
Eucharistic Liturgy are authorized within the Western Rite Vicariate – the ancient Mass of the
Church of Rome, in its Tridentine redaction (first approved by the Church of Russia in 1869,
and by Constantinople in 1882), and the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon.
The adoption of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon within the American branch of the Church
of Antioch is in line with the threefold purpose and mission of the Western Rite Vicariate, as
stated by Metropolitan Antony himself. First, the ministry of the Orthodox Western Rite serves
the purpose of an authentic Orthodox ecumenism, which promotes “all efforts for the reunion
of Christendom, without departing from the ancient foundation of our One Orthodox
Church.” Secondly, the ministry of the Orthodox Western Rite serves a missionary and
evangelistic purpose, as an outreach to those who are “attracted by our Orthodox Faith, but
[can] not find a congenial home in the spiritual world of Eastern Christendom.” 3 Thirdly, the
Orthodox Western Rite “is a witness not only to non-Orthodox but also to Orthodox Christians
1
The term “Divine Liturgy” as applied to a Western Rite Liturgy is an unfortunate Byzantinism. Until modern
times, this term was never used to refer to the Eucharist in the Western Church. The more proper and very ancient
term “Mass” (Missa) is more appropriate. The first Anglican Liturgy of 1549 is entitled “the Lorde’s Supper, or the
Masse.” However, since the official liturgical sources of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate use the name
“Liturgy,” this term shall be used throughout this paper.
2
Benjamin J. Andersen, “The Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese: Historical Foundations,
Development and Future Prospects.” (Unpublished essay).
3
“Edict on the Western Rite.” The Word, Vol. 2, No. 9 (September 1958), 23.
3
to the universality of the Orthodox Catholic Faith – a faith which is not narrowly Byzantine,
Hellenistic, or Slavic but is the fullness of the Gospel for all men, in all places, at all times.”4
The nature and origins of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon are not well known within
Orthodoxy. The Liturgy as it exists within American Orthodoxy has not, so far, been the subject
of much scholarly investigation. Some critics5 have suggested, rather simplistically, that the
Archdiocese has approved a “protestant” form of service. Such critics question Antioch’s
decision to endorse a rite, which seems to reflect a questionable Anglican approach to the
sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and the Real Presence, issuing from Cranmer’s own rather
extreme reformed opinions. Apologists for Western Rite Orthodoxy most often find solace in
the venerable antiquity and orthodoxy of the classic Roman Rite. Indeed, most defenses of the
Western Rite seem to deflect criticism based on the fact that the classic Western Rite of Rome
was largely formed before the schism of the Eastern and Western churches. But the Liturgy of
Saint Tikhon, coming from a distinct liturgical tradition whose origin lies in the sixteenth
century reformed Church of England, offers a considerable challenge to proponents of the
Orthodox Western Rite.
It is the belief of the author of this paper, following the decision of the hierarchy of the
Church of Antioch, that there is nothing in the text, rubrics or ceremonies of the Liturgy of Saint
Tikhon that is in contradiction to the Faith of the Orthodox Church. This belief is based upon a
number of presuppositions. First, it is assumed that the Orthodox Faith is in fact the universal,
catholic faith of the whole Church, East and West, before the schism, as reflected in the Holy
Scriptures, the dogmas of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and a shared patristic inheritance. In
other words, the Orthodox Church is not an oriental sect but is the fullness of the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.
Secondly, it is assumed that Byzantine liturgical uniformity in the Orthodox Church is a
relatively late and unnatural phenomenon, a result of the accidents of history. The natural state of
4
Andersen.
5
See Allyne L. Smith’s review of the Saint Andrew Service Book in Saint Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 41:2-3 (1997),
pp. 249-268 and Gregory Woolfenden’s article “Western rite Orthodoxy: some reflections on a liturgical
question” in the same journal, 45:2 (2001), pp. 163-192.
4
the Church is one of dogmatic unity expressed in the richness of liturgical diversity. In the words
of Father Alexander Schmemann: “The unity of rite in the Orthodox Church is a comparatively
late phenonmenon and the Church never considered liturgical uniformity a conditio sine qua non
of her unity.”6 Certainly the Byzantine Liturgy has played the key role in preserving the essence of
Orthodoxy for centuries. However, such a development can have the unfortunate effect of
obscuring the true catholicity of the Orthodox Church, and providing an obstacle for those of
non-Orthodox cultures who would otherwise be attracted to the Orthodox Faith.
Third, that according to a broad, generous and catholic understanding, the Orthodox
Church does not reject any thing that is good, and true, and beautiful, though its origins may lie
outside of her own history or her canonical boundaries. Although the she claims that she is
indeed the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, containing the fullness of God’s saving
Truth, she also does not deny the possibility that Truth, and grace, and beauty, and goodness
can and indeed does exist outside of her visible boundaries. To quote John Erickson, it would be
a mistake to hold that “outside of the Orthodox Church … there is simply undifferentiated
darkness, in which the Pope is no different than a witchdoctor.”7 Or, in the words of Bishop
Kallistos Ware, “invisible bonds may exist despite an outward separation. The Spirit of God
blows where it will, and, as Irenaeus said, where the Spirit is, there is the Church. We know
where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not.”8
Fourth, it is assumed that the Orthodox Church, precisely as that which truly and fully
embodies the Church of Christ, has an obligation to bring the fullness of the Orthodox Faith to
those outside of her visible boundaries. And in doing so, the Church, like the blessed Apostle Paul,
must “become all things to all men,” always adopting, purging and transforming every culture
rather than replacing or obliterating it.
And finally, it is assumed that the hierarchy of each local Orthodox Church has full
authority to authorize her own forms of worship (as long as they involve no contradiction of
6
“Notes and Comments: The Western Rite.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Fall 1958), 37-38.
7
The Challenge of our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1991), 128.
8
The Orthodox Church. Intratext. < http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P1S.HTM >
5
Orthodox Tradition), as well as various creative means of reaching out to evangelize the “lost
sheep” and bring them back to the safety of the Orthodox fold. The ministry of the Western
Rite within Orthodoxy is one such creative means of reaching out to traditional liturgical
Western Christians who have been left behind by their own denominations. Orthodoxy, says
Bishop Kallistos Ware, does “not seek to turn western Christians into Byzantines or ‘Orientals,’
nor does it desire to impose a rigid uniformity on all alike: for there is room in Orthodoxy for
many different cultural patterns, for many different ways of worship, and even for many
different systems of outward organization.”9
These are the fundamental ideas which lie behind the Orthodox Western Rite and the
adoption of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon in particular, a rite with many elements of historically
non-Orthodox origin. In the words of H. A. Hodges, an Anglican who decades ago called for
union with Orthodoxy as the only sure future for the Anglican Communion:
The Orthodox Faith must be capable of expression in terms of the life and thought of western
peoples … Western Orthodoxy cannot be constituted merely by planting colonies of Orthodox
people from the East in Western countries … True western Orthodoxy is to be found by bodies
of western people, members of western nations, coming with all their western background,
their western habits and traditions, into the circle of the Orthodox Faith. Then we should
have an Orthodoxy which was really western because its memory was western – a memory of
the Christian history of the West, not as the West now remembers it, but purged and set in
perspective by the Orthodox Faith.10
9
The Orthodox Church. Intratext. < http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P1S.HTM >
10
Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: A Study in Dialectical Churchmanship. (London, 1955), 52.
6
II. The Adoption of the Liturgy within the Orthodox Church
While the Roman Mass has been in use in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate since its
inception, the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon has only been in use since 1977, when a prominent
Anglo-Catholic parish of the Episcopal Church – the Church of the Incarnation, Detroit,
Michigan – was received into the Antiochian Archdiocese by His Eminence, Metropolitan
Philip (Saliba). Incarnation Parish, troubled at the increasing liberalization of the Episcopal
Church, and especially by the 1976 decision to allow the ordination of women to the
priesthood, was the first non-Orthodox parish to be received, whole and entire, into the
Antiochian Archdiocese.11 Due to the efforts of Incarnation’s Rector, the Reverend Joseph L. W.
Angwin, the Antiochian Archdiocese (with the approval of the Patriarch and Holy Synod of
Antioch) officially approved a version of the American Anglican Liturgy as commonly
celebrated in contemporary American Anglo-Catholic parishes.
The Antiochian Archdiocese, when it adopted this Liturgy as an alternative Western Rite
usage, gave it the title: “The Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon.” The Saint referred to in this title is,
of course, Tikhon (Vasili Ivanovich) Bellavin, Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox mission in
North America from 1898 to 1907, and later Patriarch of Moscow in the wake of the October
Revolution of 1917. Horribly persecuted by the Bolsheviks, Tikhon died as a confessor of the
Faith under house arrest in 1925, and was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1989.12
This title, however, has been often misinterpreted, by proponents and critics alike, as a claim
that Tikhon himself authored the rite. In fact, Tikhon authored no Eucharistic Liturgy; but he
did play the crucial role in raising the possibility of using corrected Anglican liturgical forms in
the North American Orthodox missionary context.
Tikhon himself was known to be friendly with High Church Episcopalians, and in
particular he developed a remarkable friendship with Charles Chapman Grafton, the Episcopal
11
“Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese Receives Anglo-Catholic Parish.” The Word, Vol. 21, No. 3 (March 1977), 14.
12
Mark Stokoe and Leonid Kishkovsky, Orthodox Christians in North America: 1794-1994 (Orthodox Christian
Publications Center, 1995), 35.
7
Bishop of Fon du Lac, Wisconsin.13 Grafton, a fervent Anglo-Catholic, had an intense interest in
the Orthodox East. Unlike some other Anglo-Catholics who idealized reunion with Rome,
Grafton advocated reunion with the Orthodox Churches. “There are brightening prospects in
the East,” he wrote in 1896. “Thither, it would seem, God’s providence is directing us.”14
Through his contacts with figures such as Bishop Grafton and Isabel Florence Hapgood
(translator of Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Greco-Russian Church), Tikhon became
acquainted with the worship and doctrine of High Church Anglicanism in North America.15
It is not surprising, therefore, given this cordial relationship, that some time around
1904 Tikhon posed an interesting question to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church
as to the possible use of Anglican liturgical forms within the North American Orthodox
mission. In particular, Tikhon wanted the Synod’s ruling
on the proposal of some Protestant Episcopalians that they be received into the Orthodox
Catholic Church but be permitted to continue to conduct Church Services and administer
Sacraments according to the Rites and Formularies laid down in the Protestant Episcopal
Book of Common Prayer.16
Tikhon’s primary question was not theoretical but pastoral and practical, but he wanted the
Holy Synod’s judgment on both the theological and practical aspects of the question:
If an entire parish with its minister should simultaneously leave Anglicanism to join the
Orthodox Church in America, then would it be possible to authorize the ‘Common Prayer
Book’ for their liturgical use? If so, then what in this book should be deleted, what corrected,
and what supplemented? 17
13
The story of Grafton’s friendship with Tikhon is narrated in E. C. Miller Jr., Toward a Fuller Vision: Orthodoxy and
the Anglican Experience (Wilton, CT: Morehouse Barlow, 1984), chapter VI, pp. 103-115; in M. Richard Hatfield’s
essay “Nashotah House, Bishop Grafton, and Saint Tikhon of Moscow” (1992), Project Canterbury, <http://
justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/orthodoxy/hatfield.pdf>; and in Peter Carl Haskell’s two part article
“Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Grafton: An Early Chapter in Anglo-Orthodox Relations in the New World,” St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, 11:4 (1967), 193-204 and 12:1 (1968), 2-16.
14
Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, quoted in Miller, 104.
15
Interestingly, Bishop Tikhon made a visit St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Denver, Colorado, March 25, 1904
(the feast of St. Mark the Evangelist). Tikhon, while in Denver to visit one of his parishes, was invited to visit St.
Mark’s by Charles Sanford Olmsted, Episcopal Bishop of Colorado, and Dr. John Henry Houghton, Rector of St.
Mark’s. He attended Evensong (Vespers) at which Bishop Olmsted confirmed 48 persons. Tikhon was received
ceremoniously, preached, and pronounced a final blessing upon the Anglican confirmands. This visit is
significant because 87 years later, the same Saint Mark's Church in Denver entered the Antiochian Archdiocese as
a Western Rite parish, celebrating the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon. The visit of Saint Tikhon to St. Mark’s was
recorded in several newspaper articles: “The Church in Colorado: St. Mark’s, Denver,” The Shepherd’s Crook
(newspaper of the Colorado Diocese) (15 May 1904), p. 3; “Feast of ‘the Agape’ is a Special Feature,” Denver Post,
(25 April 1904), p. 15; and “’The Agape’ Here for the First Time, Greek Bishop to Assist in Service at St. Mark’s at
Opening of the Annual Parish Festival,” Rocky Mountain News (25 April 1904), p. 5.
16
“Notes on the American (Protestant Episcopal) Book of Common Prayer.” The Orthodox Catholic Review, Vol. I,
No. 6 (June 1927), 250.
17
Russian Observations upon the American Prayer Book. Alcuin Club Tracts XII. Wilfrid J. Barnes, translator. Walter
Howard Frere, editor. (Oxford: A. R. Mowbray, 1917), 1.
8
Along with his query, Archbishop Tikhon sent a copy of the 1892 edition of the American Book of
Common Prayer for the Synod’s review. A year earlier, in 1903, the Holy Synod established a special
committee to deal with the question of Anglican-Orthodox relations. It was this committee that
issued the 1904 report on the American Prayer Book in response to Tikhon’s request. Bishop
Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Yamburg, rector of the Theological Academy in St. Petersburg, was
appointed as chairman. Bishop Sergius had good knowledge and ample experience with such
questions, having formerly served as president of the Holy Synod’s commission on relations with
the Old Catholic Churches.18 It is significant that this same Sergius, more than thirty years later as
Metropolitan and locum tenens of the Russian Church after the Bolshevik Revolution, would issue a
1936 Ukase authorizing the use of the Western Rite for Orthodox convert communities in France.19
The 1904 synodal report examined all the services of the American Book of Common
Prayer, including its Eucharistic Liturgy, rites of Ordination, Confirmation, and Marriage. The
report was first published in Khristianskoe Chtenie, the journal of the St. Petersburg Theological
Academy, under the title Zamechaniia ob Amerikanskoi ‘Knige Obshchikh Molitv.’ A partial English
translation was published in the April 1906 edition of the Russian Orthodox American Messenger (an
official journal of the North American Russian Archdiocese). A more complete English
translation, entitled Russian Observations upon the American Prayer Book, was published by the
Alcuin Club, for an Anglican audience, in 1917. Yet another English version, based on the text in
the Russian Orthodox American Messenger, was printed in the June 1927 issue of the short-lived
Orthodox Catholic Review.
With regard to the American Prayer Book’s Eucharistic Liturgy, the report mentions
two areas of major concern from an Orthodox standpoint. The report first asks the question:
“How far is there clearly and definitely expressed in this Order the belief in the change
(prelozhenie) or transformation [literally, “transubstantiation”20] (presushchestvlenie) of the holy
18
Haskell, part two, 4.
19
David F. Abramtsov, “A Brief History of Western Orthodoxy,” The Word, Vol. 6, No. 4 (April 1962), 22-23.
20
On the thorny issue of the use of this term in the Orthodox Church (i.e. Gk. metousiosis) under Latin scholastic
influence beginning in the thirteenth century, see John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and
Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974), 203-204; and Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church
(London: Penguin Books, 1963), 290-292.
9
Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ.” The report declares that “from this point of view the
[Prayer Book] cannot satisfy the Orthodox”:21
Leaving on one side the English Order, we observe that in the American Invocation the phrase
is used only ‘to bless and sanctify with thy Word and Holy Spirit these thy gifts and creatures
of bread and wine’; and with regard to the change [read: transubstantiation] there is found
only this very vague and elastic phrase — ‘that we receiving them (the gifts) according to thy
Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion may
be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.’ In order to see fully the vagueness of this
phrase it is sufficient to compare the Communion Service with any of the Church’s Liturgies,
even with the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which for the most part is distinguished by
caution in the terms concerning the change, and which indeed immediately after the change
speaks of Communion from ‘bread.’ ‘We who communicate from the one bread and the cup …’
The expression ‘changing by thy Holy Spirit’ may be left out of account, as having evidently
been inserted later into the text, possibly in conformity with the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom;
but even apart from that, the Holy Spirit is invoked not only ‘to bless and sanctify’ (the gifts),
but to ‘manifest this bread to be verily the precious Body of the Lord and God, our Saviour
Jesus Christ, and this holy cup to be verily the precious Blood of our Lord God and Saviour
Jesus Christ, poured out for the life of the world.’22
The report then, first of all, found some fault with the American Liturgy because it did not
adequately express proper Orthodox understandings of objective Eucharistic Real Presence
(prelozhenie and presushchestvlenie).
The report makes similar findings with regard to the Prayer Book’s doctrine of “the
Eucharist as a sacrifice for the living and the dead.” While “this belief is expressed with
indisputable clearness in our Liturgies,” the 1892 American Liturgy has only a vague expression of
the oblation of the elements, containing nothing “about the sacrificial significance of this
offering and about its saving power for those on whose behalf they offer it.”23 They believed also
that the phrase “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” in the Anglican Liturgy could be taken as an
Orthodox expression, except that it could also easily be understood in a general, non-eucharistic
sense (as indeed it seems to be in the English Prayer Book of 1662).24
The notes of the eminent Anglican liturgical scholar W. H. Frere in the Alcuin Club
translation answer some of the Synod’s criticisms. Frere, assuming a High Church viewpoint,
believed that the report misinterpreted a number of terms and phrases in the American Liturgy.
21
In the quotes following, it should be noted that the Alcuin Club translation consistently uses the general term
“change” where the original Russian text uses presushchestvlenie, literally “transubstantiation.” The editor of The
Orthodox Catholic Review picks up on this, and accuses the Alcuin Club translators of Anglican partisanship.
22
Russian Observations, 2-3.
23
Ibid, 4.
24
Ibid, 4-5.
10
First, Frere argues that the term “memorial,” as used in the Anglican Liturgy, should be taken in
a “technical and sacrificial” sense, as the equivalent of the Greek anamnesis and the Hebrew
zikaron, meaning “the part of the sacrifice taken for special use to represent the whole.”25
Likewise, Frere argues that the words “offer” and “oblation” in the Anglican Liturgy ought to be
taken as the equivalent of the proskomide and prospherein of the Greek Liturgies.26 Frere also took
issue with the report’s interpretation of the phrase “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,” which
he argues should be interpreted as being rooted in technical Old Testament sacrificial
terminology of zabah tarouah / zabah hatodah (Greek, thusia aineseos; Latin, sacrificium laudis).27
Frere’s points are well taken, especially in light of the fact that the report does not seem to be
aware of the complex development of the text of the Anglican Prayer of Consecration in the
eighteenth century under the influence of Non-Juring and Scottish divines, who intentionally
restored restore ancient notions of Eucharistic Sacrifice.28
Nonetheless, even if Frere is correct that the commission missed the significance of
some of these phrases in the minds of the High Churchmen who radically reshaped the
Anglican Liturgy over the centuries, the report’s judgment is basically valid and sound because
of its grasp of the thorny problem of Anglican comprehensiveness. While admitting that that
the Liturgy of St. Basil itself, as well as other ancient Liturgies, contain cautious and vague
language concerning eucharistic change, the report argues that the fully Orthodox meanings of
seemingly “indefinite expressions” in the ancient Liturgies are confirmed and “undoubtedly
defined in other passages of these Liturgies (for example at the Offertory, or at the Communion
itself).”29 The same cannot be said of the 1892 American Liturgy, which could be used by High
Churchmen and Low Churchmen alike according to very different theological understandings.
Furthermore, “indefinite expressions” in the ancient Liturgies are also ultimately confirmed by
the clear Faith of the Church: “In the ancient Church the question of the Eucharist was not a
25
Ibid, 4, (note 1).
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid, 5 (note 1).
28
See chapters VIII and IX of this thesis.
29
Ibid, 4.
11
controversial question; and the Church itself did not raise suspicions against any one on the
ground of his Eucharistic beliefs.” Anglicanism, however, is a completely different story. The
Book of Common Prayer, says the report, belongs
to a Church which in its symbolical literature and in its catechism confesses a doctrine which
is clearly protestant. Considering the origin of the document and the epoch to which it
belongs, it must be required to exhibit a definiteness which liturgical monuments, hailing
from the time of controversies about the Holy Trinity, about the wills in the Person of Jesus
Christ, etc. exhibit upon these subjects.30
A third criticism of the 1904 report, about the rites of the Prayer Book in general,
referred to “the absence from the Anglican service of any confession of faith in a living and real
bond existing between the earthly and heavenly parts of the Church.”31 Specifically, the report
refers to the absence prayer addressed “to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with
the glorification and invocation of them, [and] also prayers for the dead.”32
The report’s general conclusion as to the character of the 1892 American Book of
Common Prayer was that “its actual contents present very little comparatively that clearly
contradicts Orthodox teaching, and therefore would not be admissible in Orthodox worship.”
However, “it was compiled in a spirit of compromise” and “endeavours to reconcile tendencies
which are really contradictory.”
Consequently both those who profess Protestantism and their opponents can alike use it
with a quiet conscience. But worship which is so indefinite and colourless (in its
denominational bearing) cannot, of course, be accepted as satisfactory for sons of the
Orthodox Church, and still less for sons who have only just joined the Orthodox Church
from Anglicanism.33
What the report essentially called for, then, was the final jettisoning of the spirit of
protestantism, compromise, and iconoclasm from the Anglican Liturgy, for its enrichment and
completion within the fullness of the Orthodox Faith. The committee “allowed in general the
possibility that if Orthodox parishes, composed of former Anglicans, were organized in
America, they might be allowed, at their desire, to perform their worship according to the ‘Book
of Common Prayer,’ but only on condition that the following corrections were made in the
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid, 29.
32
Ibid, 35.
33
Ibid, 34.
12
spirit of the Orthodox Church.”34 In summary, then, with regard to the Eucharistic Liturgy, the
1904 report called for three essential changes to be made to the Eucharistic Liturgy of the
American Prayer Book before it could be used in an Orthodox context. First, the Liturgy must
contain clear, distinct and unmistakable language expressing a real, objective Eucharistic
Change of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Secondly, the
Liturgy must contain clear, distinct and unmistakable language pointing to the Eucharist as a
true Sacrifice offered on behalf of the whole Church, both living and dead. And finally, the
Liturgy must contain real expressions of the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints,
including prayers to the Saints and prayers for the faithful departed.
The commission concluded its report by handing the responsibility of implementing its
decisions on to Tikhon himself:
But since the detailed changes in the ‘Book of Prayers,’ [sic] and, generally speaking, in
Anglican liturgical practice together with the compilation of new prayers and even of entire
rites can be carried out only on the spot, in America, in correspondence with existing
demands and conditions, it is found desirable to send the ‘Observations’ themselves to the
Right Rev. Tikhon, the American Bishop. They will thus serve in the negotiations as materials
for the determination in detail of the conditions on which Anglicans disposed to Orthodoxy
can be received.35
Archbishop Tikhon himself never fully implemented these decisions, probably because no
Anglican group seriously came forward to be received as an entire community. The
Antiochian Archdiocese did, however, fully implement the decisions of the 1904 report, a full
73 years later when it received into full communion the Church of the Incarnation, Detroit,
and produced the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, which has been in use in more than half of the
Antiochian Western Rite parishes.
In this case, the implementation of the report’s recommendations was fairly simple and
straightforward. The Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate had but little to add in terms of
expressions of the doctrines of objective Real Presence, Eucharistic Sacrifice, and the
Communion of the Saints. Most of this work had already been accomplished in common
Anglo-Catholic practice, through the enrichment of the Anglican Liturgy with prayers and
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid, 35.
13
ceremonial from the Roman Mass. In 1977, the Antiochian Archdiocese merely confirmed such
Anglo-Catholic practices, and made only the following changes: (1) the strengthening of the
language of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit (which had been fully restored by the Non-Jurors
and Scottish divines, but seriously mangled in the American version), and (2) the alteration of
the text of the Prayer for the Church to include petition to “Blessed Mary and all the Saints.”
The later insertion of the two Byzantine pre-communion prayers strengthened even more the
Liturgy’s clear expression of an objective Real Presence. 36
36
These Byzantine prayers were only added to the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon in 1995, at the specific request of His
Beatitude, Patriarch IGNATIUS IV (Hazim) of Antioch. The prayers were also added to the Roman Liturgy of Saint
Gregory. The Patriarch made this request in the course of reviewing the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon probably for two
reasons: (1) To give even greater expression to the belief in the objective Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist;
and (2) To provide Byzantine Rite worshippers at Western Rite liturgies a familiar point of contact with their own
tradition.
14
III. A Brief Description of the Rite
As it stands, the core of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon is taken from the classic Anglican
Eucharistic Liturgy, with extensive borrowings from the Tridentine Missale Romanum and a
modest contribution from the contemporary Byzantine Rite. Therefore, it could be described as
a hybrid “Romanized” version of the Eucharistic Liturgy of the 1928 American Book of Common
Prayer. Before the Antiochian Archdiocese adopted the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, this hybrid
Romano-Anglican Liturgy was very commonly found in High Church, Anglo-Catholic parishes
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and its text available in publications
such as The Anglican Missal in the American Edition1 or The American Missal Revised.2 It was this
form of the Anglican Liturgy that was celebrated at the Church of the Incarnation, Detroit,
when it was received into the Antiochian Archdiocese.
The general outline of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon follows that of the Ordinary and
Canon of the traditional Roman Liturgy (before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council),
conflated with the outline of the Liturgy of the American Prayer Book. It follows the classic
two-fold division between the so-called “Missa Catechemenorum” (a.k.a. Ante-Communion, Pro-
Anaphora, or Liturgy of the Word) and the “Missa Fidelium” (Liturgy of the Faithful). To these
may be added the distinct portion following the Consecration, the administration of the Holy
Communion concluded by the Dismissal and Blessing. Before discussing the history of the
development of the rite, it may be helpful to give a brief description of the order of the Liturgy
of Saint Tikhon, celebrated as a Sunday High Mass in a typical parish church.3 (The text of the
Ordinary and Canon, along with examples of the proper texts, may be found in Appendix I).
In some parishes, the Sunday Mass is prefaced with a customary blessing of the faithful
with holy water called the Asperges (from the Latin incipit of the first words chanted, “Thou shalt
1
Subtitled, Containing the Liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer According to the Use of the Church in the United States
of America, Together with Other Devotions and with Ceremonial Directions Proper to the Same. (Mount Sinai, Long Island,
NY: Frank Gavin Liturgical Foundation, 1943).
2
Subtitled, The Complete Liturgy of the American Book of Common Prayer with Additional Devotional Material Appropriate
to the Same. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Earle Hewitt Maddux, SSJE, 1951).
3
These observations come specifically from the author’s observance of and participation in the Liturgy of Saint
Tikhon as celebrated at Saint Mark’s Parish in Denver, Colorado, one of the most prominent Western Rite
parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese.
15
purge me”). As the Celebrant, Deacon, Subdeacon and other ministers make their entrance and
recite the Preparation at the foot of the Altar, the choir chants the proper Introit appointed for
the day (consisting of an Antiphon text, a Psalm verse, and the Gloria Patri). When the Preparation
is finished, the Celebrant blesses incense and censes the Altar with the assistance of the Deacon
and Subdeacon. After the Introit has ended, the Priest salutes the people (“The Lord be with you,”
recites the “Collect for Purity” (“Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open,” etc.) and then,
facing the people, he reads to them the “Summary of the Law” (“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart,” etc.) The Choir then chants the ninefold Kyrie eleison, followed (on certain
days) by the hymn Gloria in excelsis Deo, the Celebrant intoning the first words. The Celebrant, first
saluting the faithful, then chants the proper Collect (or Collects) of the Day (the principal variable
prayer of the Mass). The Epistle follows, being chanted by a Subdeacon or read by an appointed
reader. The Epistle being finished, the Choir chants the proper Gradual verses along with the
“Alleluia” and its verse (or else the “Tract” in penitential seasons). Meanwhile, the Deacon receives
his blessing from the Celebrant, and, accompanied by the Subdeacon and servers with torches and
incense, proceeds to the accustomed place to chant the appointed portion of the Holy Gospel.
The chanting of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed follows (but only on certain days), the first
words being intoned by the Celebrant. During the line, “And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of
the Virgin Mary, and was made Man,” the faithful kneels in reverence. This first section of the
Liturgy then concludes with notices and the Sermon.
The second part of the Liturgy, the “Mass of the Faithful,” begins with the Offertory
rite. The Celebrant begins by saluting the people, and the Choir chants the appointed Offertory
antiphon (and, commonly, a para-liturgical hymn or anthem as well). The offerings made by the
Celebrant on behalf of the faithful are accompanied with a number of silent prayers: at the
offering of the bread, the blessing of the water, the offering of the chalice, the offering of
ourselves, and the offering of incense. When the bread has been offered, and the wine mixed
with water, the Celebrant, assisted by the Deacon and Subdeacon, censes the altar and the
oblations. The Deacon then censes the Celebrant, the other ministers, and the faithful.
16
Meanwhile, a collection of the people’s alms and gifts may be taken, presented to the Celebrant,
blessed, offered to God, and placed upon the altar. The Celebrant, after receiving the alms,
washes his hands, says a final silent offertory prayer, and turns to the faithful, asking them to
pray for the acceptance of the Holy Sacrifice. The Offertory rite is concluded by the silent
recitation of the so-called proper “Secret” collect appointed for the day, and by the public
recitation (by the Celebrant, or in some places, the Deacon) of the Intercession, or “Prayer for
the whole state of Christ’s Church.” Following the Offertory and Intercession, the clergy and
faithful are then duly prepared for the celebration of the Sacrifice and the reception of Holy
Communion by the General Confession (prefaced by an Invitation, and followed the priestly
Absolution and the recitation of New Testament sentences dealing with the remission of sins,
commonly called “The Comfortable Words”).
The true climax of the Liturgy, the Consecration, is then introduced with the chanting
of the ancient eucharistic dialogue Sursum Corda (“Lift up your hearts”). The Priest then
continues with the chanting of a variable seasonal Preface, addressed to God the Father,
through the Holy Spirit, thankfully recalling some aspect of the redemption of mankind by our
Lord Jesus Christ. The Sanctus, chanted by the Choir, follows, and the Celebrant begins to recite
the Canon of the Mass, the great Prayer of Consecration, consisting of: (1) an opening
Thanksgiving for the redemptive Sacrifice of Christ; (2) the recitation of the Narrative of the
Institution of the Eucharist by our Lord Jesus Christ (accompanied by the Celebrant’s
genuflections and elevations); (3) the solemn Oblation of the eucharistic gifts with the
Memorial (anamnesis) of Christ’s Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension; (4) the Invocation
(epiclesis) of the Holy Spirit to change the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ, along with a
petition for worthy reception; (5) the Oblation of the worshippers themselves, “our selves, our
souls and bodies,” along with a prayer for the benefits of Communion; (6) a commemoration of
the faithful departed (with a catalogue of the names of Apostles and Martyrs); (7) a final
acknowledgement of our unworthiness with a petition of the acceptance of the Sacrifice; and
finally (8) a concluding Trinitarian Doxology (accompanied by an elevation of the Sacrament),
17
with the solemn “Amen” or assent of the faithful.
The chanting of the Lord’s Prayer by the whole assembly, followed by the Celebrant’s
silent recitation of the “Embolism” prayer, follows the Prayer of Consecration. During the
Embolism, the Priest performs the fracture of the Host, and salutes the faithful with the
“peace of the Lord.” He breaks off a small particle of the Host and mixes it in the chalice with
a silent prayer. The Choir chants the threefold anthem, Agnus Dei, while the Priest privately
prays for the peace of the Church. Then, kneeling with the Deacon and Subdeacon before the
Blessed Sacrament, the Celebrant recites the “Prayer of Humble Access” on behalf of all who
are about to receive. The Celebrant then privately makes his own Communion with silent
prayers, after which he shows the Blessed Sacrament to the faithful (“Behold the Lamb of
God”) and invites them to Communion. The faithful respond with the words of the Centurion
from the Gospel (“Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof,” etc.) and
with two prayers for worthy reception (“I believe, O Lord, and I confess,” “Of thy mystic
Supper”) derived from the Byzantine Rite.
The Holy Communion is administered to the faithful in both kinds (either separately,
the Body administered by the Celebrant and the Chalice by the Deacon, or by intinction), with
the Words of Administration. The choir commonly sings para-liturgical communion hymns
during the Communions of the faithful. After all have communicated, the Celebrant performs
the ablutions of the eucharistic vessels and his fingers with silent prayers. The Liturgy is
concluded with the chanting of the proper Post-Communion Collect, the fixed Prayer of
Thanksgiving, the Dismissal (chanted by the Deacon), the final Blessing (“The Peace of God,
which passeth all understanding,” etc.), and the reading of the “Last Gospel” (i.e. the Prologue to
St. John’s Gospel). Commonly, a closing para-liturgical hymn is sung by the choir and faithful
while the clergy recess to the sacristy.
18
IV. A Note about Sources
It should be noted, before discussing the text of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, that there
are two sources which appear to have the blessing of His Eminence, Metropolitan PHILIP. The
first text, entitled The Orthodox Missal,1 was printed in 1995 by Saint Luke’s Priory Press (the
official publishing arm of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese). The
Metropolitan’s preface to this Missal declares that “these approved texts are the exclusive use of
our Archdiocese.” However, another better-known and more widely available text, entitled Saint
Andrew Service Book (also known as The Western Rite Service Book), also contains a preface from the
Metropolitan.2 This preface, however, does not contain a declaration of “exclusive use.” Therefore,
the authoritative text as given in The Orthodox Missal has been adhered to in this study.
It should also be noted that the two published critiques of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, by
Allyne Smith and Gregory Woolfenden, apparently take the Saint Andrew Service Book, a simple
parish prayer book, to be the official text and make no reference to the authoritative, typical text
as contained in The Orthodox Missal. This is significant, since the Saint Andrew text is seriously
flawed when compared to that of The Orthodox Missal. The Saint Andrew text omits all of the
priest’s silent prayers (including the vitally important Offertory prayers), contains different and
greatly simplified rubrics, inserts a threefold “Amen” following the Invocation of the Holy Spirit
(apparently in imitation of Byzantine usage, a feature not found in the Orthodox Missal text nor
indeed in any other Anglican predecessor to the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon), and even omits a whole
prayer from the Canon (the Memento of the faithful departed).
1
Orthodox Missal: According to the Use of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North
America. (Stanton, New Jersey: Saint Luke’s Priory Press, 1995.
2
Saint Andrew Service Book: The Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies According to the Western
Rite Usage of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Second Edition. (Whittier, CA: Orthodox
Christian Press, 1996).
19
THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE LITURGY OF SAINT TIKHON
V. The Genesis of the Anglican Eucharist (1549 – 1552)
The first Anglican Eucharistic Liturgy makes its appearance in 1549. It was chiefly the
work of the English Reformer and Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556).
Cranmer was not the “author” of the rite, but rather its compiler and chief architect. Although
when it first appeared, it sent shockwaves throughout England and all of Europe, the Anglican
Liturgy was not a fresh composition but rather a radical revision of the medieval Roman Mass,
in light of what Cranmer and other English Reformers considered to be the teaching of the
New Testament and the standard of early Christian practices.1 Cranmer and his associates, in
compiling and fashioning this classic Liturgy, had before them an entire, several centuries old
English liturgical inheritance issuing ultimately from the primitive Roman Rite, as well as other
sources, both ancient and modern.
Before Cranmer, there was no single liturgical usage in all of England, but rather a
number of local “uses” of the Roman Rite associated with influential cathedral sees. The Uses of
Sarum (Salisbury), York and Hereford were particularly influential. The service books of these
uses were essentially books of the Roman type with considerable influence from non-Roman
(chiefly Gallican) sources.2 The Sarum Use in particular was, by the early sixteenth century, the
most widespread and influential of these uses, having been adopted as the official use of the
metropolitan See of Canterbury. Because of its notoriety, it was this Use of Sarum which came
to have the most influence in the formation of the rites of the first Book of Common Prayer in
1549.3 Cranmer’s Anglican Mass of 1549 can, in fact, be said to be a free paraphrase, adaptation
and transformation of the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass as found in the Sarum Missal.”4
1
Massey H. Shepherd, The Worship of the Church. (Greenwich, Connecticut: Seabury Press, 1952), 68.
2
Francis Proctor and Walter Howard Frere. A New History of the Book of Common Prayer. (London: Macmillan,
1951), 12.
3
4
Ibid, 14.
Echlin, Edward P. The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective. (New York: The Seabury Press, 1968), 9.
20
In the years immediately preceding the appearance of the 1549 Prayer Book, there had
been a general interest in liturgical reform on the part of many bishops, clergy and scholars,
both “conservative” and “liberal,” mirroring efforts at liturgical reform on the Continent
amongst both Protestants (Lutherans and Calvinists) and those loyal to Rome.5 There was a
sense on the part of many that the liturgical rites had, over the centuries, “assumed formidable
proportions, immensely elaborate in detail, and proportionally difficult of use.”6 This
movement for liturgical reform was often accompanied with a call for the reading of the Bible
and the conduct of liturgical services in the vernacular.7 But it was not until the closing years of
the reign of Henry VIII that this movement for liturgical reform grew in prominence and began
to be successful.8
A revolutionary development came in 1548 with the introduction of The Order of the
Communion in English, by order of Royal Proclamation. In accordance with the liturgical ideals
of the emerging Reformation in England, this Order provided a vernacular rite of administering
frequent communion to the laity in both kinds, to be inserted into the customary order of the
old Latin Mass, after the priest’s communion. Before this, of course, the communion of the laity
was rare, in one kind (the chalice being withheld), and usually occurring once a year on Easter
Day. This Order for the Communion included elements which would form the heart of all later,
classic forms of the Anglican Eucharistic Liturgy (including the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon): the
Invitation, Exhortations, General Confession, Absolution, “Comfortable Words,” “Prayer of
Humble Access,” and words for the administration of communion to the laity in both kinds. 9
The basic sources for this English supplement to the Latin Mass were the English Bible, as well
as a German church order, the Simplex ac pia deliberatio of Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of
Cologne.10 The chief compiler of this 1548 Order of the Communion was undoubtedly
5
6
Stella Brook. The Language of the Book of Common Prayer. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 18.
Edward Lambe Parsons and Bayard Hale Jones. The American Prayer Book: Its Origins and Principles. (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946), 29.
7
Brook, 19.
8
Proctor and Frere, 26.
9
Ibid, 38.
10
Brook, 23.
21
Archbishop Cranmer himself, in association with other a number of other English prelates,
clergy and divines.
This 1548 Order of the Communion was only a prelude to, and a preparation for, the full
English Eucharistic Liturgy which became the only legal use of the Church of England in
1549.11 Not much is known about exactly how this Liturgy was compiled, and who participated
in it. According to the 1549 Act of Uniformity, the compilation of the first Anglican Eucharistic
Liturgy was achieved by “the Archbishop of Canterbury and certain of the most learned and
discreet bishops, and other learned men of this realm.”12 This commission, under the presidency
of Cranmer, was likely made up of both “conservative” and “liberal” churchmen, representatives
of both the “Old Learning” and the “New Learning,” all of whom desired the introduction of a
vernacular form of worship.13 Though there was considerable opposition, mostly from the laity
and monastics, the new Prayer Book with its Mass was approved (in the words of the King) “by
the common agreement and full assent of the nobility and commons of the late session of the
late Parliament” as well as “by the like assent of the bishops in the same Parliament and of all
other the learned men of this realm in their synods and convocations provincial.”14
The new Communion Office was at the same time both radical and conservative. It was
radical in its introduction of the vernacular, in its insistence upon the frequent communion of the
laity in both kinds, and in its reordering and re-working of the familiar Latin service. Especially in
comparison to contemporary Lutheran and Calvinist eucharistic liturgies, Cranmer’s 1549 Mass
was also somewhat conservative in its careful retention of the framework of the traditional
Western Mass and many of its forms. Unlike Luther, Cranmer did not abolish the Canon of the
Mass by the substitution of the reading of the scriptural Institution Narrative for the Prayer of
Consecration.15 Instead, Cranmer carefully reconfigured the Canon of the Mass according to
what he believed was an order more consistent with scriptural and patristic warrant.
11
Percy Dearmer, Everyman’s History of the Book of Common Prayer. (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1912), 62.
12
Brook, 23.
13
14
Quoted in Ibid, 51.
15
Parsons and Jones, 31.
22
The First Prayer Book of 1549 has been described as “an English simplification,
condensation, and reform of the old Latin services, done with care and reverence in a genuine
desire to remove the difficulties of the Mediaeval rites by a return to antiquity.”16 It was
“formed, not by a composition of new materials, but by a reverent, and on the whole
conservative, handling of the earlier services, of which large portions were simply translated and
retained.”17 The basically conservative nature of the new Prayer Book Liturgy can be seen in its
retention of the essential order of the traditional Roman Mass and many of its elements – such
as the Introit (not in its customary medieval form, but as a whole proper Psalm); the ninefold
Kyrie Eleison followed by the Gloria in Excelsis; the mixing of water with wine at the Offertory;
much of the familiar language of the old Canon, albeit in a new form; the use of the Sign of the
Cross and other manual acts associated with the Consecration of the elements; and traditional
Eucharistic vestments and architecture.18
The most radical change in the new Mass, however, apart from use of the vernacular and
communion for the laity in both kinds, was Cranmer’s reworking of the traditional Roman
Canon. As mentioned above, much of the familiar wording was retained, but “the chain of
eleven short prayers of the Latin Canon … were consolidated by Cranmer and sorted out into
two consistent and continuous passages” – first, an Intercessory prayer for the Church, both
living and dead; and second, a complete Prayer of Consecration more akin to the flowing prose
of an ancient Eastern anaphora than the ancient Roman Canon.19 Many later Anglican
liturgical scholars, more enamored of the ancient Eastern Liturgies than the Roman Mass, have
praised what they see as Cranmer’s insightful “reorganization” and “rearrangement” of the
Canon “so as to integrate the abrupt and confused tenor of the Latin text into a more effective
and intelligible order” – to the point that Cranmer’s 1549 text not only “contains an adequate
and honest equivalent of the Latin Canon, but … presents far more luminously and cogently
16
Dearmer, 66.
17
18
Ibid, 53.
19
Prayer Book Studies, 25.
23
what the fourth-century Latin is somewhat ineptly trying to say.”20 Interestingly, Bouyer
compared Cranmer’s reworking and adaptation of “the schema of the ancient Roman eucharist”
“not only to his ideas but to the language and rhetoric of his age” to remodeling of the ancient
eucharistic texts in fourth century Syria.21
While the most basic source of the 1549 Mass was the Roman Mass according to the
Use of Sarum, scholars have detected several other sources which, either directly or indirectly,
influenced Cranmer in his new eucharistic order. Cranmer’s liturgical studies were
comprehensive and his interests eclectic, as he “incorporated quite a bit of material from other
sources, Eastern and Western, ancient and modern, Catholic and Protestant.”22 First of all,
Cranmer borrowed considerably from Lutheran sources, particularly the church order known as
the Consultation or the Simplex ac pia deliberatio, composed by Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of
Cologne (d. 1547). From Hermann’s order Cranmer derived most of the content of the 1548
Order of the Communion, which he later incorporated into the 1549 Liturgy.23 Interestingly,
Cranmer also made use of a German work called the Antididagma, which was the reply of
Archbishop Hermann’s own cathedral clergy to his Lutheranizing policies from an orthodox
Roman Catholic standpoint. Cranmer adopted some language, almost word for word, from the
Antididagma in his description of the “full, perfect, sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction”
of Christ in the Prayer of Consecration.24
It has also been demonstrated that Cranmer had considerable interest in, and was to a great
extent influenced by, his studies of the Byzantine Liturgies of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint
Basil.25 There is evidence that, at least as early as 1544, Cranmer had been studying the Byzantine
Liturgy, probably in a Latin translation by Erasmus.26 The Byzantine influence on Cranmer can be
seen chiefly in his consolidation of the Canon into one continuous, unified anaphora; in his
20
21
Ibid, 27.
Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Charles Underhill Quinn, translator. (Notre Dame,
Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968), 414.
22
Ibid, 42.
23
24
C. H. Dugmore, The Mass and the English Reformers. (London: Macmillan, 1958), 115.
25
Shepherd, The Worship of the Church, 87.
26
Dugmore, 115.
24
introduction of an epiclesis, or invocation of the Holy Spirit along with “the word” (albeit in a
“western” place, preceding rather than following the Institution narrative); and in his substitution of
a fixed post-communion Thanksgiving in the place of the old variable Post-Communion Collects of
the Roman Rite.27 It has also been suggested that Cranmer had in his possession a copy of the
Mozarabic Missal, since his reworking of the Institution narrative according to the Pauline account
is strikingly similar to the Institution prayer of the ancient Spanish Liturgy.28 “From all these
sources Cranmer derived ideas, forms, and phrases. Thus the whole heritage of the Church’s worship
contributed to the making of the Book of Common Prayer.”29
However, despite the outwardly catholic form retained by Cranmer in the 1549 Liturgy,
Cranmer himself seems to have been quite far from a truly “catholic” understanding of the nature
the Eucharist. Cranmer, as is clear from his theological and polemical writings, explicitly rejected
the notion of an objective Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, as well as the
notion of an unbloody Eucharistic Sacrifice, propitiatory for the living and the dead. Some
scholars have attempted to show that Cranmer held different eucharistic opinions throughout his
career, and that at the time he produced the 1549 Liturgy he was of an orthodox Lutheran
opinion. However, other scholars, particularly Dix, have argued that Cranmer was already
confirmed in his mature extreme eucharistic doctrine in 1549, and that these opinions affected
the new Liturgy profoundly. According to this latter view, Cranmer’s intention was to introduce
“a Zwinglian sense into the Catholic formulas … “Cranmer’s first liturgy retains all that could be
kept of the ancient formulas in making them susceptible of a completely different
understanding.” 30 Whereas formerly it has been argued that the 1549 Mass reflects a moderate,
“reformed catholic” position,31 Dix has argued that “every word of it … was certainly compatible
with, and for the most part clearly expressed, [Cranmer’s] own Zwinglian doctrine.”32
27
Prayer Book Studies, 46-47.
28
Dugmore, 115.
29
Shepherd, The Worship of the Church, 87.
30
Bouyer, 407.
31
32
The Shape of the Liturgy. (New York: Seabury Press, 1982), 657.
25
The exact details of Cranmer’s personal views on eucharistic doctrine have been fiercely
debated for centuries, and even today, there is no real scholarly consensus. Some, including Dix,
believed Cranmer to be a straight Zwinglian. Indeed, in many ways, his view of the Real Presence
was strikingly similar to the views of continental reformers such as Zwingli, Bucer,
Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and John a Lasco.33 However, others have contended
that it is not possible to class Cranmer as a party-line Zwinglian. In fact, Cranmer’s doctrine
differed from Zwingli’s on certain points, so that “it would be false to label him a Zwinglian.”
There is no doubt that he was greatly influenced by continental reformers such as Zwingli, but
because “he was also a keen student of Scripture and the Fathers, a man with an independent
bent of mind,” it may be better to label Cranmer merely as a “Cranmerian,” a partisan of his own
personal position.34
But, though scholars still argue as to the exact contours of his eucharistic doctrine, it is
nonetheless safe to identify two fundamental features of Cranmer’s stance; namely, that he
“denied that the Eucharist offered Christ and considered Communion merely a spiritual
reception of Divine benefits.”35 Cranmer did not deny that the Eucharist was in some sense a
“sacrifice” – but he was clear in his rejection of the late medieval concept of an unbloody,
proptiatory oblation of Christ. For Cranmer, the Sacrifice of Christ was accompished once and
for all (never to be repeated, in the Mass or anywhere else), and that the only access we have to
the benefits of this Sacrifice is through faith in Christ’s Blood. The Eucharist, for Cranmer,
could be nothing more than “an offering of laud, praise, commemoration, and thanksgiving for
the reconciliation wrought by Christ.”36 Further, Cranmer denied that there was a “corporal”
Presence of the “natural” Body and Blood of Christ in the consecrated elements. The traditional
liturgical terminology of “eating the Flesh of Christ” and “drinking the Blood of Christ” is, for
Cranmer, merely metaphorical, denoting only each faithful Christian’s personal belief in Christ
33
Echlin, 17.
34
Ibid, 22.
35
Ibid, 1.
36
Ibid, 11.
26
and the Gospel.37 Cranmer’s primary concern, in setting forth this eucharistic doctrine, was “the
paramount importance of man’s response and cooperation with what both acknowledged to be
the work of God, in recognizing and appropriating the personal presence of Christ within the
soul.” But to make his point, Cranmer went to the extreme of “discarding the conception of an
Objective Real Presence as useless.”38
Cranmer’s heterodox opinions on the nature of the Eucharist explain many of the
changes he made to the Canon in 1549. His rejection of the concept of a propitiatory
eucharistic sacrifice is seen in Cranmer’s Canon by a clear verbal emphasis on the Cross as
Christ’s “one oblation once offered.”39 Furthermore, Cranmer, in the act of rearranging and
rewriting the prayers of the Roman Canon, sought “to remove every expression of direct verbal
Oblation of the Elements, lest there should remain any idea of any ritual action of man which
might be interpreted as a propitiation of God.” For Cranmer, “man’s action is not propitiatory,
but eucharistic: he offers his ‘Sacrifice of prayse and thankes geuinge’ for the benefits of the
Passion, his life as a ‘reasonable, holy, and liuely sacrifice’ to God, his prayers in union with the
Heavenly Intercession.”40 Cranmer was not averse to the use of the language of sacrifice in the
Eucharist. But because he considered that the notion of eucharistic sacrifice had become so
corrupt in late medieval Catholicism, “he removed every mention of any kind of oblation on the
part of man until after the Consecration.” However, he did so at the cost of contradicting the
ancient shape of the Liturgies41 (a defect which would be addressed throughout the centuries
and later corrected in the Non-Juring and Scottish branch of the Anglican liturgical tradition).
In some sense, Cranmer’s doctrine of the Eucharist can be seen an extreme reaction to a
late medieval Western Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist which was itself rather unbalanced
and distorted. Cranmer was reacting against what today seems to be a rather decomposed
concept of the Mass as merely a “re-commencement of the Cross.” Since there seemed to have
37
Bouyer, 413.
38
39
Ibid, 34.
40
Ibid, 42.
41
Ibid, 38.
27
been no other Catholic alternative to this concept, Cranmer shifted to another extreme, the
concept of the Eucharist an entirely subjective, mental sacrifice.42 Furthermore, it should also
be kept in mind that Cranmer, though he was a keen student of the Fathers and ancient
liturgical texts, simply did not have the kinds of resources we have today for reading authentic
ancient eucharistic doctrine. As Dix notes, in blaming Cranmer for not lining up more closely
with the eucharistic doctrines of the Fathers and the ancient Liturgies,
we are placing him against a standard of which he knew, and could know, virtually nothing.
Not until centuries after his time did the historical material necessary for the interpretation
of the primitive eucharist begin to be available; much of it was unknown or not understood
even in 1900. The true background of Cranmer’s work is, as I have said, the contemporary post-
mediaeval liturgical crisis, and the Kirchenordnungen of the German and Swiss Reformation
which sought to solve it.43
It has been well established that Cranmer’s views were heterodox and “Zwinglianizing.”
It is an entirely different question, however, whether or not he succeeded in making his views
loud and clear in the 1549 Mass itself. The new Liturgy, since its very first appearance, seems to
have been interpreted in various senses by both the moderate “Henrician Catholic” party, who
were content to use the rite according to a basically orthodox Western Catholic understanding,
and the more extreme reforming party, who thought that the form of the Liturgy was still far
too “popish.” In fact, as Dix argues, “what had largely assisted the general misunderstanding of
1549 was its retention of the traditional Shape of the Liturgy.”44 Cranmer specifically retained
traditional eucharistic language, from the Roman Mass and from Christian antiquity,
specifically according to his own “rationalization of what it was that was accomplished by the
historic liturgies.” Indeed, the interpretations he attached to the traditional forms he retained
in the 1549 rite were “applied just as freely to the Latin Mass, or to the Greek liturgies which he
so valued.”45 In the words of Bouyer, since the forms of 1549
retain practically all of the ancient expressions, with the minimum of retouching that was
necessary in order to be able to bend them to the devitalized sense in which he understood
them, a person who is without the key to his perpetually metaphorical language, can be easily
42
Bouyer, 414.
43
Dix, 672.
44
Ibid, 659.
45
28
taken in. One might think that one were simply re-reading the old canon in a more obviously
coherent order and in a casing of devout humanist rhetoric.46
Cranmer, despite his personal views, has been praised by scholars of all persuasions as an
ingenious liturgist. Bouyer, otherwise no great admirer of Cranmer’s work, nonetheless
acknowledged him to be “a liturgist of equal stature with the greatest of antiquity.” Bouyer
particularly admired the form of his 1549 Canon:
The most felicitous characteristic of his skill is the delicacy with which from the beginning to
the end of the prayer he was able to keep the basic act of thanksgiving constantly uppermost
with a word or an expression. He does this so well that it is everywhere present and runs
through this lengthy prayer like a golden thread binding it together. The same must be said
for the theme of the Church and her unity: from one end of the eucharist to the other,
beginning with the first part of the intercessions as their connecting link, it is constantly
recalled through a succession of impeccable strokes of the bow before it finally emerges in a
magnificent crescendo. The recall of the ‘grace and heavenly benediction’ of the Roman canon
is specified here in the unforgettable final invocation, that we become one body with Christ
and that he abide in us and we in him … This eucharistic liturgy of Cranmer’s is an
incontestable masterpiece …47
Frere, an Anglican liturgist also quite critical of Cranmer’s extreme eucharistic doctrine,
believed that Cranmer’s 1549 rite remedied many “insufficiencies” of the medieval Mass, i.e. the
provision for Intercessory Prayer (in the form of the Prayer for the Church at the beginning of
the 1549 Canon); the inclusion of a prayer for the sanctification of the eucharistic elements by
the Holy Spirit; an overarching emphasis on the theme of Thanksgiving; a focus on the
Augustinian concept of the offering of “ourselves, our souls and bodies” in union with the
Eucharistic Sacrifice; and the inclusion of a fixed post-communion Prayer of Thanksgiving (in
the manner of the ancient Eastern Liturgies).48
Furthermore, despite Cranmer’s rather “nominalist” eucharistic doctrine, it has been
noted that the 1549 text proves that Cranmer was nonetheless “a thoroughgoing Catholic
‘Realist’ on the basic subject of the Incarnation.” Cranmer’s Liturgy is full of language about “a
conformation to, by means of an actual incorporation in, the divinely perfected humanity of
our Lord.”49 So it was that, in the eyes of many, “the mere form of the [1549] Liturgy defeated
46
Bouyer, 415.
47
Ibid, 416-417
48
Frere, 195-196.
49
29
Cranmer’s intention.”50 Clearly, from Cranmer’s standpoint, a new Liturgy was needed, in order
to finally rule out all possibility of “Romish” interpretation and pacify the more extreme
reforming party.
The first English Eucharistic Liturgy of 1549, admired for centuries by many Anglicans
as a “reformed catholic” liturgical masterpiece, had a very short life span. “The First Prayer Book
was indeed too fair-minded for the violent and bitter spirit of the age.”51 Spurred on by the
arguments of foreign Reformers resident in England (especially Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr
Vermigli), as well as extreme English Reformers (especially Hooper and Ridley), Cranmer
“almost from the moment the First Prayer Book was published” began plans to supercede the
1549 order with a rite more acceptable to Calvinists and Zwinglians.52 Gardiner’s Catholic
arguments for the 1549 Mass also greatly influenced Cranmer’s revision of the rite.53
“Significantly, every item that Gardiner had praised … was revised. Three-fifths of Bucer’s
written suggestions, to which [Peter] Martyr had added his fiat, were incorporated in the new
rite.”54 The 1552 Communion Office retained a great deal of Cranmer’s familiar prose, but in a
radically different form.55 No longer could catholic-minded clergy and laity, such as Gardiner,
celebrate the new Mass with much the same architecture, ceremonial and vestments of the old
Mass, since these things were now explicitly banned.56
But by far the most radical change to the communion office of 1552, however, was the
breaking up and reordering of the 1549 Canon. The beginning of the 1549 Canon (paralleling
the intercessions of the Roman Canon’s Te Igitur) became the “Prayer for the Church Militant
here in earth,” now denuded of all language of praise for the Saints and petition for the faithful
departed. Furthermore, this intercession was removed from the Canon and placed immediately
after the Offertory (in order to prevent any conception of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice).57
50
Ibid, 71.
51
Dearmer, 73.
52
Ibid, 75.
53
Echlin, 1.
54
Ibid, 2.
55
56
Moorman, 186.
57
Frere, 197.
30
The 1552 Eucharistic Prayer was a mere shell of the 1549 Canon. The whole of the
Canon after the Institution (comprising elements of Oblation and Anamnesis) was transferred
to the end of the service, where it became merely the second alternative Thanksgiving after
Communion.58 Thus, in imitation of continental Protestant eucharistic forms, the Communion
now followed the Institution immediately, thus bringing the Eucharistic Prayer to a screeching
halt, and emphasizing the act of Communion, rather than Consecration, as the climax of the
Eucharistic Rite. With this, Cranmer contented his more radical critics, who were dismayed by
the many devotions which were placed between the Consecration and the Communion in the
1549 Mass.59 Moreover, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost and Word disappeared, being
replaced with a prayer for worthy reception (thus no longer expressing any concept of the
hallowing of the elements). Ironically, in an attempt to become less Roman, these changes
actually lent themselves better to a Latin emphasis on the sole consecratory character of the
Dominical Words.60 The flow of the 1549 Canon was further destroyed by the transferal of the
Prayer of Humble Access right into the middle of the prayer, thus, in the words of Frere,
“[dragging] down the poor aspiring worshipper, who had just been summoned up to the
heavenly places and the celestial company, to come back to earth again and concentrate on his
miserable self.”61 And finally, the Lord’s Prayer was ousted from its primitive place as the climax
of the Canon and postponed until after communion, thus obscuring and minimizing its rich
eucharistic significance.62
Outside the Canon, the 1549 Words of the Administration of the Sacrament in both
kinds, which seemed to connect the bread and the wine explicitly with the Body and Blood of
Christ, were omitted and new forms substituted in their place, emphasizing mere mental
“remembrance,” “faith,” and “thankfulness” on the part of the communicant.63 A further and
more bold-faced denial of an objective Real Presence came in the form of a rubric, inserted
58
59
Ibid, 57.
60
Frere, 197.
61
Ibid, 200.
62
Ibid, 201.
63
Proctor and Frere, 81-82.
31
(behind Cranmer’s back) into the 1552 rite by order of the Privy Council, just three days before
the publication of the new Prayer Book. This infamous text, the “Black Rubric,” explained that
the practice of kneeling for Communion (retained in the 1552 rite) did not mean “that any
adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily
received, or to any real and essential presence there of Christ’s natural flesh and blood.”64
If Cranmer’s true eucharistic doctrine was ambiguous in his first attempt at revision, it
became crystal clear in his second Communion Office. By another ingenious rearrangement,
Cranmer was able, with great care, to edit away all notion of a Real Presence of Christ in the
elements of bread and wine. Likewise, Cranmer disconnected any notion of sacrifice or oblation
from the elements of bread and wine themselves, by transferring all sacrificial material in the
1549 Canon into an optional post-communion devotion. No longer is there a mystical,
propitiatory offering of Christ as Victim, but a mental remembrance of his one Sacrifice on the
Cross, and an appeal to Christ “the only Mediator and Advocate” that we may enjoy the benefits
of the Cross through faith. If any offering is made, it is not connected to the one Sacrifice of the
Cross, nor with the bread and wine, but with the offering of ourselves in thanksgiving to the
Father for the redemption wrought by the Son.65
64
Ibid, 85.
65
H. A. Hodges, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: A Study in Dialectical Churchmanship. (London: SCM Press, 1955), 17-
18.
32
VI. 1559: The Beginning of the Long Path Away from Cranmer
1552 would not be the last word within the Anglican tradition, which “has never
accorded to Cranmer that position which Lutheranism gives to Luther, Calvinism to Calvin,
Zwinglianism to Zwingli.” Cranmer, though the architect of the basic shape of the classic
Anglican Eucharist, has never been regarded as “personally a source of Anglican doctrine.”1 It is
essential to understand the theological positions of Cranmer and the other English Reformers
if we are to make sense of the development of Anglican Liturgy; but as Bishop John Dowden
remarked, it is incorrect to assume that
the sense of the words of the English liturgy must, in the Church’s worship, be necessarily
restricted to the sense in which those theologians employed them. The words have in
themselves a wider scope; and perhaps they were, in some instances, framed purposely to
admit a wider scope.2
In fact, one may safely say, as Grisbrooke has, that “the great majority of Anglicans have always
understood and used [the Anglican Liturgy] differently from Cranmer.” However, it is
important as well to acknowledge, with Grisbrooke, that such non-Cranmerian understandings
“can only be read into it, they do not arise naturally out of it.”3
And yet, the form of the liturgy as it had imposed upon the Church of England in 1552
was still not terribly conducive to a more conservative interpretation. Catholic-minded
Anglicans, therefore, in all the centuries following Cranmer, have been confronted with a major
quandary: How can such a liturgy be honestly used? The answer, for many High Churchmen,
was that radical reforms were needed to bring the liturgy back into substantial agreement with
the larger Tradition of the Church Catholic, as exemplified in the early centuries of the Church
and the writings of her Fathers. The 1552 Book of Common Prayer had never been approved by
any official organ of the Church of England herself. Its use had been forced upon the Church by
the radical Protestant controlled Parliament. Even Cranmer himself was shocked at the radical
teaching of the “Black Rubric,” added to his book secretly just days before its printing.
1
Dix, 674.
2
John Dowden. The Scottish Communion Office 1764. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922), 4.
3
W. Jardine Grisbrooke, ed. Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. (London: SPCK, 1958), xiii.
33
The 1552 Prayer Book was in use for less than a year until the accession of Queen Mary,
who immediately restored the liturgical life of the English Church as it had been before 1548.
The accession of Queen Elizabeth in 1558 saw the re-introduction of the moderate reformed
program, including the rites of the Book of Common Prayer. It is thought that Elizabeth, a
political Protestant with a taste for more traditional forms of liturgy, would have preferred
simply to restore the 1549 Prayer Book, as the standard of a “reformed catholicism” closer to
the religion of her father, Henry VIII. Unfortunately her only major political allies against
Rome were extreme Protestant divines who had just returned from their Marian exile in
Calvinist Europe. Because of these political pressures, Elizabeth was left with no other choice
but to restore the 1552 order (most acceptable to both conservative and liberal churchmen),
although she made sure that it would be divested of its worst features.4
Three major changes, all significant returns to the 1549, were made in the 1559
Communion Office. First, the 1559 order restored the traditional Words of Administration
(“The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee,” etc.) but combined them with
the more Zwinglianizing, receptionist forms of 1552 (“Take and eat this in remembrance,” etc.)
– thus emphasizing an objective Presence of Christ in the elements, but also encouraging the
subjective, faithful response on the part of each individual communicant. Second, the 1559
Liturgy abolished the infamous “Black Rubric” with its bold faced denial of objective Real
Presence. And finally, a rubric in the 1559 Prayer Book re-authorized traditional vestments and
church ornaments, retained in 1549 but made illegal in 1552. 5 “Thus at one stroke – whether
intentionally or not – the 1559 liturgy itself reopened the whole question which Cranmer’s rite
was intended to close decisively.”6 The importance of these 1559 reforms cannot be
underestimated. They represent the first step in a long Anglican path away from Cranmer’s
mature eucharistic opinions, as enshrined in the 1552 liturgy. As Dearmer observed,
we may safely say that, ever since it was so roughly altered at the end of Edward VI’s reign, the
opinion of the whole Anglican Communion has been steadily coming back to the principles of
4
Prayer Book Studies, 72; Proctor and Frere, 94.
5
Dearmer, 88; Prayer Book Studies, 72; Proctor and Frere, 102.
6
Dix, 674.
34
the First Prayer Book, and that every subsequent revision has restored something which the
Second Book took away.7
Naturally, the Elizabethan liturgy, with its careful and deliberate restoration of 1549
features, drew the ire of many Puritans, who described it as “an imperfect book, culled and picked
out of the popish dunghill.”8 Even though the mangled 1552 shape of the Eucharistic Prayer was
to continue for centuries, High Churchmen legally bound to the use of this liturgy could still
maintain a basic belief in an objective Real Presence in the sacramental elements. But such
catholic-minded Anglican divines could never be satisfied with 1559, for since the beginning of
the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Anglican divines “continuously devoted their energies to attempts
at revising it, amending it, or even, in the last resort, replacing it by a different rite.”9 Many High
Churchmen found ways to improve the 1552 shape through altering the order of the prayers
(after the 1549 pattern) as well as ceremonial and musical enrichments.10 Thus, against the radical
Protestant intentions, “they interpreted the Prayer Book and gave it form and meaning; under
their hands a protestant service book was transformed into a catholic liturgy; they discovered its
beauties; they loved it and were ready to die for it.”11
Through such alterations and enrichments, the High Churchmen were convinced that
they had an essentially valid and catholic liturgy, in many ways closer to ancient Christian
standards than the Liturgy of the Church of Rome. Thus, we begin to see “the development of a
specifically and distinctively Anglican liturgical type,” through reforms all in the direction of
1549 and the ancient Liturgies of the Church.12 Such an approach, consistent with the classic
Anglican appeal to the ancient Fathers and primitive customs of the Church, represents the
formation of a “Reformed Patristic” theology of the Eucharist, “a lex credendi which better fitted
the lex orandi of 1549 than 1552 and 1559.”13 Alongside a reemphasis on doctrines of Real
Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice, a distinctive High Church Anglican eucharistic piety began
7
Dearmer, 72.
8
Moorman, J. R. H. A History of the Church in England. (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1986), 208.
9
10
Grisbrooke, xiii.
Dorman, Marianne. “Andrewes and English Catholics’ Response to Cranmer’s Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552.”
Project Canterbury. <http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/essays/dorman/sacrament.pdf>, 2
11
Addleshaw, 63-64.
12
Grisbrooke, xiv.
13
Spinks, 93.
35
to develop, based on the most positive aspect of Cranmer’s eucharistic thought, namely, “the
doctrine of the mystical union of Christ with the believing soul”:
[For Cranmer,] by faith we live in Christ and He in us, and this not figuratively, but
substantially and effectually, so that from this union we receive eternal life. When in the
Eucharist we make our act of faith and thanksgiving, our union with Christ is strengthened
and deepened; that is what is meant by saying that in this sacrament we ‘feed’ on Him.
Cranmer reminds us of St. Ignatius’ phrase about the Holy Communion as the ‘salve of
immortality’, and Dionysius’ reference to it as ‘deific’, with other strong and graphic phrases
from the Fathers to the same effect. It is this doctrine, this spirit, which finds expression in
the Prayer Book liturgy. It is this which has kept alive a vein of eucharistic devotion in the
Church of England through the most and apparently hopeless times. This is the core, around
which it was ultimately found possible to reconstruct the whole edifice of Catholic eucharistic
belief and practice.14
14
Hodges, 18-19.
36
VII. The Influence of the Caroline Divines
The break with the eucharistic doctrines of Cranmer, and his deformed liturgy, which
was begun early in the reign of Elizabeth, was widened considerably during the subsequent
reigns of James I and Charles I. This further development in Anglican eucharistic thought and
practice was chiefly the work of the so-called “Caroline Divines.” Elizabethan divines, such as
Richard Hooker and John Jewel, had already begun to develop a distinctive, moderate Anglican
position, a true Via Media avoiding the excesses of both Rome and Geneva. The Carolines
continued this approach, both defending the Church of England as a truly “reformed catholic”
church, but also working to make this “reformed catholicism” more tangible and apparent.
They sought “to build up in England a Church which should approach to the purity and
devotion of the first centuries of the Christian era … a model of what a Christian Church should
be, an example to the world.”1 In so doing, they appealed to the Fathers of the Church
(especially the Greek Fathers) and to the ancient Liturgies of the Church (particularly of the
Oriental families). Caroline Anglican theology was “characterized by a veneration for the
Fathers, by a wholeness finding its centre in the Incarnation and a massive learning.”2 In
contrast to both continental Reformation and Counter-Reformation thought, the Carolines
sought to work “in terms of patristic thought, more especially that of the Greek Fathers” – an
approach which produced in the Carolines “something of the catholicity, the wide-mindedness,
the freshness, the suppleness, and sanity of Christian antiquity.”3 Their approach to Christianity
is beautifully illustrated in the famous dying words of one of its later disciples, the Non-Juror
Bishop Thomas Ken:
I die in the Holy, Catholic and Apostolick Faith, professed by the whole Church before the
disunion of East and West. More particularly I dye in the Communion of the Church of England as
it stands distinguished from all Papall and Puritan Innovations, and as it adheres to the
doctrine of the Cross.4
1
Moorman, 225.
2
Addleshaw, 25.
3
Ibid, 26.
4
Quoted in Moorman, 234.
37
Through the Caroline Divines – particularly Lancelot Andrewes, William Laud, Jeremy
Taylor and John Cosin – “fairly rapidly Anglicanism recovered the notion of the instrumental
function of the Eucharist together with a belief in an objective consecration as an essential part
of the eucharistic action.”5 They refused to focus on merely ontological or metaphysical aspects
of Eucharistic consecration, opting instead to speak of the Eucharist as a profound mystery,
and focusing upon the “the central Christological and soteriological issues of union with Christ
and participation in his life – as Cranmer’s prayer says, ‘that we may evermore dwell in him, and
he in us.’”6 The Carolines, through their intense study of patristic texts and comparative liturgy,
recovered “an understanding of the inner meaning of liturgy and its underlying principles, and a
sense that liturgy had something to do with dogma and life.”7 They sought to defend their
liturgical understanding against Roman Catholics, who opposed the idea of vernacular liturgy,
and Puritans, who opposed completely the whole traditional idea of liturgy.8 In order to defend
their own unique liturgical position, the Caroline Divines turned to the scientific study of
ancient Christian liturgies of the first four to five centuries, particularly the Liturgy of St.
James.9 The liturgical principles of the Carolines may be “summed up in three key words,
edification, order, uniformity.” In the words of Addleshaw, according to the Carolines,
A liturgy must edify, its structure must reveal a rational order, it must be uniform in every
place where it is offered. A Church whose public worship does not manifest these principles
cannot be said to have a liturgy; and without a liturgy it is spiritually dead.10
The true father of the Caroline age in Anglican theology was Bishop Lancelot
Andrewes, who had been successively Dean of Westminster Abbey, Bishop of Chichester,
Bishop of Ely and finally Bishop of Winchester.11 Andrewes, though legally bound to worship
according to the 1559 Prayer Book, profoundly altered and enriched the Anglican Liturgy in
the usage of his own episcopal chapel, a usage which was influential among his High Church
5
Cocksworth, 50.
6
Ibid, 54.
7
Addleshaw, 18-19.
8
Ibid, 20, 22.
9
Pinnington, 24.
10
Addleshaw, 68-69.
11
Moorman, 235.
38
contemporaries.12 Andrewes had restored many of the best features of the traditional Western
Mass. The focal point of his chapel was a prominent, lavishly adorned, east-facing altar, railed
off from the rest of the church by an altar rail. Andrewes restored many of the old vestments, as
authorized by the Elizabethan “Ornaments Rubric,” as well as traditional liturgical vessels,
including a Gothic style chalice and paten. Frankincense was offered, as in the old Mass, in a
golden censer. The ceremonial of his chapel also brought back many rituals of eucharistic
offertory, including an offertory of the eucharistic gifts clearly differentiated from the reception
of alms and the old ceremony of mixing water with the wine. Andrewes’ doctrine of eucharistic
offertory was vividly illustrated in the image which hung above his altar, depicting the story of
Abraham and Melchizedek,13 and thus recalling the prayer of the old Mass: “accepta habere, sicuti
accepta habere dignatus … sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus
Melchizedek, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.” Within the Prayer of Consecration,
Andrewes restored the old manual acts, retained in 1549 but omitted in 1552. Perhaps more
importantly for the development of the Anglican Liturgy, Andrewes skillfully reordered the
prayers of the 1552/1559 Liturgy, so as to transform it from being a series of Communion
devotions into a true Liturgy, after the patterns of Christian antiquity. The following chart shows
Andrewes’ order as compared to 1549 and 1552:
CRANMER’S 1549 ORDER CRANMER’S 1552 ORDER ANDREWES’ ORDER

1. Preface and Sanctus 2. Intercession 2. Intercession
2. Intercession 6. Confession, etc. 6. Confession, etc.
3. Consecration 1. Preface and Sanctus 1. Preface and Sanctus
4. Oblation 7. Prayer of Humble Access 3. Consecration
5. Lord’s Prayer 3. Consecration 4. Oblation
6. Confession, etc. 9. Communion 5. Lord’s Prayer
7. Prayer of Humble Access 5. Lord’s Prayer 7. Prayer of Humble Access
8. Agnus Dei 4. Oblation 8. Agnus Dei
9. Communion 9. Communion
It is not known whether or not Andrewes had restored prayer for the dead – although it is
known in his private devotions prayed for the departed, and declared in his apologia to Cardinal
12
Dorman, 2.
13
Ibid, 3-4.
39
Perron that the Eucharistic Liturgy is offered for the quick, the dead, and the unborn.14 It is also
significant that occasionally Andrewes replaced the Cranmerian Prayer of Oblation with the
Anamnesis of the Liturgy of St. Basil.15
Though the liturgical thought and practice of Bishop Andrewes was the exception,
rather than the rule, within the Church of England, his Caroline successors were greatly
influenced by Andrewes’ balanced approach. His direct influence is seen immediately in William
Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury under Charles I, and through Laud in the creation of the first
Scottish Liturgy of 1637 (the first substantial return to 1549).16 Archbishop Laud, following
Jewel, Hooker and Andrewes, sought to show the Church of England to be truly “catholic and
reformed” in doctrine, liturgical practice and discipline. In advocating such a “reformed
catholic” position, he came into bitter conflict with Calvinists and Puritans, a conflict which
would later claim his life and that of his king, Charles I.17
Laud firmly believed and taught that the Eucharist was the true, proper Christian
Sacrifice, offered up in union with the one Sacrifice of Christ upon the Altar of the Cross.
According to his particular reading of the Prayer Book Liturgy, Laud enumerated three distinct
kinds of sacrifice made within the Eucharistic Liturgy:
For, at and in the Eucharist, we offer up to God three sacrifices: One by the priest only; that is
the commemorative sacrifice of Christ’s death, represented in the bread broke and wine
poured out. Another by the priest and the people jointly; and that is, the sacrifice of praise
and thanksgiving for all the benefits and graces we receive by the precious death of Christ. The
third, by every particular man for himself only; and that is, the sacrifice of every man’s body
and soul, to serve Him in both all the rest of his life, for this blessing thus bestowed on him.18
Although he denied that the Body and Blood of Christ themselves were offered by the priest, he
did believe that the Liturgy must clearly reflect the fact that the bread and wine are offered
upon the altar by the priest. Thus Laud, following Andrewes, made a striking departure from
Cranmer in attaching great importance to the act of offering the eucharistic elements, even
though such an act had been removed from the Prayer Book in 1552. In answer to his Puritan
14
Ibid, 5-6.
15
Ibid, 7.
16
Ibid, 8-9.
17
Moorman, 230.
18
A Relation of the Conference between William Laud and Mr. Fisher the Jesuit; Quoted in Echlin, 111
40
enemies at his trial, Laud simply agreed that his doctrine departed from the practice of 1552:
“As for the oblation of the elements, that’s fit and proper; and I am sorry, for my part, that it is
not in the Book of England.”19
Laud also recovered a notion of “true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,”
another major departure from the doctrine of Cranmer. Although vehemently denouncing
what he believed to be the Roman Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation, Laud argued that
in the Eucharist, the worthy communicants really and truly partook of Christ’s true, spiritual,
sacramental presence in the consecrated eucharistic elements.20 He attached particular
importance to the role of the epiclesis (also missing from the 1552 order), as that which calls
down the power of God to transform the elements so that in use they would be received as the
true sacramental Body and Blood of Christ.21 Laud’s teaching on Eucharistic Presence, however,
still had a “receptionist” ring to it. Basing his argument upon the phrase ut fiant nobis in the
Roman Canon, Laud argued that “they ‘are to us’, but are not transubstantiated in themselves,
into the Body and Blood of Christ, nor that there is any corporal presence, in, or under the
elements.”22 Consequently, Laud did not believe that any sort of adoration was due to the
consecrated elements.23 Even though, like Cranmer, Laud “still thinks within the terms of the
medieval dilemma that imprisoned the theologians of the Reformation and Counter-
Reformation alike,” his eucharistic doctrine is still “poles apart from that of Cranmer.” Laud
clearly “believed in a real presence mediated through the bread and wine, and believed also that
these elements were offered to God by the priest.”24
Although Laud himself continued to use the 1552 Liturgy as reformed by Elizabeth
(albeit slightly altered, enriched, and with an intent very different from that of Cranmer), the
Laudian approach to eucharistic doctrine came to be enshrined liturgically in the compilation
of the first Scottish Book of Common Prayer in 1637. The Eucharistic Liturgy of this Prayer Book
19
History of the Troubles; Quoted in ibid, 113.
20
Ibid, 114-115.
21
Ibid, 115.
22
History of the Troubles; Quoted in ibid, 116.
23
Ibid, 117.
24
Grisbrooke, 17.
41
“marks the first authoritative move on the part of an Anglican hierarchy to cast aside the
liturgical and doctrinal heritage of Cranmer.”25 The Scottish Liturgy of 1637 was an extensive
revision of the Anglican Eucharist, casting aside the most Protestant structural and verbal
features of 1552 in favor of a restoration of 1549 usage. These changes clearly reflected “a
theology that connected the Eucharistic elements with Real Presence and Sacrifice.”26 The chief
architect of the 1637 revision was James Wedderburn, Bishop of Dunblane. Wedderburn was an
erudite liturgical scholar, well versed in patristic and early liturgical texts. He was also a
“Scottish Canterburian,” in favor with Charles I and Archbishop Laud, and a foe of Scottish
Presbyterianism.27 While Laud and Wedderburn were agreed in eucharistic doctrine, Laud
would have simply introduced the English Liturgy into Scotland, while Wedderburn would
have desired a wholesale restoration of the 1549 Mass. Soon, however, Wedderburn convinced
Laud of the desirability of extensive changes in the direction of 1549, while Laud succeeded in
preserving some of the current English order.28
Wedderburn carefully restored 1549 order and wording in order to clearly express a
belief in Real Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice. All of the offertory rubrics and language were
restored. The new rubrics directed the celebrant to “humbly present [the oblation of bread and
wine] before the Lord, and set it upon the holy Table.” Much of the 1549 wording of the Prayer
for the Church (now still in the 1552 position) was re-inserted, including commemorations of
the faithful departed and of the Saints. Furthermore, the congregation was spoken of as being
29
assembled to “celebrate the commemoration of Christ’s Death and Sacrifice.” The most
extensive restorations occurred within the Eucharistic Prayer itself. The 1549 epiclesis was
reintroduced, with the addition of three short words which identified the elements with
Christ’s Body and Blood: “so that we receiving them … may be partakers of the same his most
precious Body and Blood.” Rubrics for the manual acts at the Words of Institution were
25
Ibid, 18.
26
Echlin, 109.
27
Ibid, 107.
28
29
Echlin, 122-125.
42
restored. The Oblation, or anamnesis, was reinserted within the Prayer of Consecration, with
some choice differences in wording, connecting the “holy gifts” with the celebration of “the
Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make; having in remembrance his blessed Passion,
mighty Resurrection, and glorious Ascension…” The words “the most precious Body and Blood
of thy Son Jesus Christ” are restored and connected with Cranmer’s majestic phrase, “Made one
body with him, that he may dwell in them, and they in him.” 30 The Prayer of Humble Access was
moved back to its proper place, after the Consecration and before Communion. Likewise, the
Lord’s Prayer (with the addition of a doxology) was restored as the ancient climax of the
Canon.31 And finally, the original 1549 Words of Administration were restored (“The Body of
our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc.), without the addition of the receptionist formulas of 1552 (“Take
and eat this in remembrance,” etc.).32
The attempted, heavy-handed introduction of the Scottish Prayer Book, with its
radically revised Communion Office, was violently resisted by the Presbyterian majority in
Scotland. When the services were first celebrated at St. Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh, a riot
broke out to cries of “The Mass is entered amongst us!”33 This incident signaled the beginning
of the massive Puritan revolution against the Monarchy and the Church of England, which
would result in the executions of both Charles I (in 1649) and Archbishop Laud (in 1645) under
Oliver Cromwell’s reign of terror. It didn’t help the new Scottish Liturgy that its name had
become associated with Laud, the English scourge of Puritanism, and with English supremacy.
Although he himself had always used the official Liturgy of England, at his trial Laud did not
deny his admiration for the 1637 Liturgy as a return to ancient Christian doctrine and practice:
And though I shall not find fault with the order of the prayers as they stand in the
Communion-book of England (for, God be thanked, ‘tis well;) yet, if a comparison must be
made, I do think the order of the prayers, as now they stand in the Scottish Liturgy, to be
the better, and more agreeable to use in the primitive Church; and I believe, they which are
learned will acknowledge it. 34
30
Ibid, 128-129.
31
Ibid, 130.
32
Ibid, 132.
33
Moorman, 228.
34
43
Though Scotland itself immediately rejected the new Prayer Book, its making “the
process of its making had founded a Scottish school and tradition of liturgical scholarship”35
within Anglicanism that would have “profound formative upon all subsequent revisions” of
Anglican Liturgy in the direction of both 1549 and the ancient Liturgies of the Church.36 Later
High Church Anglicans, inspired by the examples of Caroline Eucharistic practice and reform,
took their inspiration from 1637. The 1637 Scottish Liturgy represented the definite breaking
apart of two distinct Anglican Eucharistic traditions: namely, “the Catholic tradition of 1549
and the Evangelical tradition of 1552.”37 In the Eucharistic Canon of 1637, “the main structural
repairs had been done” to the rite that Cranmer so radically altered in 1552.38
35
Parsons and Jones, 40-41.
36
37
Echlin, 134-135.
38
Frere, Anaphora, 202.
44
VIII. The Influence of the Non-Jurors
The true heirs of the liturgical thought and practice of the Caroline Divines were the
so-called “Non-Jurors.” The Non-Juring schism began with group of eight bishops, some 400
priests and some laity who were excluded from the established Church of England in 1689,
having refused to swear an oath of allegiance to England’s new continental Protestant
monarchs, William of Orange and Queen Mary. Among the deprived bishops were High Church
luminaries such as William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Ken, Bishop of
Bath and Wells. As a result of their continued refusal to break their previous oath to King James
II, the Non-Jurors became a de facto parallel, but illicit, Anglican church, made up almost entirely
of men of High Church persuasion. Not only were they principled in terms of the sanctity of
their oath to the Stuarts and their belief in the Divine Right of Kings, but they also held a high
view of the Church, and especially her liturgical rites. Building upon the work of the Caroline
Divines, the most advanced among the Non-Jurors (newly freed from the sponsorship and thus
the dictation and interference of the State) pushed their patristic and antiquarian tendencies to
their logical conclusion, and eventually produced their own liturgical rites along the lines of the
ancient Oriental Liturgies.1
The liturgical practices and teachings of these most advanced members of the Non-
Juring communion eventually led to a schism within its ranks, between the “Usagers” (those
who advocated a radical return to ancient liturgical practice) and the “Non-Usagers” (those who
would not depart from the current liturgical practice of the established Church of England). In
essence, “Whereas the non-Usagers looked back in a continuous line to the Reformation for
their eucharistic thought and guidance, the Usagers looked back further, to the first four
centuries, for their authority.”2 In fact, the Non-Jurors’ genius lay in their “courage to disregard
the need for any liturgical continuity with the Reformation Church of England and taking the
1
Bouyer, 426; Echlin, 165; Prayer Book Studies, 80.
2
Smith, 37.
45
important task of creating liturgy that would fully comply with their deepest beliefs” in the
ideals of the ancient Church.3
Specifically, the “Usagers” (headed by four bishops: Jeremy Collier, Thomas Brett,
Thomas Wagstaffe, and Thomas Deacon4) advocated a return to four ancient observances,
found in all the ancient Eastern Liturgies as well as in the first English Liturgy of 1549, but not
found in the official Anglican Liturgy since 1552 – (1) the mixing of some water with wine at
the Offertory, (2) prayer for the faithful departed within the context of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice, (3) an explicit prayer for the Oblation of the eucharistic gifts to God the Father,
within the Eucharistic Prayer, and (4) an Invocation (epiclesis) of the Holy Spirit to consecrate
the gifts. The Usagers regarded these usages as being not merely desirable but actually
“necessary, primtive, and catholic parts of divine worship, and therefore that no human
authority can abolish or dispense with our obligation to the practice of them.”5
Most of their ideas and doctrines concerning the Eucharist were derived from John
Johnson (1662-1725), Rector of Cranbrook in Kent, a High Church divine. “There are no
theological writings more frequently referred to by the nonjuring theologians, and none
referred to with greater respect, than those of Johnson.”6 A man of the Establishment who used
the 1662 Communion Office, Johnson taught eucharistic doctrines which could not be derived
from that liturgy. The Non-Jurors simply adopted his teaching and put it into practice in their
revisions.7 In sharp contrast to the Protestant Reformers, Johnson affirmed that Christ offered
himself as a Sacrifice at the Last Supper, and completed this Sacrifice upon the Cross:
Christ entered upon his Priestly Office in the Eucharist … there he began the One Oblation;
there he offered himself in a spiritual mystical Manner, as he afterwards did corporally on the
Cross … In the institution of the Eucharist this Sacrifice was first made, in our Saviour’s Will
and Intention; then that he made the tender of his Body and Blood, after which the actual
payment presently followed …8
3
Smith, 39.
4
Ibid, 3.
5
Ibid, 15.
6
Dowden, 51.
7
Grisbrooke, 71.
8
The Unbloody Sacrifice of the Altar [1714], quoted in Echlin, 168.
46
And Johnson posited that Christians, when they celebrate the Eucharist, participate in this
Sacrifice in a real sense. For Johnson, the Eucharist is nothing less than “the Sacrifice of the
Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ … the most sublime and divine Sacrifice that Men or
Angels can offer.”9 More specifically, Johnson believed that in the Eucharist we offer
the Bread and Wine, substituted by the Divine Lord for his own Body and Blood; and upon
which God at the Prayers of the Priest and People, sends down his peculiar spiritual
Benediction, by which it becomes a Sacrifice of a sweet-smelling Savour, as being therefore fully
consecrated into the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, and therefore fit therewith to
propitiate the Divine Mercy.10
Johnson went further than any of his Caroline predecessors in positing a “true but not
substantial” (read: material) Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. “By true, he meant that the
force, dignity, and effect of Christ’s Body was present even before reception.”11 But by “not
substantial” he meant to repudiate, like his predecessors, what he understood as the grossly
materialistic Roman doctrine of transubstantiation: “They are the mysterious Body and Blood …
I mean neither substantial nor yet merely figurative, but the middle between these Extremes,
viz. the Bread and Wine made the Body and Blood of Christ, by the secret Power of the
Spirit…”12 While he repudiated a grossly materialistic concept of transubstantiation, Johnson
also with equal vehemence repudiated receptionism: “Indeed, if the Eucharist were not the
Body and Blood before Distribution, it could not be made so by a Post-fact of the
Communicants; for Faith can give Existence to nothing; cannot make That present which is
absent.”13 Another of Johnson’s teachings which would have profound influence upon the Non-
Jurors and thus upon the subsequent history of the Anglican Liturgy was his belief that the
Words of Institution alone cannot suffice for the consecration, but also the Oblation of the
elements to the Father and the Invocation of the Spirit “contribute toward the Consecration of
the Elements into the Body and Blood.”14
9
Ibid, 169.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid, 170.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid, 171.
47
Following Johnson and the Caroline Divines, the Non-Jurors held the Eucharist was not
merely a sacrament, but also a true and real sacrifice of bread and wine, offered by the priest to
God in union with the one Sacrifice of Christ. They believed that in teaching this, they were in
agreement with the Fathers of the Church as well as the majority of the revisers of the 1549
Liturgy. The Eucharist was a sacrifice which Christ himself commanded the disciples to make at
the Last Supper, a commemorative sacrifice of his Body slain and Blood shed in his Passion and
Death. 15 In the words of Thomas Deacon, the priest
does as Christ did ... he next repeats our Saviour’s powerful words ‘This is my Body,’ ‘This is my
Blood’ over the Bread and Cup. The effect of the words is that the Bread and Cup are made
authoritative Representations or symbols of Christ’s crucified Body and of His Blood shed;
and in consequence they are in a capacity of being offered to God as the great Christian
Sacrifice ... God accepts the Sacrifice and returns it to us again to feast upon, in order that we
may be thereby partakers of all the benefits of our Saviour’s Death and Passion. The Bread and
Cup become capable of conferring these benefits on the priest praying to God the Father to
send the Holy Spirit upon them. The Bread and Cup are thereby made the Spiritual, Life-
giving Body and Blood of Christ, in Power and Virtue.16
The Non-Jurors’ doctrine of the Real Presence has been described as “dynamic
virtualism” – the idea that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the consecrated elements
“in virtue, power and effect.” In the words of Brett: “I do believe the bread and wine to be the
only body and blood appointed to be received in the Holy Eucharist. And I believe them to be
his sacramental flesh and blood, that is, the full and perfect representative of his body and blood
in power and effect.”17 They vehemently repudiated transubstantiation (which they understood
in a grossly materialistic sense), as well as consubstantiation, and in general they did not engage
in discussions of the modus or manner of the consecration and the perduring Presence in the
elements.18 They also explicitly rejected Cranmer’s receptionist doctrine of “partaking by faith,”
as Brett illustrates:
If Christ can only be eaten by Faith, then it is not the consecration but the Faith of the
communicants or of the single communicant for himself that makes the Bread Christ’s Body.
If so, when Christ Himself consecrated the Bread and Cup at the institution, He did not
make them His Body and Blood, but His disciples made them by their Faith. But Christ said
they were His Body and Blood before His disciples could have faith to believe them to be so and
therefore He made them His Body and Blood by Consecration; the disciples did not make
15
Smith, 26.
16
Quoted in Henry Broxap, “Appendix II: The Non–Jurors’ Doctrine and Ceremonies.” From The Later Non-Jurors
(1928). Project Canterbury. <http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/nonjurors/broxapapp2.pdf>
17
Smith, 23.
18
Smith, 23; Broxap.
48
them so by their faith and when Christ had made the Bread His Body and the Cup His Blood
they eat and drink that Body and Blood with their mouths and not by their faith.19
The Non-Jurors also made a major leap forward for Anglican theologians in their
understanding of Eucharistic adoration. For Brett, “We do adore Him. We draw near to the
Holy Table or Altar with reverence and worship Him Whom we believe invisibly yet in a more
especial manner present there … spiritually and sacramentally present though not corporally.”20
The Usager Non-Jurors in 1718 issued their version of the Liturgy, newly restructured
and supplemented with materials from ancient oriental liturgies. Precedent for such
rearrangement and supplementation could be found in many of the earlier Carolines such as
Bishop Andrewes. The new liturgy was described as “agreeable to the primitive liturgies, taking
in as much of the present established office as might be conveniently done.”21 Before this, the
Non-Jurors (both Usagers and Non-Usagers) had been using the 1662 order (rearranged and
sometimes supplemented) or the 1549 order. But now, aware of their new freedom from
Erastian shackles, the Non-Jurors took the opportunity to make such a radical revision, which
was deemed to be necessary, since, according to their studies, “the only sense that could be made
out of the established liturgy was a Calvinist one.”22
The main architects of the new Liturgy were Bishops Jeremy Collier and Thomas Brett,
probably with assistance from two Scottish divines, Bishops Archibald Campbell and James
Gadderar.23 The Liturgy was a significant return to Cranmer’s 1549 texts for the Anamnesis, the
Invocation and the Intercessions (Prayer for the Church). However, in imitation of oriental
patterns, they departed from the order of 1549 in placing the Invocation after the Institution
narrative, and the Intercessions at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer. Furthermore, they inserted
a whole section of the Liturgy of St. James, in place of Cranmerian texts, into the first part of the
Eucharistic Prayer following the Preface and Sanctus.24 This text from St. James was a grand
introductory thanksgiving for the whole of salvation history from Creation to Redemption.
19
Quoted in Broxap.
20
Quoted in Broxap.
21
Grisbrooke, 94.
22
Smith, 30.
23
Dowden, 59; Prayer Book Studies, 81.
24
Bouyer, 426.
49
Likewise, for the prayer of oblation and the epiclesis, the Liturgy of the eighth book of the
Apostolic Constitutions was consulted.25 And finally, to the Intercessions, newly transported to the
end of the Eucharistic Prayer, the 1549 commemorations of the faithful departed and of the
Saints were restored.26 The new placement of the Intercessions, for the Non-Jurors, emphasized
that “the chief act of Christ’s intercession, as a priest, was performed at the institution of the
eucharist.” For the Non-Jurors, the Eucharist was in some sense propitiatory for the living and
the dead, just as “Christ offered the sacrifice of himself for the dead as well as for the living.”27
While the most significant changes were to the Eucharistic Prayer, the 1718 Liturgy also
featured a significant revision of the introductory part of the Liturgy. As in 1549, the 1718
Liturgy began with a whole proper Introit Psalm, followed by a Salutation, a three-fold Kyrie, and
a completely new feature, the Summary of the Law from Matthew 22:37-40 (to replace the
recitation of the 1552 Decalogue). The Offertory also underwent considerable enrichment. As in
the ancient Liturgies and 1549, there was an explicit ceremonial preparation of bread and water
mixed with wine, accompanied by a new Offertory prayer (based on the Liturgy of St. Basil),
which identified the elements with the “Unbloody Sacrifice” of the Eucharist.28 As in the 1637
Scottish Liturgy, the 1549 Words of the Administration (“The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ” etc.)
were restored without the 1559 addition of the 1552 receptionist forms (“Take and eat this in
remembrance” etc.) Other returns to ancient and 1549 features were: (1) The restoration of the
Salutation before the Sursum Corda; (2) The restoration of the second half of the Sanctus
(Benedictus qui venit), (but including the 1552 ending as well); (3) The return of the Lord’s Prayer to
its proper place immediately after the Consecration and before Communion; and (4) The return
of the Communion Devotions (Invitation, General Confession, Absolution, Comfortable Words
and the Prayer of Humble Access) to their original position between Consecration and
Communion.29
25
Smith, 14.
26
Ibid, 30.
27
Ibid, 31.
28
Ibid, 14.
29
50
The Non-Juring Liturgy of 1718, though a small minority used it for a relatively short
period of time, has had a profound influence on the development of the Anglican Liturgy to
this day. “The adoption of the liturgy of 1718 was the beginning of a development in doctrine
and in worship which went to lengths that the Fathers of the Nonjuring movement in 1689
could hardly have foreseen.”30 The immediate impact of the 1718 Liturgy can be seen in the
formation of the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, which in turn led to the development of the first
American Liturgy of 1789 and, in fact, most of the early twentieth century revisions of the
Anglican Liturgy.31 In fact, it may not be an exaggeration to argue that the 1718 Liturgy should
be “regarded as a primary source of all the Anglican rites descended from the Scottish Liturgy
of 1764.”32 And it can be safely argued that the Antiochian Orthodox Liturgy of Saint Tikhon,
inasmuch as many of its prayers and especially its Eucharistic Canon derive from the Scottish-
American liturgical tradition, owes much to these courageous eighteenth-century Non-Jurors
who sought to return to the faith and practice of the Church of the ancient Fathers. In this
connection, it may be helpful to mention something of the Non-Jurors’ efforts to reunite with
the Eastern Orthodox Church.
In 1716, a group of Non-Juring bishops (consisting mainly of Archibald Campbell,
Nathaniel Spincks, and Jeremy Collier) approached Arsenios, Metropolitan of Thebais, in the
Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria, who was visiting England at the time to solicit financial
assistance for the Patriarchate. The Non-Jurors boldly proposed a union between the
“Remnant” of the “British Catholicks” and the Orthodox Churches. A fascinating
correspondence was thus begun between the Non-Jurors and the Church of Alexandria, and
later the Churches of Russia, Jerusalem and Constantinople. Czar Peter the Great became aware
of the discussions, became a champion of the proposed union, and acted as the Non-Jurors’
intermediary. The Non-Jurors forwarded a proposal for reunion between “the Orthodox and
Catholic remnant of the British Churches and the Catholic and Apostolic Oriental Church,”
30
Grisbrooke, 111.
31
Echlin, 166.
32
Grisbrooke, 112.
51
parts of which pleased the Eastern Patriarchs, and other parts of which mystified or offended
them. For their part, the Non-Jurors were also mystified and offended at such things as the
Orthodox insistence (at that time) on the language of “transubstantiation.” There is a great
irony in the fact that the Non-Jurors, whose only real knowledge of Eastern Christendom came
from reading the Greek Fathers and ancient Oriental Liturgies, perhaps had a better grasp on
this particular aspect of Orthodox eucharistic doctrine than did the Orthodox at that time. For
these and other reasons, the discussions did not yield any concrete results. 33
It is interesting, however, to note that the Non-Jurors, as early as 1716, presented to the
Patriarchs the main outlines of what would become the 1718 Liturgy. Among the proposals
forwarded to the Patriarchs, the Non-Jurors asked “that the most ancient English liturgy, as more
near approaching the manner of the Oriental Church, be in the first place restored with such
proper additions and alterations as may be agreed upon, to render it still more comfortable to
that and the primitive standard.”34 And, although the Patriarchs noted that it might be easier for
the Non-Jurors simply to adopt the Byzantine Liturgy, they also expressed a real willingness to
consider allowing the Non-Jurors to celebrate their 1718 Liturgy:
As for matters of Custom and Ecclesiastical order, and for the form and discipline of
administering the Sacraments; they will be easily settled when once a Union is effected. For, it
is evident from Ecclesiastical history, that there both have been and now are different customs
and regulations in different places and Churches; and yet the Unity of Faith and Doctrine is
preserved the same . . . it is necessary we should both see and read [the Non-Juring English
Rite]; and then either approve of it as right, or reject it as disagreeable to our unspotted Faith.
When therefore we have considered it, if it needs correction we will correct it; and if possible,
will give it the sanction of a genuine form.35
It is interesting, then, that more than two centuries later, the Orthodox Church of Antioch in
North America would authorize for Orthodox use a form of the Anglican Liturgy profoundly
influenced by the doctrines of the Non-Jurors.36
33
Pinnington, 156-191. The fascinating text of the Non-Juring/Eastern correspondence may be found in George
Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century (London: Rivingtons, 1868).
34
Quoted in Dowden, 59.
35
Quoted in William Schneirla, “The Western Rite in the Orthodox Church.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly,
Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 1958), p. 22-23.
36
Credit is due to the Very Reverend John Charles Connely, who, in his essay “Lux Occidentalis,” pointed out
these connections between the Non-Jurors and the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon.
52
IX. The Influence of the Scottish–American Liturgical Tradition
The Non-Juring communion, which had been so bitterly divided on issues of liturgy
and eucharistic doctrine since 1716, was reunited in 1732 on the condition that if the 1662
Liturgy could be celebrated with the four usages which were regarded by some as obligatory.
However, during the course of the eighteenth century, the number of Non-Jurors began to
1
dwindle rapidly. The last English Non-Juring bishop, Charles Booth, died in 1805. The
doctrines and liturgical practices of the Non-Jurors, however, were inherited by the Episcopal
Church of Scotland. The Scottish Church, in fact, was a “non-juring” church as it never
accepted the accession of William and Mary in 1688, and maintained ties with the English
Non-Juring bishops.
Ever since the violent rejection of the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, the worship of the
Scottish Episcopal Church itself was largely non-liturgical and, “for all intents and purposes
indistinguishable from the worship of the Scottish Presbyterians.”2 But around the beginning
of the eighteenth century, a Non-Juring influenced movement began to restore the use of the
1637 Liturgy. At the forefront of this movement was Bishop James Gadderar, who had himself
assisted the English Non-Jurors in the framing of their 1718 Liturgy. In 1722, Gadderar had
partially reprinted the 1637 Liturgy, from the Offertory on, under the title “The Communion
Office of the Church of Scotland, as far as concerneth the Ministration of that Holy Sacrament
… Authorized by K. Charles I. Anno 1636.” This was the first of the “Wee Bookies,” affectionately
so called since they were meant to be supplemental pamphlets, to be used along with the
current 1662 Prayer Book of England. These “Wee Bookies” were by no means official,
representing “emergent custom, not legislation. They grew, as the primitive liturgies grew, by
the contributions of individual leaders, and they competed with each other on their own
merits.” 3 In 1731, the Scottish bishops formally recognized the 1637 Scottish Liturgy as well as
the 1662 English Liturgy as the official liturgies of the Scottish Episcopal Church. And with the
1
J. W. C. Wand, The High Church Schism (Ch. III, section IV). Project Canterbury. < http://justus.anglican.org/
resources/pc/nonjurors/wand3.html >
2
Grisbrooke, 150.
3
53
official recognition of the 1637 Liturgy came also an indirect sanction of two of the Non-
Juring “Usages” – the prayer of Oblation within the Eucharistic Prayer, and the Invocation of
the Holy Spirit upon the elements.4 Thus, in many places, the 1637 Liturgy was revived, while in
other dioceses the English Prayer Book was used.
Furthermore, though many of the “wee bookies” were exact reproductions of the 1637
office, it became very common in certain localities for bishops and clergy to freely change the
order of the parts. Bishop Gadderar himself considered it legitimate to rearrange the order of
the Prayer of Consecration, in order to approximate the “Orientalized” pattern of the Non-
Juror’s 1718 Liturgy.5 A major leap forward came in 1735 with the printing of a pamphlet,
containing the 1637 text, but (in the words of the title) with “All the parts … ranked in the
natural order.” By the natural order was meant the order of the classic Eastern anaphoras as
discerned by the Non-Jurors.6 Two other significant changes occurred in this 1735 pamphlet:
the interpolation of the words (in bold capitals) “WHICH WE NOW OFFER UNTO THEE” into the
text of the Oblation, and the omission of the words “militant here in earth” from the Prayer for
the Church. These changes further reflected Non-Juring doctrines of Eucharistic Sacrifice and
intercession for the faithful departed.7 “Thus the Scottish liturgy reached the stage when the
order of the parts took the form that they now have, though there were still considerable
changes to be made, especially in the language of the invocation.”8
The further development of the Scottish Liturgy in a decidedly Eastern direction was
influenced in large part by the 1744 publication of Bishop Rattray’s important critical study,
The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem. Rattray, Bishop of Brechin and Primus of the
Scottish Church, was an avid disciple of the Non-Juring school of liturgical thought and
scholarship.9 Rattray’s critical text of the Liturgy of St. James consisted of his theoretical
“reconstruction” (on the basis, in part, of the “Clementine” Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions)
4
Ibid, 62; Grisbrooke, 152.
5
Ibid, 83; Dowden, 64.
6
Grisbrooke, 154.
7
Dowden, 65.
8
W. Perry, The Scottish Liturgy: Its Value and History (Ch. IV, 2). Project Canterbury. < http://justus.anglican.
org/resources/pc/alcuin/perry/chapter4.html >
9
Grisbrooke, 155.
54
of the early liturgy of Jerusalem, without (what he considered to be) the interpolations of later
ages. It was this Liturgy of St. James, which Rattray considered to be the norm to which all later
liturgies should conform, especially the Anglican Liturgy.10 Rattray’s scholarly and persuasive
study “convinced the abler and more intelligent of the Scottish clergy that there was ‘a more
excellent way’ than the Communion Office of 1637 or the modifications of it that were then
current.”11 More specifically, Rattray’s model convinced many Scottish churchmen that,
contrary to all forms of the Anglican Liturgy since 1549 (save 1718), the Invocation of the Holy
Spirit should follow, not precede, the Institution Narrative, and that the Intercession (Prayer
for the Church) should follow the Consecration Prayer.12
The practical result of Rattray’s scholarly work was the formation of the 1764 version
of the Scottish Liturgy. This edition of the Scottish Liturgy, the work of two Scottish bishops,
William Falconar and Robert Forbes, was to become the “classic” form of the Scottish Liturgy,
influencing almost all later nineteenth- and twentieth-century revisions of the Anglican
Liturgy.13 It is definitely a liturgy of the Non-Juring family, being influenced by the Liturgy of
1718 as well as Rattray’s edition of the Liturgy of St. James. Its dependence on the Non-Jurors
can be seen principally in “the general structure the general structure and arrangement of the
service as a whole, and the internal structure of the Prayer of Consecration.”14
Non-Juring influence can be seen not only in the order of the prayers but also in certain
interpolations and slight changes in the wording of the Consecration itself. As in the
aforementioned 1735 “wee bookie,” the clause “WHICH WE NOW OFFER UNTO THEE” was added
to the Oblation. There was also a slight but significant re-wording of Cranmer’s clause about
Christ’s Sacrifice. Falconar and Forbes felt that Cranmer’s words were too carefully and
deliberately limited: “who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered), a full, perfect,
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” Thus, in order to
10
Dowden, 72-73.
11
Grisbrooke, 156.
12
13
Ibid, 85.
14
Grisbrooke, 156.
55
emphasize the Non-Juring doctrine that Christ’s Sacrifice was actually offered at the Last
Supper but completed upon the Cross, Falconar and Forbes omitted the limiting word “there.”
Furthermore, they substituted “own” for “one” in order to emphasize the voluntary nature of
Christ’s self-offering.15 Thus, “with one stroke the narrowly Protestant character of the formula
was attenuated, and the idea so dear to the Non-Jurors that the oblation that made the Cross a
sacrifice took place at the Supper was given expression.”16
The 1764 Prayer of Consecration did not follow the Non-Jurors in the interpolation of
an entire recounting of salvation history from an Eastern anaphora. Falconar and Forbes
wanted to stick as close as possible to the familiar wording of the Anglican Prayer of
Consecration. But, at the same time, they was greatly improved the prayer stylistically with the
addition of the exordium “All glory be to thee” before Cranmer’s rather abrupt original
beginning (“Almighty God, our heavenly Father”). Since 1552, the Sanctus concluded with the
words “Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High,” Cranmer’s English interpretation of the Hebrew
Hosanna. Thus, with the addition of “All glory be to thee” to the Consecration, Falconar and
Forbes restored an ancient feature of the Eastern anaphoras: the connecting link between the
Eucharistic Preface and Sanctus with the Prayer of Consecration, and an emphasis on “what was
once one unbroken supplication.”17 For the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, Falconar and Forbes
adopted the form of 1637, which connected the elements with a perduring Real Presence:
“vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of
bread and wine, that they may become the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son.”18
Furthermore, following the Non-Jurors, the Invocation was placed in the “Eastern position”
(following the Institution Narrative and the Oblation of the elements).
The 1764 Scottish Liturgy also featured a “vividly Sacrificial Offertory.” The selection
of Offertory verses (those used privately by Lancelot Andrewes) and the Offertory rubric itself
(identifying the elements as an oblation to God) were derived from 1637. The unmistakably
15
Ibid, 157.
16
Bouyer, 427.
17
Prayer Book Studies, 84; Bouyer, 427.
18
Echlin, 199-200.
56
sacrificial character of the 1764 Offertory rite was further underscored by the addition of an
Invitation (“Let us present our offerings to the Lord with reverence and godly fear”) as well as an
Offertory prayer (based on King David’s prayer in I Chronicles 29):19
Blessed be thou, O Lord God, for ever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the glory,
and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine: thine is
the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all: both riches and honour come of
thee, and of thine own do we give unto thee. Amen.
As in the Non-Juring Liturgy of 1718, the Prayer for the Church (according to the 1637
wording) followed the Consecration, in imitation of Eastern precedents. “It is obvious that all
these displacements have no other purpose than to reproduce the West Syrian order,
popularized by the Non-Jurors’ liturgies and especially by Ratteray’s [sic].”20 This placement also
helped to reinforce the emphasis on the Eucharist as a Sacrifice for the living and the dead,
made in union with all the Saints at rest. To the words “alms” they added “and oblations,”
referring to the Eucharistic elements; and the Eucharist was spoken of as the celebration of
Christ’s Death “and Sacrifice.”21 The Invitation, General Confession, Absolution, Comfortable
Words and Prayer of Humble Access were put in their original 1549 (and 1718) position,
immediately preceding Communion. Cranmer in 1552 had transferred them well before the
Consecration, perhaps in order to disallow any notion of Real Presence.22 The 1764 Liturgy
concluded with the normal 1552 ending (including the Thanksgiving, Gloria in excelsis, and
Blessing), but with a newly composed bidding before the Thanksgiving:23
Having now received the precious Body and Blood of Christ, let us give thanks to our Lord
God, who hath graciously vouchsafed to admit us to the participation of his holy Mysteries;
and let us beg of him grace to perform our vows, and to persevere in our good resolutions; and
that being made holy, we may obtain everlasting life, through the merits of the all-sufficient
Sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The Scottish Liturgy of 1764 became an immensely influential rite, and represents a
major turning point in the development of the Anglican Eucharistic Liturgy. It has been
admired by many liturgists as a masterpiece of liturgical workmanship. This classic form of the
19
Ibid,
20
Bouyer, 428.
21
Echlin, 200.
22
Ibid, 202.
23
Grisbrooke, 347.
57
Scottish Liturgy served as an inspiration for almost all modern Prayer Book revisions. And most
importantly for the development of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, the 1764 Liturgy was the
“immediate predecessor” of the first Liturgy of the American Episcopal Church, which (in its
1892 form) was examined by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, eventually to be reformed
according to their response and put into use by the Antiochian Archdiocese in 1977.
The connecting link between the Scottish and American Churches was Samuel Seabury,
the first Bishop of Connecticut, who brought the Scottish Liturgy of 1764 to the fledgling
United States after his consecration in Aberdeen, Scotland in 1784. Before Seabury,
congregations of the Church of England in the New World naturally adhered the English
Prayer Book. From 1607 to 1662, colonial American Anglicans used the 1559 Elizabethan
Communion Office, and after the Restoration of the Church of England, they used the 1662
Communion Office. Moreover, American Anglicans were under the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of London. However, with the outbreak of the Revolution in 1776, many American Anglicans
desired a native hierarchy. The Church of Connecticut was the first to elect its own Bishop,
Samuel Seabury, who was sent for consecration not by English Bishops (who would have
required an oath of allegiance to the King), but by Scottish Non-Juring Bishops. 24 In 1784,
Samuel Seabury was consecrated by Robert Kilgour, Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus of the
Scottish Church, and two other Scottish bishops.25
Seabury’s Scottish consecration was not merely an act of expediency. Seabury himself
shared with the Scottish Bishops the general theological and liturgical outlook of the Non-
Jurors. In particular, Seabury shared with his Scottish consecrators a high view of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Real Presence.26 In particular, Seabury (following John Johnson)
believed the Eucharist to be more than a mere “offering of representative elements together
with a pleading of Christ’s Sacrifice.” It was in fact no less than an offering of Christ’s own
24
Echlin, 205.
25
Langstaff, 192.
26
Echlin, 208.
58
Sacrifice, an oblation of his Body and Blood.27 Seabury wrote that the early Christians
considered the Eucharist to be “the Christian Sacrifice”:
commemorative of the great sacrifice of atonement which Christ had made for the sins of the
whole world wherein, under the symbols of bread and the cup, the body and blood of Christ which
he offered up, and which were broken and shed upon the cross, are figured forth and being
presented to God our heavenly Father by his Priest here on earth, the merits of Christ for the
remission of sins, are pleaded by him, and we trust by the great High Priest Himself in heaven.28
Seabury regarded the consecrated elements to be the “mystical Body of Christ”, which is a
“memorial or representative of that Body which Christ in the institution willingly offered up
and devoted to God, a sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the world; and which in
consequence of His offering, was soon after slain upon the cross for our redemption.”29
Seabury, like all his Anglican predecessors, firmly rejected what he understood as the
Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. But he did teach a “mystical and spiritual” Real
Presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements. He did not believe the nature of the bread and
wine to be “destroyed” at the Consecration, but that the nature of the bread and wine undergo a
“change” at the Consecration, whereby they are made what they are not by nature – namely, the
Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ:
Thus I say that we see that by the Consecration of the Eucharist, the Bread and Cup are not
destroyed but sanctified: they are changed not in their Substance, but in their qualities: they
are made, not the natural, but the Sacramental Body of Christ: so that they are both Bread
and Wine and the Body and Blood of Christ, at the same time, but not in the same manner.
They are Bread and Wine by nature, the Body and Blood of Christ in Mystery and
signification. They are Bread and Wine to our senses, the Body and Blood of Christ to our
Understanding and they are Bread and Wine in themselves, the Body and Blood of Christ in
power and effect.30
Thus, Seabury was original in his attempts to explain an objective change in the consecrated
elements while steering clear of the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. This was more than
even John Johnson and the Non-Jurors were prepared to say, although his language continued
to be Non-Juring (e.g. “in power and effect”).31
Like the Non-Jurors, Seabury was convinced that the current (1552-1662) Eucharistic
forms of the Church of England were grossly inadequate when compared with the Liturgies of
27
Ibid, 209.
28
Of the Holy Eucharist, in Seabury’s Discourses on Several Subjects (1815); quoted in Ibid, 210.
29
An Earnest Persuasive to Frequent Communion (1789), quoted in Ibid, 211
30
Lectures upon the Church Catechism; quoted in Ibid, 215.
31
Ibid, 215.
59
the ancient Church. In fact, referring to the 1662 Communion Office, he once remarked: “To
confess the truth, I hardly consider the form to be used as strictly amounting to a consecration.”32
For Seabury, the chief fault of the English Consecration Prayer was the absence of an explicit
Oblation of the elements and an Invocation of the Holy Spirit.33 It is hardly surprising, then, that
Seabury desired to link the Church of Connecticut to the Scottish Church, not only by episcopal
succession, but also liturgically. In order to express the unity of the new American Church with
her mother in Scotland, Seabury signed a concordat promising to introduce the Scottish Liturgy
of 1764 into the New World.34 Article V of this concordat read:
As the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, or administration of the Sacrament of the Body and
Blood of Christ, is the principal bond of union among Christians, as well as the most solemn
act of worship in the Christian Church, the Bishops aforesaid agree in desiring that there
may be as little variance here as possible: and though the Scottish Bishops are very far from
prescribing to their brethren in this matter, they cannot help ardently wishing that Bishop
Seabury would endeavour all he can, consistently with peace and prudence, to make the
celebration of this venerable mystery conformable to the most primitive doctrine and practice
in that respect, which is the pattern the Church of Scotland has copied after in her
Communion Office.35
In 1786, Seabury issued a Liturgy, almost identical to the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, for
the Diocese of Connecticut. A year earlier, however, a small convention of seven other
independent American dioceses met in Philadelphia in 1785 to issue a “Proposed Book” of
radically simplified services, representing “a sort of low-water-mark of churchmanship, bearing
marks of Puritan and even Unitarian influences.” This “Proposed Book” even eliminated the
Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and altered the text of the Apostles’ Creed.36 The English
Bishops, to whom the book was sent for approval, were shocked. The “Proposed Book” was
immediately rejected, to the delight of Seabury and the conservative churchmen of
Connecticut. A new convention of dioceses met in Philadelphia in 1789, and it was here that
Bishop Seabury convinced the new American Episcopal Church to adopt, at least in part, the
Liturgy of the Scottish Church.37 The new Eucharistic Liturgy of the American Church was
32
From the Memoirs of Bishop William White of Pennsylvania; quoted in Dowden, 103.
33
Echlin, 209.
34
Shepherd, xx; Langstaff, 193;
35
Quoted in Langstaff, 193-194.
36
37
Echlin, 207; Parsons and Jones, 52.
60
“essentially a conservative revision of the 1662 English Service and, for the Consecration, the
1764 Scottish Service.”38 In this way, “there was united in the liturgy of the American Church
the two streams of Anglican tradition, the English and the Scottish.”39
The American Prayer of Consecration is identical in order, and nearly identical in
wording, to the 1764 Scottish Prayer of Consecration. Like the Scottish, the American Prayer
begins with the thanksgiving for redemption, followed by the Institution Narrative, Oblation,
and Invocation. The Non-Juring Summary of the Law was included, but only as an addition to the
1552 Decalogue. In the Prayer for the Church, the words “here in earth” are omitted (although
the introduction to the prayer still contained the limiting phrase “Church militant”).40 There are
some major differences between the American and Scottish forms, however, as a result of
Seabury’s compromise with low churchmen. The most doctrinally significant divergence from
the Scottish Liturgy is the original American text of the Invocation. In 1786, the Diocese of
Maryland had originally rejected Seabury’s rite on the basis of the phrase: “that they may become
the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son.” In order to make the Invocation more
acceptable to Low Churchmen, therefore, the 1789 American Liturgy conflated the first part of
the 1764 Scottish text with the latter part of the 1662 English text:41
1662 ENGLISH 1764 SCOTTISH 1789 AMERICAN

Hear us, O merciful Father, And we most humbly beseech thee, And we most humbly beseech
we most humbly beseech O merciful Father, to hear us, and thee, O merciful Father, to
thee; and grant that we of thy almighty goodness vouchsafe hear us; and, of thy almighty
receiving these thy creatures of to bless and sanctify, with thy goodness, vouchsafe to bless
bread and wine, according to thy Word and holy Spirit, these thy and sanctify, with thy Word
Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's gifts and creatures of bread and and Holy Spirit, these thy
holy institution, in wine, that they may become gifts and creatures of bread
remembrance of his death and the Body and Blood of thy and wine; that we, receiving
passion, may be partakers of his most dearly beloved Son. them according to thy Son
most blessed Body and Blood. our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy
institution, in remembrance
of his death and passion, may
be partakers of his most
blessed Body and Blood.
38
Echlin, 232.
39
Shepherd, xxi.
40
Echlin, 233.
41
Ibid, 234.
61
Another significant divergence between the Scottish and American Liturgies was that
the latter returned to the 1552/1662 English positions the Prayer for the Church, Invitation,
General Confession, Absolution and Comfortable Words. Most unfortunately, the Prayer of
Humble Access was moved from its post-consecration 1549/Scottish position to the
1552/1662 position between the Sanctus and the Consecration (thus completely destroying the
link between “Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High” in the Sanctus with the new exordium “All
glory be to thee” in the Consecration).42
Thus, the American Episcopal Church in 1789 inherited from the Scottish Church a
precious liturgical treasure – the substance of the 1764 Prayer of Consecration. But because of
compromise with Low Churchmen, many of the doctrines for which Anglican High Churchmen
(and particularly the Non-Jurors) fought became obscured. It was this form of the American
Prayer of Consecration that was forwarded, in its slightly reformed 1892 version, by Archbishop
Tikhon Bellavin to the Holy Synod of Russia. Though the Holy Synod was not aware much of
the textual history of the Consecration, they did astutely note that it was far too reticent to use
clear and uncompromising language of Real Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice. It seems
doubtful, however, that the Synod would have been as negative about the American Prayer of
Consecration if the entire Scottish text of 1764 had been adopted in 1789.43
42
Parsons and Jones, 196. This unfortunate reversion to 1552 was remedied in the 1928 American Liturgy.
43
It is also interesting to note that it is not impossible that the Russian Synod’s 1904 response was somewhat
influential in the 1928 revision of the American Book of Common Prayer.
62
X. The Influence of the Oxford Movement and Ritualism
A real renaissance for the Anglican High Church movement was born in 1833 with the
protest of a small group of Oxford scholars against Erastianism and the increasing
secularization of the Church of England, symbolized by the “Reform Act” of Parliament to
eliminate a number of Irish bishoprics. The fathers of the Oxford Movement – John Keble, John
Henry Newman, Richard Hurrell Froude, and Edward Pusey – sought to foster a vision of “that
pure and Apostolical branch of Christ’s holy Church, which, as it is established in this our
country, we call ‘the Church of England.’”1 To do this, they emphasized in particular reliance
upon the Fathers of the Church, medieval writers, and the High Church Anglican divines of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Furthermore, they had a great reverence for the
traditional formularies of the Church of England, including the 1662 English Prayer Book,
which they believed was not only sufficiently catholic but a firm rule of faith. The leaders of the
Oxford Movement expressed their catholic vision for the Church of England in a series of essays
known as Tracts for the Times.
Like the Non-Jurors, the “Tractarians” (as they were called) were committed to a vision
of the Church Catholic as a spiritually independent entity, in continuity (by episcopal
succession) with the Apostolic Church and the Fathers of the Church, untouched by the
excesses of both “Romanism” and Protestantism.2 In order to recover this catholic vision, the
Tractarians and their disciples plunged deep into Christian antiquity, as their Caroline and Non-
Juring forbears did before them. In the words of Newman, the Tractarians “were upholding that
primitive Christianity which was delivered for all time by the early teachers of the Church and
which was registered and attested in the Anglican formularies and by the Anglican divines.”3 It
has been said that the Oxford Movement was “in large measure a rediscovery and
1
“Short Address to His Brethren on the Nature and Constitution of the Church of Christ, and of the Branch of it
Established in England.” Tracts for the Times, Number 5. Project Canterbury. <http://justus.anglican.org/resources/
pc/tracts/tract5.html>
2
Moorman, 341.
3
Quoted in Aidan Nichols, The Panther and the Hind: A Theological History of Anglicanism (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1993), 119.
63
reinterpretation of patristic theology.”4 While some Tractarians pined for pre-Reformation
England, the Oxford Movement was also profoundly influenced (as were the Carolines and
Non-Jurors) by the Greek Fathers, and particularly their insistence upon divine transcendence,
apophaticism, and incarnational Christocentrism. These commitments, along with their
reverence for antiquity and the authority of the Church, naturally shaped their theology of the
Holy Eucharist. “For the Tractarians the mystery of the unseen God, disclosed but not stripped
of its mystery-character in the Incarnation, was sacramentally present in the common life of the
Church.”5 In the Eucharist, according to John Keble, “is bestowed on each receiver by way of
most unspeakable participation and union that gift which is God himself, as well as having God
for its Giver.” The Eucharist was the true means by which Christians are truly made “partakers
of the divine nature.”
Naturally, following their High Church forebears, the Tractarians sought to get behind
the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in order to discern the authentic ancient Christian
understanding of Eucharistic Presence and Sacrifice. In this, however, a definite and dramatic
development can be seen in the eucharistic teachings of the Tractarians. They were distinctly
cautious in their early understanding of the Eucharist. The younger Keble and Newman, for
instance, seemed to teach eucharistic receptionism and deny that the Body and Blood of Christ
are given through the instrumentality of the eucharistic elements. However, their continued
studies in the Fathers of the Church and primitive liturgical practice brought them to a far
“higher” view of objective Real Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice, surpassing even the Caroline
and Non-Juring views. The Tractarians took their stand upon, and developed fully the
implications of, the words of the official Catechism of the Church of England (penned by the
Caroline divine Bishop John Overall): that the “inward part” of the Sacrament is “the Body and
Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s
4
Geoffrey Rowell, The Vision Glorious: Themes and Personalities of the Catholic Revival in Anglicanism. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1983), 9.
5
Nichols, 125.
64
Supper.”6 This developing “sacramental principle” of the Oxford Movement, “the very
foundation of the whole Tractarian theological edifice, thus naturally led the Tractarians to
belief in a real presence clearly connected with the elements.”7 It was beginning to dawn on
them that “in the eucharist the gifts themselves – quite apart from the benefit conferred
through their reception – were the body and blood of Christ.”8 They regarded this conception
of objective Real Presence as intimately and inseparably connected with an orthodox
Christology. Like all their Anglican forebears, the Tractarians rejected what they understood as
the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, along with the Lutheran theory of
consubstantiation, although they did believe in a definite, yet incomprehensible, “change” in
the elements as a consequence of the Consecration.9
With regard to the Tractarian doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, one can perceive
here also a gradual development of their thought. Like their Caroline and Non-Juring forebears,
the early Tractarians emphasized the essentially sacrificial character of all Christian worship,
“but the sacrifice offered was limited to the prayers and self-oblations of Christians in holy
obedience.” However, their developing “sacramentalism” prompted them to emphasize not
only a definite oblation of the eucharistic elements, but even a definite “unbloody” offering of
the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ to the Father.10 Due to the Oxford Movement,
therefore, the nineteenth century Church of England saw “the revival of clear and definite
teaching that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Sacrament under the form of
bread and wine, and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of the body and blood so present.”11 Here,
however, is something of a paradox. The Tractarians had gone further than their High Church
ancestors in recovering ancient and pre-Reformation notions of objective Real Presence and
Eucharistic Sacrifice. At the same time, the Tractarians did not themselves advocate (as the
Non-Jurors did) any drastic textual or ceremonial changes to the English Liturgy of 1662. While
6
Alf Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist (University of Uppsala, 1965), 124-125.
7
Hardelin, 147.
8
Hardelin, 154.
9
Hardelin, 178-179.
10
Hardelin, 219.
11
Stone, 646-647.
65
they did foster a more profound eucharistic piety and sought to restore frequent celebration,
the Tractarians themselves celebrated the Eucharist much in the same way that other Anglicans
did at the time. Some of them, indeed, did express a preference for the first English Liturgy of
1549. But given their high view of the authority of that branch of the Church Catholic called
“the Church of England,” they felt obliged to follow the letter of the Church’s official liturgical
formularies and legislation.
A new generation of catholic-minded Anglican clergy, however, began to put the
powerful Tractarian doctrines into concrete ritual and ceremonial practice. “Ritualism was
latent in Tractarianism, insofar as growing dogmatic conviction about the Eucharist as
sacrament and sacrifice inevitably suggested the need for external expression of what was thus
believed.”12 Many began to believe that the liturgical principles for which the Non-Jurors
fought could not be fully realized with the current 1662 Liturgy, no more than a modest
revision of the 1552 Liturgy, a product of compromise between High Churchmen and Puritans.
Therefore, the younger generation of Oxford inspired High Churchmen “found themselves
increasingly obliged … to go back behind the Prayer Books of 1552 and 1662 to the more
Catholic first Prayer Book of 1559, and even to interpolate within that rite prayers from the
Roman and Byzantine liturgies which could supply its defects.”13 Ample precedent for such
practices, of course, could be found in some of the Caroline Divines and the Non-Jurors. And
the seeds of this new “Ritualist” impulse could be seen Newman himself, who (shortly before his
famous conversion to Roman Catholicism) wrote: “You must make the Church more suitable to
the needs of the heart … Give us more services, more vestments and decorations in worship; …
give us the signs of an apostle, the pledges that the Spouse of Christ is among us.” 14 To the
mature Anglican Newman and the early Anglo-Catholic Ritualists, the Liturgy of the Church of
England seemed to be but “a ritual dashed upon the ground, and broken piecemeal.”15
12
Nichols, 126-127.
13
Nichols, 126.
14
Quoted in John Shelton Reed, Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism (London: Tufton
Books, 1998), 17.
15
Ibid.
66
Thus, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, many young Anglican clergy, inspired
by the ancient and medieval doctrines recovered by the Oxford Movement, began to express the
spirit of the Tracts for the Times through ceremonial, art, architecture and music. The Tractarian
recovery of a eucharistic piety based on a lively sense of the Real Presence “inevitably led to a
desire not only for more frequent celebrations … but also to the wish to surround the altar with
all that was bright and glorious, and to conduct the service with greater ceremonial.”16 Catholic-
minded Anglican clergy began to enrich the Eucharistic service with the eastward facing altars,
medieval vestments, candles and incense – things not seen in the Church of England since the
reign of Edward VI.17 The re-introduction of such elements into Church of England parishes led
to bitter controversies of Ritualists with militant evangelicals, bishops and courts of law. Some
Ritualist clergy were attacked by marauding bands of evangelical ruffians or even imprisoned
by court order for refusing to abandon their liturgical usages.
Many Ritualist clergy found a legal foundation for their usages in the famous
“Ornaments Rubric” of the 1559 Elizabethan Prayer Book. This rubric authorized “such
ornaments in the Church as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign
of King Edward VI according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of the book.” The
Ritualists argued that this referred not only to some of the old eucharistic vestments such as the
alb with chasuble or cope (all explicitly mentioned in the 1549 Prayer Book), but also all the
vestments, liturgical books, cloths and vessels of the medieval Sarum Use as they were still in use
under Edward VI. 18 Many Ritualists, accordingly, argued that the proper authority for ritual in the
Anglican Church could be found in the Sarum Use on the eve of the Reformation. Proponents of
this approach (later known as “English Use” or “Prayer Book Catholics”) tended to be more
faithful to the letter of the Prayer Book rubrics, as had their Tractarian forebears, but they
interpreted the rubrics in context of the Ornaments Rubric and thus the medieval English
16
Moorman, 365.
17
Moorman, 363.
18
Herbert Thurston. “Ritualism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912). < http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
13090a.htm >
67
ceremonial.19 “The proponents of the English Use took the view that the Church of England was a
branch of the Catholic Church with its own local ritual which owed nothing to the Counter-
Reformation or developments since.”20 Other Ritualist clergy, however, were far bolder in their
attempts to introduce contemporary Roman liturgical elements into English church life. Many of
the most advanced Ritualist clergy even began using the current Tridentine liturgical books
(Missal, Breviary and Ritual), either to heavily supplement, or even to replace, the Prayer Book
services. Advocates of the “Roman Use” or “Western Use” approach felt impressed to make use of
“a convenient and orderly ceremonial, worked out by experts in full operation throughout the
Continent of Europe.”21 “The proponents of the Western Use took the view that the Church of
England was a part of the Latin Church, which had unfortunately been separated from full
communion with Rome by local political differences in the Sixteenth Century.”22
Soon Ritualists of both persuasions began to produce ceremonial guides and liturgical
books which supplemented the rather sparse prayers and directions of the Book of Common
Prayer. The development of these unofficial, and often very secret, Anglo-Catholic liturgical
books may be likened to the private chapel usages of old High Church figures such as
Andrewes, and the numerous “Wee Bookies” which resulted in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764.
The first such Anglo-Catholic publication was Peter Goldsmith Medd’s A Priest to the Altar, or
Aids to the Devout Celebration of Holy Communion, Chiefly after the Ancient English Use of Sarum (first
edition, 1861). This book, designed to be an unofficial book of devotions for the celebrant,
drew not only upon the medieval Sarum Use but also from other local medieval English Uses,
ancient Latin Sacramentaries, Eastern Liturgies, and from authorized Anglican sources. It
included not only the 1662 English Liturgy (copiously interpolated with ancient and medieval
prayers), but also the texts of the Sarum (Roman) Canon, and the Consecration Prayers of the
1549 English, Scottish, and American rites.

19
E. G. P. Wyatt. “English or Roman Use?” Alcuin Club Tract XI (1913). Project Canterbury. < http://justus.
anglican.org/resources/pc/alcuin/tract11.html >
20
Rodney Warrener and Michael Yelton. Martin Travers, 1886-1948: An Appreciation. (London: Unicorn Press, 2003), 33-
34.
21
S. Gaselee. “The Aesthetic Side of the Oxford Movement.” Northern Catholicism. (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1933), 430.
22
Warrener and Yelton, 33.
68
A few of the more advanced partisans of the “Western Use” approach were not
unknown to drop Anglican usage altogether and discreetly adopted the use of the Missale
Romanum in Latin. Others were far less adventurous and “felt some degree of obligation to the
Prayer Book but who wished to enrich it by contemporary Roman provision rather than that of
ancient Sarum.”23 Orby Shipley’s The Ritual of the Altar (first edition, 1870) was the first
unofficial Anglo-Catholic altar-book to take such an approach. Shipley was a founding member
of the Society of the Holy Cross, a group of Anglo-Catholic clergy who advocated a moderate
“Western Use” approach. Shipley’s book reproduced the 1662 Liturgy verbatim, but with “all
the prayers and every direction from the Ordinary and Canon of the [Roman] Mass by which the
Liturgy of the English Church may be supplemented.”24 Further, proper texts for the season and
feasts throughout the year were included, including propers for many observances not found in
the Prayer Book. Furthermore, The Ritual of the Altar printed the entire Roman Canon of the
Mass around the text of the 1662 Prayer of Consecration, thus reflecting a common usage
amongst Anglo-Catholic clergy to recite the 1662 text aloud, while reciting the whole of the
Roman Canon silently, as a “private devotion.”25
A different approach was to be taken by the Society of Ss. Peter and Paul, which was
founded in 1910 with the goal of the standardization of the ritual and ceremonial of the
“Western Use” party. Its 1912 publication The Music of the Mass attempted a more eclectic and
harmonious blending of the 1662 Consecration with texts from the Roman Mass and from the
1549 Liturgy. Furthermore, following seventeenth century Caroline usage, the “Prayer of
Oblation,” which Cranmer removed from the original 1549 Canon and placed in a post-
communion position, was transferred back into the text of the Consecration. This approach,
therefore, “indicated a real desire for a distinctively Anglican use of some kind even among a
group who in most respects seemed ardent Romanists.”26 In 1921, the Society of Ss. Peter and
23
Ibid, 9.
24
Quoted in ibid, 10.
25
Ibid, 16. This approach continued to be influential, as evidenced in the editions of W. Knott’s Missale
Anglicanum, or English Missal, published between 1905 and 1937 (see ibid, 19-20).
26
Ibid, 18-19.
69
Paul published its famous Anglican Missal, with the aim “to provide the whole Anglican body (and
not only members of the Church of England) with a book in which it can find and follow, with
devotion and intelligence, all that the priest is saying and doing at the altar in offering the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass every day of the year.”27 The Anglican Missal presented “a single coherent rite
drawn from both [Anglican and Roman] sources, though with basically Roman rubrics.”28 It
allowed celebrants, according to local usage and preference, to celebrate the Canon of the Mass
according to seven different alternative texts – modified 1662, 1549, Scottish, American, South
African, and Roman in either English or Latin.29
An American edition of The Anglican Missal, based upon the 1928 revision of the
American Liturgy, was published in 1943 by the Frank Gavin Liturgical Foundation. Like its
English predecessor, The Anglican Missal in the American Edition relied heavily upon the
contemporary Missale Romanum to supplement the rather meager provisions of the Book of
Common Prayer. Many Anglo-Catholic churches in the United States celebrated the Liturgy
according to this book, or another volume entitled The American Missal. First published in 1931
and again in 1951 in a significantly expanded and revised version, The American Missal also
greatly supplemented the 1928 American Liturgy not only with Roman sources, but also
sources from other parts of the Anglican Communion (England, Scotland, Ireland and South
Africa). The use of these missals became very common in hundreds of Anglo-Catholic churches
around the middle of the twentieth century, especially in the Midwest dioceses (affectionately
known as the “Biretta Belt”). One such “Biretta Belt” Anglo-Catholic parish was the Church of
the Incarnation, in Detroit, Michigan, which in 1977 entered the Antiochian Orthodox
Christian Archdiocese and was the first community to celebrate the Anglo-Catholic Mass under
the title of “the Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon.” The “Romanization” of the Anglican Liturgy,
beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, thus represents the last major influence in
the long and complex development of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon.
27
Quoted in ibid, 23.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid, 24.
70
CONCLUSION
The Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, as adopted by the Antiochian Archdiocese in 1977, is thus
the product of over four centuries of liturgical development within Anglicanism. The first
Anglican Liturgies were born out of the upheavals of the English Reformation, and thus bear the
marks of doctrinal negation and compromise. But generations of High Churchmen –
Elizabethan, Caroline, Non-Juring, Scottish, American, Tractarian, and Anglo-Catholic – reshaped
this Reformation Liturgy, as much as possible, into a form closely approximating the ancient and
medieval Liturgies of the Church (both Eastern and Latin). They were able to do so because these
High Church parties held a high regard for the precedents of Christian antiquity, for the patristic
tradition (especially the Greek Fathers), and for the ancient liturgical usages of the Church.
The English Liturgy was given its basic form and phraseology in 1549 by Archbishop
Thomas Cranmer, who bequeathed the Anglican liturgical tradition with an ambiguous legacy.
The Mass of 1549 had the form and language of a Catholic liturgy, but it was designed to express
Protestant doctrines. This ambiguity has been beautifully summed up by G. K. Chesterton, an
Anglican convert to Rome who nonetheless, like many other Anglican converts, never lost his
admiration for the Book of Common Prayer, which he called “the masterpiece of Protestantism”:
It is more so than the work of Milton. It is the one positive possession and attraction; the one
magnet and talisman for people even outside the Anglican Church, as are the great Gothic
cathedrals for people outside the Catholic Church. I can speak, I think, for many other
converts, when I say that the only thing that can produce any sort of nostalgia or romantic
regret, any shadow of homesickness in one who has in truth come home, is the rhythm of
Cranmer’s prose. All the other supposed superiorities of any sort of Protestantism are quite
fictitious … But why has the old Protestant Prayer-Book a power like that of great poetry upon
the spirit and the heart? The reason is much deeper than the mere avoidance of journalese. It
might be put in a sentence; it has style; it has tradition; it has religion; it was written by
apostate Catholics. It is strong, not in so far as it is the first Protestant book, but in so far as it
was the last Catholic book.1
On one hand, Cranmer was an unparalleled genius of liturgical craftsmanship and a master of
classical English prose. There is no doubt that the classic Book of Common Prayer, along with the
Authorized Version Bible of 1611 and the works of Shakespeare, form the three greatest and
most influential works in the early modern English language. However, on the other hand,
1
Well and Shallows. (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935), 47.
71
Cranmer was a second-rate Reformation theologian who held extreme and heterodox opinions on
the nature of Eucharistic Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice. He sought to express his opinions
first in his first English Liturgy of 1549, and then even more radically in his second English
Liturgy of 1552. Especially by his major restructuring of the Eucharistic Prayer, Cranmer was able
to give clearer expression to his rejection of objective Real Presence and a Eucharistic Sacrifice
connected with the elements. He was urged to make these changes, in order to placate foreign
continental Reformers, as well as oppose Henrician Catholics such as Bishop Gardiner who
claimed to find Catholic eucharistic doctrine in his 1549 Mass. Thus, all texts that could be
interpreted as supporting these doctrines, Cranmer either erased or transferred far outside of the
Eucharistic Prayer itself, thus leaving but a shell of the former 1549 Canon.
But, even though his 1552 order was to remain the official Eucharistic Liturgy of the
Church of England (even to this day in its 1662 form), Cranmer’s own eucharistic doctrines were
never officially adopted by the Church of England. Almost from the beginning, as a result of the
Elizabethan policy of religious moderation, the English Church began to distance itself from the
more radical positions of its original Reformers. The Elizabethan update of the 1552 Liturgy
shows this in its discreet omission of the infamous “Black Rubric” (denying objective Real
Presence) and in its restoration of the more catholic 1549 Words of Administration along with
the receptionist 1552 Words of Administration. Furthermore, the famous “Ornaments Rubric” of
the Elizabethan Prayer Book allowed for the continued use of much of the medieval ceremonial,
church ornaments, and vestments (although it does not seem that the rubric was universally, or
even widely, followed over the years).
Building on the Elizabethan policy of moderation, the Caroline Divines of the
seventeenth century decisively rejected Cranmer’s most extreme views, all the while using his
Liturgy according to a more “catholic” mindset. Through their appeal to Christian antiquity
(especially the Greek Fathers and the ancient Liturgies of the Church), the Carolines established
a definite High Church liturgical school of thought, which would be continued in later
generations by the Non-Jurors, the Scottish Divines, and the Oxford Movement. They picked
72
up especially on the more positive aspects of Cranmer’s eucharistic thought – the real
participatory union of Christians with Christ, and the eucharistic Oblation of the worshippers
themselves in response to Christ’s own Sacrifice – and developed them according to the insights
of the Greek Fathers. Caroline Divines such as Lancelot Andrewes and William Laud also
modestly restored a measure of the old medieval setting of the Mass and adapted it to the
reformed English Liturgy. With regard to the text of the Liturgy, although they were bound
legally to the 1552/1559 order, individual Caroline Divines were known to slightly alter or
supplement the form of the Liturgy, in such a way as to restore much of what was omitted or
altered by Cranmer. Perhaps the most influential result of the Caroline liturgical renaissance
was the 1637 Scottish Liturgy, which restored many of the more catholic 1549 features that
Cranmer had suppressed in 1552. Although the 1637 Liturgy was not successfully introduced
into actual use, it provided High Churchmen in later generations with a precedent of return to
the best features of 1549.
The true heirs of the Caroline Divines were the Non-Jurors, who, because they were
no longer bound to the established Church of England, were able to experiment and reform
the English Liturgy by re-introducing the ancient “Usages” suppressed in 1552 – the mixed
chalice, prayers for the faithful departed, prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost on the
elements, and the Oblation of the elements. Furthermore, the Non-Jurors radically reformed
the English Liturgy along the lines of ancient Eastern liturgical texts, which they saw as
representative of the true early Christian tradition. The Non-Jurors also went further than
their Caroline predecessors in recovering an understanding of an objective Real Presence
connected with the elements, and the Eucharist as a true oblatory sacrifice, in union with the
one Sacrifice which Christ first offered at the Last Supper and consummated upon Calvary.
Although the Non-Juring movement was marginal, greatly wounded by internal schism, and
not long lived, its liturgical ideals far outlived them. Almost all later revisions of the Anglican
Liturgy were influenced in some way by Non-Juring precedents, via the Scottish/American
liturgical tradition.
73
The Non-Jurors were particularly influential amongst Scottish Episcopal Divines of the
eighteenth, who began to restore the use of the 1637 Liturgy, and eventually even to alter this
more catholic order according to the “orientalizing” pattern of the 1718 Non-Juring Liturgy.
The ultimate outcome of this process was the classic 1764 Scottish Liturgy, which expressed
Non-Juring doctrines and liturgical practices, but in a subtle manner, more faithful to
Cranmer’s brilliant prose. The 1764 Scottish Liturgy would serve as a model for almost all later
Anglican liturgical reforms, and most importantly served as the immediate predecessor for the
Liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America. In 1789, the young
American Church, under the leadership of Bishop Samuel Seabury (himself consecrated by
Scottish Bishops who enthusiastically promoted the 1764 Liturgy), officially adopted the
Scottish Prayer of Consecration (although it severely weakened the text of the Invocation of
the Holy Spirit). It was the 1892 form of the American Liturgy that was forwarded by
Archbishop (Saint) Tikhon to the Russian Holy Synod in 1904; and in its 1928 form it was
revised, supplemented, and substantially adopted in 1977 by the Antiochian Archdiocese.
The major last element in the development of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon was its
“Romanization” after the manner of the advanced Anglo-Catholic “ritualists” in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a consequence of the Oxford Movement’s
emphasis on an objective Real Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Anglo-Catholic
movement fought express these doctrines visibly in the celebration of the Anglican Eucharist.
The approach was given concrete liturgical expression in service books such as The Anglican
Missal and The American Missal, both of which were known and used by the Church of the
Incarnation in Detroit both before and after its reception into the Orthodox Church. Thus, by
the time that the Antiochian Archdiocese became aware of the pastoral and missionary need to
fully implement the vision of Saint Tikhon and the conclusions of the 1904 report of the Holy
Synod of Russia, the Anglican Liturgy had gone through considerable changes in a decidedly
catholic, and even Orthodox, direction.
74
In closing, the words of Bishop John Dowden concerning the formation of the Scottish
Liturgy could be taken to apply equally well to the formation of the Antiochian Orthodox
Liturgy of Saint Tikhon:
This Communion Office was not the work of one man or of one age. It was not produced
hastily, but by a gradual development attained its present form. It is ultimately traceable to
perhaps a greater variety of sources than any known liturgy. The Churches of Eastern and
Western Christendom, early, mediaeval, and modern times have all contributed towards
determining its structure or supplying its contents. Yet it is not disfigured by the signs of
patchwork, but possesses the unity and beauty of a living thing. It is an outcome of the
patient and reverent study of Christian antiquity; but it is conceived in no mere antiquarian
spirit, and is no product of a dilettante affectation of the antique. Like everything that lives, it
came into being from a living impulse; but also, like everything that lives, it was sensitive to its
actual environment and exhibited the living power of adapting itself to that environment
without permanent detriment to its life. It is framed upon primitive models, and breathes
the spirit of primitive devotion, while experience continually demonstrates its suitability to
the needs of the living Church.2
Those who know, love and admire the beauties of the Anglican tradition should be eternally
grateful to God Almighty preserving the riches of this tradition within the context of the
fullness of his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The existence of the Liturgy of Saint
Tikhon within the Orthodox Church should be a tangible and living reminder to all of the
catholicity of the Orthodox Faith, and the need for it to be brought to all men, as expressed in
the farewell sermon of Saint Tikhon himself, the Confessor and Enlightener of North America,
before he left again for Russia in 1907:
Christ the Savior said that men lighting a lamp do not put it under a bushel, but on a stand,
and it gives light to all in the house (Matthew 5:15). The light of Orthodoxy also is not lit for a
small circle of people. No, the Orthodox faith is catholic; it remembers the commandment of
its Founder: ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. Make disciples
of all nations.’ (Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19). It is our obligation to share our spiritual
treasures, our truth, our light and our joy with those who do not have these gifts.3
2
Dowden, 1.
3
Quoted in Leonid Kishkovsky, “Archbishop Tikhon in America.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 19:1 (1975), 29.
75
Appendix I
THE TEXT OF THE LITURGY
1. The Preparation at the Foot of the Altar
Celebrant. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Celebrant. I will go unto the Altar of God.
Answer. Even unto the God of my joy and gladness.
Celebrant. Give sentence with me, O God, and defend my cause against the ungodly
people: O deliver me from the deceitful and wicked man.
Answer. For thou art the God of my strength, why hast thou put me from thee?
and why go I so heavily, while the enemy oppresseth me?
Celebrant. O send out thy light and thy truth, that they may lead me: and bring me
unto thy holy hill, and to thy dwelling.
Answer. And that I may go unto the Altar of God, even unto the God of my joy
and gladness: and upon the harp will I give thanks unto thee, O God,
my God.
Celebrant. Why art thou so heavy, O my soul? and why art thou so disquieted with-
in me?
Answer. O put thy trust in God: for I will yet give him thanks, which is the help of
my countenance, and my God.
Celebrant. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.
Amen.
Celebrant. I will go unto the Altar of God.
Answer. Even unto the God of my joy and gladness.
Celebrant. Our help is in the Name of the Lord.
Answer. Who hath made heaven and earth.
Celebrant. I confess to God Almighty, to blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, to blessed
Michael the Archangel, to blessed John Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter
and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you, brethren, that I have sinned in
thought, word and deed: by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most
grievous fault. Wherefore I beg blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael
the Archangel, blessed John Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all
the Saints, and you brethren, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
Answer. God Almighty have mercy upon thee, forgive thee thy sins, and bring
thee to everlasting life.
I confess to God Almighty, to blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, to blessed
Michael the Archangel, to blessed John Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter
and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee, father, that I have sinned in
thought, word and deed: by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most
grievous fault. Wherefore I beg blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael
the Archangel, blessed John Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all
the Saints, and thee, father, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
Celebrant. God Almighty have mercy upon you, forgive you your sins, and bring you
to everlasting life. The Almighty and merciful Lord grant unto us
pardon, absolution and remission of our sins. Amen.
Celebrant. Wilt not thou turn again and quicken us, O God?
Answer. That thy people may rejoice in thee.
Celebrant. O Lord, show thy mercy upon us.
Answer. And grant us thy salvation.
Celebrant. O Lord, hear my prayer.
Answer. And let my cry come unto thee.
Celebrant. The Lord be with you.
Answer. And with thy spirit.
Celebrant. Let us pray.
2. Prayers at the Ascent to the Altar
T AKE away from us, we beseech thee, O Lord our iniquities: that we may be worthy to
enter with pure minds into the Holy of holies. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
W E pray thee, O Lord, by the prayers of thy Saints, whose relics are here, and of all
the Saints: that thou wouldest vouchsafe to pardon all my sins. Amen.
3. The Introit (Example from Christmass Day)
L IGHT shall shine today upon us; for unto us the Lord is born: and his Name shall be
__called Wonderful, Mighty God, the Prince of peace, Father of the world to come;
of whose kingdom there shall be no end. (Isaiah 9)
(Psalm 93) The Lord is King and hath put on glorious apparel: the Lord hath put on
his apparel, and girded himself with strength.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost: as it was in the begin-
ning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Light shall shine today upon us; for unto us the Lord is born: and his Name shall
be called Wonderful, Mighty God, the Prince of peace, Father of the world to come; of
whose kingdom there shall be no end.
4. The Collect for Purity
A LMIGHTY God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom
no secrets are hid: cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy
Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name. Through
Christ our Lord. Amen.
5. The Summary of the Law
H EAR what our Lord Jesus Christ saith: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the Prophets.
6. Kyrie Eleison (Greek, or English)
K YRIE eleison (iij).

Christe eleison (iij).
Kyrie eleison (iij).
L ORD, have mercy upon us (iij).

Christ, have mercy upon us (iij).
Lord, have mercy upon us (iij).
7. Gloria in excelsis Deo
G LORY be to God on high: And on earth peace, good will towards men. We praise
thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy
great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.
O Lord, the only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the
Father, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest
away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest at the right hand of God
the Father, have mercy upon us.
For thou only art holy; thou only art the Lord; thou only, O Christ, with the Holy
Ghost, art Most High in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
8. The Collect of the Day (Example from Christmass Day)

G RANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God: that, as thou hast poured forth upon us
the new Light of thine incarnate Word; so he, who doth illuminate our hearts by
faith, may likewise in all our works shew forth his brightness. Through the same Jesus
Christ, thy Son, our Lord: who livest and reignest with thee, in the unity of the Holy
Ghost ever, one God, world without end. Amen.
9. The Epistle (Example from Christmass Day)
The Epistle is written in the third chapter of the Epistle of blessed Paul the Apostle to
Titus, beginning at the fourth verse.
D EARLY beloved: The kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy
he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which
he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his
grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Reader. Here endeth the Epistle.
Answer. Thanks be to God.
10. The Gradual and Alleluia Verses (Example from Christmass Day)
(Psalm 111) Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord: God is the Lord, who
hath showed us light. V. This is the Lord’s doing: and it is marvellous in our eyes.
Alleluia, alleluia. V. The Lord is King and hath put on glorious apparel: the Lord
hath put on his apparel, and girded himself with strength. Alleluia.
11. The Holy Gospel (Example from Christmass Day)
The Gospel is written in the second chapter of the Gospel of Saint Luke, beginning at
the fifteenth verse. (Luke 2:15)
Answer. Glory be to thee, O Lord.
A T that time: The shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethle-
hem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known
unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the Babe lying in
a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was
told them concerning this Child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things
which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered
them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the
things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
Answer. Praise be to thee, O Christ.
12. The Creed
I BELIEVE in one God: The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all
things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of
Very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one Substance with the Father; By whom all
things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and
was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made Man: And was cruci-
fied also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he
rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the
right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick
and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the
Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the
Son is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins:
And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come. Amen.
13. The Offertory Antiphon (Example from Christmass Day)
(Psalm 96) God hath made the round world so sure that it cannot be moved: ever
since the world began hath thy seat, O God, been prepared; thou art from everlasting.
14. The Offertory Prayers of the Celebrant
R ECEIVE, O holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, this spotless Host which I,
thine unworthy servant, now offer unto thee, my God, the living and true, for all
my countless sins, wickedness and neglect; and for all those here present; as also for all
the faithful in Christ, both quick and dead; that it may set forward their salvation and
mine, unto life everlasting. Amen.
O GOD, who didst lay the foundations of man’s being in wonder and honour, and
in greater wonder and honour didst renew the same: grant that by the mystery of
this water and wine, that he who was partaker of our humanity may make us joint-heirs
of his very Godhead, even Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord. Who liveth and reigneth with
thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.
W E offer unto thee, O Lord, the Cup of Salvation; beseeching thy mercy that it may
ascend in the sight of thy Divine Majesty as a sweet-smelling savour for our salva-
tion, and that of the whole world. Amen.
I N a contrite heart and an humble spirit let us be accepted of thee, O Lord, and so let
our sacrifice be in thy sight this day that it may be well pleasing unto thee, O Lord
our God.
C OME, thou Sanctifier, Almighty and Everlasting God, and bless this sacrifice made
ready for thy Holy Name.
B Y the intercession of blessed Michael the Archangel, who standeth at the right hand
of the Altar of incense, and of all the Elect, may the Lord vouchsafe to bless this
incense, and accept it as a sweet-smelling savour. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
L ET this incense, blest by thee, O Lord, come up before thee: and let thy mercy come
down upon us.
L ET my prayer, O Lord, be set forth in thy sight as the incense: and let the lifting up
of my hands be an evening sacrifice. Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and
keep the door of my lips. O let not mine heart be inclined unto any evil thing: let me not
be occupied in ungodly works with the men that work wickedness.
M AY the Lord kindle in us the fire of his love, and the flame of his everlasting char-
ity. Amen.
I WILL wash my hands in innocency, O Lord: and so will I go to thine altar. That I
may shew the voice of thanksgiving: and tell of all thy wondrous works. Lord, I have
loved the habitation of thy house: and the place where thine honour dwelleth. O shut
not up my soul with the sinners: nor my life with the bloodthirsty; in whose hands is
wickedness: and their right hand is full of gifts. But as for me, I will walk innocently: O
deliver me, and be merciful unto me. My foot standeth right: I will praise the Lord in the
congregations. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost. As it was
in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.
R ECEIVE, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we offer unto thee, in memory of the
Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ; and in honour of
blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, of blessed John Baptist, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul;
of these and all the Saints; that it may be to their honour and our salvation: and that
like as we remember them on earth, so in heaven they may plead for us. Through the
same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Celebrant. Pray brethren, that this my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God
the Father Almighty.
Faithful. May the Lord receive this sacrifice at thy hands, to the praise and glory of
his Name, both to our benefit and that of all his holy Church.
15. The ‘Secret’ Collect (Example from Christmass Day)
W E pray thee, O Lord, that these our oblations may be worthy of the Mysteries
which we celebrate on the Birth of thy Son, and may evermore shed forth thy
peace within our hearts: that, even as he who was born in the substance of our man-
hood did shew forth therein the glory of the Godhead, so we, in these thy earthly crea-
tures, may be made partakers of that which is heavenly. Through the same, &c.
16. The Prayer for the Church
Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church.
A LMIGHTY and everliving God, who by thy Holy Apostle hast taught us to make
prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men; We humbly beseech
thee most mercifully to accept our [alms and] oblations, and to receive these our prayers,
which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty; beseeching thee to inspire continually the Uni-
versal Church with the Spirit of truth, unity and concord: And grant that all those who
do confess thy holy Name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity and
godly love.
We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that
they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and
vice, and to the maintenance of thy true Religion, and virtue.
Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and other Ministers, especially N. our
Patriarch; N. our Metropolitan; N. our Bishop; and to the Holy Synod of Antioch, that
they may, both by their life and doctrine, set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly
and duly administer thy holy Sacraments.
And to all thy People give thy heavenly Grace; and especially to this congregation
here present; that, with meek heart and due reverence, they may hear, and receive thy
holy Word; truly serving thee in holiness and righteousness all the days of their life.
And we most humbly beseech thee, of thy goodness, O Lord, to comfort and suc-
cour all those who, in this transitory life, are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any
other adversity.
And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith
and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service, and
to give us grace so to follow the good examples of Blessed Mary and all thy Saints, that
through their intercessions, we with them may be partakers of thy heavenly Kingdom.
Grant this, O Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.
17. The General Confession
Y E that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity
with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the Commandments
of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways: Draw near with faith, and take
this holy Sacrament to your comfort, and make your humble confession to Almighty
God, devoutly kneeling.
A LMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all
men: We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we
from time to time most grievously have committed, by thought, word, and deed, against
thy Divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do
earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance of
them is grievous unto us, the burden is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy
upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, forgive us all
that is past; and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of
life, to the honour and glory of thy Name. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
A LMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised for-
giveness of sins to all those who with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto
him; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and
strengthen you in all goodness and bring you to everlasting life. Through Jesus Christ
our Lord. Amen.
18. The ‘Comfortable Words’
H EAR what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith unto all who truly turn
him to him. Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will re-
fresh you. So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that
all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Hear also what Saint Paul saith. This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be
received, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
Hear also what Saint John saith. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Fa-
ther, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and he is the Propitiation for our sins.
19. The Preface (Example from Christmass Day)

Celebrant. Lift up your hearts.
Answer. We lift them up unto the Lord.
Celebrant. Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.
Answer. It is meet and right so to do.
I T is very meet, right and our bounden duty, that we should at all times and in all
places give thanks unto thee, O Lord, holy Father, Almighty, everlasting God:
Because thou didst give Jesus Christ, thine only Son, to be born as at this time for
us; who by the operation of the Holy Ghost, was made very Man, of the substance of the
Virgin Mary his Mother; and that without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin.
Therefore, with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud
and magnify thy glorious Name ; evermore praising thee and saying:
20. The Sanctus
H OLY, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts, Heaven and earth are full of thy glory: Glory
be to thee, O Lord Most High. Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.
21. The Prayer of Consecration
A LL glory be to thee, Almighty Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give
thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption;
who made there (by his own Oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and suf-
ficient Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; And did
institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue a Perpetual Memory of that
his precious Death and Passion, until his coming again.
For in the night in which he was betrayed, he took Bread; and when he had given
thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU; Do this in remembrance of me.
Likewise, after supper, he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it
to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTA-
MENT, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU, AND FOR MANY, FOR THE REMIS-
SION OF SINS; Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.
Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly be-
loved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here
before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the Me-
morial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed Passion
and precious Death, his mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension; rendering unto thee
most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.
And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us: and, of thy al-
mighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Spirit upon these thy gifts and
creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy
most dearly beloved Son. Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Sav-
iour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his Death and Passion, may be
partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.
And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to
be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee that we, and
all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most
precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy Grace and heavenly
benediction, and made one Body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.
Remember, Lord, also the souls of thy servants and handmaidens, which are gone
before us with the mark of faith, and rest in the sleep of peace. We beseech thee, O Lord,
that unto them, and unto all such as rest in Christ, thou wilt grant a place of refreshing,
of light, and of peace. And vouchsafe to give unto us some portion and fellowship with
thy holy Apostles and Martyrs; with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabus, Ignatius, Alex-
ander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia,
and with all thy Saints; within whose fellowship we beseech thee to admit us.
And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any
sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing
our merits, but pardoning our offences.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord: By whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy
Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.
22. The Lord’s Prayer and the Embolism
And now as our Saviour Christ hath taught us, we are bold to say:
O UR Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy
will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And for-
give us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, for ever and ever.] Amen.
D ELIVER us, we beseech thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present and to come: and
at the intercession of the blessed and glorious Ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
with thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with Andrew, and with all thy Saints,
give peace graciously in our days, that we, being holpen by the succour of thy mercy,
may both alway be free from sin and safe from all disquietude. Through the same Jesus
Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy
Ghost ever, one God, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
23. The Pax and the Fraction
Celebrant. The Peace of the Lord be always with you.

24. Agnus Dei
O LAMB of God, that takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, Grant us thy peace.
25. Collect for Peace
O LORD Jesus Christ, who saidst to thine Apostles, Peace I leave with you, my peace
I give unto you: regard not my sins, but the Faith of thy Church; and grant to her
that peace and unity which is according to thy will. Who livest and reignest God, world
without end. Amen.
26. The Prayer of Humble Access
W E do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our
own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so
much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose
property is always to have mercy. Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh
of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made
clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we
may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
27. The Priest’s Communion Prayers
O LORD Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, who by the will of the Father, and the
co-operation of the Holy Ghost, hast through thy death given life unto the world:
deliver me by this thy most sacred Body and Blood from all mine iniquities, and from
every evil: and make me ever to cleave unto thy commandments, and suffer me never to
be separated from thee: Who with the same God the Father and the Holy Ghost livest
and reignest God, world without end. Amen.
L ET the partaking of thy Body, O Lord Jesu Christ, which I, unworthy, presume to
receive, turn not to my judgment and condemnation: but of thy goodness let it
avail unto me for protection of soul and of body, that I may receive thy healing: Who liv-
est and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, throughout
all ages, world without end. Amen.
I will receive the Bread of Heaven, and call upon the Name of the Lord.
L ORD, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but only speak the
word and my soul shall be healed (iij).
T HE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for me, preserve my body and
soul unto everlasting life. Amen.
W HAT reward shall I give unto the Lord for all the benefits that he hath done unto
me? I will receive the Cup of Salvation and call upon the Name of the Lord. I will
call upon the Lord, which is worthy to be praised, so shall I be safe from mine enemies.
T HE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for me, preserve my body and
soul unto everlasting life. Amen.
28. The People’s Communion Prayers
Celebrant. Behold the Lamb of God: behold him that taketh away the sins of the world.
Answer. Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but
only speak the word and my soul shall be healed (iij).
I BELIEVE, O Lord, and I confess: that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living
God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I be-
lieve that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own pre-
cious Blood. Wherefore I pray thee, have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions
both voluntary and involuntary; of word and of deed; of knowledge and of ignorance ;
and make we worthy to partake of thine immaculate Mysteries, unto remission of my
sins, and life everlasting. Amen.
O F thy Mystic Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant: for I will
not speak of thy Mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss, as did
Judas; but like the Thief will I confess thee: Remember me, O Lord, in thy Kingdom.
Not unto judgment, nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy Holy Mysteries, O
Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body.
29. The Words of Administration
T HE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and
soul unto everlasting life. [Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for
thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.]
T HE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and
soul unto everlasting life. [Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed
for thee, and be thankful.]
30. The Communion Verse (Example from Christmass Day)
(Zechariah 9) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:

behold, thy King cometh, the Holy One and the Saviour of the world.
31. The Post-Communion Collect (Example from Christmass Day)

O LORD, who by thy wondrous Birth hast put off from us the old nature of our
manhood: grant, we beseech thee; that by this new Sacrament of thy Nativity we
may ever be inwardly renewed in our souls. Who liveth and reigneth with thee and the
Holy Ghost ever, one God, world without end. Amen.
32. The Thanksgiving.
A LMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouch-
safe to feed us who have duly received these holy Mysteries, with the spiritual Food
of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure
us thereby that we are very members incorporate in the mystical Body of thy Son, which
is the blessed Company of all faithful people; and are also join heirs through hope of thy
everlasting Kingdom, by the merits of his most precious Death and Passion. And we hum-
bly beseech thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy Grace, that we may continue
in that holy fellowship, and do all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk
in; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour
and glory, world without end. Amen.
33. The Dismissal.

Celebrant. Depart in peace [alleluia, alleluia], or Let us bless the Lord.
Answer. Thanks be to God [alleluia, alleluia].
34. The Blessing.
T HE Peace of God which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds
in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. And the
Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you
and remain with you always. Amen.
35. The Last Gospel.

Celebrant. The Beginning of the Holy Gospel according to John.
Answer. Glory be to thee, O Lord.
I N the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without
him was not any thing made that was made: in him was life, and the life was the light of
men: and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. There
was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear
witness of the light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that light, but
was sent to bear witness of that light. That was the true light, which lighteth every man
that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and
the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as
many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his Name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth.
Answer. Thanks be to God.

Appendix II
A COMPARISON OF ANGLICAN EUCHARISTIC ORDERS
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Appendix III
A LITURGICAL FAMILY TREE
Rites of the Ancient Church
Western (Latin) Rites Eastern (Greek) Rites
Gallican Roman
English Uses
(Notably Sarum)
Lutheran English 1549

Orders
English 1552
English 1559
Scottish 1637
English 1662
Non-Juring 1718
Scottish 1764
American 1789
American 1892
Scottish 1911
English Proposed 1928 American 1928
Scottish 1929
Anglican Missal
Antiochian Liturgy of Saint Tikhon (1977)

Selected Bibliography
Addleshaw, G. W. O. The High Church Tradition: A Study of the Liturgical Thought of the Seventeenth
Century. London: Faber and Faber, [no date].
Amiot, Francois. History of the Mass. Lancelot C. Shepperd, trans. London: Burns and Oates,
1959.
Andersen, Benjamin J. “The Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese: Historical
Foundations, Development and Future Prospects.” (unpublished essay).
Bashir, Metropolitan Antony. “Edict on the Western Rite.” The Word, Vol. 2, No. 9 (September
1958).
Blunt, John Henry, editor. The Annotated Book of Common Prayer: Being an Historical, Ritual, and
Theological Commentary on the Devotional System of the Church of England. Revised and
Enlarged Edition. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1899.
Bouyer, Louis. Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Charles Underhill
Quinn, translator. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968.
Brook, Stella. The Language of the Book of Common Prayer. New York: Oxford University Press,
1965.
Brooks, Peter Newman. Cranmer in Context: Documents from the English Reformation.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
Broxap, Henry. “Appendix II: Non-Jurors’ Doctrine and Ceremonies.” The Later Non-Jurors
(1928). Project Canterbury. <http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/nonjurors/
broxapapp2.pdf>
Chadwick, Owen. The Spirit of the Oxford Movement: Tractarian Essays. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
Clarke, W. K. Lowther and Harris, Charles, eds. Liturgy and Worship: A Companion to the Prayer
Books of the Anglican Communion. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1932.
Chesterton, G. K. The Well and the Shallows. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935.
Cross, F. L., editor. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. London: Oxford University
Press, 1958.
Dalby, Mark. Anglican Missals and their Canons: 1549, Interim Rite and Roman. Cambridge: Grove
Books, 1998.
Dearmer, Percy. Everyman’s History of the Book of Common Prayer. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1912.
Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. New York: Seabury Press, 1982.
Donaldson, Gordon. The Making of the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637. Edinburgh: At the
University Press, 1954.
Dorman, Marianne. “Andrewes and English Catholics’ Response to Cranmer’s Prayer Books of
1549 and 1552.” Project Canterbury. <http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/essays/
dorman/sacrament.pdf>
Dorman, Marianne. “Lancelot Andrewes and the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.” Project
Canterbury. <http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/essays/dorman2.pdf>
Dowden, John. The Scottish Communion Office 1764: With Introduction, History of the Office, Notes
and Appendices. New Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922.
Dugmore, C. W. The Mass and the English Reformers. London: Macmillan & Co., 1958.
Eisenhofer, Ludwig and Lechner, Joseph. The Liturgy of the Roman Rite. A. J. and E. F. Peeler,
translators. H. E. Winstone, editor. New York: Herder and Herder, 1961.
Echlin, Edward P. The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective: Doctrine and Rite from Cranmer
to Seabury. New York: The Seabury Press, 1968.
Erickson, John. The Challenge of our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History.
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991.
Florovsky, Georges. Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach. (Volume XIV of The Collected Works
of Georges Florovsky). Vaduz, Europa: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1989.
Fortescue, Adrian. The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy. Albany, NY: Preserving Christian
Publications, 1999.
Freeman, Philip. The Principles of Divine Service: An Enquiry Concerning the True Manner of
Understanding and Using the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer, and for the
Administration of the Holy Communion in the English Church. (Two volumes). New York: E.
P. Dutton and Company, 1870.
Grisbrooke, W. Jardine. Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. (Alcuin
Club Collections No. XL). London: SPCK, 1958.
Hardelin, Alf. The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist. University of Uppsala, 1965.
Harford, George and Stevenson, Morley, editors. The Prayer Book Dictionary. Bath, Melbourne,
Toronto, New York: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, 1925.
Hatfield, Chad [M. Richard]. “Nashotah House, Bishop Grafton, and Saint Tikhon of
Moscow.” Project Canterbury. < http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/orthodoxy/
hatfield.pdf >
Hodges, H. A. Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: A Study in Dialectical Churchmanship. London: SCM

Press, 1955.
Jones, Cheslyn and Wainwright, Geoffrey, et al, editors. The Study of Liturgy (Revised Edition).
New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Jungmann, Joseph A. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Solemnia).
(Two volumes). Allen, Texas: Christian Classics, 1986.
King, Archdale A. The Liturgy of the Roman Church. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Bruce
Publishing Company, 1957.
Langford, H. W. “The Non-Jurors and the Eastern Orthodox” (1965). Project Canterbury.
<http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/nonjurors/langford1.html>
McAdoo, H.R. and Stevenson, Kenneth. The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition.
Norwich: The Canterbury Press, 1995.
Miller, E. C. Jr. Toward a Fuller Vision: Orthodoxy and the Anglican Experience. Wilton,
Connecticut: Morehouse Barlow, 1984.
Moorman, J. R. H. A History of the Church in England. Third edition. Harrisburg, PA:

Morehouse, 1986.
More, Paul Elmer and Cross, Frank Leslie, editors. Anglicanism: The Thought and Practice of the
Church of England, Illustrated from the Religious Literature of the Seventeenth Century. New
York: Macmillan, 1957.
Neil, Charles and Willoughby, J. M. The Tutorial Prayer Book: For the Teacher, the Student and the
General Reader. London: Church Book Room Press, 1959.
Nichols, Aidan. The Panther and the Hind: A Theological History of Anglicanism. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1993.
“Notes on the American (Protestant Episcopal) Book of Common Prayer: Report Prepared and
Published by a Special Committee of The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church
Appointed to Consider Questions Relating to Reception of Anglicans and Old Catholics
into Union with the Orthodox Church.” The Orthodox Catholic Review. 1.6, June 1927.
Overton, J. H. The Nonjurors: Their Lives, Principles, and Writings. London: Smith, Elder and Co.,
1902.
Palmer, William (of Magdalen). A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Catholic
and Apostolic Church of the East: Being the Longer Russian Catechism: With an Appendix
consisting of Notes and Extracts from Scottish and Anglican Authorities. (1846). Project
Canterbury. <http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/ palmer/mag/harmony/>
Palmer, William (of Worcester). Origines Liturgicae, or Antiquities of the English Ritual, and a
Dissertation on Primitive Liturgies. Fourth Edition. London: Rivington, 1845.
Parsch, Pius. The Liturgy of the Mass. Third edition. H. E. Winstone, translator. London: B.
Herder, 1957.
Parsons, Edward Lambe and Jones, Bayard Hale. The American Prayer Book: Its Origins and
Principles. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946.
Pickering, W. S. F. Anglo-Catholicism: A study in religious ambiguity. London and New York:

Routledge, 1989.
Pinnington, Judith. Anglicans and Orthodox: Unity and Subversion, 1559-1725. Leominster,
Herefordshire: Gracewing, 2003.
Prayer Book Studies IV: The Eucharistic Liturgy. New York: The Church Pension Fund, 1953.
Proctor, Francis and Frere, Walter Howard. A New History of the Book of Common Prayer: With a
Rationale of Its Offices. London: Macmillan and Co., 1951.
Reed, John Shelton. Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism. Nashville
and London: Vanderbilt University Press, 1996.
Rowell, Geoffrey. The Vision Glorious: Themes and Personalities of the Catholic Revival in Anglicanism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Schmemann, Alexander. “Notes and Comments: The Western Rite.” St. Vladimir’s Theological
Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Fall 1958), pp. 37-38.
Schneirla, Paul. “Western rite Orthodoxy: a brief response from within.” St. Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly, 45:2 (2001), pp. 193-197.
Schneirla, William (Paul), “The Western Rite in the Orthodox Church.” St. Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 1958), p. 22-23.
Scudamore, W. E. Notitia Eucharistica: A Commentary, Explanatory, Doctrinal, and Historical, On the
Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, According to the Use of
the Church of England. London, Oxford and Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1872.
Shepherd, Massey H. The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1950.
Shepherd, Massey H. The Worship of the Church. Greenwich, Connecticut: Seabury Press, 1952.
Smith, Allyne. Review of Saint Andrew Service Book: The Administration of the Sacraments and Other
Rites and Ceremonies According to the Western Rite Usage of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Archdiocese of North America (Second Edition). St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly. 41:2-3
(1997), 249-268.
Smith, James David. The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Nonjurors: A Revisionist View of the Eighteenth-
Century Usages Controversy. Cambridge: Grove Books Ltd., 200.
Stevenson, Kenneth and Spinks, Bryan, editors. The Identity of Anglican Worship. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: Morehouse Publishing, 1991.
Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid. Orthodox Christians in North America: 1794-1994. Orthodox
Christian Publications Center, 1995.
Stone, Darwell. A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Volume II. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1909.
The American Missal Revised: The Complete Liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer With Additional
Devotional Material Appropriate to the Same. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Earle Hewitt
Maddux, SSJE, 1951.
The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1910.
The Orthodox Missal. Stanton, New Jersey: Saint Luke’s Priory Press, 1995.
Sykes, Stephen, et al., editors. The Study of Anglicanism. Revised edition. London: SPCK, 1988.
Williams, George, editor. The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century: Being the
Correspondence between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjuring Bishops (1868).
Williams, N. P. and Charles Harris, editors. Northern Catholicism: Centenary Studies in the Oxford
Movement and Parallel Movements. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1933.
Woolfenden, Gregory. “Western rite Orthodoxy: some reflections on a liturgical question.” St.
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 45:2, 2001, pp. 163-192.

An Anglican Liturgy in The Orthodox Chur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Anglican Liturgy in The Orthodox Chur

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Anglican Liturgy in The Orthodox Chur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN ANGLICAN LITURGY IN THE

Benjamin Joseph Andersen

The author of this thesis is:

BENJAMIN JOSEPH ANDERSEN

The director of this thesis is:

PROF. PAUL MEYENDORFF

Name of user Address Date

I. What is the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon? 3

II. The Adoption of the Liturgy within the Orthodox Church 7

III. An Brief Description of the Rite 15

IV. A Note on Sources 19

THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY – 20

V. The Genesis of the Anglican Eucharist (1549-1552) 20

VII. The Influence of the Caroline Divines 37

VIII. The Influence of the Non-Jurors 45

IX. The Influence of the Scottish-American Liturgical Tradition 53

X. The Influence of the Oxford Movement and Ritualism 63

I – Text of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon

T HE Divine Liturgy (or, Mass)1 of Saint Tikhon is a eucharistic liturgy, substantially of

and by Constantinople in 1882), and the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon.

century reformed Church of England, offers a considerable challenge to proponents of the

Orthodox Western Rite.

Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

Secondly, it is assumed that Byzantine liturgical uniformity in the Orthodox Church is a

non-Orthodox cultures who would otherwise be attracted to the Orthodox Faith.

where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not.”8

rather than replacing or obliterating it.

different systems of outward organization.”9

Antioch) officially approved a version of the American Anglican Liturgy as commonly

celebrated in contemporary American Anglo-Catholic parishes.

the North American Orthodox missionary context.

mission. In particular, Tikhon wanted the Synod’s ruling

Orthodox Catholic Review.

(prelozhenie) or transformation [literally, “transubstantiation”20] (presushchestvlenie) of the holy

[Prayer Book] cannot satisfy the Orthodox”:21

adequately express proper Orthodox understandings of objective Eucharistic Real Presence

(prelozhenie and presushchestvlenie).

sense (as indeed it seems to be in the English Prayer Book of 1662).24

he argues should be interpreted as being rooted in technical Old Testament sacrificial

restored restore ancient notions of Eucharistic Sacrifice.28

Book of Common Prayer, says the report, belongs

which are really contradictory.”

possibility that if Orthodox parishes, composed of former Anglicans, were organized in

decisions on to Tikhon himself:

Anglican group seriously came forward to be received as an entire community. The

Antiochian Western Rite parishes.

Liturgy’s clear expression of an objective Real Presence. 36

when it was received into the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Liturgy then concludes with notices and the Sermon.

commonly called “The Comfortable Words”).

finally (8) a concluding Trinitarian Doxology (accompanied by an elevation of the Sacrament),

Supper”) derived from the Byzantine Rite.

while the clergy recess to the sacristy.

prayer from the Canon (the Memento of the faithful departed).

sources, both ancient and modern.

proportions, immensely elaborate in detail, and proportionally difficult of use.”6 This

Invitation, Exhortations, General Confession, Absolution, “Comfortable Words,” “Prayer of

clergy and divines.

Eucharistic vestments and architecture.18