On the Reformational Doctrine of the Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Does the Church believe in a real substantial or essential Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist, and if so, does that belief imply or necessitate the scholastic doctrine of transubstantiation, here defined, according to popular perception, as some kind of material change in the elements? Are substantial Presence and transubstantiation the same belief? If one holds to the substantial Presence, does this belief commit one to the specific doctrine of transubstantiation however defined? The following thoughts seek to answer these and other questions.

As concerns linguistics, the word substantial simply means ‘not imaginary or illusory,’ ‘real,’ ‘essential.’ Substance from the Latin substantia means, ‘to stand under’ - ‘essential nature,’ ‘ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change.’ The Greek word ousia, essence, is synonymous with substance: from the word einai, ‘to be’, it means nature, a thing in and of itself, being, reality, existence.

How would this language apply to the Eucharist? Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament, not only in figure, virtue, power, or sign, but truly in His Body and Blood, as well as His Divinity – we call this mystery Substantial Presence. The total and complete One Person of God the Son made Man, fully human and fully divine, is objectively present under the forms of the Blessed Sacrament as our heavenly sustenance. The Divine Thing signified in the Holy Eucharist is Our Lord Himself, in the fullness of His human nature. So the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But the Body and Blood present in the Eucharist are present in their glorified and risen state, in the glory of the Resurrection, immortal, immutable, impassible, divinised. Our Lord's Body and Blood are not present in any carnal, gross, materialistic, or mortal state. So, in a true sense, the presence of Our Lord in the Holy Communion is bodily, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ are the risen, ascended, glorified, deified human nature of the Saviour personally present in the Eucharist in a unique sacramental mode - mystically, supernaturally, heavenly. The Substantial Body contained in the Blessed Sacrament is defined by Saint Paul in I Corinthians 15 as a spiritual body, soma pneumatikon, a Body after Resurrection.

PART I: The Anglicans

First, let us observe what Anglicanism has held concerning this matter. All of the below-mentioned Anglican Divines assented to Article of Religion XXVIII, which repudiates the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation. Yet, they are able to teach the Substantial Real Presence in the most vivid terms.

Bishop Guest (Author of Article of Religion XXVIII, 1566): ‘the Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.’ ‘I told him plainly that this word only in the aforesaid article did not exclude the Presence of Christ’s Body from the Sacrament but the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof. For I said unto him though he took Christ’s Body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that corporally, naturally, really, substantially, and carnally, as the doctors do write, yet did he not for all that see it, feel it, smell it nor taste it.’ ‘The word was put in to this end, to take away all gross and sensible presence; for it is very true that when Christ’s Body is taken and eaten, it is neither seen, felt, smelt, nor tasted to be Christ’s Body, and so it is received and eaten, but after a heavenly and spiritual, and no sensible, manner.’

John Overall (Bishop of Norwich, 1619. One of the authors of the Church Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer): ‘It is confessed by all divines that upon the words of the consecration the Body and Blood of Christ is really and substantially present.’ ‘In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper, the Body and Blood of Christ, and therefore the whole of Christ is verily and indeed present, and is verily partaken by us.’

John Cosin (Bishop of Durham, 1661): ‘Where is the danger, and what doth he fear, as long as all they that believe the Gospel own the true nature and the real and substantial Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacra­ment?’

Lancelot Andrewes (Bishop of Winchester, 1623): ‘And the gathering or vintage of these two in the Blessed Eucharist is, as I may say, a kind of hypostatical union of the sign and the thing signified, so united together, as are the two Natures of Christ. And even from this Sacramental union do the Fathers borrow their resemblance – I name Theodoret for the Greek, and Gelasius for the Latin Church, that insist upon it both, and press it against Eutyches; that even as in the Eucharist neither part is evacuate or turned into the other, but abide each still in his former nature and substance, no more is either of Christ’s Natures annulled, or one of them converted into the other, as Eutyches held, but each Nature remaineth still full and whole in his own kind. And backwards; as the two Natures in Christ, so the signum and signatum in the Sacrament e converso. And this latter device, of the substance of the bread and wine to be flown away and gone, and in the room of it a remainder of nothing else but accidents to stay behind, was to them not known, and had it been true, had made for Eutyches and against them. And this for the likeness of union in both.’

William Forbes (Bishop of Edinburgh, 1635): ‘The opinion of those Protestants and others seems to be most safe and most right who think, nay, who most firmly believe, that the Body and Blood of Christ are really and actually and substantially present and taken in the Eucharist… In the Supper by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost we invisibly partake of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, of which we are made recipients no otherwise than if we visibly ate and drank His Flesh and Blood.

James Ussher (Archbishop of Armagh, 1620): In the outward part of this mystical action, which reacheth to that which is Sacramentum only, we receive this Body and Blood but Sacramentally; in the inward, that containeth rem, the thing itself in it, we receive them really. And consequently the presence of these in the one is relative and symbolical, in the other real and substantial… and this is that real and substantial presence which we affirmed to be in the inward part of this sacred action. For the better conceiving of which mystery, we are to enquire, first what the thing is which we do here receive, secondly, how and in what manner we are made partakers of it. Touching the first, the truth which must be held is this: that we do not here receive only the benefits that flow from Christ, but the very Body and Blood of Christ, that is, Christ Himself crucified. For as none can be made partaker of the virtue of the Bread and Wine to his bodily sustenance, unless he first do receive the substance of those creatures, so neither can any participate in the benefits arising from Christ to his spiritual relief, except he first have communion with Christ Himself.’

The main difference between Calvinist and Zwinglian views and the historic Anglican is on the matter of Objective Presence: What is offered in the Eucharist is the True Body and Blood of Christ objectively, mystically and supernaturally present under the sacred species of host and chalice. In the Eucharist, an Objective Divine Thing is made present under the sacramental veils, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in the totality of His divinity and humanity, not merely present in power, grace or virtue, but made present in His human nature as well as His divine - and wherever that Objective Thing, the Thing Signified, is made present, He is present as Priest and Victim. The Risen Jesus, who now makes intercession for us as Great High Priest, is on our Altars - really, truly and substantially. (The Caroline Divines frequently refer to a 'substantial presence,' which does not require the Latin definition of transubstantiation at all - the Change in the Elements is real but of a metaphysical and not a material kind). Christ is objectively present in the Blessed Sacrament at the Consecration of the Mass, and by virtue of that objective presence is manifest and pleaded to the Father as Sacrifice and Atonement. 

Anglicans do not dogmatically impose the medieval scholastic Aristotelian theory of transubstantiation on the revealed mystery of the Real Objective Presence, although Rome does. We do believe in the Real Substantial Presence of Our Lord under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist without attempting to explain how the Lord is substantially present – that is, without imposing any more dogmatic teaching on the mystery than that which is required by the Holy Scriptures and the Church of the First Millennium.

Our Lord's proclamation of the truth of the Real Objective Presence in Saint John chapter 6 is certainly not symbolical or metaphorical, and He is not speaking in figurative terms, as the context of the Scripture makes clear. Our Lord's human nature, as well as His Divinity, is present in the form of the sacred species, in an abiding and permanent way after Eucharistic Consecration. We should reject as contrary to Holy Tradition the doctrine of memorialism, which makes the Eucharist a mere mental psychological act of remembrance devoid of presence and grace, and the doctrine of virtualism, which holds that only the believing faithful receive the subjective grace or power of the Body and Blood through the elements, but not the Thing Itself objectively present in the elements.

Since the Reformation, Anglicans have insisted, with the consensus of the early Fathers, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Saint Theodore of Mopsuestia and Saint Theophylact especially amongst them, that the materiality of the Bread and Wine remains in its original physical state after Eucharistic Consecration, but that to it is joined by Consecration the supernatural totality of the Incarnate God-Man, by a ‘hypostatic union,’ a Personal Union extending the Incarnation, a sacramental unity of the outward and visible sign with the Divine Thing, Our Lord, Who is signified and contained in the sign. ‘The Bread which is of the earth receiving the invocation of God is no longer common bread but Eucharist, made up of two things, an earthly and a heavenly.’

The Holy Ghost, through the Consecration of the Mass, effects a sacramental change, an ontological change, in the forms of bread and wine on a supernatural metaphysical level, so that the outward forms become the Spirit-filled Body and Blood of Christ in an immaterial but essential manner. The Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist are the Body and Blood of His mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension, a spiritual Body vivified by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 15.44). The afore-described doctrine is plainly laid out in the Prayer Book Catechism, the Prayer Book Offices of Instruction and in the Prayer Book Eucharistic Liturgy, as well as Articles of Religion XXVIII and XXIX. All communicants receive the outward and visible Sign and the Thing Signified; only the faithful receive the Benefit or virtue of the Sacrament, as the wicked receive not benefit but condemnation (I Corinthians 11.27-29). We do indeed need to be careful about Eucharistic language, so as to avoid on one hand a monophysiticism wherein the elements are believed to be destroyed and absorbed into Christ, and a Nestorianism often found in Calvinism and 'reformed' protestantism on the other, wherein the sign is divorced and entirely separated from the Divine Reality.

Again, Saint Irenaeus says, 'in the Eucharist there is an earthly thing and a heavenly thing,' hence, the outward signs of Bread and Wine and the Thing Signified, the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Other Fathers describe the Eucharist as the prolongation of the Incarnation, a Mystery like an iron thrust into the fire - the iron does not lose its own properties or reality, but it takes on the reality and properties of the fire. Both remain complete in themselves and yet are perfectly united, and each takes on the property of the other: True God and True Man in the Incarnation, earthly elements and the Person of Christ in the Eucharist. The consecrated Elements are not destroyed, but elevated, not replaced, but perfected into a new Thing. Grace builds upon nature, and does not destroy, but perfects, nature. Our Lord is ‘incarnated’ in the sacramental species, mystically present.

That there is 1. a supernatural, glorified, metaphysical yet corporeal (of a Body) Presence of Our Lord's Incarnate Person in the Eucharist, the Risen and Exalted Lord, and 2. a Change in the Eucharistic Elements upon Consecration, is beyond doubt for all Catholic Christians; but as Anglicans we believe we cannot attempt dogmatically to define the exact manner of the Presence or the process of how the Presence comes about at Mass - without adding to the Catholic Faith. We cannot rationally explain the inexplicable or define the indefinable. The Real Presence is Mystical - the ultimate Holy Mystery. The Presence is more real than that found in our own material physical plane, but it is not material and physical as understood in the limited field of our empirical experience.

PART II: The Lutherans

Anglicans are not the only heirs of the Reformation to proffer belief in the essential Eucharistic Presence. While the doctrine of the substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is popularly attributed solely to the Latin ecclesiastical tradition and the scholastic movement, it should be noted that the belief in an essential Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is not only the received tradition of the universal Church of the first millennium, the Anglican Church, the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church, but is, in fact, the original protestant Eucharistic doctrine.

A doctrine of substantial presence is located in the undisputed universal tradition of the Holy Catholic Church for the first 1,500 years of Christian history; it is also what many sixteenth-century magisterial protestants held, the most important representative being Doctor Martin Luther. The original Lutherans would vehemently object to the appellation ‘Lutheran.’ They saw themselves simply as true Western Catholics, the Evangelical Catholics or the Evangelicals - who held to the ancient Faith of the Church renewed. They fiercely perpetuated the consensus fidelium on the matter of the Real Substantial Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. 

Anglicans and other orthodox Catholics certainly do not agree with Luther and his followers on all aspects of Eucharistic doctrine, as, for example, on the issue of Eucharistic Sacrifice and Perduring Presence, but the similarities between the traditions regarding belief in an essential Eucharistic Presence are salient.

Basic Eucharistic doctrine as presented by Martin Luther in his Small Catechism includes belief in the real and essential Presence:

Q. What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
A. It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink, established by Christ Himself.

Q. What good does this eating and drinking do?
A. These words tell us: ‘Given for you’ and ‘Shed for you to forgive sins.’ Namely, that the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation are given to us through these words in the sacrament. Because, where sins are forgiven, there is life and salvation as well.

Q. How can physical eating and drinking do such great things?
A. Of course, eating and drinking do not do these things. These words, written here, do them: ‘given for you’ and ‘shed for you to forgive sins.’ These words, along with physical eating and drinking are the important part of the sacrament. Anyone who believes these words has what they say and what they record, namely, the forgiveness of sins. 

The same is posited in Luther’s Large Catechism:

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink.

Doctor Luther rejected the Latin scholastic doctrine of transubstantiation, that is, that the essence or substance of the bread and wine are annihilated and replaced with the substantial body and blood of Christ. In line with the earliest Fathers of the Church, he saw no need for the Aristotelian doctrine. Rather, he asserted that Christ's Real Presence did not replace the material presence of bread and wine but was united to the consecrated elements. Luther clearly maintained that the Body and Blood of Our Lord are substantially present in and under the consecrated elements of bread and wine. It is common parlance for many to refer to the Lutheran view as consubstantiation, because the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ are held to be present with (con) the substance of the bread and wine.

Lutheran theology, however, does not use the term consubstantiation and instead uses Doctor Luther’s own formulation of ‘sacramental union’ – a union of the Incarnate Person of Our Lord with the Eucharistic species. It is perspicuously manifest that Luther, in all of his writings, insists on Real Substantial Presence of Christ in the elements of the Holy Communion.  He repeatedly cites Our Lord’s ipsissima verba, the Words of institution, ‘This is my Body, This is my Blood,’ to prove the truth of the doctrine, and the best example of his persistence is the famous (or infamous) Marburg Colloquy of 1529, in which an effort to unite various protestant movements failed because of a lack of consensus on Eucharistic doctrine. Huldrich Zwingli refused Luther’s doctrine of the substantial presence; Luther in conscience could not back down. Even in the face of continued protestant division, Luther would not and could not relent and recant: ‘this is my Body’ means ‘this is my Body.’  Doctor Luther would not permit the verb is to be taken in a figurative, symbolic or representative sense. The verb was and is taken literally, so that in the Eucharist Our Lord makes the bread and wine to be what He declares them to be, His True Body and True Blood. In this teaching, Luther is merely being consistent with the affirmations of Holy Scripture and the Great Tradition of the Church throughout the ages.

Doctor Luther uses the previously-mentioned fire-and-iron analogy of the earliest Fathers to defend the substantial presence: ‘Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron that every part of it is both fire and iron. Why may not the glorious Body of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread?’ He uses the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures in Christ to explicate the mystery. Our Lord’s Deity, he teaches, is not present under accidents of the human nature in Christ. He submits therefore that one can say, ‘This Man is God, this God is Man,’ in the Chalcedonian tradition of the communcatio idiomatum. So also in the Blessed Sacrament, it is not necessary that transubstantiation (however defined) occur in order for Our Lord become essentially present. After Eucharistic Consecration, the materiality of the bread and wine continue to exist, yet one can say in the person of Christ, ‘This bread is my Body, this wine is my Blood – and vice-versa.’  ‘As this truth is found in Christ, so also in the Sacrament.’ Luther utilises Christology to express the nature of the Real Presence.  He employs Christology and the Hypostatic Union solely by way of analogy, for he does not attempt to define the ‘how’ of the mystery, only that the mystery is objective and real. The Real Substantial Presence only comes about, as Saint Augustine saith, by the power or virtue of the Word, the Word of Christ, the hoc est enim corpus meum, for the divine mystery can never be comprehended or understood.

In 1528, in opposition to Zwingli, Doctor Luther wrote in The Confession of the Supper of Christ. In this work, he evolves an analogy between the Unity of the Three Divine Persons in the Godhead, the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures in Christ, and the sacramental union of Our Lord with the elements - the unio sacramentalis.

The Holy Trinity possesses a union of nature, a natural unanimity. In Our Lord, there is a union in One Divine Person of two Natures, a union of person, a personal unanimity.  In the Holy Eucharist, Our Lord forges a union with the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine, a union of sacrament, a sacramental unanimity. According to Luther’s interpretation, the bread and wine are so suffused with the substantial presence of Christ, and Our Lord is so closely joined to the elements after Consecration that the terms ‘flesh-bread’ and ‘blood-wine’ are engaged to describe the mystery of the sacramental union. There is an absolute, indivisible unity between Our Lord and the Eucharistic species. Therefore, the substantial presence is infallibly received with the consecrated elements – the Body and Blood are received with the bread and wine, which serve as the vessel, the conduit, the instrument. The outward and visible sign of material bread and wine (signum sacramenti) are always given with the inward and spiritual Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ (res sacramenti), in Augustinian terms.

Moving on from Luther himself to his followers, we witness below the confident teaching of the Book of Concord on the matter of substantial Presence. No one could dispute that the Augsburg Confession and its Confutation and Apology are protestant formularies, and yet we observe how certainly the doctrine of essential Presence is affirmed.

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper - Confession

Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
  

To Article X - Confutation

The tenth article gives no offence in its words, because they confess that in the Eucharist, after the consecration lawfully made, the Body and Blood of Christ are substantially and truly present, if only they believe that the entire Christ is present under each form, so that the Blood of Christ is no less present under the form of bread by concomitance than it is under the form of the wine, and the reverse. Otherwise, in the Eucharist the Body of Christ is dead and bloodless, contrary to Saint Paul, because Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more. One matter is added as very necessary to the article of the Confession -  that they believe the Church, rather than some teaching otherwise and incorrectly, that by the almighty Word of God in the consecration of the Eucharist the substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ. For thus in a general council it has been determined firmly concerning the exalted Trinity, and the Catholic faith. They are praised therefor, for condemning the Capernaites, who deny the truth of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Article X: Of the Holy Supper - Apology

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, that the bread is the communion of the Lord's body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord's body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ's flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine (quod in coena Domini vere et substantialiter adsint corpus et sanguis Christi et vere exhibeantur  cum his rebus, quae videntur, pane et vino). And we speak of the presence of the living Body of Christ; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him.

The Augsburg Confession, Article Ten (1530), definitively professes the Real Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the distribution of the True Body and True Blood of Christ to all communicants under the elements, good and evil alike – the manducatio impiorum; it condemns those who teach otherwise. The doctrine of transubstantiation is never taught or mentioned. The Confutation proclaims that ‘the tenth article is not verbally hurtful, because they acknowledge that in the Eucharist after consecration lawfully made, the body and blood of Christ are substantially and really present.’ But regarding transubstantiation it is affirmed: ‘One very necessary addition to the article of the Confession is that they should believe the Church, rather than any who wrongly teach differently that by the almighty word of God in the consecration of the Eucharist the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ.’

After the Confutation came the Apology of the Augsburg Confession of 1530. Philip Melanchthon, in addressing Article Ten, replaces for vere et adsint the strongest possible language, vere et substantialiter adsint, in order to teach the Real Substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation again is never mentioned.

The Lutheran Reformation is another very crucial example of how even the protestant tradition has historically embraced the ancient and universal tradition of the essential Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Communion. It is not a doctrine alien to the Anglican Church or to other Churches of the Reformation, but a truth of the Gospel, a vital truth, a divine revelation, and a living component of our inheritance from the consensus patricum and the consensus fidelium of the First Millennium Church. The Church’s faith in the Real Presence is not to be confused with the later philosophical development called transubstantiation.

DEUS Synod 2013

Photographs of the 2013 Anglican Province of America Diocese of the Eastern United States Synod, which occurred 8th to 12th July at Saint Paul's Church in Crownsville, Maryland, are found at this link...

FIFNA Assembly News

By Mary Ann Mueller in Belleville, Illinois

Some of the heaviest Anglo-Catholic hitters in the Anglican realignment were in the shadow of the St. Louis arch last week. They travelled from near and far to celebrate their connectiveness as Christians and to rejoice in their joy at being Anglicans with a common history and shared prayer as Forward in Faith-North America's (FiF-NA) 2013 Assembly played out near the banks of the upper Mississippi River.

Bishops in purple shirts, priests and deacons in black shirts, monks in flowing black or brown serge habits, and the laity, all sporting a wide spectrum of colors, fabrics and patterns, descended on the 200-acre Our Lady of the Snows, a national Catholic shrine dedicated to providing an oasis for spiritual renewal in an atmosphere of Christian hospitality.

Some of the bishops present included: ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan, FiF-NA President Bishop Keith Ackerman, Anglican Province of America Presiding Archbishop Walter Grundorf, Anglican Church in America Bishop Stephen Strawn, ACNA Missionary Diocese of All Saints Bishop William Illgenfritz, Diocese of the Holy Cross Bishop Paul Hewett, APA Diocese of the Eastern United States Bishop Chandler Jones, ACNA Bishop Richard Lipka, ACNA Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop Eric Menees, Reformed Episcopal Diocese of the West Bishop Winifield Mott, and three venerable elderly bishops of the American Anglicanism - William Wantland, Donald Parsons, and Ed Mac Burney, all now slowed and bent with age but representing the image of Forward in Faith at its initial flowering.

Forward in Faith is an over-arching umbrella that draws together those from various parts in the Anglican renewal who seek to live out their spirituality the Catholic stream of Anglicanism. More than 150 Anglo-Catholics travelled to the Midwest from throughout the United States and across the Anglican spectrum to join together in unified prayer, joyful worship and lessons taught by one of the greatest teaching speakers in Anglicanism today. 

The special orator for the event was a Church of England bishop who has travelled far and wide mesmerizing audiences wherever Anglicanism has been planted and is celebrated. 

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, the 106th Bishop of Rochester (England) and now the director for the Oxford Centre for Training, Research, Advocacy and Dialogue, chose as his topic"Ecclesiology at the Crossroads." For three one-hour sessions, the English bishop kept his audience in rapt attention as he spoke eloquently and knowledgably all without benefit of notes. He was thoroughly conversant with his topic and was able to bring forth a wide variety of facts and weaving in dates and personages as he fleshed out his topic. He was also very much a part of the overall experience of Forward in Faith. He blended in as one of many bishops and was accepted as an equal participant, rubbing shoulders with one and all throughout the days and evenings.

The three-day event was undergirded in prayer. The OLS conference room became many things during the three days, which sped by with incredible speed - change a wall here or move a table there, and, presto, the room is transformed. It was used as a chapel for the recitation of Daily Office, a classroom when Bishop Nazir-Ali was teaching, an assembly hall during FiF-NA business sessions, a comfortable parlor when Bishop Ackerman was with his beloved FiF-NA family, a television studio for Anglican TV's recording of the event, an exhibitor's hall for various FiF-NA and Anglo-Catholic ministries and movements, a movie theatre for the playing of the short film "Surprising Merrily," a banquet hall for the breaking of bread, a parish hall for fellowship and snacks, and a cathedral for the celebration of the closing Eucharist by a Bishop Wantland.

Forward in Faith participants not only looked back over their collective shoulders to see where they have come out of the spiritual desert of Egypt but also peered forward to see where the Lord is leading them today, tomorrow and beyond.

Bishop Ackerman realized that as a living entity, FiF-NA has changed from being a rigid rule-based organization to an organism that grows and changes, develops and learns as it matures. Therefore, the canons and constitution of the group have to reflect the new reality. Rather than trying to remold the FiF-NA Assembly into an organization, the bylaws need to reflect the liveliness of an organism. So they were tweaked to mirror the fact that Forward in Faith is a loving spiritual family and not an ecclesial legislative body.

FiF-NA's early DNA goes back to 1972 and the Committee (later Coalition) for the Apostolic Ministry. It then is traced through the Evangelical Catholic Mission and the Episcopal Synod of America, finally morphing into Forward in Faith in 1989. Through it all, the Anglo-Catholic voice has remained loud and strong and uncompromising in the face of decadence and decay. Next time the Forward in Faith Assembly meets, it will be to celebrate its silver anniversary with jubilation and prayer. Next year, all eyes will turn toward celebrating FiF-NA's silver anniversary as the strong Anglo-Catholic voice in the reforming face of American Anglicanism.

Bishop Ackerman has called for help. He has developed a plan where participants can become adjunct members of the FiF-NA Council and focus on one specified project. The specialized auxiliary ministries include: marketing, securing advertizing for the Forward in Christ publication, Mission and Outreach for the Myanmar Project, various children's ministries, writing tracts, interacting with social media such as Facebook and Twitter, fundraising and development, maintaining the FiF-NA website, developing regional Festival in Faith mini-conferences, and preparing for next year's joyful silver jubilee celebrating what God has done and is continuing to do with Forward in Faith.

The Declaration of Common Faith and Purpose of Forward in Faith North America

Affirmed unanimously at the Assembly of Forward in Faith North America, held at the Shrine of Our Lady of the Snows, Belleville, Illinois, Thursday 18th July 2013.

In its basic theological affirmations, this declaration is virtually identical with the Affirmation of Saint Louis, the foundational document of the Continuing Anglican Churches accepted at the Congress of Saint Louis (1977). 

1. I believe our Lord Jesus Christ has given His Church an Order which claims the loyalty of faithful Christians above and beyond any deviation sanctioned by any humanly-invented institution, whether secular or ecclesiastical.

2. I accept the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as 'containing all things necessary to salvation,' and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith and morals. 

3. I accept the Apostles' Creed as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. 

4. I accept the historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church. I affirm the Christian ministerial priesthood as male and that the churches of the Anglican Communion have no authority to change the historic tradition of the male priesthood. I pray that God grants me the strength and ability to uphold the Church's Order, both materially and spiritually as concerns the ministerial priesthood of His holy Church. Accordingly, I will reject any and all actions that might signify acceptance of a deviation from the Church's Order regarding the Christian ministerial priesthood. 

5. I recognize the seven Sacraments of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and of the elements ordained by Him, Confirmation, Matrimony, Ordination, Reconciliation of a Penitent, and Unction of the Sick. 

6. I believe that, in the Sacrament and mystery of the Holy Eucharist, Jesus Christ is truly, really and substantially present in the Body and Blood in the outward and visible sign of Bread and Wine. (cf. 1 Corinthians 10.16-17, 11.23-29, Saint John 6.32-71). 

7. I affirm our Lord's teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is in its nature the exclusive, permanent and lifelong union of one man and one woman. 

8. I believe all Seven Councils are ecumenical and catholic on the basis of the received Tradition of the ancient Undivided Church of East and West.

9. I affirm that God, and not man, is the creator of human life. Believing that the unjustified taking of life is sinful, I will promote and uphold the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. 

Bishops attending the FIFNA Assembly 2013

Recession at the FIFNA Solemn High Mass

At the Assembly of Forward in Faith North America, held at the Shrine of Our Lady of the Snows, Belleville, Illinois, Wednesday 17th July 2013...

Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia Eliminates Its Western Rite?

Bishop Jerome of Manhattan, 

formerly Western Rite Bishop-Vicar of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

A sad and unwelcome development, but an instructive reminder...

Traditional Anglicanism is Western Orthodox Christianity.

Update: Metropolitan Hilarion has issued the following decree on the Western Rite in ROCOR.

Orthodox Anglicanism for Today

A helpful reminder from the Affirmation of Saint Louis (1977). If one might be tempted to think that the Affirmation is dated or not useful to the present theological and moral formation of orthodox Christians and Traditional Anglicans, please read on...

Sacraments

The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Penance and Unction of the Sick, as objective and effective signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ our Lord among His people and as His covenanted means for conveying His grace... 

II. PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY

The conscience, as the inherent knowledge of right and wrong, cannot stand alone as a sovereign arbiter of morals. Every Christian is obligated to form his conscience by the Divine Moral Law and the Mind of Christ as revealed in Holy Scriptures, and by the teaching and Tradition of the Church. We hold that when the Christian conscience is thus properly informed and ruled, it must affirm the following moral principles:

Individual Responsibility

All people, individually and collectively, are responsible to their Creator for their acts, motives, thoughts and words, since "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ . . ."

Man's Duty to God

All people are bound by the dictates of the Natural Law and by the revealed Will of God, insofar as they can discern them.

Family Life

The God-given sacramental bond in marriage between one man and one woman is God's loving provision for procreation and family life, and sexual activity is to be practiced only within the bonds of Holy Matrimony.

Christian's Duty to be Moral

We believe, therefore, it is the duty of the Church and her members to bear witness to Christian Morality, to follow it in their lives, and to reject the false standards of the world.

The Church as Witness to Truth

We recognize also that, as keepers of God's will and truth for man, we can and ought to witness to that will and truth against all manifest evils, remembering that we are as servants in the world, but God's servants first.

Anglicans and the Filioque

Most interesting news from the Anglican Church in North America as recorded in its Provincial Meeting Journal of June 2013...

In it, this footnote is placed within the provided liturgical texts:

The filioque clause “and the Son” may be added here. It is not included in the text above for ecumenical purposes, in accordance with the 1978 Lambeth Conference, though the ACNA does not disagree with the theology of the filioque.

The following statement is recorded in the minutes of the Journal:

Bishop Dobbs asked about the Filioque clause and whether it is wise for us to be the Province to champion this issue at this point in our new history. This is a fairly significant change to a historic document of the church. The Archbishop stated that this is the agreed position of our joint dialogue with the Orthodox Church in America. It is their recommendation to the College of Bishops and will be reviewed at their January 2013 meeting. In October, when he next gathers with the GAFCON primates, he will approach the subject. There has been no official decision made and he noted that the liturgies we
are using at this gathering have not been altered. 

And this Resolution was passed:

Resolution Concerning the Nicene Creed  

Bp. Anderson moves, Bp. Wood seconds,  

Resolved,  

The normative form of the Nicene Creed for the Anglican Church in North America
is the original text as adopted by the Councils of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and
Constantinople (381 A.D.). This form shall be rendered in English in the best and
most accurate translation achievable.  

Resolved,
The Anglican Church in North America acknowledges that the form of the Nicene
Creed customary in the West is that of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, including
the words “and the Son” (filioque), which form may be used in worship and for
elucidation of doctrine.  

Resolved,
Because we are committed to the highest level of global unity possible, the College
of Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America seeks advice of the Theological
Commission of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans concerning
implementation of the recommendation of the Lambeth Conference of 1978 to use
the normative form of the Nicene Creed at worship.  

Adopted unanimously. 

The ACNA Provincial Council is to be commended for its openness to ecumenical relationships with branches of the wider Church Catholic, and in particular, with those Churches that use the unaltered original version of the Creed of Constantinople (AD 381), the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the orthodox Old Catholic Churches. An Anglican movement to restore the use of the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed could, if successful, produce a future breakthrough in ecumenical relationships, as the Western filioque remains an insuperable barrier to communion with the Eastern Churches. The serious difficulties posed by the historically Western (and Latin) insistence of maintaining a phrase in the Ecumenical Creed not sanctioned by the undisputed Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church have been acknowledged and contemplated by many eminent Anglican theologians.

A quintessential example is Dr C. B. Moss, in his book The Christian Faith, 1957:

The Anglican Communion has inherited the Filioque clause. Probably the Creed has never been recited here without it. In 1689 a proposal to omit it was part of the abortive Prayer Book put forward as part of the Revolution Settlement. In 1875 after Dollinger and the Old Catholics had been excommunicated by the Pope because they refused to accept the decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870, a conference of Old Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and some Lutheran divines was held at Bonn, and the Filioque clause was the chief subject of discussion.  

The theologians present (who were not sent by their churches but came by Dollinger's invitation) produced a written agreement. Since then Anglican theologians have again and again assured the Orthodox churches that Anglican teaching does not differ from Orthodox teaching on this subject.   

The Old Catholic churches, which are now in full communion with the Church of England, have long since dropped the Filioque clause, which in their books is printed in brackets. The opposition of Dr. Pusey defeated a proposal that the Church of England should drop the Filioque. 

The Orthodox churches, however, continue to regard this question as a serious hindrance to reunion.   

They cannot understand how churches can be in communion with one another while they recite the Creed differently. The Uniat churches (Eastern churches in communion with Rome) are permitted to recite the Creed without the Filioque.  For this reason Orthodox controversialists accuse Rome of inconsistency.   

The late Patriarch Barnabas of Yugoslavia, in a conversation with me, raised the same objection to the union of the Anglican and Old Catholic communions.  "How can they be united," he asked, "when they recite different creeds?" It seems certain that the Anglican Communion, if it is ever to return to union with the Orthodox Eastern churches, will have to drop the Filioque, as the Old Catholics have done.  

There are two questions involved, the doctrinal question and the canonical question.  To the first we have often replied that when we say "from the Father and the Son" we mean what St. John of Damascus and other Greek Fathers meant by "from the Father through the Son".  But the Filioque, with the emphatic "que", does not express this at all well. If we believe what they believe, we ought to use the same words. 

The Orthodox view of the canonical question is that since the Creed was imposed by an Ecumenical Council, it can be altered only by an Ecumenical Council, and therefore the Latins had no right to alter it by adding the Filioque. It is true that Constantinople was for centuries in full communion with the French and Spanish churches that used the Filioque, but in those days the distances were immense.  There was little contact between the Greeks and Latins, and the question had not become sharply controversial.  There is only one real answer to the Orthodox case, and it is an answer that we cannot make: "the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council and can add to its Creed if he wishes." The Filioque clause is inseparably connected with the Papal Supremacy. 

Dr. Liddon opposed the omission of the Filioque for two reasons: it would place a further hindrance to reunion between Rome and Canterbury, and it would weaken the authority of creeds in general.  

The answer to the first is, that since Rome allows the Uniat churches to recite the Creed without the Filioque, we might be allowed to do the same; that the omission of the Filioque would do much more to promote reunion with Constantinople than to hinder reunion with Rome; and that the obstacles to reunion with Rome are so vast already that the addition of this one, even if it were a real obstacle, would make no practical difference.  The answer to Dr. Liddon's second objection is that the omission of the Filioque, if it led to reunion with the Orthodox churches, would enormously strengthen the authority of the Nicene Creed and of Creeds in general.

Therefore I agree with the late Dr. Goudge that the Anglican Communion would do well to omit the Filioque from the Creed. The break with our tradition would be well worthwhile, for it would do more to promote reunion than anything else we could do. The view of some modern Russian theologians, that the Filioque is an error against love rather than against truth, has much in its favour (N. Zernov, Church of the Eastern Christians, p. 96). 

Dr Moss certainly appears to be philorthodox and wants to reconcile Anglicanism to the Eastern Churches, and is willing to give up the filioque to do so. To that degree, so are many Traditional Anglicans today.

He rightly distinguishes between:

A. the theological issues implied by a double procession of the Holy Ghost and
B. the canonical question of the legality and universality/ecumenicity of the filioque clause qua clause.

The filioque is not heretical doctrinally - but is uncanonical, illegal, lacking the consensus fidelium of an undisputed ecumenical council.

Moss also asserts that the Orthodox are right about the intrinsic papalism of the filioque - it was imposed on the Symbol of Constantinople, not by the action of a general council, but by the unilateral authority of the Bishop of Rome. The clause would then be objectionable as an early instalment in history of that usurpation of authority from the conciliar nature of the Church eventually aggregated to the Pope.

I am compelled to agree with him. The Old Catholics removed the filioque in the 19th and 20th centuries to appease the Orthodox; if given the opportunity, at the right time in the right way, I think Anglicanism should do the same, and restore the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. 

We recall that in 1716 the Non-Jurors, or as they called themselves, the Catholic Remnant of the British Churches, submitted proposals for communion with the Eastern Churches in which they professed Eastern Orthodox doctrine concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost: 'They [the Catholic Bishops of Britain] agree that the Holy Ghost is sent forth by the Son from the Father; and when they say in any of their confessions that He is sent forth or proceedeth from the Son, they mean no more than what is and always has been confessed by the Orthodox Oriental Church, that is, from the Father by the Son.' In 1722, the Non-Juring Bishops formally agreed with the Orthodox and consented in principle to remove the filioque from the Creed. After 1732, the Non-Jurors in fact removed the filioque from the Athanasian Creed (although, apparently, not from the Nicene) in order to solidify and promote their negotiations with the Eastern Orthodox. 

It should be noted that the 1874 Bonn Conference (mentioned above), the first major gathering together in modern times of Anglican, Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ecumenical delegations and representatives, unanimously adopted the following statement regarding the filioque phrase:

We agree that the way in which the Filioque was inserted into the Nicene Creed was illegal, and that, with a view to future peace and unity, it is much to be desired that the whole Church should set itself seriously to consider whether the Creed could possibly be restored to its primitive form, without sacrifice of any true doctrine which is expressed in the current Western form.

In 1921, Archbishop Randall Davidson of Canterbury approved the following term of intercommunion proposed to the Eastern Churches:

And whereas in the Western Church at some time in the sixth or seventh century the words filioque were added to the Creed, we agree in acknowledging that this addition was not made 'in an ecclesiastically regular manner'; and that in assemblies of Easterns and Westerns the one Creed of the Universal Church ought to be recited without those words...

The 1976 Moscow Agreed Statement of Anglicans and Orthodox says this:

The question of the Filioque is in the first instance a question of the content of the Creed, i.e. the summary of the articles of faith which are to be confessed by all. In the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed (commonly called the Nicene Creed) of 381 the words 'proceeding from the Father' are an assertion of the divine origin and nature of the Holy Spirit, parallel to the assertion of the divine origin and nature of the Son contained in the words 'begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father'. 

The word ekporeuomenon (proceeding), as used in the Creed, denotes the incomprehensible mode of the Spirit's origin from the Father, employing the language of Scripture (John 15.26). It asserts that the Spirit comes from the Father in a manner which is not that of generation. 

The question of the origin of the Holy Spirit is to be distinguished from that of his mission to the world. It is with reference to the mission of the Spirit that we are to understand the biblical texts which speak both of the Father (John 14.26) and of the Son (John 15.26) as sending (pempein) the Holy Spirit. 

The Anglican members therefore agree that: 

(a) because the original form of the Creed referred to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, 

(b) because the Filioque clause was introduced into this Creed without the authority of an Ecumenical Council and without due regard for Catholic consent, and 

(c) because  this  Creed  constitutes the public confession of faith by the People of God in the Eucharist,  the Filioque clause should not be included in this Creed.

The 1984 Dublin Agreed Statement of Anglicans and Orthodox says this:

Further discussions on the Filioque led to the reaffirmation by both Anglicans and Orthodox of the agreement reached in Moscow in 1976 that this phrase should not be included in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Certain Anglican Churches have already acted upon this recommendation, whilst others are still considering it. 

From the theological point of view the Orthodox stated that the doctrine of the Filioque is unacceptable, although as expressed by Augustine, it is capable of an Orthodox interpretation. According to the Orthodox understanding the Son cannot be considered a cause or co-cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit. In spite of this we find in certain Fathers, for example St Maximus the Confessor (7th cent.), as explained by Anastasius the Librarian (9th cent.), the opinion that the Filioque, as used in early Latin theology, can be understood in an Orthodox way. 

According to this interpretation a distinction should be made between two senses of procession, one by which the Father causes the existence of the Spirit and the other by which the Spirit shines forth from the Father and the Son. This second sense of procession must be clearly differentiated from the later Western use of the Filioque which observed no such distinction but rather confused 'cause of existence' with 'communication of essence'. 

Some Orthodox theologians, while affirming that the doctrine of the Filioque is unacceptable for the Orthodox Church, at the same time, having in mind the position of Professor Bolotov (1854-1900) and his followers, regard the Filioque as a 'theologoumenon' in the West. 

On the Anglican side it was pointed out that the Filioque was not to be regarded as a dogma which would have to be accepted by all Christians. It was emphasized, however, that the following points are important for a correct understanding of its intention: 

1. Although the Western tradition has spoken from time to time of the Son as a 'cause' (causa) of the Spirit, this language has not met with favour and has fallen into disuse; 

2. The Western tradition has continued to maintain that the Father is the sole 'fount of deity' (fons deitatis) at the same time as it has associated the Son with the Father as the 'principle' (principium) of the Spirit; 

3. The Western tradition, in speaking of the Father and the Son as 'one principle', has not meant to imply that the Spirit proceeds from some undifferentiated divine essence, as opposed to the persons of the Father and the Son. 

The Anglicans on the Commission put on record that they do not wish to defend the use of the term 'cause' in this context. 

We agree that the original form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed referred to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. For this reason, and because the Filioque was introduced into the Creed without the authority of an Ecumenical Council and without due regard to catholic consent, the Anglicans agree with the Orthodox that the Filioque should not be included in the Creed. 

We have discussed how far the doctrine implied by the Filioque (as distinguished from the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed) is acceptable to our two churches. Here we have failed to reach full agreement. The Anglican delegates regard the Filioque as a valid theological statement, though not as a dogma. The Orthodox delegates regard the doctrine of the Filioque as unacceptable, but they note that according to some Eastern Fathers, the use of the Filioque in early Latin theology can be understood in an Orthodox way.

Let us continue to pray for the reunion of all Christians in the Faith and Fellowship of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church! 

The Holy Baptism of Tessa Marie Hightower

Saturday 8th June at Saint Barnabas Dunwoody.

The Holy Baptism of Caleb Sonuga

On Sunday 2nd June, Trinity I, at Saint Barnabas Dunwoody.

60th Anniversary of the Coronation

Today marks the actual date of the 60th anniversary of the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The following exquisite prayers were featured in the 2nd June 1953 Coronation Rite, a most remarkable liturgy suffused with the language of Holy Scripture in the Authorised Version and the theology and praxis of the Catholic Faith as expressed in the traditional Book of Common Prayer. The Holy Communion Service from the 1662 Prayer Book was celebrated. 

(Collect) O God,
who providest for thy people by thy power,
and rulest over them in love:
Grant unto this thy servant ELIZABETH, our Queen,
the Spirit of wisdom and government,
that being devoted unto thee with her whole heart,
she may so wisely govern,
that in her time thy Church may be in safety,
and Christian devotion may continue in peace;
that so persevering in good works unto the end,
she may by thy mercy come to thine everlasting kingdom;
through Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord,
who liveth and reigneth with thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost,
one God for ever and ever. Amen.

(Anointing) O Lord and heavenly Father,
the exalter of the humble and the strength of thy chosen,
who by anointing with Oil didst of old
make and consecrate kings, priests, and prophets,
to teach and govern thy people Israel:
Bless and sanctify thy chosen servant ELIZABETH,
who by our office and ministry
is now to be anointed with this Oil,
and consecrated Queen:
Strengthen her, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter;
Confirm and stablish her with thy free and princely Spirit,
the Spirit of wisdom and government,
the Spirit of counsel and ghostly strength,
the Spirit of knowledge and true godliness,
and fill her, O Lord, with the Spirit of thy holy fear,
now and for ever;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Be thy Hands anointed with holy Oil.
Be thy Breast anointed with holy Oil.
Be thy Head anointed with holy Oil:
as kings, priests, and prophets were anointed:
And as Solomon was anointed king
by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet,
so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen
over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God
hath given thee to rule and govern,
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.


Our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
who by his Father was anointed with the Oil of gladness
above his fellows,
by his holy Anointing pour down upon your Head and Heart
the blessing of the Holy Ghost,
and prosper the works of your Hands:
that by the assistance of his heavenly grace
you may govern and preserve
the Peoples committed to your charge
in wealth, peace, and godliness;
and after a long and glorious course
of ruling a temporal kingdom
wisely, justly, and religiously,
you may at last be made partaker of an eternal kingdom,
through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

(Sword) Receive this kingly Sword,
brought now from the Altar of God,
and delivered to you by the hands of us
the Bishops and servants of God, though unworthy.
With this sword do justice,
stop the growth of iniquity,
protect the holy Church of God,
help and defend widows and orphans,
restore the things that are gone to decay,
maintain the things that are restored,
punish and reform what is amiss,
and confirm what is in good order:
that doing these things you may be glorious in all virtue;
and so faithfully serve our Lord Jesus Christ in this life,
that you may reign for ever with him
in the life which is to come. Amen.

(Ring) Receive the Ring of kingly dignity,
and the seal of Catholic Faith:
and as you are this day
consecrated to be our Head and Prince,
so may you continue stedfastly
as the Defender of Christ's Religion;
that being rich in faith
and blessed in all good works,
you may reign with him who is the King of Kings,
to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

(At the Offertory) Bless, O Lord, we beseech thee, these thy gifts,
and sanctify them unto this holy use,
that by them we may be made partakers of the Body and Blood
of thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ,
and fed unto everlasting life of soul and body:
And that thy servant Queen ELIZABETH
may be enabled to the discharge of her weighty office,
whereunto of thy great goodness thou hast called and appointed her.
Grant this, O Lord, for Jesus Christ's sake,
our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.

(The Proper Preface) It 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:
Who hast at this time consecrated thy servant
ELIZABETH to be our Queen,
that by the anointing of thy grace she may be
the Defender of thy Faith
and the Protector of thy Church and People.
Therefore with Angels and Archangels,
and with all the company of heaven,
we laud and magnify thy glorious Name;
evermore praising thee, and saying:

Holy, holy, holy, Lord God hosts...