a letter from John Hodgins & the unity of Eucharist

A Letter to the Canadian House of Bishops

In response to A Statement from the House of Bishops to the Members of General Synod (2007) and the request: “We call upon every member of the Anglican Church of Canada to continue in their faithful discipleship and the work of theological and scriptural reflection and dialogue.”

Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul,

June 29, A.D. 2007

“For you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s.”

1 Corinthians 3: 18-24

(Proper 2: Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles )

Dear Friends in Christ,

In the recent Statement from the House of Bishops to General Synod regarding the issue of blessing the relationships of those who share in the sacramental life of Baptism and Eucharist there is an expression of pastoral concern but, unfortunately, there is also a threat to the unique blessing which the Holy Eucharist is for the unity of the Body of Christ.

Anglicans agree that the Holy Eucharist is the sacramental source and summit of our participation, during this earthly journey, in the life of the one eternal Christ Jesus who is the Word of God and God’s singular blessing upon humanity.

All baptized Christians are called to and welcomed at the Table of the Lord. In this great privilege we come as those who repent of our sins and seek the grace of God in our lives. Christ is the Sacrament of God and so, in the Eucharistic celebration of the Sacrament we express our unity with the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the world (Solemn Declaration, 1893).

To suggest that in the celebration of relationships between individuals there is an additional blessing to be given or withheld apart from, or over and above the Sacrament of Unity is, I respectfully submit, to derogate from and potentially undermine what is the central act of Christian worship and blessing: the Holy Eucharist.

With respect to the solemnization of marriage, it is the development of Eucharistic doctrine which has given definition to the Celebration and Blessing of Marriage as we now have it. There has always and everywhere been, in the Church, a clear understanding that those who are in a state of grace (having received absolution from God through the confession of sin) are blessed in, by and through the Holy Communion which God shares with us in the one Person of Christ and which we share with one another as members of Christ’s one body.

All relationships, friendships and indeed Holy Marriage find their fullest meaning and blessing, for Christians, in this Holy Communion which is a celebration and renewal of the grace of Baptism. The dominical sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and Eucharist (Article XXV), constitute the fullness of sacramental blessing which is shared by all those in communion with Christ. Holy Communion for the baptized presupposes that the states of life of those participating are sanctified, affirmed and blessed by God. Nothing liturgically could or should be added without detracting from the unity of these sacraments which convey the life of Christ who in his person is the unique Sacrament of God’s blessing for all humanity.

The instruction to celebrate relationships in the context of the Holy Eucharist, while at the same time withholding the blessing of the Church upon such relationships, is both paradoxical and contradictory. Such celebrations would lead to confusion and leave liturgical acts widely open to misinterpretation.

The celebration of the Eucharist by the baptized community is the greatest sacramental blessing of the Church united, as it is, with the other great Gospel sacrament, Baptism. This teaching is made clear in the Anglican tradition (Article XXV). Withholding a formal pronouncement of blessing while at the same time celebrating eucharistically a relationship within the Christian Church sends mixed messages and denigrates the Sacrament by suggesting that there is another blessing to be had which is somehow disconnected from the Sacrament of Unity, the Holy Eucharist.

In the early Church it is attested that men and women seeking to marry one another would first declare themselves to the social community and then come to share in the celebration of the Eucharist (Notes on Marriage in the Early Church, Robert Berringer). Their participation in Holy Communion was considered to be an expression of and sharing in the single blessing which is the life of Christ in the Church, his body, given for the life of the world. Any blessing pronounced by a bishop or priest is always understood to be an extension or articulation of the single blessing which is Christ, who is one with us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

In time, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and over centuries, the official role of solemnization and recording of vows was assumed by the Church in many places. The Celebration of Marriage was instituted as “a public service of the Church” (BAS p. 526). For the first half of Christian history, however, many contend that the only blessing of Christian marriage and other relationships of professing Christians (holy orders, religious life, etc) was in the context of the Mass.

For good reason, only those committed to Christ in faith would celebrate their professions or states of life at the Eucharist with the clear understanding that only that which was inherently blessed by God and in conformity with sacred Scripture and tradition was to be celebrated in the Sacrament of Unity. Christ is the Sacrament of God. In the Holy Eucharist we share communion in Christ’s life and blessing. This is the single and unified source of liturgical blessing in the Christian community. No blessing may be added which is not inherently present within the dominical Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The suggestion that a further blessing may be added or withheld from those in a civil union or other relationship, apart from the blessing that is inherent in the Holy Eucharist, is to confuse the issue and to detract from Christ’s unique blessing. To presume that a bishop or priest might somehow add to the Sacrament or withhold pronouncing God’s blessing upon any person, state or relationship beyond what is celebrated in the Eucharist is to suggest a development of doctrine which is not within the jurisdiction of any single body of Christians.

As John W.B. Hill has pointed out in his essay, A Theology of Blessing and Liturgies of Blessing, “The mere pronouncement of a blessing can be seriously misunderstood if we forget that we are a eucharistic people. Blessing is not a power we wield but a gift we celebrate.” To be theologically consistent, then, the blessing of God celebrated in the context of the Holy Eucharist is complete. No other blessing may be added or withheld.

In summary: Provision for a celebration of relationships which presumes or indicates that the Holy Eucharist is lacking in some way and so may allow for or require a further blessing by a priest or bishop is fundamentally contrary to the received teaching of the Church. Such a provision inherently undermines the doctrine of the Church with regard to Sacrament. The concept of ‘blessing’ as set apart from or in addition to the expression of God’s love and friendship in the Holy Eucharist contradicts the nature of the Sacrament.

The notion of an additional blessing pronounced or withheld apart from the Eucharist celebrating a relationship is not in conformity with the formularies of the Church. For example, the BCP and BAS both allow for the celebration and blessing of a marriage outside of the Eucharist but the BAS rubric clearly states that “Where both bride and bridegroom are entitled to receive communion, it is desirable that the form of service in which the marriage rite is incorporated in the celebration of the eucharist be used.” (BAS p. 527). There is no provision, however, for the celebration of the Marriage Eucharist which precludes the blessing of the relationship because blessing is inherent within the Eucharist. To sever or undermine the unity of Eucharist and blessing contradicts the very nature of the Eucharist which is the fullest expression of God’s blessing.

In fact, Eucharistic celebrations of the sort proposed in the Statement would easily be misunderstood as attempting to do indirectly what has not been approved. At the same time, withholding a blessing, would indicate that such an extraordinary blessing (outside of the Eucharistic celebration) is in some way superior to, or in addition to the singular blessing of God in Christ which is celebrated most completely in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

For these reasons I respectfully request that the instructions for the celebration of the Eucharist for civil unions or other relationships in the Statement to General Synod (2007) be withdrawn.

John L. Hodgins

Chatham , Ontario

Comments

[alex]

Cole's notes version?

1. Eucharist is the primary blessing / expression of blessing from God to Man.
2. There is no blessing which a person can do that is in addition to or replacement for a blessing from God.
3. Marriages are blessed because of the Eucharist, not any other ceremony.

What is the connection to the "instructions for the celebration of the Eucharist for civil unions or other relationships"? Was there the possibility of blessing other relationships outside of a Eucharist ceremony? Is there a link to this that someone can post?

[Susan]

Great letter. My concern is that most of the House of Bishops will need a Cole's Notes for this, and likely most clergy, and for sure most lay people. It seems to me there is a very very "low" understanding of the sacraments in the Anglican Church of Canada. Are there any catholic evangelicals left? Were there ever very many?

[joseph]

alex: the letter is in response to a statement issued by the Canadian house of bishops earlier this spring.