Owen F. Cummings, Canterbury Cousins: The Eucharist in Contemporary Anglican Theology.

Gibaut, John

Owen F. Cummings, Canterbury Cousins: The Eucharist in Contemporary Anglican Theology, New York, Paulist Press, 2007, 174 pp., $22.95

A goal for anyone engaged in ecumenical dialogue is to be able to speak the theological language of one's dialogue partner. In others words, to know another tradition so well that one can see it from the inside, and articulate its positions from its unique grammar, vocabulary and syntax. Deacon Owen Cummings, Regents Professor of Theology at Mount Angel Seminary in St Benedict, Oregon, USA, effectively models this goal in Canterbury Cousins: The Eucharist in Contemporary Anglican Theology. A Roman Catholic theologian, Cummings sets out to demonstrate to Roman Catholics and others the closeness of Anglican eucharistic theology to official Roman Catholic teaching on the eucharist.

Cummings introduces thirteen major twentieth-century Anglican theologians and their writings on the eucharist. Each theologian is introduced within his or her context, followed by an introduction to their eucharistic thought with analysis from a Catholic perspective. Most of the authors selected such as Charles Gore, Gregory Dix, Eric Mascall and Kenneth Stevenson are the sorts of authors one would expect in such a collection; the chapter on Charles Gore is particularly fine. Cummings, however, includes Anglican writers that are not usually included amongst sacramental theologians such as Donald Mackinnon, David Ford, Rowan Williams and two theologians associated with the Radical Orthodoxy School, Graham Ward and Catherine Pickstock. Cummings also includes a section on Anglican Evangelical eucharistic theology, an important balance within the book.

Cummings allows his ensemble of Anglican theologians to speak in their own idiom, and from within diverse perspectives. In the end, this literary mosaic presents a portrait of Anglican eucharistic theology which is not Roman in terms of its grammar, syntax and vocabulary, but is unequivocally Catholic. Cummings has heard, and in turn articulated, an Anglican vision of the eucharist. In doing so, his own voice becomes a significant witness in Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. Consequently, Canterbury Coasins merits serious consideration by those engaged both in Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, as well as those engaged in ecumenical conversations about the eucharist.

There are, however, some critical comments to be made about Cummings' book. The first is methodological: rather than comparing Anglican theologians on the eucharist to Roman Catholic theologians, the point of reference is official Catholic teaching. It would have been fairer to compare official Anglican teaching-as diffuse as it might be--with Catholic teaching, or to compare Anglican and Roman Catholic theologians with one another. As appreciative as Cummings is about his Anglican authors, one is left with the impression that they are under examination. A second methodological critique is the assumption that Anglicanism means the Church of England. While one American author is treated, the majority are English, in addition to a Scot and a Welsh archbishop of Canterbury. While the Diocese of Canterbury may be "mother church" to the Anglican Communion, the Church of England is not. A third methodological question relates to a comment above on the use of authors who are not amongst the usual list of Anglican sacramental theologians. While liturgical theology and sacramental theology are closely related disciplines, they remain distinct. Cummings is not entirely satisfactory in his attempts to induce a eucharistic theology on the historic church-dividing issues of presence and sacrifice from authors such as Mackinnon, Ford and Williams, not to mention Ward and Pickstock.

I found the first chapter, "Introducing Rome and Canterbury", to have missed significant elements of the history of Anglican eucharistic theology from the Reformation to the twentieth century. While a precis of four centuries of thought would be difficult, there were enough significant elements missing that I could not recognize the greater part of the Anglican tradition of eucharistic theology, especially on the central questions for Cummings of eucharistic presence and sacrifice.

The eighth chapter on "Formal Statements and the Eucharist: The Doctrine Commissions (1938, 1981) and the Windsor Agreed Statement (1971)" was particularly disappointing. Within a collection of authors, two texts from a single province--the Church of England--and an agreed statement of an official bilateral dialogue seem out of place. Cummings explains that no attempt is made in Chapter 8 to include official critiques of Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission's (ARCIC) 1971 Windsor text on the eucharist by the churches, arguing that it is better to let the text of ARCIC speak for itself. But, the point of agreed statements lies in the degree of their reception by the churches. Nonetheless, Cummings does note the official 1991 Roman Catholic response to ARCIC's agreed statement on the eucharist from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), a mixed response which raises serious questions. He does not, however, mention the 1994 Clarifications on Eucharist and Ministry by ARCIC answering these reservations, concluding with the letter from Cardinal Cassidy, President of the PCPCU, who writes: "The agreement reached on Eucharist and Ministry by ARCIC I is thus greatly strengthened and no further study would seem to be required at this stage". Oddly, Cummings treats only the response of the Church of England on ARCIC. It would have been more representative of the Anglican tradition to have cited Resolution 88.1 of the Lambeth Conference of 1988, which "Recognises the Agreed Statement of ARCIC I on 'Eucharistic Doctrine, Ministry and Ordination', and their Elucidations, as consonant in substance with the faith of Anglicans." (This text is found in the same collection of Anglican-Roman Catholic documents Cummings uses for the 1991 PCPCU response.) When one compares the Lambeth Conference resolution with the Cardinal Cassidy's letter and Clarifications, one has a much clearer sense of the official rapprochement on the eucharist between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, and the degree of common ground the two churches stand on as they encounter the Risen Lord in the eucharistic mystery.

Lastly, I found the very title of the book, Canterbury Cousins, to be problematic. While the words "Canterbury" and "cousin" alliterate well and imply some family resemblance, they suggest a common source once removed between the Churches of the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. This is so much weaker than the language of Pope Paul VI, who in 1970 was able to refer to the Anglican Church as "ever beloved sister."

Dr John Gibaut has been Director of the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC since January 2008. He is currently on leave of absence from the Faculty of Theology, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, where he is an Associate Professor of Church History. He has served on the Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue of Canada, the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue and is a member of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations.