Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The Secker Society

Dear Reader,

I point you to this society for your consideration.

From the "About" page:

 The Secker Society exists to promote the use of the historic formularies of the Church of England in North America, including the Articles of Religion of 1571, the Authorized Version of 1611, the Prayer Book of 1662, the Psalter of 1539, the Ordinal of 1661, and the Books of Homilies of 1547 and 1571. 
The Society's primary purpose is to encourage the inclusion of liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, first printed in 1662, in the life of the church in North America. It is the position of the Society that this inclusion does not necessitate the displacement or exclusion of any of the much belovedservice books currently in common use among the heirs of the Church of England in North America. The Society hopes that all those who share in its cause will seek that the current Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England be officially authorized for special use within their own religious communities.
Towards these aims, the principal activities of the Society are the production, publication, and distribution of literature in both electronic and print form and the maintenance of a directory of services utilizing liturgy from the 1662 Book of Prayer in North America.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Mission Not Schism

Dear readers,

I wish to direct you to this document, which I received via e-mail. I will be responding with my own commentary at a later date.

Mission Not Schism

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Classical Vestiture and Ceremonial

A peculiar thing was said to me recently, a person was implying that choir dress, cassock, surplice and tippet, is "low church". This sort of uninformed assertion is one of the worst, in my opinion. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the history of clerical attire in classical Anglicanism. Since there appears to be a hunger for the recovery of classical Anglicanism in conservative circles, I think it's equally important to recover classical vestiture and ceremonial just as much as classical theology in the recovery of the formularies, the reason being that we is said and done in worship, together with what is worn, says quite a bit about the theology of the presbyter leading.

Choir dress can hardly be called low church, considering it was the universal uniform of Anglican clergymen, after the Reformation. The mass vestments were outlawed because of the theology they imply, i.e. that Christ's presence is located within bread and wine and that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world. In lieu of the mass vestments, the Reformers adopted the choir dress as the ecclesiastical garb of the ministers of the Church of England. This dress is specified in the 1604 Canons. Parish clergy are to wear a cassock, full-English surplice, tippet, and hood, pertaining to their degree, if they have one, the gown could be worn in the pulpit for the sermon. Cathedral clergy are permitted to wear the cope to show the dignity of the cathedral parish, at the time of Holy Communion. This was the uniform dress of all clergy, regardless of churchmanship, until the advent of the Ritualist movement (it is important to remember that a chasuble was not used until 1854 and not becoming commonplace until well into the 20th century). If any vestiture could be called "low church", it would be the wearing of the gown throughout the service, instead of only during the sermon. The use of mass vestments in divine service is equally un-Anglican as using the Missal instead of duly authorized forms of prayer.

Equally important for those thirsty for classical Anglicanism is the renewal of classical ceremonial. There has been an unhealthy acquisition of Roman ceremonial over the past century, due to the influence of the Ritualist movement. The classical approach to ceremonial is found in the rubrics of the prayer book and the canons. I do not intend to go through step by step through the Office for Holy Communion, but to touch on a few subjects. First, the old gesture, not appointed in the Prayer Book, but enforced by Canon, is the bowing at the name of Jesus throughout the service, including but not limited to in the Creed. The rest of the ceremonial is exactly as printed in the Prayer Book. That meaning, when the Prayer Book says to turn to the table, he does so. At the canon, he takes the paten into his hands, he does not elevate it. He does not genuflect or bow towards the elements after this action. He takes the ablutions at the end of the service, not in the Roman position. There are also three actions which have ancient approval that could be adopted by Anglican clergymen, that is the taking of the elements into the hands at the words of institution, the extending of the hands over the elements at the invocation, and the elevation at the end of the canon.

All of this to point out that the purpose of the liturgy in the Anglican tradition is to teach the congregation about the Gospel, not to create a spectacle which causes superstition. The liturgy, both the ritual and ceremonial, in the Anglican tradition are simple, for a plethora of reasons beyond that which I have already stated. The desire to complicate the liturgy arises from a non-Anglican understanding what we do in church and why we do it. My hope is that with the desire to recover classical Anglicanism will also yield a desire to shed off the Roman symbolical language we have adopted.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

A Look at the American Prayer Book Tradition: Morning and Evening Prayer

When the Episcopal Church was formed in the 18th century, one of the inevitable things which had to occur was to edit the English Prayer Book to make it appropriate in the new political environment in which the first Episcopalians found themselves. The curious thing is that these early Anglicans chose not to simply strike out "King" and replace it with "President". Instead, they embarked upon a two hundred year journey to change bits of Cranmer's liturgy as they saw fit. This article intends the explore just what those changes were and perhaps what theological implications they had upon the American Prayer Book tradition.

A brief historical discussion should suffice to explore some of the reasons why early American Episcopalians chose to edit the Prayer Book, instead of simply modifying it to fit the new political situation in the former Colonies. First, we must note that there were two sources for these various changes to the Prayer Book, one being from High Churchmen with their figure head, Samuel Seabury, and secondly, there were Latitudinarian impulses for change, perhaps represented by William White. First, in the case of Bishop Seabury, his consecration by Scottish bishops conditioned his desire for liturgical experimentation. One of the conditions for his consecration by the Scottish bishops was that he promised to incorporate the Scottish Prayer of Consecration into the new American Prayer Book. This Prayer of Consecration differed from the 1662 English Order in that it followed the 1549 Prayer more closely and included an epiclesis, a feature of Eastern liturgies. We will explore the stages in which this change was added to the American Prayer Book tradition. The Latitudinarian impulse to change the English Book resulted from a desire to shorten some of the services and eliminate doctrinal barriers among various Christians, including less than orthodox ones, such as Unitarians. For this reason, the Proposed Book of 1786 did not contain the Nicene Creed or Athanasian Creed, the former was re-inserted by the insistence of the English bishops and by Bishop Seabury, however, the Athanasian Creed has not been present in the American Prayer Book tradition, until the 1979 Prayer Book. In other instances the English Liturgy was shortened along the lines of the Proposed Book of 1689, also known as the Liturgy of Comprehension, which was a Latitudinarian effort to make the Established Church a bit more comprehensive by eliminating some things in the Prayer Book that conflicted with Non-comformist beliefs, such as the wearing of the surplice, the wedding ring, cross in baptism, etc. The influence of this work on the American Prayer Book was in the shortening of the services, for instance, in the English Book, the Gloria Patri was required after each Psalm, in the American Book it may be said after the whole selection of Psalms for the day.

A brief word should be said about the history of Prayer Book revision in the American Church. As stated earlier, the first attempt at revising the English Book for American purposes was the Proposed Book of 1786. This book was rejected by the English bishops as being too radical, for instance, in the deletion of the Nicene Creed. Some Puritan sensibilities made their way into this book, largely from the influence of the Liturgy of Comprehension, such as the optional sign of the cross in baptism, the ability of the parents to be sponsors in baptism, the reduction of the occurrences of the Gloria Patri, the deletion of the Athanasian Creed, and the reduction and editing of the Psalter and the Articles of Religion, the former was reduced to 60 selections and the latter to 20 articles. This book was only ratified by the Middle and Southern States, it was not ratified in New England. The first revised Prayer Book was adopted at General Convention in 1790. It corrected some of the things thought too radical by the English bishops (although it did not restore the Athanasian Creed). The 1789 follows the English book closely, except in the Eucharistic rite, where it incorporates the Scottish Prayer of Consecration, although following some of the English peculiarities (such as inserting the Prayer of Humble Access in its English position). The 1789 also curiously does not have the Gospel Canticles, Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis, it does contain a truncated Benedictus. The Prayer Book was revised in 1892 although this was a conservative revision. The only changes I am aware of is the re-insertion of the Gospel canticles and the provision for seasonal sentences in the Daily Offices. The more radical of the revisions was the 1928 Prayer Book which brought the American tradition further in line with the Scottish tradition, in regards to the Communion Office. For instance, the Decalogue was de-emphasized as were the Exhortations. The Lord's Prayer and Prayer of Humble Access were returned to their 1549 positions in the Canon. All in all the 1928 Prayer Book reflected both Catholic and Liberal influences but it was not as obvious as the 1979 Book. The latter was also influenced heavily by Gregory Dix's work, The Shape of the Liturgy, which has largely been discredited by liturgical scholars of today. The latter work reflects largely the 1970's liberalism, coupled with incarnation theology and a discomfort with penitence.

The purpose of this article is to explore the nature of the American Prayer Book tradition and how it compares with the English tradition, using the more popular services of Morning and Evening Prayer as a guide. I will compare the 1662 Book with the "classical" American books of 1789-1928 and then with the 1979 Book.

Morning Prayer

The first thing to analyze is the title as it stands in the various books:

  • The Order for Morning Prayer, Daily Throughout the Year (1662)
  • The Order for Daily Morning Prayer (1786-1928)
  • Daily Morning Prayer (1979)
The 1786 Proposed Book follows the order of the English book the closest in respect to the Order for Morning Prayer among the various books.

Scripture Sentences

The rite begins with the sentences of Scripture, which in 1662 are exclusively penitential.  The 1786 Book adds a few general sentences, which have stuck in the American tradition since that time, such as Habakkuk 2:20, Malachi 1:11, etc..  The 1789 continues in the tradition of keeping the majority of the sentences penitential but expands the general sentences to include a few more, which are also known to American Anglicans, such as Ps. 19:14,15.  The 1892 book is the first to include seasonal sentences, giving sentences for the seasons of the Church year and some holy days, most of the original penitential sentences have been worked into the sentences for Lent.  Later American prayer books, in 1928 and 1979, continue in this tradition of including seasonal sentences and expanding the seasonal sentences. The 1979 BCP gives explicit permission to use any of the sentences at any point not just the season designated, i.e. the penitential sentences in Lent may be used at other points. 


Following the opening sentences, the 1786-1892 prayer books include the longer exhortation, confession, absolution, and Lord's Prayer.  The 1892 is the first prayer book to allow a shorter absolution from the Communion service to be used instead of the Cranmerian form.  The 1928 book also introduces the shorter exhortation to confession, which is likewise found in the 1979 book, which alters the longer, Cranmerian exhortation as well. The 1892 Book is the first to allow the minister to skip over the Confession when Communion is to follow. The 1928 expands this permission to include any day except a day of penitence or abstinence. The 1979 follows suit. The 1979 BCP significantly edits the traditional Exhortation.

It is also significant to point out the deletions made by the 1979 Rite I liturgy to the traditional, Cranmerian confession, the bracketed portions are omitted from the 1979 liturgy:

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; 
We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. 
We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. 
We have offended against thy holy laws. 
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; 
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; 
[And there is no health in us.]
But thou. O Lord, have mercy upon us, [miserable offenders.]
Spare thou those, [O God], who confess their faults. 
Restore thou those who are penitent; 
According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; 
That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, 
To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.


The 1786 includes the opening preces as they are found in 1662:  

Lord, open thou our lips.
And our mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
O God, make speed to save us.
O Lord, make haste to help us.
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.
Praise ye the Lord.
The Lord's Name be praised.

Beginning in the 1789 revision and until 1979, the preces were edited to read as such, for both Morning and Evening Prayer:

Lord, open thou our lips.
And our mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
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.
Praise ye the Lord.
The Lord's Name be praised.

In 1979, the preces were edited as such:

Lord, open thou our lips.
And our mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.  Amen.
Alleluia (except in Lent)

and in Evening Prayer

O God, make speed to save us;
O Lord, make haste to help us.
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.
Alleluia (except in Lent)


The 1662 and 1786 books included the entirety of Psalm 95:

O Come, let us sing unto the Lord : let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation. 
    Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving : and show ourselves glad in him with psalms. 
    For the Lord is a great God: and a great King above all gods.
    In his hand are all the corners of the earth: and the strength of the hills is his also. 
    The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands prepared the dry Land. 
    O come, let us worship, and fall down: and kneel before the Lord our Maker. 
    For he is the Lord our God: and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. 
    Today if ye will hear his voice; harden not your hearts: as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness; 
    When your fathers tempted me: proved me, and saw my works. 
    Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said: It is a people that do err in their hearts, for they have not known my ways: 
    Unto whom I sware in my wrath: that they should not enter into my rest.

Beginning in 1789, the last four verses of Psalm 95 were replaced with parts of Psalm 96:

COME, let us sing unto the LORD; let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation. 
   Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving; and show ourselves glad in him with psalms.
   For the LORD is a great God; a great King above all gods.
   In his hand are all the corners of the earth, and the strength of the hills is his also.
   The sea is his, and he made it, and his hands prepared the dry land.
   O come let us worship and fall down, and kneel before the LORD our Maker.
   For he is the Lord our God and we are the people his pasture and the sheep of his hand.
   O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness; let the whole earth stand in awe of him.
   For he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth; and with righteousness to judge the world and the people with his truth 

The 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books allow the use of Psalm 95 to be used instead of the version printed.  In earlier books, the entirety of Psalm 95 was expected to be read on the nineteenth day of the month, when it was assigned in the Psalter.

The 1928 book also added the set of antiphons, to be used before the Venite, which are carried over into the 1979 book.  Following the practice of other churches, the 1979 book permits the use of the Jubilate Deo as an invitatory anthem, instead of its traditional place as an alternative to the Benedictus

All the books presume that the Pascha nostrum will be sung on Easter, with the exception that the 1928 book prescribes it for the octave and the 1979 which allows it to be used throughout the Easter season. 


All the American prayer books allow the Gloria Patri to be sung after the whole selection of the Psalms, unlike the English book which requires the Gloria after all Psalms and Canticles.  

All American Prayer Books offer the monthly cycle of Psalms and later books begin to offer alternative cycles or selections for those who do not wish to use the monthly cycle.

The earlier books allow the Gloria in excelsis to replace the Gloria Patri after the portion of the Psalms assigned for the day.


The American Prayer Books follow in the English tradition of assigning two lessons per each service. These are followed by a canticle. The 1928 is the first to allow the minister to delete one of the lessons at Evening Prayer (the 1979 only gives one reading for Evening Prayer but allows a second from another year to be used). 

The Table of Lessons in the American Books generally follows the English system until 1928. The 1789 reflects the 1662 Lectionary, covering a majority of the Bible each year, with about two chapters read at each service. The 1892 follows the 1871 revision of the English lectionary and offers shorter lessons. The original 1928 lectionary covered more lessons and followed the English 1922 lectionary but it was extensively revised in 1943.


The lessons are followed by a canticle. We will compare briefly the offering of canticles in the 1662 versus the American books. Note that the 1979 BCP is not considered here, considering that it differs considerably in this respect. 

Morning Prayer

1. Te Deum/Benedicite

The 1928 BCP adds the Benedictus, es Domine, which can be used instead of these two canticles. 

2. Benedictus/Jubilate

As stated earlier the 1789 BCP only had a truncated version of the Benedictus, later restored in the 1892 BCP. 

Evening Prayer

1. Magnificant/Cantante Domino

The 1789 BCP added the option of the Bonum est instead of the Magnificat together with the Cantante Domino. The 1892 BCP restored the Gospel Canticles at Evening Prayer. 

2. Nunc Dimittis/Deus miseratur

The 1789 BCP offers the canticle Benedic mea instead of the Nunc Dimittis.

The Creed

The Creed follows the lessons in the Anglican daily prayer tradition. This was the Apostle's Creed in the 1662 BCP, except on days when the Athanasian Creed was appointed to be read (which were fourteen in number). The American BCP tradition allows the Nicene Creed to replace the Apostle's Creed, probably resulting from the popularity of Mattins as a Sunday morning service. 

The Suffrages

In the 1662 BCP following the Creed there was the Kyries, the Lord's Prayer, and then the suffrages. This section was drastically truncated in the American tradition. First, the Kyries were removed from all of the American service books. The Lord's Prayer was made optional at this point, conditioned upon earlier recital at the beginning of the rite (in the 1928 BCP, where the penitential section is optional, the Lord's Prayer is said here, if that portion is deleted). Also, the suffrages were considerably reduced, using on the first and last sets from the 1662 BCP. The 1892 BCP restored the longer set of suffrages at Evening Prayer, a feature that was carried over into the 1928 BCP. 

Final Collects

The rest of the service roughly follows the English form, first with the Collect of the Day and then the two collects pertaining to either the Morning or Evening Office. Then what follows is a Collect for the President, for the Clergy, the Prayer for the Conditions of all Men, the General Thanksgiving, the Prayer of St. Chrysostom, and the Grace. The American tradition allows the minister to end the Offices after the third collect at either Office, selecting the prayers he thinks fit after that point. 


In conclusion, I would offer the following reflection on the American Prayer Book tradition. I think the respective changes in the American Prayer Book tradition are not necessarily a good or bad thing at the surface. The changes observed in the Daily Offices appears to come from a Latitudinarian concern or a practical concern, that being to shorten the services, which in itself is not a bad thing. Perhaps this diversity reflects the principles laid out in Article 34, "It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word." This is an important thing to remember because, at times, there can be some form of Prayer Book "idolatry" in some Anglicans' minds, or the desire to return to a desired form for non-theological reasons. However, liturgical diversity was envisioned by Cranmer and the Reformers, reflecting the particular circumstances in which Christians found themselves, provided that their liturgy was soundly biblical. The liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal Church reflects this principle in action.

Friday, January 4, 2013

On Anglican Eucharistic Theology

The teaching of the Church of England and her daughter Churches has been slowly muddied by several toxic wastes over the past two centuries. The first being the Tractarian Movement, a movement which sought to reintroduce Roman teachings and ceremonial into the English Church and the second being the modern Liberal movement, which has sought to eliminate any association of the Lord's Supper with the atoning work of Christ which in turn results from a fear of Atonement theology among liberals. These muddied waters cut to the core of the "Anglican problem" -- that being a (nearly) complete identity crisis. These toxins can come in varying forms and in varying degrees. Often times, the theology of the formularies is plainly denied and an alternative theology is presented instead. This is a problem, clearly, yet it is slightly favorable to the other option, that being that an alien doctrine is presented as if it were authentically Anglican doctrine (this is termed "neo-Tractarianism or neo-liberalism"). 

The plain denial of Anglican teaching in addition with varying forms of "neo" theologies present a series of problems relating to the core of Anglican identity. First, faulty Eucharistic theology was at the heart of the Reformation and we need not forget that the English Reformers lost their lives for denying the teaching of Rome and promoting the true Gospel teaching on this subject. Secondly, there exists a certain tendency to read the theology present in the Articles in such a manner to deny that it actually presents a coherent doctrine therein, this is equally wrong because the Articles and Prayer Book do present a clear teaching on this matter. Thirdly, the talk of "Real Presence" is purposefully vague and was a term avoided by the Reformers and most Anglican divines. The key is to avoid theological muddiness, which has somehow come to be a "virtue" in Anglicanism.

I intend to lay out Anglican Eucharistic in an easy to follow manner, following the structure of the Article touching on this subject. I see the Article divided up into four sections.  The first defines what the Sacrament is, the second defines what it is not, the third defines how the Sacrament is what it is, and the fourth describes various abuses related to the beliefs tied to section two.  My sources will be the Prayer Book, the Articles of Religion, and the Homilies.

First, the question of terminology must be addressed. The terms associate with this Sacrament in the Prayer Book are the Lord's Supper (or the variant, the Supper of the Lord) and the Holy Communion (or just Communion). The first is based on the Scriptural title of the event (in addition there were terms such as the breaking of bread or Lord's Table), the second focuses on what the intention of this Sacrament is, that being communion with our Lord. The most common term in the Middle Ages (and acceptable in the 1549 Prayer Book) was The Mass, which is ironically the least informative in a theological sense, considering that this title derives from the Latin dismissal, ite missa est, and has no theological significance. This term was later rejected, due to its association with Medieval doctrine. The most common term today (at least in the Episcopal Church) is The Eucharist, which is an ancient title, referring to the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in this Sacrament. 
The first question which needs to be addressed is, what is the Sacrament?  What happens in the Lord's Supper?  The Article addresses this,

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ."

The Article address many important points.  First, it acknowledges that the Sacrament is a sign of unity among Christians but it is also much more than that.  It is also a sign or sacrament, the latter meaning an effectual sign, i.e. carrying about what it signifies yet remaining separate in nature, of our Redemption. This is important for the Reformation was not intent upon denying the presence of the Lord in the Sacrament, the question was if that presence was confined to the elements and if so, how. This is further specified to mean a partaking of Christ's body and blood by those who receive worthily, in faith. The latter points will be discussed in further detail below.  The question that remains after revealing what the Sacrament is, is, how are Christ's body and blood present in relation to the bread and wine?  

The Article continues by first explaining what does not happen in the Lord's Supper,

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."

The Sacrament is a partaking in the body and blood of Christ but it is also a sign of these things, meaning that the bread and the wine are not overturned by the consecration.  Earlier statements in the formularies reveal what a sacrament is and the nature of transubstantiation denies that the sacrament can be an effectual sign because the distinction between the sign and the thing signified is broken.  Transubstantiation and memorialism are actually two sides of the same coin.  The former overthrows the nature of a sacrament by conflating the sign and thing signified; the latter overthrows the nature of a sacrament by completely divorcing the sign and the thing signified. This proper distinction between sign and thing signified refers back to the theology of St. Augustine, who establish this line of thinking, and ties the English Reformation to the Swiss Reformation.

Having described what does not happen in the Sacrament, the Article describes what does happen,

"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith."

First, this statement denies any local presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine. In other words, the presence of Christ is not a physical or carnal presence.  In this manner, this statement could be grouped with the former in that it denies a further error in relation to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that being the Lutheran understanding of sacramental union, in a localized sense.  The body and blood of Christ are not contained in, with, or under the bread and wine.  This error stems from a different source than transubstantiation or memorialism.  The former stem from a faulty sacramental theology, this error stems from a poor understanding of Christology because it denies Christ a proper, human body, in the sense that his body is denied a true, local presence at the right hand of God.  This issue is found in the "Black Rubric',

"Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; It is hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be 'at one time in more places than one.”

This rubric actually addresses a few different points.  First, it was intended to answer the question as to why Anglicans kneel to receive the Sacrament, which some thought implied an adoration of the elements.  The rubric denies that any adoration is given and explains why it is wrong to adore the Eucharistic elements.  The reason for not adoring the elements is that no change of substance occurs in the sacrament and the bread and wine remain such in their natural substances, set apart for holy use, but no change in them has occurred, nonetheless and to adore the elements would be idolatry, since adoration is only due to God alone.  Further, the natural body and blood of Christ are not "here" meaning at the table.  Christ's natural body and blood are in heaven, at the right hand of God.  

The statement affirms what is called the "spiritual presence" (although I am not fond of that term).  This means that the manner in which we receive Christ's body and blood is "heavenly and spiritual" only.  In contrast to the Lutheran idea of "oral manducation" or taking Christ's body and blood into our mouths, the Article clearly explains that the means by which we receive the body and blood is faith.  This means we do not take Christ into our digestive system, which is a gross and distorted theology of the Eucharist.  This ties to the first statement made in the Article which defines that in order to receive the thing signified, or the body and blood, the elements must be received in faith, or worthily, by the recipient.  This begs the question as to what happens if the elements are not received in faith.  Luckily, the formularies also define what happens in this instance, in Article 29,

"The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing."

This means that unbelievers or those who do not receive worthily, do not receive Christ's body and blood, only the elements. This is possible via the distinction between sign and thing signified. Transubstantiation errs in eliminating the distinction by conflating the two things. Memorialism fails by divorcing them completely. Consubstantiation fails by muddying them together. Only Reformed theology ("spiritual presence") correctly distinguishes these two things, yet acknowledges the union between them. Because of this, an unbeliever can receive the sign, yet not the thing signified. 

Lastly, after correcting these faulty understandings of the nature of the presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, the Article addresses some abuses which had (and still do) arise due to bad theology,

"The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

If the Sacrament is a sign of Christ's body and blood, it is idolatrous to worship, adore, or intend any such veneration of the signs themselves.  This last statement speaks against such practices such as elevating the host at either the consecration or at any other point during the Liturgy, for adoration.  It speaks against the reservation of the Sacrament, which implies a localized presence of Christ's body and blood in the elements.  In modern terms, it condemns the following "popular" practices: reserving the Sacrament for worship services or prayer "with the Blessed Sacrament", Corpus Christi festivals, Elevation of the Host during the Liturgy, etc. 

These errors relating to the Lord's Supper are truly dangerous errors to be made because they cut to the core of the Anglican identity problem. This identity crisis has expressed itself in two ways, as described above, either in open rejection of Anglican standards or in an attempt to subtly change their teaching and present this newness as the original message. Both of these approaches are flawed and lead to the problems we are facing today in the Anglican Churches. The only way to fix these problems is to return to our standards and be honest about who we really are.