Anglican: Traditional v Modern Communion

[Dave_B]

I realise its a bit odd to ask an Anglican question here. I hope this is not against forum rules. But I know there are a few of Episcopalians and Anglicans on the forum. Welcome all comments.

I was wondering what you view as the difference between traditional and modern communion in the Anglican church. Is it purely the language, or are there other differences?

Thanks

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I will presume you are speaking about the liturgy and the traditional verses modern language in the Western World. Others I am sure will fill in with more eloquent answers.

Like many things in Anglicanism; it depends.

The modern language movement was begun about the same time as the reforms in Vatican 2. While initially it was said to be an update of the King James language, what was soon realized is it meant to change the theology of the church from traditional to what we see in the Church of England and Episcopal Church today. So historically if you hear Anglicans denounce modern language, it is mixed in with denouncing theological innovations which came at the same time.

That said there are more modern language and theologically correct translations of the Book of Common Prayer which uphold (or try to) the beauty of the liturgy while being faithful to orthodox Christian theology.

What prompts your question?

 

[Dave_B]

What prompts your question?

Thanks for your reply. Your point about the modern language / theological innovations was what I was thinking about.

I raised the question, as I have attended traditional and modern services at our local church of england church. I wondered if it was just some language changes or more substantive things being changed as well.

I guess I could the vicar the question too.

 

[GKC]

I will presume you are speaking about the liturgy and the traditional verses modern language in the Western World. Others I am sure will fill in with more eloquent answers.

Like many things in Anglicanism; it depends.

The modern language movement was begun about the same time as the reforms in Vatican 2. While initially it was said to be an update of the King James language, what was soon realized is it meant to change the theology of the church from traditional to what we see in the Church of England and Episcopal Church today. So historically if you hear Anglicans denounce modern language, it is mixed in with denouncing theological innovations which came at the same time.

That said there are more modern language and theologically correct translations of the Book of Common Prayer which uphold (or try to) the beauty of the liturgy while being faithful to orthodox Christian theology.

What prompts your question?

Basically, this is the way it was.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

They have, in my view, de emphasized man’s sin, whilst reintroducing and changing various elements which were correctly rejected by the House of Commons in 1928.

 

[liturgyluver]

Thanks for your reply. Your point about the modern language / theological innovations was what I was thinking about.

I raised the question, as I have attended traditional and modern services at our local church of england church. I wondered if it was just some language changes or more substantive things being changed as well.

I guess I could the vicar the question too.

If you’re comparing Church of England liturgies, then the Common Worship rites introduced in 2000 which in turn updated those from the ASB in 1980, have a far more classic western feel, and are very similar to the Roman Catholic rites. These rites can be celebrated in both traditional and modern language.

On the other hand the 1662 book, based as it was largely on the 1552 prayer book, has a more reformed “shape” and marked a radical departure from the Sarum use and the 1549 book. Again it’s possible to celebrate the 1662 rite in modern language.

 

[JustaServant]

They have, in my view, de emphasized man’s sin, whilst reintroducing and changing various elements which were correctly rejected by the House of Commons in 1928.

This has been the complaint amond traditional Catholics with regard to the liturgy changes after Vatican 2.

 

[Dave_B]

Thank you all for your responses. Choosing which type of worship service suits you best isnt always easy.

 

[Indifferently]

Common Worship Order One looks almost exactly like a Roman Catholic mass to me. I don’t really mind this, but if they were going to legalize the Mass in the Church of England then why not just resurrect the genuine vintage of the 1549 Prayer Book, and be done with it? What has resulted from this new liturgical drive is absolute bedlam where no two parishes use the same liturgy. The ecumenical translations are now next to useless as well, since Pope Benedict enforced those even more strange versions in his churches (consubstantial?) so we have even more excuse to go back to Cranmer.

Plus, ‘And with thy spirit’ is little more dignified than the ‘And with you mate’ that plenty of parishes get lumbered with.

 

[liturgyluver]

Common Worship Order One looks almost exactly like a Roman Catholic mass to me. I don’t really mind this, but if they were going to legalize the Mass in the Church of England then why not just resurrect the genuine vintage of the 1549 Prayer Book, and be done with it? What has resulted from this new liturgical drive is absolute bedlam where no two parishes use the same liturgy. The ecumenical translations are now next to useless as well, since Pope Benedict enforced those even more strange versions in his churches (consubstantial?) so we have even more excuse to go back to Cranmer.

Plus, ‘And with thy spirit’ is little more dignified than the ‘And with you mate’ that plenty of parishes get lumbered with.

Why legalise a rite that was only in use for 2 years when CW offers the scope to celebrate the western shape in both modern and traditional languages? Any parish can use traditional language if they wish - eg All Saints Margaret St uses CW with traditional language to beautiful effect.

 

[Indifferently]

Why legalise a rite that was only in use for 2 years when CW offers the scope to celebrate the western shape in both modern and traditional languages? Any parish can use traditional language if they wish - eg All Saints Margaret St uses CW with traditional language to beautiful effect.

The problem with ‘traditional language’ Common Worship is that they do not stick very closely in some places to the traditional translations. I much prefer, for example, the 1662 confessions over the faux trad confession found in CW. The 1549 Canon, which I think is largely present in the US 1928 BCP, is also better.

I will visit the church you recommend.

 

[liturgyluver]

The problem with ‘traditional language’ Common Worship is that they do not stick very closely in some places to the traditional translations. I much prefer, for example, the 1662 confessions over the faux trad confession found in CW. The 1549 Canon, which I think is largely present in the US 1928 BCP, is also better.

I will visit the church you recommend.

You may also like to try St Mary Bourne Street near Pimlico which uses the BCP Canon, but also the traditional Propers chanted by the choir as well as a polyphonic mass setting, Asperges and two choral anthem. Their music list is eye-wateringly beautiful.

stmarysbournest.com/

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Im sure they were less accepting of women clegy and homosexuality back in the good ol days.