Book of Common Prayer Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
I find that you see him read by anyone who thinks prayer book Anglicanism is important, even if they aren’t low church or reformed
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m just saying that the traditional BCP is an expression of Reformation theology, and so it makes sense that the most eloquent spokesman for BCP traditionalism is low-church, even though probably the majority of Continuers are Anglo-Catholics! I don’t find the Anglo-Catholic case for the old BCP anywhere near as convincing. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that Anglo-Catholics read Toon, or even that they think they agree with him (which is, of course, not at all the same thing–we should all be like GKC and read everything!). I have ceased being surprised by the amount of cognitive dissonance up with which Anglo-Catholics will put.

Edwin
 
gmcbroom said:
I’ll admit as I like collecting liturgies out there, I’ll likely pick up one of them. Perhaps the 1928 BCP. So then it’s not a requirement to use a BCP to be Anglican or Episcopalian?
Click to expand...
Many would say that the BCP is what distinguishes Anglicanism. But of course there are many BCPs all over the Anglican Communion; as I said, in England the most commonly used liturgy now is from a book not officially called a BCP; and there are those on the more extreme wings of Anglicanism who don’t use an official BCP (some liberals also use alternative liturgies).

Episcopalianism, though, is a particular jurisdiction within Anglicanism. And within the Episcopal Church, use of the 1979 BCP is required at the principal liturgy of each parish. I am not sure what if anything happens to parishes that ignore this. But I know that in the parish I attended in NJ, where an inclusive-language Eucharistic Prayer was used at the 10 AM service, the 8 AM service was officially the “principal” service because it was pure 1979 BCP (Rite I), although it was sparsely attended (my wife and myself and several of the older members of the congregation!).

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Many would say that the BCP is what distinguishes Anglicanism. But of course there are many BCPs all over the Anglican Communion; as I said, in England the most commonly used liturgy now is from a book not officially called a BCP; and there are those on the more extreme wings of Anglicanism who don’t use an official BCP (some liberals also use alternative liturgies).

Episcopalianism, though, is a particular jurisdiction within Anglicanism. And within the Episcopal Church, use of the 1979 BCP is required at the principal liturgy of each parish. I am not sure what if anything happens to parishes that ignore this. But I know that in the parish I attended in NJ, where an inclusive-language Eucharistic Prayer was used at the 10 AM service, the 8 AM service was officially the “principal” service because it was pure 1979 BCP (Rite I), although it was sparsely attended (my wife and myself and several of the older members of the congregation!).

Edwin
Click to expand...
In the case of my parish, failure to use the 1979 book eventually led to losing the building and becoming part of the Continuing Church.
 
Contarini said:
I agree. I’m just saying that the traditional BCP is an expression of Reformation theology, and so it makes sense that the most eloquent spokesman for BCP traditionalism is low-church, even though probably the majority of Continuers are Anglo-Catholics! I don’t find the Anglo-Catholic case for the old BCP anywhere near as convincing. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that Anglo-Catholics read Toon, or even that they think they agree with him (which is, of course, not at all the same thing–we should all be like GKC and read everything!). I have ceased being surprised by the amount of cognitive dissonance up with which Anglo-Catholics will put.

Edwin
Click to expand...
As Winston might phrase it.

Me, I’m happy with the Missal. But I take what I can validly get. Life is like that.

GKC
 
Grace & Peace!
Contarini said:
Note: I’m not an unqualified defender of the 1979 BCP by any means. But your description simply is not just or accurate.
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth, I wanted to add my meagre two cents. Here are some of the things I like about the 79 BCP (in no particular order):
Expanded sanctoral calendar
Clearer emphasis on the Eucharist being the heart of Christian worship–and that it should be the principal Sunday service
Re-ordering of the Eucharistic liturgy to conform to catholic custom (the Gloria restored to it’s proper place after the Kyrie, for instance)
3 readings at Mass
Compline
The Athanasian Creed finally makes an appearance
Here are some of the things I question:
Expanded sanctoral calendar (particularly in light of the new Holy Women, Holy Men)
Abolition of Sundays after Trinity in favor of numbered Propers after Pentecost
The dissociation between collect and Gospel necessitated by the 3 year lectionary
These are things I hope for in a revised BCP, but do not expect to see any time soon:
Addition of Feast of St. Charles the Martyr
More prominent place for Athanasian Creed
Return to Trinitytide
Restoration of the Feast of the Circumcision
Marian devotions
Psalm and Canticle antiphons for the Office and expanded Office propers (a la the English Office)
I could add to all three lists. But that might be boring to many here. Suffice to say that the Catholic direction the 79 took is something that I welcome, and I hope that future revisions will continue down that way (though, sadly, I have no reason to suspect that they will…).

By the by, for those Orthodox friends among us here, you may want to look at Lancelot Andrewes Press’ version of the BCP, designed for Western Rite Orthodoxy. It’s really remarkable, though I did find it funny that in the prayer for the President and all in authority at Evensong, their “find and replace” strategy for editing the 28 BCP was revealed. Instead of “so rule the hearts of thy servants THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, The Governor of this State, and all others in authority,that they, knowing whose ministers they are…” I believe the LA Press version has, “they, knowing whose officiants they are…”. Still. Worth a look-see.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Deo_Volente said:
Grace & Peace!

For what it’s worth, I wanted to add my meagre two cents. Here are some of the things I like about the 79 BCP (in no particular order):
Expanded sanctoral calendar
Clearer emphasis on the Eucharist being the heart of Christian worship–and that it should be the principal Sunday service
Re-ordering of the Eucharistic liturgy to conform to catholic custom (the Gloria restored to it’s proper place after the Kyrie, for instance)
3 readings at Mass
Compline
The Athanasian Creed finally makes an appearance
Here are some of the things I question:
Expanded sanctoral calendar (particularly in light of the new Holy Women, Holy Men)
Abolition of Sundays after Trinity in favor of numbered Propers after Pentecost
The dissociation between collect and Gospel necessitated by the 3 year lectionary
These are things I hope for in a revised BCP, but do not expect to see any time soon:
Addition of Feast of St. Charles the Martyr
More prominent place for Athanasian Creed
Return to Trinitytide
Restoration of the Feast of the Circumcision
Marian devotions
Psalm and Canticle antiphons for the Office and expanded Office propers (a la the English Office)
I could add to all three lists. But that might be boring to many here. Suffice to say that the Catholic direction the 79 took is something that I welcome, and I hope that future revisions will continue down that way (though, sadly, I have no reason to suspect that they will…).

By the by, for those Orthodox friends among us here, you may want to look at Lancelot Andrewes Press’ version of the BCP, designed for Western Rite Orthodoxy. It’s really remarkable, though I did find it funny that in the prayer for the President and all in authority at Evensong, their “find and replace” strategy for editing the 28 BCP was revealed. Instead of “so rule the hearts of thy servants THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, The Governor of this State, and all others in authority,that they, knowing whose ministers they are…” I believe the LA Press version has, “they, knowing whose officiants they are…”. Still. Worth a look-see.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Click to expand...
I agree with your “like” section. We do the Gloria where it’s supposed to be, anyway. And 3 readings. But look where the Athanasian Creed is. Suspicious.

I’ll take a Charles, King and Martyr, too.

GKC
 
Deo_Volente said:
Expanded sanctoral calendar
Click to expand...
Yes, although until quite recently it included only Anglicans after the Reformation, and now that they’ve gone beyond that they’re adding people whose status as Christian saints is highly questionable, to say the least!
Clearer emphasis on the Eucharist being the heart of Christian worship–and that it should be the principal Sunday service
Click to expand...
I guess, although I can’t see that 1928 sidelines the Eucharist.
Re-ordering of the Eucharistic liturgy to conform to catholic custom (the Gloria restored to it’s proper place after the Kyrie, for instance)
3 readings at Mass
Compline
Click to expand...
Agreed with all of these.
The Athanasian Creed finally makes an appearance
Click to expand...
Why the fondness for the Athanasian Creed? I can’t say that I long for it, myself.
The dissociation between collect and Gospel necessitated by the 3 year lectionary
Click to expand...
Yes, and now we have the RCL. . . .
Thanks for the comments!
 
GKC said:
I agree with your “like” section. We do the Gloria where it’s supposed to be, anyway. And 3 readings. But look where the Athanasian Creed is. Suspicious.

I’ll take a Charles, King and Martyr, too.

GKC
Click to expand...
I can do without Charles. He died more for political reasons that religious ones.
But how about some other additonal saints?
 
Grace & Peace!
Contarini said:
Yes, although until quite recently it included only Anglicans after the Reformation, and now that they’ve gone beyond that they’re adding people whose status as Christian saints is highly questionable, to say the least!
Click to expand...
Indeed! I can understand the reasons why and can even be a bit sympathetic to them, but neither my understanding, nor my sympathy amount to much of a justification…and on top of it all, it just doesn’t feel right. The sanctoral calendar isn’t just about people we like, but, in part, about how we image what it means to be a Christian. Our calendars used to include a large number of martyrs, for instance, which says something very clear about what Christian holiness can require. But there’s a push to show that saintliness is also possible for “ordinary” folks. That’s not a bad thing, necessarily. But it should be pursued with a consciousness that extraordinary witness to our faith has been required of us in the past and may yet be required of us in the future.
Contarini said:
I guess, although I can’t see that 1928 sidelines the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
You’re right–but I think '79 goes about it more intentionally.
Contarini said:
Why the fondness for the Athanasian Creed? I can’t say that I long for it, myself.
Click to expand...
I actually love it! Maybe because that last section which reads so much like works-righteousness is problematic–I have a fondness for awkward things like that. But because it’s so problematic, it seems like it could be a perfect opportunity for catechesis regarding grace and works.

Since it’s more properly a canticle than a creed (the English prayerbook use of it at Mattins notwithstanding), I would love to see it used as the sequence on Trinity Sunday at Mass some year. But alas…
Contarini said:
Yes, and now we have the RCL. . . .
Click to expand...
I was glad my Bishop tried to exempt New York (if only in some small way) from the shift to the RCL. Sad his efforts failed. Though I understand why.

GKC, I’d like to see Charles Williams added. In the 79 calendar, he’d probably make a a lot of sense somewhere between Lewis and Underhill. Though I’m sure it’s some of his more (ahem) eccentric religious behavior that keeps him off the list…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Charles Williams is one of my collecting areas. I will buy this. But for reasons I won’t go into, I do find him the most problematic of the folks I collect. No, not necessarily that.

Still, even saints are human.

GKC
Deo_Volente said:
Grace & Peace!

Indeed! I can understand the reasons why and can even be a bit sympathetic to them, but neither my understanding, nor my sympathy amount to much of a justification…and on top of it all, it just doesn’t feel right. The sanctoral calendar isn’t just about people we like, but, in part, about how we image what it means to be a Christian. Our calendars used to include a large number of martyrs, for instance, which says something very clear about what Christian holiness can require. But there’s a push to show that saintliness is also possible for “ordinary” folks. That’s not a bad thing, necessarily. But it should be pursued with a consciousness that extraordinary witness to our faith has been required of us in the past and may yet be required of us in the future.

You’re right–but I think '79 goes about it more intentionally.

I actually love it! Maybe because that last section which reads so much like works-righteousness is problematic–I have a fondness for awkward things like that. But because it’s so problematic, it seems like it could be a perfect opportunity for catechesis regarding grace and works.

Since it’s more properly a canticle than a creed (the English prayerbook use of it at Mattins notwithstanding), I would love to see it used as the sequence on Trinity Sunday at Mass some year. But alas…

I was glad my Bishop tried to exempt New York (if only in some small way) from the shift to the RCL. Sad his efforts failed. Though I understand why.

GKC, I’d like to see Charles Williams added. In the 79 calendar, he’d probably make a a lot of sense somewhere between Lewis and Underhill. Though I’m sure it’s some of his more (ahem) eccentric religious behavior that keeps him off the list…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Click to expand...
 
For the life of me I STILL don’t see any significant differences at all between the 28 and 79 Prayer Books. I must be the biggest dullard in the world. I hear this world of difference between them and conservatives swear by the 28 edition. I think the 79 is just fine and don’t see the divergence? I must need to upgrade my glasses to Buddy Holly thickness or something?
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
For the life of me I STILL don’t see any significant differences at all between the 28 and 79 Prayer Books. I must be the biggest dullard in the world. I hear this world of difference between them and conservatives swear by the 28 edition. I think the 79 is just fine and don’t see the divergence? I must need to upgrade my glasses to Buddy Holly thickness or something?
Click to expand...
Or find those books by Peter Toon.

GKC
 
He found nothing but contempt for the Church of England. He’d roll over in his grave, God bless him, if that happened LOL…the only thing worse than that for him might be a proxy-baptism by Mormons!
GKC said:
I wouldn’t mind him being in the BCP, myself. But it might annoy him.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
Peter Toon? I’m drawing a blank there. Hey it was my first day back with a whole new crew of sixth-graders today fresh off 2.5 months of summer vacation. My brain is mush LOL
GKC said:
Or find those books by Peter Toon.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
He found nothing but contempt for the Church of England. He’d roll over in his grave, God bless him, if that happened LOL…the only thing worse than that for him might be a proxy-baptism by Mormons!
Click to expand...
I was pretty sure it would annoy him.

GKC
 
Don’t the Episcopalians have Gandhi and MLK and other people in their calendar? Heck, why not throw Tolkien in LOL…I say throw Frank Herbert in sometime in August LOL…and Jimmy Page!
GKC said:
I was pretty sure it would annoy him.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top