The Book of "Common" Prayer

[Friend_Of_Rome]

I’ve often felt thankful to the Anglican Church for certain things. Some include the fact that they mimic so nearly the majesty of the Catholic church. Another is their immense study and heritage of sacred music. Of course, these two things are overshadowed by the fact that they hunted down Catholics and killed them in the Streets

My question is thus-Can Catholics use a Prayer Book of the Anglican church, specifically the Book of Common Prayer? If not, where are the discrepencies? What are the deep Sacramental differences between us?

Pope John Paul II developed great ties with the Anglican Church, going so far as to say that ,“They are our Sister Church.” Are relations still on the mend?

 

[Contarini]

My question is thus-Can Catholics use a Prayer Book of the Anglican church, specifically the Book of Common Prayer? If not, where are the discrepencies? What are the deep Sacramental differences between us?

The Daily Office of the BCP really doesn’t have anything to do with the differences between Catholics and Anglicans. The only potential issue I can see is that for many Anglicans the general confession and absolution are seen as having an efficacy (in the absence of mandatory private confession) that they do not have in Catholicism–but I don’t think that would stop Catholics from being able to use the words. The Eucharistic liturgy, and perhaps other sacramental liturgies, is/are a different matter.

The Anglican Use Catholic parishes have developed a “Book of Divine Worship” that is essentially the 1979 American BCP adapted for Catholic use. You can find its Daily Office here–it’s the same as the Episcopalian office.

Pope John Paul II developed great ties with the Anglican Church, going so far as to say that ,“They are our Sister Church.” Are relations still on the mend?

Unfortunately not, because of the growing acceptance of female priests and bishops among us (something that I personally agree with while regretting its ecumenical implications) and because of the current debate over homosexuality. I think that the current Archbishop of Canterbury is committed to ecumenism with Rome and that’s one of the reasons he has taken a more conservative stance on homosexuality than his own theological views might have led him to do (though preserving unity within our own Communion is the primary factor in this, I believe).

Edwin

 

[Lissla_Lissar]

The Thirty-Nine Articles at the back are definitely anti-Catholic, but I’m going to continue using the psalms and some of the prayers. They’re beautiful, and not heretical.

I miss the Prayer Book. That and organ music all the time are really the only things I miss.

 

[lak611]

What different versions of the Book of Common Prayer are available? I know that is has been revised several times. Are the older versions still in print?

 

[lak611]

What different versions of the Book of Common Prayer are available? I know that is has been revised several times. Are the older versions still in print?

I noticed on a different thread that some people use a 1928 version and others use a 1979 version. What are the differences in the 2? Are there any other versions? What are the differences in the American Book of Common Prayer and the British Book of Common Prayer?

 

[GKC]

I noticed on a different thread that some people use a 1928 version and others use a 1979 version. What are the differences in the 2? Are there any other versions? What are the differences in the American Book of Common Prayer and the British Book of Common Prayer?

Traditionalist Anglicans sort of look at the 79 book as Anglican *Novus Ordo. *Which sort if makes us, in that regard, the Anglican SSPXers. But I’d suggest Contarini would be the man to address the book, if you can get him to. I tend to stay away from it.

Yes, there have been other versions and there are many more of them now, throughout the worldwide Anglican Communion. Nothing common about the BCP, anymore I used to have a site bookmarked that would give you a chance to look over the Liturgy in many of them. I’ll post it if I can find it again.

GKC

 

[lak611]

Traditionalist Anglicans sort of look at the 79 book as Anglican *Novus Ordo. *Which sort if makes us, in that regard, the Anglican SSPXers. But I’d suggest Contarini would be the man to address the book, if you can get him to. I tend to stay away from it.

Yes, there have been other versions and there are many more of them now, throughout the worldwide Anglican Communion. Nothing common about the BCP, anymore I used to have a site bookmarked that would give you a chance to look over the Liturgy in many of them. I’ll post it if I can find it again.

GKC

Thanks. Please post the site if you find it. I would be interested in seeing the differences.

 

[THutch04]

Traditionalist Anglicans sort of look at the 79 book as Anglican *Novus Ordo. *Which sort if makes us, in that regard, the Anglican SSPXers. But I’d suggest Contarini would be the man to address the book, if you can get him to. I tend to stay away from it.

Yes, there have been other versions and there are many more of them now, throughout the worldwide Anglican Communion. Nothing common about the BCP, anymore I used to have a site bookmarked that would give you a chance to look over the Liturgy in many of them. I’ll post it if I can find it again.

GKC

Not sure if this is what you’re referring to, but I did find this link:

justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/

 

[GKC]

Not sure if this is what you’re referring to, but I did find this link:

justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/

Yes, thank you. That’s one of them. There’s another very good one, which I must search for, that has a lot of historical stuff on it, like the 1549/1552/1559/1604/1662/CoE books, with historical comments. Watching the Books change is instructive. Now if I can find it.

GKC

Added.

Oops. I see I had forgotten how extensive that site was. It will do fine, for the purpose. The other one I recalled had some more scholarly comments, but this will do. Thanks again.

 

[lak611]

Not sure if this is what you’re referring to, but I did find this link:

justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/

Why was the 1928 BCP rejected by Parliament?

 

[lak611]

Yes, thank you. That’s one of them. There’s another very good one, which I must search for, that has a lot of historical stuff on it, like the 1549/1552/1559/1604/1662/CoE books, with historical comments. Watching the Books change is instructive. Now if I can find it.

GKC

Added.

Oops. I see I had forgotten how extensive that site was. It will do fine, for the purpose. The other one I recalled had some more scholarly comments, but this will do. Thanks again.

Of all the different versions, which do you like the best and why?

 

[GKC]

Why was the 1928 BCP rejected by Parliament?

It wasn’t rejected by Parliment, totally. The House of Lords passed it 241-88 (as had done Convocation, earlier). The Commons deep-sixed it, 238-205. The oppostion to it largely came from the more evangelical House members, plus Non-Conformists, and other types opposed to the orientation of the proposed book (which was supposed provide a vehicle to restore some discipline and uniformity to individualistic practices on both the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic sides of the CoE). That’s what you get when you have an Erastian Church. Also, neither of the CoE Archbishops were really behind the book, though the episcopate generally supported it. In the end, politics, both within and without the CoE did it in.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Of all the different versions, which do you like the best and why?

The one my parish uses, the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer. I am no expert on the others, though I have a passing familiarity with the historical, early CoE books. But I love the language, and so should any English speaker. Also, I know how to translate “et cum spiritu tuo”.

Besides, if it was good enough for…etc, etc.

GKC

 

[lak611]

The one my parish uses, the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer. I am no expert on the others, though I have a passing familiarity with the historical, early CoE books. But I love the language, and so should any English speaker. Also, I know how to translate “et cum spiritu tuo”.

Besides, if it was good enough for…etc, etc.

GKC

Is the 1928 BCP available in print?

 

[THutch04]

Of all the different versions, which do you like the best and why?

I have a 1928 version, a 1979 version, and an 1878 version from the Church of Ireland. It really is amazing to see the changes that have taken place. I personally like the 1928 the best. It is beautiful English, although for historical purposes, I really do value the fact that I own an authentic 1878 Book of Common Prayer. In that version, the Gloria is actually at the END instead of the beginning, and the English spelling…wow, lets just say anyone who would complain about the 1928 English would think that’s nothing compared to this…

 

[lak611]

I have a 1928 version, a 1979 version, and an 1878 version from the Church of Ireland. It really is amazing to see the changes that have taken place. I personally like the 1928 the best. It is beautiful English, although for historical purposes, I really do value the fact that I own an authentic 1878 Book of Common Prayer. In that version, the Gloria is actually at the END instead of the beginning, and the English spelling…wow, lets just say anyone who would complain about the 1928 English would think that’s nothing compared to this…

Is the 1928 version still in print?

 

[THutch04]

Is the 1928 version still in print?

I know you can get it off of Amazon.com, so I’m assuming that it’s still in print. And I’m sure you could try to get a copy on E-bay. I don’t know if you’d find it in any regular bookstore though.

 

[GKC]

Is the 1928 BCP available in print?

First, I hope it’s clear that the 1928 American BCP is not the 1927-28 proposed book that was rejected by the House of Commons.

If you want a copy, send me a PM. No charge.

GKC

 

[Friend_Of_Rome]

The question remains. . . would someone, a Catholic, be able to use the Book of Common Prayer for, well, “common prayer?”

It is “not heretical.” Good. The only thing anti-catholic are the “articles in the back.” Okay. However, since there is one section of anti-Catholic “propoganda” would a Catholic be offended by the wording of any prayers?

A new question rears its head-as English history changed, did the book become more radical, more open, etc . . ? For instance, when Mary was queen, did she change anything? When Cromwell became a near military dictator, did he make it more radical?

 

[THutch04]

The question remains. . . would someone, a Catholic, be able to use the Book of Common Prayer for, well, “common prayer?”

It is “not heretical.” Good. The only thing anti-catholic are the “articles in the back.” Okay. However, since there is one section of anti-Catholic “propoganda” would a Catholic be offended by the wording of any prayers?

A new question rears its head-as English history changed, did the book become more radical, more open, etc . . ? For instance, when Mary was queen, did she change anything? When Cromwell became a near military dictator, did he make it more radical?

I’ll be honest, whenever I pray the Daily Office, I do use the Book of Common Prayer (partly because I don’t have a Catholic version of it). Personally, I don’t think any Catholic would be offended by the wording of any of the prayers.