What is the difference between 1928 & 1979 Book of Common prayer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JER7177
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JER7177

Guest
Need the help of resident scholars: What are the main differences between 1928 & 1979 Book of Common prayer? I am a more traditional Catholic who is tired of the banal and often weak translations of the modern Catholic prayer books (Christian Prayer, etc.) and looking for more traditional forms of translation of prayer books. I know the Book of Common Prayer is Anglican, but a friend of mine loaned me her 1979 BOCP and I fell in love with it. Didn’t care much for the modern translation, but better than what the mainline Catholic Church has to offer in my opinion. But still want to know the differences between the 1979 & 1928. Are the any good editions to buy?
 
JER7177 said:
Need the help of resident scholars: What are the main differences between 1928 & 1979 Book of Common prayer? I am a more traditional Catholic who is tired of the banal and often weak translations of the modern Catholic prayer books (Christian Prayer, etc.) and looking for more traditional forms of translation of prayer books. I know the Book of Common Prayer is Anglican, but a friend of mine loaned me her 1979 BOCP and I fell in love with it. Didn’t care much for the modern translation, but better than what the mainline Catholic Church has to offer in my opinion. But still want to know the differences between the 1979 & 1928. Are the any good editions to buy?
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, are you Catholic or Anglican?

Anyways, 28 and 79 differ in language. 28 being old English and unified, 79 being divided. There are no Rite I or Rite II forms in 28, just the one form. High Church Anglicans like this about the 28, as they see the forms in the 79 to be divisive. It’s really up to you. Those are the main differences. The 79 use of the NRSV upset coservative Anglicans as that version is very inclusive and offensive. Check out the 28 though. The old english is interesting. I wasn’t a fan of 79 when I was Anglican.
 
JER7177 said:
Need the help of resident scholars: What are the main differences between 1928 & 1979 Book of Common prayer? I am a more traditional Catholic who is tired of the banal and often weak translations of the modern Catholic prayer books (Christian Prayer, etc.) and looking for more traditional forms of translation of prayer books. I know the Book of Common Prayer is Anglican, but a friend of mine loaned me her 1979 BOCP and I fell in love with it. Didn’t care much for the modern translation, but better than what the mainline Catholic Church has to offer in my opinion. But still want to know the differences between the 1979 & 1928. Are the any good editions to buy?
Click to expand...
After I graduated from Christian Prayer I went with the 1960 Roman Breviary (actually, just a Lauds, Vespers, and Compline edition, since I work full time) over the complete Liturgy of the Hours set.

If you want to pray the Office in common with the Church, you can use the last approved pre-Vatican II Breviary (link below), allowed by Summorum Pontificum, or for private devotion you can use any of the previous editions such as the 1910 or 1955. Also, I’m told the Monastic Diurnal (Benedictine spirituality, unchanged for about 1500 years) is good if you want to focus on a certain spirituality.

I think there are better Catholic options for you. See an example of the 1960 Roman Breviary here, I set it to this evening’s Vespers:
divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl
 
Rich_C said:
After I graduated from Christian Prayer I went with the 1960 Roman Breviary (actually, just a Lauds, Vespers, and Compline edition, since I work full time) over the complete Liturgy of the Hours set.

If you want to pray the Office in common with the Church, you can use the last approved pre-Vatican II Breviary (link below), allowed by Summorum Pontificum, or for private devotion you can use any of the previous editions such as the 1910 or 1955. Also, I’m told the Monastic Diurnal (Benedictine spirituality, unchanged for about 1500 years) is good if you want to focus on a certain spirituality.

I think there are better Catholic options for you. See an example of the 1960 Roman Breviary here, I set it to this evening’s Vespers:
divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl
Click to expand...
I believe they may be Anglican asking about their own BoCP
 
JER7177 said:
Need the help of resident scholars: What are the main differences between 1928 & 1979 Book of Common prayer? I am a more traditional Catholic who is tired of the banal and often weak translations of the modern Catholic prayer books (Christian Prayer, etc.) and looking for more traditional forms of translation of prayer books. I know the Book of Common Prayer is Anglican, but a friend of mine loaned me her 1979 BOCP and I fell in love with it. Didn’t care much for the modern translation, but better than what the mainline Catholic Church has to offer in my opinion. But still want to know the differences between the 1979 & 1928. Are the any good editions to buy?
Click to expand...
OH I FORGOT! 79 adds a Midday prayer, where 28 only has Morning and Evening Prayer.
 
The above poster is spot on.

However if you want a Catholic alternative, look for the Book of Divine Worship. It’s of the Anglican Use.

OR, just look for vintage/older Catholic prayerbooks for ones with better language rather than the banal stuff you find in many new prayerbooks.

The Book of Common Prayer is fine to use for private devotion, except for some of the obviously Protestant prayers which are in some spots.
 
LoyalViews said:
The above poster is spot on.

However if you want a Catholic alternative, look for the Book of Divine Worship. It’s of the Anglican Use.

OR, just look for vintage/older Catholic prayerbooks for ones with better language rather than the banal stuff you find in many new prayerbooks.

The Book of Common Prayer is fine to use for private devotion, except for some of the obviously Protestant prayers which are in some spots.
Click to expand...
I second the recommendation of the BoDW! Unfortunately though it is not currently in print, and will not be until the Ordinariate is more established. Until then, you can read the BoDW free online. Look it up on Google if interested.
 
Imo you cannot beat the Divine Office, which is said in union with the whole Church. It is great to know that, although alone in my room, I am in union with so many devout Catholics praying to God. What more could I ask? Banal? I don’t think so!
 
Rich_C said:
He self-identified as a “traditional Catholic.”
Click to expand...
I didn’t catch that. Im sorry.

In that case it is problematic to be praying from the BoCP. I would not use it, and pick up a traditional Catholic Breviary.
 
codefro said:
Just out of curiosity, are you Catholic or Anglican?

Anyways, 28 and 79 differ in language. 28 being old English and unified, 79 being divided. There are no Rite I or Rite II forms in 28, just the one form. High Church Anglicans like this about the 28, as they see the forms in the 79 to be divisive. It’s really up to you. Those are the main differences. The 79 use of the NRSV upset coservative Anglicans as that version is very inclusive and offensive. Check out the 28 though. The old english is interesting. I wasn’t a fan of 79 when I was Anglican.
Click to expand...
As a former Episcopalian, I have to disagree. I actually preferred the '79 BCP. For one thing it is better organised than the '28 prayer book. Contrary to your claim above, the book makes almost no use of the NRSV–the Psalter is not from any other pre-existent biblical translation, but was a separate translation specially done for the BCP (likewise the Psalter in the '28 book was different from either the KJV or the RSV). The only exception to this is that the KJV 23rd Psalm is permitted as an option in funeral service in both versions.

Rite I in the '79 BCP is virtually the same as in the '29 prayer book, with some minor changes that actually were more historically accurate.

Rite II has some wonderful prose. I suggest you look at the 'Service of Compline", which, if my memory is correct, was not even in '29 book. “Guide us waking, O Lord, and guard us sleeping, that awake we may watch with Christ, and asleep, we may rest in Peace,” and “Keep watch, Dear Lord, with those who work, or watch, or weep this night, and give your Holy Angels charge over those who sleep. Tend the sick, Lord Christ; give rest to the weary, bless the dying, soothe the suffering, pity the afflicted, shield the joyous; and all for Your Love’s sake. Amen.”

Although no Catholic should consult the Eucharistic Prayers in the BCP, I want you to consider this sentence: "Deliver us from the presumption of coming to this Table for solace only, and not for strength; for pardon only, and not for renewal. Let the grace of this Holy Communion make us one body, one spirit in Christ, that we may worthily serve the
world in his name.

Risen Lord, be known to us in the breaking of the Bread.And that’s from the most off-beat Eucharistic Prayer."

I, too would go with the Book of Divine Worship, but if you really want a BCP, '79 is a greatly superior work.

Alas, I have seen some of the first drafts of next version of the BCP. I am very worried that the next revision will be a much greater departure from Orthodoxy. I am certain the the Nicene Creed is going to exclude the Filioque, and be ‘inclusive language’.

TEC is a train wreck. I find that very sad.
 
martininthefiel said:
TEC is a train wreck. I find that very sad.
Click to expand...
It is indeed. I don’t understand why Anglicans try to insist they are just as catholic as Catholics, if not moreso. The Anglican congregation I was a part of insisted THEY were the TRUE church.
 
Thank you all! By “tradirional Catholic” I didn’t mean that I am a “stiff or rigid Latin-only, everything after Vatican II sucks” Catholic. I like classical language styles and forms of worship from more ancient times. I have been praying the Christian Prayer (Liturgy of the Hours) for about 8 months now. I have no doctrinal problem with it. It just that the translation, frankly, my 5 year old could have done a better job with. I would very much like to use the Book of Divine Worship but there are none in production until the Anglican provision is more complete. Many a’converts from Anglicanism still use and prefer the 1928 BOCP over current mainline Catholic prayerbooks. I have tried to use the 1962 Durinale but too many psalms readings etc… I like the BOCP brevity and outline of readings etc. I am nuts or should I just continue to use Christian Prayer although disatisfied with translation.
 
JER7177 said:
Thank you all! By “tradirional Catholic” I didn’t mean that I am a “stiff or rigid Latin-only, everything after Vatican II sucks” Catholic. I like classical language styles and forms of worship from more ancient times. I have been praying the Christian Prayer (Liturgy of the Hours) for about 8 months now. I have no doctrinal problem with it. It just that the translation, frankly, my 5 year old could have done a better job with. I would very much like to use the Book of Divine Worship but there are none in production until the Anglican provision is more complete. Many a’converts from Anglicanism still use and prefer the 1928 BOCP over current mainline Catholic prayerbooks. I have tried to use the 1962 Durinale but too many psalms readings etc… I like the BOCP brevity and outline of readings etc. I am nuts or should I just continue to use Christian Prayer although disatisfied with translation.
Click to expand...
The ‘Daily Office’, in both Catholic and Anglican practice, is based on the Psalter. I’m not certain that there are fewer Psalms called for in the BCP.

BTW, the entirety of both the 1928 and 1979 BCP’s are readily available online. Just Google them.
 
JER7177 said:
Thank you all! By “tradirional Catholic” I didn’t mean that I am a “stiff or rigid Latin-only, everything after Vatican II sucks” Catholic. I like classical language styles and forms of worship from more ancient times. I have been praying the Christian Prayer (Liturgy of the Hours) for about 8 months now. I have no doctrinal problem with it. It just that the translation, frankly, my 5 year old could have done a better job with. .
Click to expand...
“frankly, my 5 year old could have done a better job with” Could you please give me an example? I must admit I have no idea what you could possibly mean. I particularly scrutinised my Catholic Divine Office in order to see to what you may be referring and I am stumped! Please enlighten me. I cannot imagine a Protestant prayer book being preferred by a practising Catholic. I would be afraid to use it, personally, because of the errors within that faith. Or am I being too ‘traditional’?
 
I see we were talking about the Episcopal BofCP…I only know about the CofE & Canadian ones, but as far as I know, there is no problem using them for private devotion however even IF you used them for the Divine Office, it wouldn’t be praying with the Church, because it’s not an official translation. Stick to the proper Divine Office/Diurnal/Liturgy of the Hours, and that’s the official and public liturgical Prayer of the Church. Then, when you’re finished, use the BofCP 😛

I know what you mean by the language in “Christian Prayer” it’s quite dumbed down, and the inclusive language used in some places such as the Psalms is annoying, but there is a new translation is the process. However, that’s why we have the Roman Breviary!
 
Why would you read the BofCP after doing the Divine Office? Unless you were doing some research, of course. I still have no idea what the poster means by ‘banal’ language. I love the language used in the Divine Office and, even if I did not, I do not feel qualified enough to change one iota. Most of it comes from the Psalms, St Paul’s letters and the Book of Revelations. Wow. The very idea of finding any of that banal!!! Am I missing something?
 
BenedictFTW said:
Why would you read the BofCP after doing the Divine Office? Unless you were doing some research, of course. I still have no idea what the poster means by ‘banal’ language. I love the language used in the Divine Office and, even if I did not, I do not feel qualified enough to change one iota. Most of it comes from the Psalms, St Paul’s letters and the Book of Revelations. Wow. The very idea of finding any of that banal!!! Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I think the OP was speaking of THIS version(Christian Prayer), not the normal Divine Office. I know the normal Divine Office…the language is very beautiful!

The ICEL is working on a new translation, so that version won’t be used for much longer.

And why would you read the BofCP after the Divine Office? One doesn’t have to, I only suggested it to the OP because he said he liked it. It can only be used for private devotion, since it’s an Anglican book…not Church approved.
 
LoyalViews said:
I think the OP was speaking of THIS version(Christian Prayer), not the normal Divine Office. I know the normal Divine Office…the language is very beautiful!

The ICEL is working on a new translation, so that version won’t be used for much longer.

And why would you read the BofCP after the Divine Office? One doesn’t have to, I only suggested it to the OP because he said he liked it. It can only be used for private devotion, since it’s an Anglican book…not Church approved.
Click to expand...
I have both the full Divine Office and Christian Prayer. They are identical except for a few of the hymns in the Propers and the inclusion of Office of Readings.
 
SonCatcher said:
I have both the full Divine Office and Christian Prayer. They are identical except for a few of the hymns in the Propers and the inclusion of Office of Readings.
Click to expand...
Colour me embarrassed:blush:

I don’t have a copy of Christian Prayer, but I have been told it’s not good. We’ll if it’s the same thing as the Divine Office, I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m sorry!
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top