Thread: Eccles: The 1928 prayer book - some questions for ecclesiantick anoraks Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000815

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I regret this is a fairly long post, for which my apologies in advance.

There recently came into my hands a copy of "The Book of Common Prayer with the additions and deviations proposed in 1928". This was given to someone as a Confirmation present in 1931. It contains the ordinary BCP + the alterations that were proposed first in 1927, and then in a very slightly different form in 1928. This includes a preface that the failed book would have had.

Now, I know, or think I know, the following.
A. There was an attempt to introduce an alternative prayer book at that time.
B. It went to Parliament with as much official recommendation from the Church as was possible at the time, and Parliament rejected it.
C. It contained some things that look fairly uncontroversial, a Compline for example. But I assume that whatever was controversial was in the alternative Communion Service.
D. Because it had a church imprimatur, this was seen by its supporters as representing an improper interference by the state in church affairs.
E. As a result, many (perhaps all) bishops said they would not restrain clergy from using it if they want to.

My experience in the 1950s and 1960s when all services were still 1662, was that it had never caught on widely. Just occasionally, you would go to a church where the prayer books were dark green in stead of the more usual black, which denoted they used some or all of this book. After that time alternative services came in, Series 2, Series 3, the ASB leading to Common Worship.

I can remember a vicar saying in the 1960s or 1970s that much as he might have liked to have used the 1928 marriage service, he didn't as because of its history, he wasn't confident that it worked, and that people married using it, were actually lawfully husband and wife.

Having looked at the abortive 1928 book, it's difficult to see what the fuss was about. True, I can work out that those that opposed it, did so because they saw it, and any change, as bound to be creeping popery, an attempt to subvert a Protestant king for a Protestant nation.

No, what I can't work out is what it was in the alternative Communion Service that its supporters were so keen to sweat controversy to introduce. The main change it seems to make is to move part of one of the two alternative BCP prayers that comes after communion into the consecration prayer, so that by the time you leave church, you've said Amen to both.

There was no attempt to update the language to something prevalent even in 1828, rather than 1928. All new material is written in fake Elizabethan. Mousethief opened a thread a few days ago on this in an Orthodox context. Nor does it appear to be any real ancestor of Common Worship or the experimental services that preceded it.

So I suppose, these are my queries:-

1. What am I missing about the book that made so many people so keen to press for it? What was there that anyone thought was worth the fuss?

2. Is it a good thing that it failed? If it had succeeded, we'd probably still be stuck with something that was just as remote from modern requirements, but which being only 82 years old, all the arguments would have been against changing it 'yet again'.

3. Even now, there is a Prayer Book Society that advocates the original 1662 BCP, but is there anyone who still advocates either the 1928 book or any forgotten feature of it?

And as an extra,

4. Even though this had been legalised in 1907 and 1921, does anyone know why there's no change in the table of kindred and affinity to delete the bar on marriage to ones deceased wife's sister, or deceased brother's wife?

[ 29. September 2011, 07:37: Message edited by: Spike ]
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
A preliminary Internet search turned up this from the Church Society.

Essentially the HC service was too Roman, er, Anglo-Catholic, Prayers for the Dead would be been given Prayer Book Authorization as would Reservation. The last point especially would make the HC service a sticking point.
 

---

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
While I can answer none of the questions posed, I would urge those interested to read 'Rivers of the Flood' by Dom Anselm Hughes, for an account of the 1927/28 events, but more for an excellent snapshot of the religious and political ethos and prejudices of that time.
His first-person recollections of many of the events of that era are enlightening, and his writing style is crisp and clear.
 

---

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
One of the reasons the 1928 prayer book came about was a result of the First World War where hundreds of thousands of young men were killed in action. Many clergy, particularly military chaplains, found the wording of the 1662 funeral service inappropriate with its message of Hell and Damnation, but little of Salvation. The marriage service needed re-vamping too. 1662 went into great detail about carnal lust and brute beasts, but there was little mention of love between husband and wife.

The book was never officially authorised, because back then any changes to CofE liturgy had to be approved by Parliament. There were quite a few Evangelical Anglicans as well as members of hte Church of Scotland, Jews and Atheists in parliament who had a say in this which perhaps is why it didn't get through. It was also a result of this (among other things) that General Synod came about and Parliament allowed the Synod to have the final say on liturgical matters. However, although not fully authorised as such, individual bishops had permission to allow it in their own dioceses if they wished, so Enoch's vicar probably had nothing to worry about when marrying people using this rite unless his bishop was one of the very few who chose not to authorise it.

Much of the 1928 book went on to form "Series 1" in the 1960s and the 1928 marriage and funeral services have generally been the services used for people who wanted services in traditional language. The traditional language pastoral services we now have in CW are basically the 1928 services with a few minor tweaks.

[ 15. January 2011, 22:04: Message edited by: Spike ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Americans should, of course, realise that this discussion is to do with the English 1928 BCP-Proposed, and NOT with the adopted and official USA 1928 BCP!
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The first problem the 1928 PBCP had was that neither Archbishop was that enthusiastic about it. Randall Davidson was generally lukewarm on revision, and it is suggested that Cosmo Lang would have preferred an update of 1549.

Most lay Central Churchman could not see the point. Most of them did not come into contact with a Sung Communion service often enough to want to change 1662, though they would have been broadly supportive of the overhauls given to the Marriage and Burial Offices. I also imagine the slightly wider range of canticles at MP and EP would have eventually been accepted to.

The extreme Anglo-Catholics and the Conservative Evangelicals did not want it either. The former because it would have given the bishops more authority to rein in their liturgical oddities and because it was not Romish enough; the latter because it was too Popish.

In the final analysis the book had broad support from moderate Evangelical, Central Churchmen, the sensible Liberals Catholics (e.g. Percy Dearmer), Modernists, and Moderate Anglo-Catholics, and to the people who get elected to committee. However, it did not appeal to the extremes or to generic Protestant public opinion. As a result it failed - but not by much - both times it was presented to the House of Commons.

The aftermath was interesting. Establishment Henson became Disestabishment Henson. Davodson retired; Cosmo was tramslated to Canterbury and quietly encouraged the Bishops to allow the use of the 1928 PBCP on their own authority. Generally it was on the basis of "we will not discipline anyone for devoating from the BCP within the limits proposed in 1927/8." The Green Book was issued in either 1946 or 1948 which incorporated a lot of the less controversial material from 1928 proposal. However, it should be noted that the 1928 Communion service was not part of this. Holy Communion in the Green Book was basically Interim Rite not 1928.

When I was a kid we used the Green Book which was, as I have explained a 1662/1928 hybrid. The Communion service was 1662 but with the ninefold Kyrie substituted for the Decalogue except in Lent, and the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei added. MP, EP, Marriage and Burial were pretty much 1928. And very happy I was with it too!!!

PD

[ 16. January 2011, 02:23: Message edited by: PD ]
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And in turn, the Green Book was the cause of legal action in NSW against the +Bathurst, who had authorised its use. Some dissentients (basically fronts for the then Sydney majority faction) were largely successful in their aim of preventing the use of the Green Book. However, the High Court said, in dismissing the appeal, that such matters were really to be resolved within the Church, and not by the lay courts.
 

---

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :
 
I am not sure the green book did print the Interim Rite. It printed the 1928 options during the first part of the service (the Summary of the Law, the Kyries and the alternative Prayer for the Church Militant); but the Prayer of Humble Access was printed after the Sanctus, the Prayer of Consecration finished after the Words of Institution, and the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Oblation were printed post-communion only – as in 1662, but not as the Interim Rite would have it.
 

---

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
But didn't the backdoor authorising of the interim rite and the 1928 lead to priests basically doing whatever they wanted to do?

For example, a 1662 with a threefold Greek kyrie instead of the commandments, here? Another priest adding the secret and the last gospel, there?

Made it impossible to prosecute liturgical variation, I suppose. Didn't many people seem to think The Shorter Prayer Book WAS the 1662 for years?

The 1928 opened up a great era in liturgical experimentation in the CofE as far as I can tell.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
They were doing what they liked before 1928 and that included the Tridentine Mass. 1662 & 1928 basically gave you two well defined orders for Holy Communion, and the Interim Rite was somewhere in-between. However, I do not think that really slowed any of the more aggressive rule benders down at all.

PD
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thank you for all your comments and the links. Please keep them coming.

I suspect though that 'Rivers of the Flood', which I've certainly never heard of, may be a bit difficult to find. Is it the sort of thing that just might turn up in a bundle of 'all these for 20p' at a fete or in the shelf outside a second hand bookshop?

I hadn't appreciated that the green prayer books were a pot pourri. It's a long time ago, and was a bit arcane for a young person to have been all that interested in.

It does though look as though it was the 1928 book that introduced the Shema' as an alternative to the Ten Commandments in full, which I seem to remember was used even back in the sixties.

Spike, I'm not sure that if this had ever come to court, the question whether the diocesan bishop had or had not said he would turn a blind eye to using the form of service would have had much relevance for a judge in what was then the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. The deciding question would be more likely, how accurately did you have to get the format right for a wedding to be valid. Was it enough to be 'basically a wedding' and for the parties to be of age, and bans called, or was the wedding only valid if the everything had been done exactly correctly, even including reading the banns with exactly the right words, and vows exchanged with peoples Christian names in the right order etc.

It ought to have been the former, but knowing a bit about how bizarre English matrimonial law was between the wars and down until the sixties, I don't think I would have wanted to take the risk. I'm quite surprised that presumably nobody had tried this one as a simple way of not having to get a divorce.

Mama Thomas, what on earth was "adding the secret and the last gospel"? They sound like something from the Da Vinci Code.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The Probate, Admiralty & Divorce Division, known to one and all as "Wills, Wives & Wrecks".
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
My mistake - the book authorised for use in Bathurst was the Red Book, not the Green. I ought to hav echecked before posting, but offer as a lame excuse that I'm in holiday mode. That said, the Red Book adopted many of the changes in ritual which were legitimised in the 1928 BCP (UK). The Chief Judge in Equity held that these went beyond the doctrines and practices of the Church of England, and thus in contravention of the trusts upon which church property was held. Although the appeal was dismissed, the High Court frowned upon the use of secular courts to determine ecclesiastical matters. For those interested in this byway of the law of trusts, the case in the High Court is Wylde v Attorney General (NSW ) 78 CLR 244.

What Enoch says as to the legality of changes to the Order for Marriage is correct. A judge hearing a divorce petition, or determining if a maraige was valid for all sorts of reasons, could well have found that a union contracted pursuant to the alternative use was not a valid marriage - disastrous consequences for property inheritance and so forth. It would have been much safer to have continued strictly to use the 1662 procedure. Any additional matters sought by the couple could then have been dealt with as a separate service.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Interesting. I believe this concept is alien to Canadian law. All churches have had equal marriage powers since the 1850's. The Presbyterian Church(es) always laid claim to special status by relationship to the Church of Scotland. In Quebec the Roman Catholic Church has had its traditional marriage powers since the Quebec Act of 1764.

Even though Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction, the French concept of marriage at the town hall is not present in Quebec law.
 

---

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you for all your comments and the links. Please keep them coming.

I suspect though that 'Rivers of the Flood', which I've certainly never heard of, may be a bit difficult to find. Is it the sort of thing that just might turn up in a bundle of 'all these for 20p' at a fete or in the shelf outside a second hand bookshop?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Mama Thomas, what on earth was "adding the secret and the last gospel"? They sound like something from the Da Vinci Code.

---

I'll take a stab at this, or perhaps half a stab. The "last Gospel" refers to the reading of the preamble to John's Gospel at the end of the service. This was done at the Biretta Belt church of my yoof. I believe the "secret" is a prayer whispered by the priest during the Canon of the Mass, but that's about all I know. This being Ecclesiantics, I'm sure someone will come along and set me straight if I'm not correct.

[ 16. January 2011, 22:15: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Yes, the secret is that portion of the Canon said by the celebrant either silently or in a very low voice. If the mass/eucharist was high and being sung in an elaborate setting, the secret would be said during the singing of the Sanctus and Benedictus. AIUI, this explains the length of this portion of some settings. For example, in Haydn's Little Organ Mass, the text of the Gloria is split between parts, and takes little more than a minute; by contrast, the Sanctus and Benedictus together take 6 or 7 minutes.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The Last Gospel is occasionally proper (yes, I do still do that!) The best known example of the LG being proper is Christmas when the Gospel is John 1, 1-14, there for LG is the Epiphany Gospel. IIRC, the proper LG only occurs when the feast being commemorated has a Gospel of its own, i.e. it is not one of the Commons. The (American/English) Missal usually tells you when the LG is proper. This morning we commemorated Bl. William Laud, but there was no proper Last Gospel because the commemorated feast uses Mass 4 from the Common.

The secret is the prayer recited immediately the offertory and before the Prayer for the Church (old Anglo-Catholic practice) or the immediately before the sursum corda (new Anglo-Catholic/Roman practice).

Re-reading that lot makes me wonder how many supplemental questions I have just created...

PD
 

---

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
OK, I may be completely wrong here and, if so, one of our clerical Shipmates will correct me, but I think the secret prayer is the prayer the priest prays silently over the unconsecrated bread and wine at the offertory.

[ETA: X-Posted with PD. Well, I was sort of right]

[ 16. January 2011, 22:37: Message edited by: Spike ]
 

---

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
For the removal of doubt, it is that which is referred to in modern RC and Anglican rites as the "prayer over the gifts."
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
I am not sure the green book did print the Interim Rite. It printed the 1928 options during the first part of the service (the Summary of the Law, the Kyries and the alternative Prayer for the Church Militant); but the Prayer of Humble Access was printed after the Sanctus, the Prayer of Consecration finished after the Words of Institution, and the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Oblation were printed post-communion only – as in 1662, but not as the Interim Rite would have it.

---

A false association on my part. Most of the places that were Green Book when I was a kid were Interim Rite. The Green Book was basically 1662 with the 1928 alternatives as far as the end of the Prayer for the Church Malignant, then pretty much straight 1662 thereafter apart from the addition of the Benedictus and Agnus. That just served to make it a bit easier to sneak in the Interim Rite

PD
 

---

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
For the removal of doubt, it is that which is referred to in modern RC and Anglican rites as the "prayer over the gifts."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
For the removal of doubt, it is that which is referred to in modern RC and Anglican rites as the "prayer over the gifts."

---

I don't think it is. I think it's prayed silently by the priest, hence the term "secret prayer"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
The "Prayer over the Gifts" was the "Secret" until the 1965 revision of the Rubrics. In the back of my copy of Ritual Notes 11 is a sheet of paper outlining the changes made to the Roman Rite in 1965. This suggests that my copy was printed late '65, or '66, as another raft of changes came in 1967/8 before the Nervous Ordo was adopted in 1969/70. There was a certain amount of liturgical frog boiling going on at that time in both the CofE and the Roman Church.

---

quote:

---

Even though Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction, the French concept of marriage at the town hall is not present in Quebec law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
This 'secret prayers' bit is bugging me. I can't see them in the BCP or the 1928 book. It would seem to me to go against everything I've ever experienced or understood for part of the service to be said in a way so that people can't hear it and can't join their own thoughts and prayers to the words. Is this part of the ordinary service - in which case which part - or is this extra material from somewhere else?

If the latter, I can see why the opponents of revision might be so suspicious. It conjures up a mental image of a certain type of 1920s very high church priest who thinks the CofE words don't quite work, and mutters extra Roman ones under his breath, just in case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:


I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

I suspect though that 'Rivers of the Flood', which I've certainly never heard of, may be a bit difficult to find. Is it the sort of thing that just might turn up in a bundle of 'all these for 20p' at a fete or in the shelf outside a second hand bookshop?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:


I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....

---

I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)

An interesting point that had been noted by canon lawyers is that the Ordinariate may have to seek and acknowledge the permission of the (Anglican) copyright holders (Cambridge University Press for the BCP) for its liturgical texts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Mama Thomas, what on earth was "adding the secret and the last gospel"? They sound like something from the Da Vinci Code.

---

I'll take a stab at this, or perhaps half a stab. The "last Gospel" refers to the reading of the preamble to John's Gospel at the end of the service. This was done at the Biretta Belt church of my yoof. I believe the "secret" is a prayer whispered by the priest during the Canon of the Mass, but that's about all I know. This being Ecclesiantics, I'm sure someone will come along and set me straight if I'm not correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

E. As a result, many (perhaps all) bishops said they would not restrain clergy from using it if they want to.

---

quote:

---

I can remember a vicar saying in the 1960s or 1970s that much as he might have liked to have used the 1928 marriage service, he didn't as because of its history, he wasn't confident that it worked, and that people married using it, were actually lawfully husband and wife.

---

quote:

---

1. What am I missing about the book that made so many people so keen to press for it? What was there that anyone thought was worth the fuss?

---

• Reservation of the sacrament
• Use of the words "altar" and "sacrifice".
• The words "that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of Thy Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ" at the consecration
• Wording that suggested the bread and wine were being "offered" to God.
• Legalisation of wafers instead of real bread
• Prayers for the dead
• Possible celebration without a congregation
• Legalisation of chasubles
• Adding a "Thanksgiving for the Institution of Holy Communion" to the calendar which was seen as Corpus Christi through the back door.
• Addition of "All Souls" to the calendar, as it was associated with prayers for those in Purgatory.

quote:

---

2. Is it a good thing that it failed? If it had succeeded, we'd probably still be stuck with something that was just as remote from modern requirements, but which being only 82 years old, all the arguments would have been against changing it 'yet again'.

3. Even now, there is a Prayer Book Society that advocates the original 1662 BCP, but is there anyone who still advocates either the 1928 book or any forgotten feature of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo
The Last Gospel was always read, sotto voce, at the church of my youth - which was Percy Dearmer/Prayer Book Catholic with not a biretta in sight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:

I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....

---

I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Even though Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction, the French concept of marriage at the town hall is not present in Quebec law.

---

Sober Preacher's Kid, is this because Quebec got separated from France before the Revolution in 1789?

In England, a CofE wedding takes place under the law of the land, but clergy of other denominations have to be appointed deputy registrars. So the 'magic bits' of a Methodist or RC wedding must be present in accordance with the legislation, but provided they are there, the details of the rest of the ceremony is legally irrelevant. As far as I know, it isn't clear which mechanical errors are or are not fatal to the civil effect of a CofE wedding, or what the position was, say, 60 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:

I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....

---

I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)

---

1662 MP and EP ought to be perfectly acceptable to RCs as private devotions rather than public worship...

---

quote:

---

In Canada provinces regulate the "form of marriage" but the laws are all similar. In Ontario the Marriage Act specifies that every clergyperson who performs marriages must have a licence to do so and that licence must belong to essentially a "proper and regular minister" (my paraphrase).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Where did this come, how did it fit in the service, and where does it come from? Presumably it was in addition to the Gospel at its normal place. Was it in the Tridentine Mass? As far as I'm aware, it isn't in the present one. Does anyone else (apart from PD if I've understood correctly) still do this?

I'm still intrigued by these 'secret prayers'. What were they or is that something secret that priests had passed on to them the day they were ordained?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:

I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....

---

I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)

---

1662 MP and EP ought to be perfectly acceptable to RCs as private devotions rather than public worship, maybe with a few droppings from the state prayers (which most people never say all of anyway) Even the present Pope has been known to say nice things about those services. But the catholics already have their own Liturgy of the Hours so its hard to see why they'd need to authorise another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
On the question of the validity of the 1928 wedding service -- someone has just raised questions about all ASB weddings because of something in the wording of an act referring to the 1662 but it has been dismissed.

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Where did this come, how did it fit in the service, and where does it come from? Presumably it was in addition to the Gospel at its normal place. Was it in the Tridentine Mass? As far as I'm aware, it isn't in the present one. Does anyone else (apart from PD if I've understood correctly) still do this?

I'm still intrigued by these 'secret prayers'. What were they or is that something secret that priests had passed on to them the day they were ordained?

---

The last gospel was a feature of the Tridentine Mass, and is still used in parishes and chapels where the Extraordinary Form is celebrated. It was also used by Anglican parishes who used the missal, or parts of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Where did this come, how did it fit in the service, and where does it come from? Presumably it was in addition to the Gospel at its normal place. Was it in the Tridentine Mass? As far as I'm aware, it isn't in the present one. Does anyone else (apart from PD if I've understood correctly) still do this?

I'm still intrigued by these 'secret prayers'. What were they or is that something secret that priests had passed on to them the day they were ordained?

---

The last gospel was a feature of the Tridentine Mass, and is still used in parishes and chapels where the Extraordinary Form is celebrated. It was also used by Anglican parishes who used the missal, or parts of it.

---

It was more widespread among Anglicans than missal users/adaptors.

We were 'Prayer Book Catholic' - i.e. we used 1662 with some 1928 additions but nothing Roman. Yet we started with 'the preparation' by priest(s) and server(s) and ended with the Last Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
We were 'Prayer Book Catholic' - i.e. we used 1662 with some 1928 additions but nothing Roman. Yet we started with 'the preparation' by priest(s) and server(s) and ended with the Last Gospel.

---

You say "nothing Roman," but then mention the "preparation" (i.e., the prayers at the foot of the altar) and the last gospel. Didn't these forms come from the Roman Missal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
Yes, that sounds very familiar. Over here in the US, even in parishes where the 1928 BCP was used without additions, the Prep and the Last Gospel were heard pretty reguarly according to me old timers. Perhaps in the case of the Preparation one should say 'not quite heard!'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
We were 'Prayer Book Catholic' - i.e. we used 1662 with some 1928 additions but nothing Roman. Yet we started with 'the preparation' by priest(s) and server(s) and ended with the Last Gospel.

---

You say "nothing Roman," but then mention the "preparation" (i.e., the prayers at the foot of the altar) and the last gospel. Didn't these forms come from the Roman Missal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
Yes, that sounds very familiar. Over here in the US, even in parishes where the 1928 BCP was used without additions, the Prep and the Last Gospel were heard pretty reguarly according to me old timers. Perhaps in the case of the Preparation one should say 'not quite heard!'

---

Again, the "1928 BCP was used without additions," but neither the prayers at the foot of the altar nor the last gospel are in the 1928 BCP. They were therefore additions, were they not? And Roman ones, no less.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
my brother/feather...'

---

Were you all so affectionate to your clergy...?

Thurible
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
That is right.

Although they might be construed as coming from the missal, we used absolutely nothing from the Roman Rite DURING the communion service.

Also, the preparation was adapted. In the confession of priest to server and of server to pries, we didn't list all the saints, i.e. 'blessed Mary ever virgin, the holy apostles Peter and Paul....' It was simply, 'all the saints and you my brother/father...'

Forty years on, I can still remember the words.

---

And I was saying them right along with you

I recall the usual format in our shack as being Preparation at the altar step whilst the choir and congo got through the first hymn. We then followed the BCP Communion service as given in the Green Book - i.e. ninefold Kyrie, not Decalogue, Benedictus and Agnus Dei added, but nothing moved or transposed. Finally, the celebrant read the Last Gospel and the altar party departed during the closing hymn. The aim being for Vicar to be by the door in his cassock as most the people began to leave. He's miss the bolters as they were usually out the door during the last hymn! I also remember a fair few gurgling stomachs, girls in the choir passing out, and non-communicants as the parish had not yet relaxed its views n fasting Communion.

PD
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This has been very interesting, and the 'last gospel' and 'secret prayers' were things I hadn't heard before.

I can see why one might want to add additional prayers of preparation, but I have to admit I remain puzzled what the liturgical logic of the last gospel was. Does anyone know? Was it just read 'because we've always done it' or 'because they do it in the best circles', or even 'because they don't do it in the circles we want to distinguish ourselves from'?

Alternatively, as the words "and the Word was made flesh" are in capitals, was this being read as authority for transubstantiation? If so though, whatever ones view on transubstantiation, that looks a bit of a doubtful choice of the right text to use. Since it goes on to say "and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory .... ", it's clearly about the nature of the Incarnation.

Are there any people who add any of these elements to Common Worship? Apart from whether it would be lawful to add something, it would go against the sense that the service ends with Communion and then 'straight out into the world', or more usually 'the coffee'.
 

---

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
I think the last gospel began as a private devotion for the priest after the mass; he would say it as he was taking off his vestments. I recall reading somewhere that the LG was considered a sort of verbal amulet, like the Lord's Prayer or Psalm 23, to be said from memory for protection in times of trouble. Eventually, saying it from the altar became established practice (though it was never written in the Missal), and the Pius V reforms of the liturgy made it official, until it was done away with after VatII.

In terms of your 'Does anyone still do it?' question, the answer is yes, although it is rare. It is, obviously, still a part of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and any Anglican churches that use those or similar liturgies (such as the English Missal) will still say it. It was done in the church I went to as a young man, and I continue to do it because of the liturgical curmudgeon that I am (we are Rite-II prayerbook Anglo-Catholic).

One thing I have seen (and kind of like, actually) is the LG read from the west end of the nave after the recessional hymn, after which the priest and the altar party leave the nave. A modern twist on it, to be sure, but I do sort of like it.

[ 21. January 2011, 15:16: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
In the old liturgical books 'the Last Gospel' is some times explained as 'the Memorial of the the Incarnation.' There are three possible reasons for the custom

The first has something to do with Christological heresy - generally Catharism - and it was a liturgical rebuttal of the heresy.

The second theory is that the custom of commemorating certain days by reciting the Collect of the Feast as the second collect and reading the Gospel of the commemorated feast after Mass. This happened a lot in the Middle Ages, and I am sure the question arose 'what happens when we do not have a proper Last Gospel?' At which point some bright spark suggested "the Christmas Gospel."

The third is that it arose out of devotion and is a relic of a votive Mass of the Incarnation once offered to ward off evil.

At this distance in time it is impossible to know which one of the three was the main reason for its adoption. However, we know that its use was common by about 1300.

I am sure you will still find the Last Gospel still being used in a few Anglo-Catholic shacks that use CW1 in traditional language. The capitals at 'AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH...' started by analogy with capitalizing 'BECAME INCARNATE... MADE MAN' in the Nicene Creed. Also a handy visual clue to the MC or server to genuflect at those points.

Why does one retain it? I suspect out of devotion to the Incarnation, and as a reminder that without 'and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us' there would be no forgiveness, no salvation, no hope.

PD
 

---

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
I've added to our weekday. Starting in Advent to set the mood, and continued during Xmas, and people like it so it stayed. Such a POSITIVE way to end the Mass.

I know one other place where it has come back in recent years. Simply tacked on at the end of a local prayer book Mass.

Also, I know there has been a lot of interest in it since around 2000. Using it of course doesn't jive with the liturgical assurances of the 60s and their successors, but in many communities it follows a need.

To me it makes more sense than following the dismissal with a hymn!
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
In the old liturgical books 'the Last Gospel' is some times explained as 'the Memorial of the the Incarnation.' There are three possible reasons for the custom

The first has something to do with Christological heresy - generally Catharism - and it was a liturgical rebuttal of the heresy.

The second theory is that the custom of commemorating certain days by reciting the Collect of the Feast as the second collect and reading the Gospel of the commemorated feast after Mass. This happened a lot in the Middle Ages, and I am sure the question arose 'what happens when we do not have a proper Last Gospel?' At which point some bright spark suggested "the Christmas Gospel."

The third is that it arose out of devotion and is a relic of a votive Mass of the Incarnation once offered to ward off evil.

At this distance in time it is impossible to know which one of the three was the main reason for its adoption. However, we know that its use was common by about 1300.

I am sure you will still find the Last Gospel still being used in a few Anglo-Catholic shacks that use CW1 in traditional language. The capitals at 'AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH...' started by analogy with capitalizing 'BECAME INCARNATE... MADE MAN' in the Nicene Creed. Also a handy visual clue to the MC or server to genuflect at those points.

Why does one retain it? I suspect out of devotion to the Incarnation, and as a reminder that without 'and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us' there would be no forgiveness, no salvation, no hope.

PD
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thanks for that

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon in the Nati
I recall reading somewhere that the LG was considered a sort of verbal amulet, like the Lord's Prayer or Psalm 23, to be said from memory for protection in times of trouble.

---

quote:

---

ibid
I continue to do it because of the liturgical curmudgeon that I am (we are Rite-II prayerbook Anglo-Catholic)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD
I am sure the question arose 'what happens when we do not have a proper Last Gospel?' At which point some bright spark suggested "the Christmas Gospel."

---

quote:

---

Over here, anyone who calls themselves 'prayer book' usually means they are 'all services 1662', in which case, they would have neither late C19/early C20 innovations nor guitars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
The link you provided though, draws a distinction between prayers said quietly, possibly while something else is going on, and actual secret prayers. Is this the difference between 'in a secret voice' and 'secretly'. The text of the quiet ones is printed in English so that the faithful could follow it, but the texts of the secret ones don't seem to be. It also refers to a secret prayer of the day. What actually were these, and does anything corresponding to them still exist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
In CofE terms, there's a difference between tinkering with a service and adding something before or after it. That's why in the old Morning and Evening Prayer, the hymns and sermon usually all came before and after the prayer book text. So I would have thought it was at least arguable that it was less irregular to read a passage of scripture after the end of the prayer book service, than to add extras or omit bits one did not like on the way through.

---

I will admit that this comment, and several by leo and others here, have left me perplexed. I will attempt to explain my confusion in the most respectful terms possible.

I find interesting some of the dichotomies made here, whereby certain forms are classified as "Roman," while others are not, even though the latter come from the same Roman sources as the former. These categories appear to be used by people who presently, or traditionally, have inserted said forms into their Anglican BCP liturgies, often while maintaining that they are not, in fact, using any Roman forms.

I speak as a RC who has been involved with the EF for many years, but also had had much experience with the OF there, especially in earlier, pre-EF years. More germane to this discussion is the fact that I was raised as an AC Episcopalian here in the US. I was raised in two parishes of my youth, the first, a prayer book Catholic parish and the second, an Anglican Missal parish.

As I had previously remarked, some were speaking about having purely BCP services in their youth, with no Roman additions. (Being English, BCP meant 1662.) Then they spoke of having the last gospel and prayers at the foot of the altar, the latter of which they called "the preparation." I recognized this nomenclature from my prayer book Catholic days, where using terminology that sounded "less Roman" was not unknown to me, though I encountered it more at other parishes that I visited. The fact of the matter was, and is, that the preparation is actually the prayers at the foot of the altar. One member here stated that the list of the BVM and other saints was omitted in favor of "and the whole company of heaven." I can say that I saw this in one tract of my youth (which I still have), but never once heard it used. Wherever I served Mass (many locations, as I was very active in guilds, etc.), the entire list was always used; we would have thought it odd to do otherwise. But my ultimate point is that the form came from the Roman Missal, regardless of what one calls it. The same may be said for the last gospel, which while it has a late medieval history as a private prayer recited by the priest on his way back to the sacristy, was not actually inserted into the Order of the Mass until 1570, after the Council of Trent. Another Roman form.

Some then said that legally, neither was the insertion of a Roman form into the liturgy, because one was said before the official start of the service, and the other after its ending. However technically true this may be, it seems at best a legalistic dodge to avoid acknowledging that Roman forms were used at Anglican altars.

Then someone mentioned using the ninefold Kyrie, Benedictus and Agnus Dei, and even used the word "added" to describe these, but without mentioning from where they were added. The answer is the same Roman Missal.

The English, American and Anglican Missals all included the prayers I listed above in this very post, all of which were taken from the Roman Missal. It is certainly no secret that Anglo-Catholics felt, to varying degrees, that the 1662 BCP (and Americans, the 1928 BCP) was wonderful in some ways, but a little lacking in others, so they supplemented their liturgies with prayers and ceremonies taken from the RCC. Some here have depicted such ACS as extremely small in number, outside the mainstream and hardly even worth mentioning. One member even spoke of 1920s-vintage AC priests "mumbling" unauthorized prayers.

I am sorry, but I find such depictions to be disingenuous at best, and offensive at worst. I fully acknowledge that ACs in general, and especially extreme ACs, were numerically the minority in both the C of E and ECUSA. However, they were a very influential minority, and a good many of their practices have more or less become the norm. There were plenty of AC shacks on both sides of the pond, to which one could go, if one wanted to hear prayers from the missals along with the BCP prayers. This was not some lunatic fringe, as some here seem to hint.

Moreover, they, and other, less-ritually advanced churchmen, appended Roman forms to the prayer book services. It did not happen to the same degree everywhere, or at the same time, but they used Roman forms that Cranmer and those who came after him had deliberately removed, be it in 1549, 1552, 1559 or 1662. Somehow these forms, which were never printed in any official prayer books between 1552 and the 1960s, are no longer considered Roman, but ecumenical, since others copied them, as well. I have no problem with their use by others, but I do wish to question attempts to depict such appropriation as anything other than copying/aping/allocating/borrowing Roman forms. Even the Sarum Use was one of the Roman Church. Whether it was the ritualists of the late 19th and early 20th century, or the inter-war AC socialists, or the ecumenically-inclined committees of the modern era, these forms were not created out of thin air; they came from papist quarters. Can we at least acknowledge that?
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
You're quite right of course, Ceremoniar. I suspect part of the reason why people pretend 'it's not Roman' is because many anglo-catholics inhabit a fantasy world where 'the way we do things is proper C of E'. You don't have to deny that the C of E or BCP is Catholic to appreciate the value of elements imported from other traditions, especially our Mother Church.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thank you Ceremoniar. That's interesting, though a bit confusing. I think we come from backgrounds which are too different to be able to understand each other in full.

One of the things I have learnt from the Ship is that the CofE and the US Episcopal Church that you moved on from are not just the same thing with different accents. They are actually a lot further apart, both in tradition and current ethos than either side realises.

When you say 'the prayer over the gifts, ... This prayer, like the collect and postcommunion, varies with each Mass', do you mean there is a different version of this in the RC missal that is prescribed and changes every Sunday and festival like the Collects? If so, is there still any part of it said so that no one can hear it, or is it now said aloud like the rest of the Canon? It's the idea of prayers that the congregation aren't meant to hear and internally join themselves to that sounds really odd to me.

Going back to the failed 1928 Book and English service variations before and after it though, as I think I understand Leo (who knows a lot more about this sort of thing than I do) and PD have confirmed, there is a significant difference between omitting part of the prescribed service or inserting irregular material into it, and doing extra things before and after the prescribed services.

Following a completely different form of service (wherever you got it from) from the 1662 Prayer Book, the irregular 1928 Book if your bishop allowed it, or Series II once introduced was in English terms making a rude gesture to your bishop, and probably your congregation unless they were of the same mind as you, and illegal.

On service experimentation etc, though, again I suspect the CofE perspective is different from what you describe. In the first half of the C20, there would have been a few people who thought 'we should try and be as like the modern RC church as we can get away with. So because they have the extra elements listed, we should translate them into English and have them too'.

However, I get the impression that the more usual source of innovations was the modernisation of antiquarian sources. The argument, from what I've read, seems to have been either that Cramner's first book in 1549 was better than the second, or that one could reverse aspects of the Reformation and translate material from the C16 form of Mass, rather than the Tridentine form.

From one of the links I followed from an earlier post on this thread, I gathered that one criticism of the 1928 book by some particularly pro-Roman clergy was that its consecration prayer added an element from Orthodox practice which at that time was not in the Roman Mass. I am a lay person and no expert on liturgy, but if the issue is the one I think it is, it is something which virtually all modern consecrations have now followed.
 

---

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
Yes, the secret is similar to the collect and post-communion collect, as these three prayers vary at each Mass. In the Latin Mass and in AC churches who use the older missals, the collect and postcommunion were said aloud and the secret was not, except for its closing words, world without end. In the newer rites, the secret is called the prayer over the gifts, and is said aloud. Together these three prayers, along with the readings and the antiphons, form the propers of the Mass, which change with each Mass or season.

I realize that there are some pond differences between the US and UK, but I do not believe that is the issue here. I personally visited parishes in the UK in both older and later days, parishes that supplemented BCP forms with Roman ones. I think the issue is that you lack familiarity with the historic Anglo-Catholic ritualistic world, which, BTW, was far more developed in the UK than it was here in the US.

We had a half-dozen or so Anglo-Papalist parishes, and several dozen more extremely AC ones, plus a few Midwestern dioceses that were largely AC. The UK, OTOH, had far more in both categories by the inter-war years. I tend to believe that you see this through the prism of your own (admittedly more limited) liturgical experiences, combined with ancedotes from some other folks, and synthesized these into a sort of template, the result of which makes you unsure as to how you might grasp items that do not fit into that schematic. As a result, you tend to dismiss them as rare occurrences, fanatics who fall outside the mainstream.

While I am fully aware that there were many Anglican bishops and vicars of yesteryear who would never add to the prayer book forms, I can assure you that plenty could and did exactly that, especially in the London area. Some limited themselves to simply adding the ninefold Kyrie, the Benedictus and Agnus Dei, but others went much further than that. In earlier years this brought them into conflict with their bishops, but by World War I most of that had died down (partially due to the ministrations of AC military chaplains), and missal parishes were commonly found in London and other larger cities. The whole reason that the English Missal went through multiple editions between 1912 and 1958, and the Anglican Missal bewtween 1921 and 1961 or so was because so many priests were adding these forms to their prayer book ceremonies. Alcuin Club published a variety of tracts for this purpose, as did other publishers. Beginning with the ritualist controversies at Hatcham and other places in the 1870s and more or less coming to a zenith at the Anglo-Catholic Congresses of the 1920s and 1930s, plenty of Anglican vicars were adding texts and rituals--enough to cause these publishers to keep printing these resources, and thousands attending these congresses. My personal library is replete with books about these developments in the UK.

I am not saying that this was the majority, because it was not. But it was a sizable and conspicuous minority, and it had influence. At first bishops avoided these ritualists, but in later years some of them came on board, as well, which is why the AC Congresses featured Solemn Pontifical Masses. The amount of Roman materials used varied with location, but I submit that you simply have not moved in the right circles, or spoken to people who are deeply familiar with these events that lasted nearly a century before BCP revision leveled the playing field. Even today you have minority of Anglican parishes who use the English edition of the Roman Missal. They may not be the norm, but they represent the far end of a spectrum that has existed for well over a century.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I certainly do not mind acknowledging that we borrow stuff from the Roman Missal. Whilst I would never describe the BCP rite as inadequate as to form and intention, it certainly is not perfect, and if you are easily distracted (as I tend to be) having a set form of preparation and set private prayers at the offertory can be an immense help to devout celebation of the sacrament.

Historically Anglican clergy have used private devotions alongside the public liturgy since at least 1600. Andrewes 'Remains' or perhaps the 'Preces Privatiae' include a set, and there are several others. Adopting or adapting the Tridentine forms is just another stage in a fairly old process. Come to think about it this process predates the BCP and goes back to the early Middle Ages when devout bishops and priests gradually added those private prayers to the old Roman Mass in the first place.

I think all schools of Anglicans add to the liturgy in some way, even if it is just the old-fashioned Evangelical extemporary prayer before the sermon, or the Broad Church business with the fourth verse of America. The question really has to be when do such practices go beyond what the bishops are prepared to tolerate? In this day and age we are given (or give) a respectable amount of rope for those who wish to make changes that are NOT doctrinally significant. It was not always that way, however. In the history of Anglicanism outward rather than exact conformity is what the Bishops have tended to look for and expect, hence the occasionally slightly anarchic state of Anglican liturgy.

PD
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0