|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 1549 Prayer Book - bring it back?
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
I was just reading the 1549 Eucharistic liturgy, and in many wise that is actually closer to Common Worship Order One than 1662. With that in mind, isn't it about time the Church legalized 1549?
I can imagine some Anglo Catholic parishes where it would go down quite well...
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I have an idea that Holy Trinity Millbrook, Southampton, were using it in the early 90s, but I may be mistaken.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
This is an order of service that was in place for just three years. Yes, it is excellent: far better than 1552, 1559 or 1662, and more exciting than the often-turgid Common Worship, but it is not a major aspect of our heritage as Anglicans.
We already have five options for Holy Communion (CW Order 1 contemporary language, CW Order 2 contemporary language, CW Order 1 traditional language, CW Order 1 traditional language and 1662 BCP*). We don't need any more.
(*And, of course, the Roman Rite ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) )
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
If one has already got something available in both modern and faux-antique language, why bother with reviving something that, as Basilica correctly says*, only existed for 3 years, over 350 years ago. And why on earth, in those circumstances, should a church in the north west suburbs of London go to such efforts to use a form of worship which has no living tradition behind it, and has been illegal for all except 3 years of the last 2,000. The Eucharist is the Supper ordained by Jesus Christ, not some opportunity for affectation and antiquarian play acting.
*Incorrectly as regards the Roman rite of course.
[ 15. February 2013, 13:47: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Quite. There are, of course, people who value the old-fashioned 1662 BCP Communion service (where it can still be had), but I suspect that is precisely because it is 1662 - the rite they were brought up with and with which they are familiar. Replacing it with any other rite, whether 1549 or whatever, would not be received kindly.......
I've heard of 1549 being used occasionally e.g. in a teaching context as an historical reconstruction, but presumably one would technically need one's Bishop's permission.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I've heard of 1549 being used occasionally e.g. in a teaching context as an historical reconstruction, but presumably one would technically need one's Bishop's permission.
We did that on our Reader's course. Or was it 1552? Maybe it was 1552.
IIRC the rubric had everybody kneeling round the table for a large part of the service.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
IIRC the rubric had everybody kneeling round the table for a large part of the service.
Sounds more like 1552 to me.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Basilica:
Yes, it is excellent: far better than 1552, 1559 or 1662, and more exciting than the often-turgid Common Worship
Aren't these good enough reasons to at least authorise its use? 1549 was a stroke of genius by Cranmer. Although it represented a major break with the old religion, it retained just enough Catholicism to enable the Catholic Bishop Gardiner to say it "was patient of a catholic interpretation". But Cranmer assured Bucer in 1549 that it was 'concessions...made both as a respect for antiquity and to the infirmity of the present age' His incremental Protestantisation took a huge leap in 1552 which excised anything remotely Catholic, and destroying the ancient order of the Western Rite.
Although a few concessions were brought back by Elizabeth in 1558, and by the Restoration Prayer Book of 1662, they were mostly a rehash of 1552. Cranmer was a genius, both in his use of langauge, and in his political acumen in pursuing his agenda, which was only cut short by his arrest in 1553 under Mary Tudor, and subsequent execution. I think 1549 was the finest English language liturgy ever written. Deficient from a catholic pov, but not hopelessly so.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
The Eucharistic Prayer is so long, like the Scottish 1929, and the Exhortation which nobody in living memory has regularly used, is required in the 1549. And, IIRC, I think there is a whole Psalm in there some place--but there is nowadays too, so...
It would be a long service, but might be nice for educational purposes and so on. Having the Sarum one week and the Communion Rite in English the next, the 1549 next, then 1552, Sarum again, and 1559 and so on. Wonder if anybody would come?
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
At least the language of 1549 is not, to use Enoch's term, faux antique - it is real antique.
Some of the rubrics would now look quaint, if not odd, if the rite were to be revived - in particular the one that requires intending communicants to hang around in or near the quire after the offertory, men on one side, women on the other. Wasn't such segregation by sex once customary in some Welsh chapels, if not elsewhere?
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
The Eucharistic Prayer is so long, like the Scottish 1929, and the Exhortation which nobody in living memory has regularly used, is required in the 1549. And, IIRC, I think there is a whole Psalm in there some place--but there is nowadays too, so...
It would be a long service, but might be nice for educational purposes and so on. Having the Sarum one week and the Communion Rite in English the next, the 1549 next, then 1552, Sarum again, and 1559 and so on. Wonder if anybody would come?
Well, there's a fixed Introit, which is an entire psalm. But the canon doesn't seem any longer than that of the US 1928 (or of the 1662, except that all the parts precede the communion, as they should...).
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
The prayer of consecration to which American and Scottish Episcopalians have long been accustomed is very similar to that found in Cramner's 1549 liturgy.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
*Incorrectly as regards the Roman rite of course.
To be clear, tongue was very firmly in cheek there...
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
Would anyone care to address the point that 1549 is closer to CW than 1662? Some of the parts of 1662 are quite simply in the wrong place (Gloria) and others have been altered for no good reason (why is the rest of the Canon only an optional thanksgiving prayer?). Look, I love 1662 and my church uses it, but 1549 is probably a more faithful liturgy to the Western tradition, at the same time avoiding all Romish errors and keeping everything in the correct place.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Would anyone care to address the point that 1549 is closer to CW than 1662? Some of the parts of 1662 are quite simply in the wrong place (Gloria) and others have been altered for no good reason (why is the rest of the Canon only an optional thanksgiving prayer?). Look, I love 1662 and my church uses it, but 1549 is probably a more faithful liturgy to the Western tradition, at the same time avoiding all Romish errors and keeping everything in the correct place.
'Romish errors'? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
I was interested by that and looked up the Common Worship order. As an American, I have no idea how you people can use it effectively! The PDF I found for Holy Communion was 91 pages long. So I'm not sure which set of choices and options in CW is close to the 1549, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were in there.
Other things I'm noticing about 1549, as an uneducated American:
- Very, very long exhortation(s).
- Social hierarchy embedded into prayer (first pray for the king, then for the bishops, pastors, curates, then that "to al thy people geve thy heavenly grace, that with meke heart and due reverence they may heare and receive thy holy worde")
- The priest says, oh, 98% of the words. Including the entire Lord's Prayer until "But deliver us from evil. Amen."
- The Agnus Dei sung while people are taking communion (or is this normal?)
Just at a glance. Proceed to rip whatever I've said to shreds.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I was interested by that and looked up the Common Worship order. As an American, I have no idea how you people can use it effectively! The PDF I found for Holy Communion was 91 pages long. So I'm not sure which set of choices and options in CW is close to the 1549, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were in there.
Other things I'm noticing about 1549, as an uneducated American:
- Very, very long exhortation(s).
- Social hierarchy embedded into prayer (first pray for the king, then for the bishops, pastors, curates, then that "to al thy people geve thy heavenly grace, that with meke heart and due reverence they may heare and receive thy holy worde")
- The priest says, oh, 98% of the words. Including the entire Lord's Prayer until "But deliver us from evil. Amen."
- The Agnus Dei sung while people are taking communion (or is this normal?)
Just at a glance. Proceed to rip whatever I've said to shreds.
It's not normal to have the Agnus Dei sung while people are taking Communion when using CW, no. Also ending the Lord's Prayer at 'deliver us from evil' is an RC thing I think.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I am no expert in these things, but this is much more a matter of recent history than C16 history.
The 1662 Order is in CW, both in its 1662 form and a modern language version. It is still normative in a way that the various other authorised permutations are not. It is also the default form of worship if the vicar and PCC do not agree how to use CW.
CW comes at the (currently) end of a series of interim forms of worship, 1928 (of doubtful legal status), Series 2, Series 3 and ASB. There may even have been a Series 1 but I don't recall having ever encountered it. Arguments about the superiority of what was done between 1549 and 1552, and how they did things in Scotland may well have fed into the 1928 book. That was the sort of thing people got excited about in those days. But I suspect the more recent interim forms and what other people do now have both had more direct influence on CW than the 1549 book.
I would contest your statement that the Gloria is in the 'wrong' place. One can say 'it isn't where it usually is now' or even 'it isn't where I personally prefer it'. But there is a reason why it comes at the end in 1662, which makes liturgical sense in terms of C17 eucharistic theology, even if you do not agree with it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I am no expert in these things, but this is much more a matter of recent history than C16 history.
The 1662 Order is in CW, both in its 1662 form and a modern language version. It is still normative in a way that the various other authorised permutations are not. It is also the default form of worship if the vicar and PCC do not agree how to use CW.
CW comes at the (currently) end of a series of interim forms of worship, 1928 (of doubtful legal status), Series 2, Series 3 and ASB. There may even have been a Series 1 but I don't recall having ever encountered it. Arguments about the superiority of what was done between 1549 and 1552, and how they did things in Scotland may well have fed into the 1928 book. That was the sort of thing people got excited about in those days. But I suspect the more recent interim forms and what other people do now have both had more direct influence on CW than the 1549 book.
I would contest your statement that the Gloria is in the 'wrong' place. One can say 'it isn't where it usually is now' or even 'it isn't where I personally prefer it'. But there is a reason why it comes at the end in 1662, which makes liturgical sense in terms of C17 eucharistic theology, even if you do not agree with it.
Oh no, I agree with them for the most part. Though the Black Rubric irks me.
[deleted duplicate post]
[ 16. February 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: seasick ]
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Would anyone care to address the point that 1549 is closer to CW than 1662? Some of the parts of 1662 are quite simply in the wrong place (Gloria) and others have been altered for no good reason (why is the rest of the Canon only an optional thanksgiving prayer?). Look, I love 1662 and my church uses it, but 1549 is probably a more faithful liturgy to the Western tradition, at the same time avoiding all Romish errors and keeping everything in the correct place.
A "typical" Common Worship Eucharist uses Order One: Modern Language, which generally follows the same Western tradition as does 1549.
Common Worship also provides Order Two, which follows the eccentric structure of later editions of the BCP, from 1552 onwards.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
the Exhortation which nobody in living memory has regularly used ...
I am no fan of the English Reformation liturgies, but had to use them up to a couple of times a week at St Triangles. At my last Friday BCP I read the Exhortation just for the joy of the language.
The rather lovely old souls gathered had never heard it before, though most of them had been participating in 1662 week by week for about 85-90 years.
And it was fun. Just not good theology (doing it for fun, not the theology of the Exhortation).
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If one has already got something available in both modern and faux-antique language, why bother with reviving something that, as Basilica correctly says*, only existed for 3 years, over 350 years ago. And why on earth, in those circumstances, should a church in the north west suburbs of London go to such efforts to use a form of worship which has no living tradition behind it, and has been illegal for all except 3 years of the last 2,000. The Eucharist is the Supper ordained by Jesus Christ, not some opportunity for affectation and antiquarian play acting.
*Incorrectly as regards the Roman rite of course.
Well said, Sir!
I feel we must not let a small number who love archaic liturgy have too great a say. Of course there is a place for 1662 - I support that. But 1549 as the main act of worship for young and old, children and migrant workers with little English...?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
On the other hand liturgical schlars since 1662 have lamented what was lost since 1552, and looked back admiringly at 1549. Scot and American piskies tried to regain something of its shape.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
You can do a pretty good job of reconstructing 1549 under Common Worship: Notes.. Moving the Gloria is more problematic* - leaving you with Order 1 Traditional with Traditional Texts inserted. However in Order 2 Traditional you can reconstruct the Eucharistic Prayer and move the Lord's Prayer and the fraction.
*You can remove the Gloria and re-insert it of course.This may be cheating.
[ 19. February 2013, 13:22: Message edited by: Edward Green ]
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The 1549 BCP is not really my sort of thing. The Communion Service has the same structural problems as the 1764-1912-1929 Scottish Liturgies, then aggreviates them with exhortations. The Daily Office is better than 1662 though, and closer to what most of us BCP hands do day by day.
Over here it has been so hijacked by the Anglo-Papalists that I have become very wary of it even though it is in conformity with Cranmer's mature Eucharistic theology. As you probably know, Ridley got Cranmer to look at Ratramnus' tract On the Lord's Supper about 1546 and Cranmer shifted from his previous Lutheran views to something closer to Bucer and Calvin. This theology is incorporated in 1549, mainly through invisible mending, and into the 1552 BCP in a kind of 'in your face' way. 1559/1662 both take a half step back from that position leaving the door open a chink for Lutherans, and those who hold Virtualist rather than Receptionist views.
PD
[ 20. February 2013, 14:22: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I was just reading the 1549 Eucharistic liturgy, and in many wise that is actually closer to Common Worship Order One than 1662. With that in mind, isn't it about time the Church legalized 1549?
I can imagine some Anglo Catholic parishes where it would go down quite well...
I don't think we need anything closer to CW, when we've already got CW. That'll do for me.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Elgood
Apprentice
# 17566
|
Posted
It seems to me that some clergy regard any prescribed form of worship - whatever the date - as a restriction on their freedom. They want to cut and paste so that its different every week.
--------------------
Chris Elgood
Posts: 2 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Hi there, Chris, and welcome to SoF. I'm sure a Host will be along shortly to greet you officially, but welcome all the same.
Hopefully I haven't read past it, but here's a link to one 1549 resource.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
@Jade Constable
A passing thought but no, ending the Lord's Prayer at 'but deliver us from evil' is not Roman, but rather the earlier biblical form from Matthew 6 9-13.
The doxology 'for Thine is the Kingdom etc' appears to have been added in later forms, or so wiser scholars than I advise.
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
