Ship of Fools: Revised Book of Divine Worship

Thread: Revised Book of Divine Worship Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026495

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

In light of the publication of the Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham the following may be of interest:

quote:
In remarks at the annual Conference of the Anglican Use Society on Friday, November 9th, Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter said that work was nearing completion on a revision of the Book of Divine Worship. Following guidance from the Congregation of Divine Worship in Rome, this revision will include only the Rite I services; congregations wishing to use contemporary language are directed to use the Roman Missal, third edition, in the translation released in 2011.

Commenting on the new version of the BDW, Msgr. Steenson said that this was not the final version of the liturgy being prepared by the Anglicane Traditiones interdicasterial commission, but an update with three purposes:

1) The correction of errors in the first printed edition of the BDW.

2) The updating of texts that taken from the Roman Missal, such as the Prayer over the gifts at the Offertory.

3) The restoration of certain prayers, such as the Prayer of Humble Access, to their original versions.

The new text is expected to be in the hands of parishes of the Ordinariate and the Pastoral Provision in time for Advent. Once made available, this version will be mandatory for use in all the parishes using the Anglican Use liturgy.

http://anglicanusenews.blogspot.ca/2012/11/revised-book-of-divine-worship-soon-to.html

From what I've heard essentially all the TEC '79 BCP elements are being replaced in favour of the '28 BCP.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

This is certainly a positive development in the eyes of most members of the AO, I believe. The new forms should hopefully look more like the Anglican Missal with the Roman Canon.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

In light of the publication of the Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham the following may be of interest ... From what I've heard essentially all the TEC '79 BCP elements are being replaced in favour of the '28 BCP.

Well, we have to wait and see what they come up with, won't we? But replacement of TEC 79 BCP elements with those of TEC 28 BCP doesn't sound like a smart move at all, if only because the 79 BCP gives both Rite I & II oprions. (antique or modern English). But I suppose it depends on just how they do it.

However it's interesting to note that Steenson himself was rector of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Fort Worth, a parish that is snake belly low church and entirely devoted to TEC 28 BCP. About the only thing that can be said in favor of the 1928 TEC BCP, is the Psalter, a modified King James/Coverdale version put together for that revision.

It will be interesting to see what is produced for the American AO. This Episcopalian is watching with interest because I know it's notoriously difficult to get such revisions or editorial compilations right.

*

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The language differences between 1928 and 1979 Rite I largely revolve around dropping a few words in the latter that were just thought too archaic and obscure, one example being "vouchsafe"; and some theologically-based revision, including the Prayer of Humble Access, because it was thought by American liturgists at any rate that the original form of the prayer could be taken to imply that a different grace resides respectively in each of the two sacramental species ("that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood"). Good catechesis should, of course, obviate concerns about this latter, and a reasonable person would understand the language of the Humble Mumble as somewhat poetical rather than rigorously theological. None the less, there was a serious rationale for revising the language of the prayer in '79.

If the BDW is ultimately to be used as a model for a traditional Anglican liturgy common to all the national ordinariates, one could see the point in trying to conform the language to that shared by most of the Anglican provincial liturgies from which a traditional liturgy for all the Ordinariates would be derived, and other provinces may have retained more archaicisms and original wording than has been true of either the American 1928 or the American 1979 ('28 had more modest modernisations).

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Well, we have to wait and see what they come up with, won't we? But replacement of TEC 79 BCP elements with those of TEC 28 BCP doesn't sound like a smart move at all, if only because the 79 BCP gives both Rite I & II oprions. (antique or modern English).

My understanding is that Mgr Steenson has clearly been saying "if you want modern language services, then use the Novus Ordo", so I'd suspect the new BDW to be much more focussed on the trad-language.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

IMO, it's the BDW that, more than anything else, gives the North American Ordinariate an enormous advantage over its British counterpart. Mgr Steenson, and Mgr Andrew Burnham in the UK, are both right in saying that Ordinariates don't need a modern language rite, as we have the OF, so the revision is quite apt. Fortunately for you, over there, Anglican Use and Prayer Book Catholicism are well established, and the new book should serve you well.

Our situation here is very different. Many Anglo-Catholic parishes in the 1950's and 60's, used interim rites which combined the BCP with the English(Knott)Missal, but follwing the liturgical reforms of both the Catholic Church and the Church of England in the 60's and 70's, they went for the Roman Rite instead of the more modern C of E liturgies. While I would have agreed with that choice, I would personally have loved to have kept the EM in regular use. so much so, that several years ago, I considered joining the Anglican Catholic Church, because its authorised liturgies are Cranmer 1549, the English Missal and the Anglican Missal. My dream combination!

When the CDF gets to authorising a Mass rite for the Ordinariates, I am assuming it will be something similar to the BDW, perhaps including such gems of Anglicanism as the Collect for Purity and the Prayer of Humble Access. But most of this will be completely unfamiliar to English Ordinariate clergy and laity alike, wheras in the US, it will probably fit like a glove! if the Ordinariate is ever to have an identity of its own within the larger Catholic Church, an Anglican Use liturgy is a must, and sooner rather than later.

Most of our Ordinariate here will have to learn it, and be pressured into using it by the Ordinary and the Monsignori, otherwise the only bit of patrimony they are offering is hymn singing! Mgr Steenson has pointed out that this Revised BDW is only a temporary measure, until the CDF tells us what new books we can use, but I don't see it being radically changed, only teaked in places. BTW, I love the BDW!

Posted by Cruet (# 14586) on :

Paul TH,
The US Book of Divine Worship uses the Collect for Purity and the Prayer of Humble access.
The Comfortable Words are optional.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Well, we have to wait and see what they come up with, won't we? But replacement of TEC 79 BCP elements with those of TEC 28 BCP doesn't sound like a smart move at all, if only because the 79 BCP gives both Rite I & II oprions. (antique or modern English). But I suppose it depends on just how they do it.

The differences between 1928 and 1979 are more than just traditional language. The 1979 BCP uses somewhat of a different framework for the Order of Holy Eucharist--it is more similar to the Ordinary Form of the current Roman Missal.

Most Episcopalians would notice that even in rite one liturgies, the offertory comes later in the Mass--after the comfortable words and peace, and immediately before the Sursum corda and preface. In 1928 BCP, immediately after the creed and sermon, the offertory followed, then the invitation to confession, the general confession, absolution and comfortable words, followed immediately by the Sursum corda and preface.

In addition to the tinkering with language in rite one here and there, as well as a deletion of two significant lines in the prayer of humble access--both of which were already mentioned here--there was was one line deleted from the prayer of thanksgiving after communion ("...by the merits of His most precious death and passion."). Also, the prayer for the church was re-imaged into a form of the prayers of the people, with some content kept the same, and other paragraphs completely rewritten.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
My understanding is that Mgr Steenson has clearly been saying "if you want modern language services, then use the Novus Ordo", so I'd suspect the new BDW to be much more focussed on the trad-language.

While wasting time on the Google Machine to avoid working, I noticed that one of the pioneer Anglican Use parishes, St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington, TX, which was always distinctive (and maybe unique) in its use of Rite II from the BDW, has now dropped this (see page 4) in favor of the current Roman Missal.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Well, we have to wait and see what they come up with, won't we? But replacement of TEC 79 BCP elements with those of TEC 28 BCP doesn't sound like a smart move at all, if only because the 79 BCP gives both Rite I & II oprions. (antique or modern English). But I suppose it depends on just how they do it.
The differences between 1928 and 1979 are more than just traditional language. The 1979 BCP uses somewhat of a different framework for the Order of Holy Eucharist--it is more similar to the Ordinary Form of the current Roman Missal.

Most Episcopalians would notice that even in rite one liturgies, the offertory comes later in the Mass--after the comfortable words and peace, and immediately before the Sursum corda and preface. In 1928 BCP, immediately after the creed and sermon, the offertory followed, then the invitation to confession, the general confession, absolution and comfortable words, followed immediately by the Sursum corda and preface.

In addition to the tinkering with language in rite one here and there, as well as a deletion of two significant lines in the prayer of humble access--both of which were already mentioned here--there was was one line deleted from the prayer of thanksgiving after communion ("...by the merits of His most precious death and passion."). Also, the prayer for the church was re-imaged into a form of the prayers of the people, with some content kept the same, and other paragraphs completely rewritten.

I used to serve at a parish that alternated between Rite I and 1928. A common comment was people wondering why on earth they didn't just simply used the 1928 as the Rite I instead of all that tinkering. I can't think of any good reason to omit the glorious "by the merits of His most precious death and passion" phrase. The CofE has restored the trad Humble Access instead of using the truncated ASB version. I know at least one parish, maybe two, that use the 1928 or Reformation era Humble Access at Rite II masses.

Someone wrote an essay on why "perfect offering" instead of "propitiation" in the CW was proof that TEC now beyond the pale of true Christianity. Wish I had a link. Not making this up!

The breast changes for the better were the additions of the word "holy" to the creed and the Agnus Dei. Much of the rest feels like tinkering.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
The breast changes

???

Is this a reference to smiting the breast during the confitior and Domine non sum dignus?

Or instructions for women priests who may need to feed their babies while at the altar?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
While wasting time on the Google Machine to avoid working, I noticed that one of the pioneer Anglican Use parishes, St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington, TX, which was always distinctive (and maybe unique) in its use of Rite II from the BDW, has now dropped this (see page 4) in favor of the current Roman Missal.

So much for Anglican patrimony?

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Funny, I was thinking "best" and the beating at the same time. Sorry. I can't type a post without typos.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
While wasting time on the Google Machine to avoid working, I noticed that one of the pioneer Anglican Use parishes, St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington, TX, which was always distinctive (and maybe unique) in its use of Rite II from the BDW, has now dropped this (see page 4) in favor of the current Roman Missal.
So much for Anglican patrimony?

The Ordinary indicated some time ago that (the new translation satisfying the previous need for a modern language Mass in sacral English) Ordinariate parishes should choose between Rite I and the new translation of the Roman Rite. This is, of course, an interim arrangement only, pending the new permanent authorised texts.

Whilst SMV would not have been subject to this direction from the Ordinary as an Anglican Use parish, they have recently formally joined the Ordinariate.

It seems rather more, to this Anglican, to be a case of "mutual enrichment" rather than "so much for the Anglican patrimony".

[ 05. March 2013, 19:44: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

I figure this would be red meat for the denizens of Ecclesiantics.

Here is a list of changes to the Book of Divine Worship that have been reported from those who have experienced what may or may not be a "trial use" of the new Ordinariate liturgy.

For purposes of comparison, here is the Book of Divine Worship (warning: PDF).

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

Why have they changed American English spellings to British English ones? This book is for Americans, correct?

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Why have they changed American English spellings to British English ones? This book is for Americans, correct?

The original one was. The new one will be a unified liturgical book for the Ordinariates in the UK, US, Canada and Australia.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
here is the Book of Divine Worship (warning: PDF).

Bloody Norah: 6.76 MB: My computer still has holy smoke emanating from its oracles.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Why have they changed American English spellings to British English ones? This book is for Americans, correct?
The original one was. The new one will be a unified liturgical book for the Ordinariates in the UK, US, Canada and Australia.

If I were an American member of the Ordinariate, and had swum the Tiber with my church before all this Ordinariate business came about, I would feel that England had taken over everything and left me out cold. Using the new Roman Missal instead of the Book of Divine Worship modern rite does indeed eliminate Anglican patrimony.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
.... some theologically-based revision, including the Prayer of Humble Access, because it was thought by American liturgists at any rate that the original form of the prayer could be taken to imply that a different grace resides respectively in each of the two sacramental species ("that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood"). ...

To quote Victor Meldrew, 'I don't believe it'. Haven't they heard of parallelism? That's at the level of those who apparently read Ps 119:105,

quote:
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."

as meaning there are two different illuminations.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
here is the Book of Divine Worship (warning: PDF).
Bloody Norah: 6.76 MB: My computer still has holy smoke emanating from its oracles.

Hmm. Working by iPad via a Polish airport wifi, I might wait before opening that one! A shame as I'm interested to see how it looks, despite been entirely an outsider from this perspective!

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To quote Victor Meldrew, 'I don't believe it'. Haven't they heard of parallelism? That's at the level of those who apparently read Ps 119:105,

quote:
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."
as meaning there are two different illuminations.

Well, if so, they're in good company...

But returning to the Humble Mumble, yours truly has been known to swap in the 1662 version on printed orders of service, precisely because the 1984 Welsh Prayer Book has a panic about those two lines.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Why have they changed American English spellings to British English ones? This book is for Americans, correct?

Those are the spellings that appeared in the American 1928 BCP, and thus are familiar to traditional Anglicanism. Rightly or wrongly, they are also viewed in this country as being more formal. Honour is frequently used on wedding invitations for that very reason.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Hoping it's not too much of a tangent, I have seen "honour" and "valour" on US Civil War veteran tombstones in Vermont and upper New York State. I thought that it was a localism but Ceremoniar's explanation might be right for these as well.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

There might be a grain of truth to what Ceremoniar is saying in that SOME people might think British spellings are more formal. I have to say, however, that I've never seen a wedding invitation with "honour," but if I did I would think it VERY tasteless and tacky with a bit of "low-class" thrown in. Yes, this is snobby, but anybody who self-consciously uses British English spellings is trying to encode something beyond just the words.

In regard to the tombstones, I'd say that they were carved before American and British spellings had diverged completely.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Re the new edition of the BDW not drawing anything from the BCP rite Two.

I think one reason is that most people in the U.S. from an Anglican background are more inclined to traditional language.

But perhaps another reason might be that the US BCP Rite Two uses modern language translations of the prayers we (the RCC, TEC and many other churches) have had in common (Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, etc.) And now these common translations have been abandoned by the RCC in favor of its own revised modern language translation of the Roman Missal.

Note: thanks, FCB, for the link to the PDF (which btw is to the 1st edition of the BDW, but very interested nonetheless.)

[ 28. August 2013, 02:06: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
There might be a grain of truth to what Ceremoniar is saying in that SOME people might think British spellings are more formal. I have to say, however, that I've never seen a wedding invitation with "honour," but if I did I would think it VERY tasteless and tacky with a bit of "low-class" thrown in. Yes, this is snobby, but anybody who self-consciously uses British English spellings is trying to encode something beyond just the words. ....

It is strangely reassuring to discover that some of you find our way of spelling things (to us, the proper and only way - after all, it is our language) nearly as irritating as we find yours.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Note: thanks, FCB, for the link to the PDF (which btw is to the 1st edition of the BDW, but very interested nonetheless.)

Sorry, I should have made clearer that I was providing that so people could make sense of the changes listed in the link earlier in the post.

Posted by BCP Believer (# 17815) on :

Bravo to Rome. If only the Church of England would plunder her own treasure occasionally!

Will the next revision contain the 39 Articles?

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BCP Believer:
Will the next revision contain the 39 Articles?

I think it's safe to say no, but I'd certainly love to see a Catholic bishop try to shorten anything into 39 articles!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BCP Believer:
Bravo to Rome. If only the Church of England would plunder her own treasure occasionally!

Will the next revision contain the 39 Articles?

Despite the immense sophistication of catholic theology, there would be a certain difficulty in giving a Nihil Obstat to a book containing the phrase "The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this realm of England".

Posted by BCP Believer (# 17815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by BCP Believer:
Bravo to Rome. If only the Church of England would plunder her own treasure occasionally!

Will the next revision contain the 39 Articles?
Despite the immense sophistication of catholic theology, there would be a certain difficulty in giving a Nihil Obstat to a book containing the phrase "The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this realm of England".

They could always do some Jesuit, Second Vatican-style "fresh interpretation" of their documents into perfect conformity with the most blessed Articles.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by BCP Believer:
Bravo to Rome. If only the Church of England would plunder her own treasure occasionally!

Will the next revision contain the 39 Articles?
Despite the immense sophistication of catholic theology, there would be a certain difficulty in giving a Nihil Obstat to a book containing the phrase "The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this realm of England".

Simply footnote in the following wise:

in his capacity as diocesan Bishop of Rome. Whereas when exercising the Petrine ministry as Vicar of Christ he hath full ordinary and universal jurisdiction.

Thurible

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Gosh, thurible, that's brill. Just as well Newman didn't come up with that one in Tract CX or he'd really have been in trouble.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Pah! Newman? That old moderate.

Thurible

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by BCP Believer:
Bravo to Rome. If only the Church of England would plunder her own treasure occasionally!

Will the next revision contain the 39 Articles?
Despite the immense sophistication of catholic theology, there would be a certain difficulty in giving a Nihil Obstat to a book containing the phrase "The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this realm of England".
Simply footnote in the following wise:

in his capacity as diocesan Bishop of Rome. Whereas when exercising the Petrine ministry as Vicar of Christ he hath full ordinary and universal jurisdiction.

Thurible

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0