Ship of Fools: Tinkering (or not) with 1662

Thread: Tinkering (or not) with 1662 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=026510

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

My sense is that while older clergy in England tend to take all sorts of liberties with the Book of Common Prayer's communion service - moving the Prayer of Humble Access to before the Sursum Corda, inserting 'Dominus vobiscums', joining the Consecration to the Oblation, inserting the Benedictus qui venit and the Agnus Dei, &c. - the younger clergy (even of high church inclination) are much more likely to use the text as it is, even to the extent of using the full Ten Commandments and, at least on occasion, reading the Exhortation.

Is my sense right, or have I just been in strange places?

One possible explanation is that older clergy grew up using the BCP as the normative rite, and were used to adapting it for modern use, while younger clergy see it as something distinctive in its own right (or rite!). Another possible explanation is that the colleges and courses are now more disciplined about using liturgical texts as they are written, and so model 'BCP as it is' in a way that rarely used to happen. Still another possible explanation is that the younger clergy are more liturgically and doctrinally conservative as a whole (and often more ethically liberal, too). But perhaps this is all nonsense, or there are other explanations?

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I wonder sometimes if these things go in cycles. I've been reading lately that traditional worship has seen a resurgence here in the US over the past couple years as people my age and slightly younger are increasingly drawn to it and away from more contemporary (and especially seeker-sensitive) styles. Why that may be I don't know. My hunch is that the two trends are related, but I cannot begin to guess about causality or precise connection.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

My sense is that younger clergy in England have probably never seen a BCP communion service in their lives apart from the one they did in college to show them how things used to be. And younger laity not even that.

BCP communion is vanishingly rare. Almost no-one has used it regularly since at least the 1970s. And a lot of higher-up places abandoned it before then, for either 1928 or something cobbled together from bits of Roman rite.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Prayerbook Communion is not uncommon in the City of London. It's also fairly common in the country--and probably the best thing to do when you're taking Holy Communion in a nursing home. Leaving aside the City parishes (and their clergy) for a moment, most clergy will only really meet with the Prayerbook service when they come into their title parish. Then they will either inherit an adapted rite ('this is the way we do it in Upton Snodsbury') or try to offer the entire prayerbook communion service (complete with the warning for those who might be about to receive eat and drink their own damnation)--and then be told after an hour or so 'This is the way we do it in Upton Snodsbury.' The things left out and the things moved about will differ from parish to parish, and the unfortunate curate will tinker at his or her own risk.

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

BCP has been the norm at the eight o'clock in every parish I have ever worshipped in. My churchmanship is central/open evangelical, but I have been around a fair bit!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

BCP communion isn't all that uncommon, it's just not common as the main Sunday service. As an 8 am or 6pm service it's still pretty common. I'm under 30 and have attended BCP services occasionally when I've not been able to attend the main service. There are also places that still maintain the BCP communion as the main Sunday service - my dad is Vicar of one such.

Posted by ST (# 14600) on :

The first time I encountered BCP Holy Communion was while training for ordination, at college, which was done mainly consistent to 1662 (I think that the Summary of the Law was an option, the exhortation wasn't used, and the Gloria was often omitted - although there was a time constraint with the weekly celebration beginning 30 minutes before breakfast). OK, they're quite major changes I guess - but what people have been used to in recent decades.

During my curacy one parish had "BCP", but was essentially the Interim Rite, with the Summary of the Law and the Eucharistic Prayer reconstructed (the prayer of oblation, the first of the prayers after communion, being moved to straight after the Words of Institution), and the Lord's Prayer being said before receiving Communion. The second of the prayers after communion was then always used after communion. There must have been other changes, but it's a couple of years since leaving the post - and my memory fades.

On arriving in the current parish I inherited the BCP Holy Communion service being used straight out of the 1662 book, but the Summary of the Law being used (from memory for everyone - it wasn't printed), and no exhortation. I quickly put together an order of service which followed this plan, but with options for the Ten Commandments and Exhortation, so that they can make appearances when it seems appropriate.

And yep, I'm one of the younger clergy (now mid 30s)

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

The only 1928 BCP services I have been to have taken the text as written, and the celebrant was by no means young! He did not grow up with the '28 because he was raised Church of God, but he used it for most of his ministry. That said, he does not use the 1928 in the most 1662-like way.. He uses the Summary of the Law rather than the Decalouge and puts the Confession of sin after the Prayer for Christ's Church. Both of these are allowed in the 1928 rubrics. He does not, however, say "the lord be with you.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
BCP communion isn't all that uncommon, it's just not common as the main Sunday service. As an 8 am or 6pm service it's still pretty common. I'm under 30 and have attended BCP services occasionally when I've not been able to attend the main service. There are also places that still maintain the BCP communion as the main Sunday service - my dad is Vicar of one such.

They use 1662 at St.Ann's Church Manchester at a choral Eucharist, although strictly speaking it's Common Worship Order 2 .They use the Summary of the Law instead of the Decalogue and omit the exhortations but it's basically 1662

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think that the OP may be right in suggesting that older clergy are used to adapting 1662 to more modern purposes. You'd have to be pretty old now to have started your ministry at a time whern 1662 was the only legal liturgy in the CofE, but there was a time when the permitted options were very narrow indeed.
I always end up citing this poem by the great Fr Forrest (c, I suppose, 1950) when this topic comes up, but it does seem that there was an awful lot of variation of 1662 about once upon a time.

Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I always end up citing this poem by the great Fr Forrest (c, I suppose, 1950) when this topic comes up, but it does seem that there was an awful lot of variation of 1662 about once upon a time.

Wonderful stuff, although there's surely a "not" missing in line 6: both metrically and theologically, "Three Aves and a Salve at the end would NOT amiss come" makes more sense!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

We have BCP 8am communion most* Sundays, for the Friday midday communion and a BCP Choral Evensong once a month. Around here I can think of another four churches that have an 8am BCP on the week there is a family all-age lay-led worship, immediately, without trying too hard.

The other midweek services are Common Worship along with the main Sunday service.

*most because if it's a saint's day or one of the Festivals it gets switched to Common Worship.

eta I can spell Festival, honestly

[ 07. September 2013, 08:53: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

There don't seem to be many BCP Communion services around here any more, the Cathedral being a notable exception - and I doubt very much if they tinker with it any way, other than perhaps omitting the Exhortation(s)!

BCP Matins and Evensong are sung in a seemly and edifying manner most Sundays at the Cathedral, as one might expect. Our own BCP Matins on Sundays is 'by the book', from the opening Versicles and Responses to the Grace (after the State Prayers). No Tinkering Allowed! Monthly Evensong is, again, 'by the book' from the Versicles etc. to the Third Collect, after which we go all spikey and peculiar, and have Benediction..... [Big Grin]

The Church Of My Yoof had (and AFAIK still has) a straightforward BCP Communion every Sunday - albeit at 745am these days, rather than the 8am as decreed by Our Lord and His Blessed Mother [Eek!]

IIRC, this service used to be pure 1662 (north end, surplice and scarf etc.), with the omission of the Exhortations.....

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....

Ian J.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

It seems to be nigh on impossible to find a 1662 Communion Service here in south Wales. Partly, this reflects the success of the Welsh 1984 Prayer Book, for all its being in New English Bible English. But the more that gets pushed out for the ghastly 2004 Communion Service, the more I wish we had 1662 back.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
BCP communion isn't all that uncommon, it's just not common as the main Sunday service. As an 8 am or 6pm service it's still pretty common. I'm under 30 and have attended BCP services occasionally when I've not been able to attend the main service. There are also places that still maintain the BCP communion as the main Sunday service - my dad is Vicar of one such.

I have noticed that some parishes have added an evening BCP Sung Eucharist once a month instead of evensong - usually sung to Merbeke but ocassionally to a setting.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Would it be fair to say that most churches who have a BCP Communion of some kind (whether early morning or evening) tend to be MOTR to evangelical (whether conservative or otherwise)? I've never seen it at a church higher up the candle, aside from cathedrals.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Would it be fair to say that most churches who have a BCP Communion of some kind (whether early morning or evening) tend to be MOTR to evangelical (whether conservative or otherwise)? I've never seen it at a church higher up the candle, aside from cathedrals.

Interestingly, a fair few churches near me which are Anglo-Catholic still have an 8am said Eucharist - one with hymns once a month too.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Would it be fair to say that most churches who have a BCP Communion of some kind (whether early morning or evening) tend to be MOTR to evangelical (whether conservative or otherwise)? I've never seen it at a church higher up the candle, aside from cathedrals.

We have an 8:00 AM BCP and are reasonably high (A CW Sung Eucharist is our main service on all Sundays and Red Letter Days, and we have at least one Eucharist every day, always according CW except for Sunday at 8:00). This service actually used to be said according to one of the missals before our new vicar took over. Our new vicar is youngish (in his 30s) and Westcott trained, whilst his predecessor would have trained in the early 1970s (at Mirfield). That would seem to support the OP.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Part of the reason was that when all services were 1662, clergy resented it. They used to proclaim their churchmanship by claiming they knew better, fiddling with the order and claiming they were entitled to pingle bits from the abortive 1928 book because it had only not been adopted because of the interference of Parliament.

By the way, that poem was brilliant.

Now the only permissible options are Common Worship or the 1662 book as written in 1662 or as printed in Common Worship. That provides authority for the simpler de facto alterations that have accumulated over the last 350 years. So if you're going to use 1662, there's no real justification for going outside those bounds. 1928 and various other self-made variants are now as illegal and irrelevant as Series II or the ASB.

Since Common Worship is so flexible anyway, one would have thought the same would now apply to going outside its boundaries. Yet can clergy of any churchmanship resist the temptation to think they know better?

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... if you're going to use 1662, there's no real justification for going outside those bounds. 1928 and various other self-made variants are now as illegal and irrelevant as Series II or the ASB.

I was having a chat with a clergymen under the age of 30 this very evening about the use of the 1662 - or more accurately, the 1928. With the advent of CW Order 2, the 1928/interim rite has essentially been legalised, so I'd hardly call them illegal and irrelevant.

Of course, the difficulty you have is when you present something like the 1928 - with the responses, Benedictus qui venit, Prayer of Oblation after HC - to those who are used to 1662 as is. And the sort of people who go to 1662 services know what they like!

x

AV

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
It seems to be nigh on impossible to find a 1662 Communion Service here in south Wales. Partly, this reflects the success of the Welsh 1984 Prayer Book, for all its being in New English Bible English. But the more that gets pushed out for the ghastly 2004 Communion Service, the more I wish we had 1662 back.

That is because, I believe, the 1984 prayerbook superseded it, so it isn't legal. Personally I much prefer 2004 to 1984, which is a weird hybrid of trad language to God, modern language to the priest and just feels wordy, though that's partly about where I've come across it. 2004 is a good clean liturgy, though the messed up on the page numbering.

Carys

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
It seems to be nigh on impossible to find a 1662 Communion Service here in south Wales. Partly, this reflects the success of the Welsh 1984 Prayer Book, for all its being in New English Bible English. But the more that gets pushed out for the ghastly 2004 Communion Service, the more I wish we had 1662 back.
That is because, I believe, the 1984 prayerbook superseded it, so it isn't legal. Personally I much prefer 2004 to 1984, which is a weird hybrid of trad language to God, modern language to the priest and just feels wordy, though that's partly about where I've come across it. 2004 is a good clean liturgy, though the messed up on the page numbering.

Carys

I'm not sure about this Carys. Basically 1984 is much the same as the 1967 experimental rite - yes, I know, it lasted until 1984 (!), which had proved very popular. Aberystwyth, which used BCP for Mattins and Evensong used 1967.
I'm not sure about the legality of 1662 - I just know that no-one around here used it. I think perhaps you could use it but not the propers - you had to use the 1984 propers
I must admit my sympathies are with Pererin, though - I much prefer 1984.We use 2004 for the Eucharist but 1662 for Evensong

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

If you look at the Canons of the Church in Wales there are a number of measures whereby a new form of a service is substituted for the one in the Book of Common Prayer this suggests that 1662 is replaced by 1984, as does the fact 1984 is called The Book Common Prayer. I have never come across 1662 in Wales even for Evensong, which is generally 1984 IME.

Carys

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

Well, there's this.......

'REVISION OF PART OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

(THE ORDER FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

(Promulgated on 17 September 1981)

This canon substituted a new form of service for The Celebration of the Holy Eucharist for that previously contained in the Book of Common Prayer, together with a new form of service in the Welsh language.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Canon, it shall not be unlawful to continue the use of the form of The Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion, contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Welsh version thereof, with such variations permitted by the Ordinary as have been customary in the Church in Wales'.

In practice though it's the 1967/1984 version that was used, so it's academic really. We use 2004 mainly although 1984 occasionally makes an appearance during the week!
I think the reason we have 1662 for Evensong is that most weeks it's choral
I'd say if you mentioned 'traditional rite' to the average Welsh church-goer they'd think 1984, not 1662.Probably about 3 generations have grown up not knowing the 1662 Eucharist

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
My sense is that younger clergy in England have probably never seen a BCP communion service in their lives apart from the one they did in college to show them how things used to be. And younger laity not even that.

I'm not in England (and many of what would have been "customary alterations" in 1662/1918 have been made official in our current edition) but I do note that our Wednesday morning Mass, always BCP, generally takes fewer liberties than you would get in a parish setting. I assume the rationale is that you have to know what you're tweaking before you start to tweak.

The Gospeller usually adds "The Gospel of Christ" to cue the response, as is necessary if you aren't chanting and don't have a congregation with their noses in the propers. But we generally keep the Lord's Prayer in the curious Cranmerian position (asking to be given the daily bread we've just been given).

Occasionally the intercession is broken up with a response (generally, Lord in thy mercy/Hear our prayer) and the insertion of "those whose faith is known to thee alone" is preferred practice.

Some celebrants, on feast days, will interpolate the proper secret and postcommunion from For All the Saints, but most don't bother to juggle the extra book. I believe I've heard one or two omit the comfy words, but that too is a minority report.

Few would limit themselves to the stark manual actions of the BCP rubric. The ones who do would generally do the same when celebrating from the BAS (which doesn't even require touching the elements) rather than consciously reverting to it because it's BCP.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

As an antipodean aside, I hardly ever see any BCP in OZ - I eradicated it in the parish I was in 20 years ago and that was the last time I saw it here. In NZ, the more liberal (but less Carflic) province it's common as a weekly (mid- or sometimes early Sunday gig) celebration (if that's the right verb. It's hard to celebrate when you are a miserable worm.

As I head back south and east next month I guess I'd better practice getting my tongue around those "for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us" constructions again ...

By the book, but not ten commandments, and no exhortations (I used them once, for fun!). An to be honest "by the book" is hyrbridized 1928/1662.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
I was having a chat with a clergymen under the age of 30 this very evening about the use of the 1662 - or more accurately, the 1928. With the advent of CW Order 2, the 1928/interim rite has essentially been legalised, so I'd hardly call them illegal and irrelevant.

Of course, the difficulty you have is when you present something like the 1928 - with the responses, Benedictus qui venit, Prayer of Oblation after HC - to those who are used to 1662 as is. And the sort of people who go to 1662 services know what they like!

My point stands in the sense I meant it. Common Worship is authority for what is in it. What permutations of previous lawful or unlawful services following Common Worship permits or forbids may be interesting for liturgical geeks, but in the real world is now irrelevant.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
If you look at the Canons of the Church in Wales there are a number of measures whereby a new form of a service is substituted for the one in the Book of Common Prayer this suggests that 1662 is replaced by 1984, as does the fact 1984 is called The Book Common Prayer.

They like to phrase them that way, but it's a bit of a smokescreen tactic: they can't get rid of the 1662 Prayer Book as it was in 1920 (so sadly minus the services for 30th January, 29th May, and 5th November) without an Act of Parliament. So, for instance, the 2010 Marriage Service has a very small note at the end (p119 of this) saying that it's an alternative to 1662 and 1984, even though one gets the feeling that they really really don't want anyone to use 1662 (so naturally Mrs P and I did). The relevant bit of the Constitution is section I.1.5, not that it's particularly transparent from the phraseology; I doubt that most of the Governing Body understand the full implications of that section (if one really wants to stir things up, one should ask whether the Canons of 1604 still apply, and if so, whether people who don't accept women bishops will be guilty of "wicked errors" under Canon VIII should the Governing Body approve them).

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I have never come across 1662 in Wales even for Evensong, which is generally 1984 IME.

I'm sure this is deliberately done to confuse people: "ha ha, he said 'holpen'." [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
I'm not sure about the legality of 1662 - I just know that no-one around here used it. I think perhaps you could use it but not the propers - you had to use the 1984 propers

As I understand it, you can use either the 1662 or the 1871 lectionaries, but not the 1922 one. Of course, finding a printing of the BCP without the 1922 lectionary would be a challenge. In practice, because the Church in Wales is so bad at legislating clearly, the chances of anyone knowing that the 1922 lectionary was dubious would be slim. And I suspect the bishops have better things to do than going around stopping people from using an English lectionary.

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Personally I much prefer 2004 to 1984, which is a weird hybrid of trad language to God, modern language to the priest and just feels wordy, though that's partly about where I've come across it. 2004 is a good clean liturgy, though the messed up on the page numbering.

Yes, 1984 is that strange sort of English that was used in the New English Bible and the Revised Standard Version. But 2004 is that strange sort of English that was used in Series 3. Neither represents good modern English, but to me NEB-speak is closer to it and less irritating in its deviations.

And there are passages where 2004 suddenly becomes the wordy one, and this tends to be a change for the worse. For instance, Eucharistic Prayers 2 and 5 completely butcher the epiclesis with a somewhat troubling "on us" theology, which is also present in 3 thanks to its zany doubletty structure (was this a conscious attempt to ape the Roman Canon, one wonders). Seeing as Prayers 1, 6, and 7 are superficially unsuitable for most uses, that leaves just number 4 — which indeed seems to be by far the most frequently used (and as such should be the only one in the main text, with the others in an appendix, to avoid that unfortunate effect of combining silence with page-flicking lest the priest use the confusing version of the Lord's Prayer) — without this verbose theological muddying.

There are also instances of 2004 chopping what its authors thought was verbosity, but in doing so merely demonstrated their want of literary artistry. The most obvious example is how the Eucharistic Prayer resumes after the Sanctus: in 1984, it's "All glory, praise, and thanksgiving be unto thee...", clearly connecting from "Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High". 2004's Prayer 4 well and truly does its best to make the structure more opaque by firstly using what was then the Roman form of the Sanctus, and then bizarrely cutting the wrong word (plus developing that irritating preference for sentence fragments over the subjunctive) to give, "All praise and thanks to you".

I cannot help but feel that the people behind the 2004 Communion Service were about as good at writing liturgy as the people behind the Constitution and Canons were at writing intelligible legislation.

But to return to the point of the 1662 Communion Service in Wales, I discover that Holy Cross, Cowbridge, sometimes use 1662 at their 8am. So I will have to pull off the epic feat of getting to Cowbridge for 8am on a Sunday some time (and maybe submit a MW report on it).

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

At the risk of posting what I have said before on the boards, BCP Communion means different things to different people and it can be with or without the "customary additions and deviations". The OP touches in the Exhortations and I have only ever experienced these being used once or twice in my life and that was a long time ago. The Prayer for the Queen may be used in some places, but not in others.

The so-called "Interim Rite" developed since the 'failure' of the 1928 BCP revision and still the version used in some places, which to protestant-minded Anglicans, is anathema. For those who don't know, this consists of the Prayer of Oblation being added as the Epiclesis as the continuation of the Prayer of Consecration.

To make life easier, it would seem sinsible to have in-house booklets with the chosen version used locally, which some churches do.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

My church has BCP at 8.00 am on Sunday morning, but since I get up to leave the house by 8.00 am five mornings a week, I do like a lie in on Sunday morning. It would be lovely to occasionally have a BCP sung eucharist (with various changes to the running order mentioned up-thread) at a civilised hour on a Sunday.

I enjoyed the link to Father Forrest's poems, up-thread. My late father had an anthology of his verse - I must see if I can find it. One couplet that has stuck in my mind was:
"But they never told the vicar, for they thought perhaps he knew,
By instinct, or possibly by radar."

Still true today, when mutterings in the congregation rarely get mentioned to the vicar!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0