Ship of Fools: Eucharistic prayers authorised by canons (C of E)

Thread: Eucharistic prayers authorised by canons (C of E) 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=026525

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It is frequently asserted that we shouldn't use RC eucharistic prayers.

Also that we shouldn't write our own.

I have belonged to two churches, one of which always did the former, the other often did the latter.

I looked at Canon B2 but that says nothing specifically relevant.

Which canon specifies that the EP must be one of the choice of 8 which we have in Common Worship?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Doesn't the ordination oath cover it?

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is frequently asserted that we shouldn't use RC eucharistic prayers.

Also that we shouldn't write our own.

I have belonged to two churches, one of which always did the former, the other often did the latter.

I looked at Canon B2 but that says nothing specifically relevant.

Which canon specifies that the EP must be one of the choice of 8 which we have in Common Worship?

None. They are illicit, presumably, because those in CW/BCP are the only ones authorised, we are forbidden from using unauthorised forms of service (B1 et al), and they do constitute a 'substantial' change, thus making Canon B5 moot.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am sure there is more to it than that - there are rubrics which allow us to leave out 2 or the 3 readings, for example. 'Patterns of worship' even allowed a skeleton plan with considerable freedom.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Doesn't the ordination oath cover it?

When i was concerned with the wording of this oath, having regularly written eucharistic prayers as a group planning experimental liturgies, my sponsoring incumbent replied 'authorised by canon? Canon who?'

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure there is more to it than that - there are rubrics which allow us to leave out 2 or the 3 readings, for example. 'Patterns of worship' even allowed a skeleton plan with considerable freedom.

Yeah, but readings from scripture (however many or few there are) are by definition not going to be contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. I'm sure the concern is that any unauthorized Eucharistic prayers would be contrary to said doctrine and discipline.

There are one or two Eucharistic prayers from other sources (mostly other Anglican provinces) that I quite like and wouldn't mind seeing, but given that Common Worship authorizes no fewer than 10 Eucharistic prayers (or 12 if you take into account the fact that A and C have 'contemporary' and 'traditional' versions), I don't think it's too much to ask that priests stick to one of the authorized ones.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure there is more to it than that - there are rubrics which allow us to leave out 2 or the 3 readings, for example. 'Patterns of worship' even allowed a skeleton plan with considerable freedom.

CW's Service of the Word (the only flexible form of service permitted under Canon, I think?), specifically says that the EP "must follow an authorized [sic] text". Presuming that, being authorised, and that only authorised services are permitted by Canon, then CW's rubric is surely binding?

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

In the old versions of the Order for the Eucharist (Tufton Books), edited by John Hunwicke (of Liturgical Notes fame) used to have a very convoluted reading of the Canons and recent documents of the House of Bishops which suggested in principle that one could use the Roman Rite, especially when considering the antiquity of the use of that prayer in England.

It's worth a read if you like a legally-minded chuckle. (However, I don't know if it's in the more recent editions, post-Ordinariate. I think the version I checked was 2008.)

x

AV

[ 24. September 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't object to a Roman EP in principle (although I think it unnecessary). What does concern me are "experimental" EPs which can downplay significant elements of Christian tradition.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
In the old versions of the Order for the Eucharist (Tufton Books), edited by John Hunwicke (of Liturgical Notes fame) used to have a very convoluted reading of the Canons and recent documents of the House of Bishops which suggested in principle that one could use the Roman Rite, especially when considering the antiquity of the use of that prayer in England.

It's worth a read if you like a legally-minded chuckle. (However, I don't know if it's in the more recent editions, post-Ordinariate. I think the version I checked was 2008.)

x

AV

In similar vein: Hunwicke on Eucharistic Prayers

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Quite. I think there is room for more leeway at informal celebrations or even weekday masses. By definition these are not the Sunday assembly of the Lord's people, in which we are united with our fellow Christians in the same basic liturgy; and with our fellow-Anglicans in using it in the form approved by our church and not someone else's. By analogy, those of us who are English speakers should feel at ease in an anglophone culture, but most at home when we use our own national or regional 'dialect.'

Also, if we claim to be an 'inclusive' church we should not use prayers which exclude (as some of the RC prayers might do) those of other theological traditions within our own church. Even less should the vicar's bright ideas or obsessions dictate how we pray.

Without checking I'm not sure where in Canon Law or in the rubrics it says this, but I'm pretty sure that whatever freedom there is in shaping the liturgy does not extend to the eucharistic prayer (except possibly the prefaces). The forms of confession and absolution are pretty tightly controlled too, but that is another discussion.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Why so many Eucharistic Prayers?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

So nobody has an excuse for using anything else. Unfortunately it has the opposite effect: well, one more (eco or Roman according to taste) won't matter.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why so many Eucharistic Prayers?

Because at the last minute the committee responsible were nobbled by:
1) a bunch of people with absolutely no liturgical taste whatsoever (Prayer H);
2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
3) a bunch of people who had such good taste that they wouldn't let them ditch the one the apparatchiks allegedly wanted to ditch because it might have a couple of long theomological words in (Prayer C).

But returning to the OP's question, there is a degree of leeway even on the Eucharistic Prayer. Look at note 2 on p330:

"2 Traditional Texts
In addition to the places where they are printed in the service, traditional versions of texts may be used."

So one could for instance be "traditional" enough to use the Sanctus from the Church Society's An English Prayer Book. And get "and with your spirit" back. And if one changes the last line of the Sursum Corda to be in line with tradition, then the first line of the preface would probably need slight tweaking too...

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:

What's wrong with prayer G? I love it.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
What's wrong with prayer G? I love it.

A lot.

"Echo the silent music of your praise" sounds as though it might be profound, but it's actually meaningless. It sounds like a VIth form attempt at poetry.

"From them you raised up Jesus, born of Mary, to be the living bread" is a bit confused, as though it's trying to pack the raising up of the crucifixion and the bread of heaven (which is given from on high) into one metaphor (nice idea) and not quite getting there.

"he came to supper with his friends" is trite and wrong. It implies a sort of suburban dinner party, rather than a ritual chaburah.

Explicitly asking that the elements "may be for us the body and blood &c" after the Dominical Words always gets my hackles up.

Everything from "As we eat and drink these holy things..." is very fine, though, which is a besetting fault of so much of CW: the occasionally beautiful is always overshadowed by the unforgivably trite.

[ 24. September 2013, 18:19: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

"Echo the silent music of your praise" sounds as though it might be profound, but it's actually meaningless. It sounds like a VIth form attempt at poetry.

It's St John of the Cross, actually - as discussed previously.

But everything else you say, I agree with. Especially, 'supper with his friends.'

x

AV

[ 24. September 2013, 18:51: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
What's wrong with prayer G? I love it.

1) The way it starts off from the Sursum Corda as if its trying to set off from the Benedictus. Yes, I know it's really aping Offertory Prayers (like the ghastly Welsh Prayer 1), but that does not make matters better.

2) St John of the Cross's New Clothes. Nuff said.

3) "How wonderful the work of your hands, O Lord.
As a mother tenderly gathers her children,
you embraced a people as your own."
Whoa! Epic non-sequitur. The first sentence is a neat way out of the Sanctus (or it least it would be if they hadn't something out [Biased]

), but then it just gets dropped for some wet allusion to Anselm (who surely must be a good candidate for most reprehensible canonization ever).

4) "Friends" is okay for when there are large numbers of junior-school children present, but in something intended for general use, the word is "disciples".

5) What on earth does pleading a sacrifice mean? This just isn't English. Although I do like the vocative "Father" getting it all back on track after those distracting acclamations.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Ok, the snark-o-meter is far too far over now! In Ecclesiantics, we strive to maintain an atmosphere of respect for the different traditions represented here. That includes differing traditions within the Anglican Communion as well as beyond it. Various of the comments here fall short of that aim. I would encourage charitable discussion, even when referring to texts you don't like.

Much obliged.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

"he came to supper with his friends" is trite and wrong. It implies a sort of suburban dinner party, rather than a ritual chaburah.

It might, if it were not preceded by 'On the night before he died.' Not many jolly suburban dinner parties are hosted by a man aware of his forthcoming trial and execution. 'Supper' often means cream crackers and cheese before bedtime, but in this context everyone is aware of the notion of the 'Last Supper.' 'Friends,' to my mind, underlines the poignant emotional warmth of that gathering. And for Christians, to suggest a 'ritual meal' is to imply formality and distance from real life; for Jews, surely a ritual meal is also a real family celebration, with warmth and laughter as well as deep spirituality and solemnity.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've hardly ever heard Prayer G. If it's inclusion prevents home-made creation based eucharistic prayers omiting the cross and downplaying the Trinity and Incarnation (which I have come across on Sundays) all to the good.

Isn't it meant to be based on St Basil? I bet someone would love to show his sister, Macrina, had a hand in it. Maybe she did.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Doesn't the ordination oath cover it?
When i was concerned with the wording of this oath, having regularly written eucharistic prayers as a group planning experimental liturgies, my sponsoring incumbent replied 'authorised by canon? Canon who?'

This is a common (and not always half-joking) response by people who want to use the Roman prayers. It annoys me. These people know perfectly well what the intention of the oath is, and they're either mocking it, or saying it with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

I think they would do well to remember Thomas More's words in A Man for all Seasons - "What is an oath, then, but words we say to God?"

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

"he came to supper with his friends" is trite and wrong. It implies a sort of suburban dinner party, rather than a ritual chaburah.
It might, if it were not preceded by 'On the night before he died.' Not many jolly suburban dinner parties are hosted by a man aware of his forthcoming trial and execution. 'Supper' often means cream crackers and cheese before bedtime, but in this context everyone is aware of the notion of the 'Last Supper.' 'Friends,' to my mind, underlines the poignant emotional warmth of that gathering. And for Christians, to suggest a 'ritual meal' is to imply formality and distance from real life; for Jews, surely a ritual meal is also a real family celebration, with warmth and laughter as well as deep spirituality and solemnity.

But don't you see that the context makes this line even more bathetic? To go from 'The night before he died' to 'came to supper with his friends' is horribly anticlimactic.

And it's the whole phrase, Angloid: 'Supper' might be excused, but 'came to supper with his friends' implies an humdrum thing, something unimportant. Besides which, 'came' implies that the disciples were having a dinner party to which Christ happened to come along to: when we know he ordered it to be prepared and was the centre of it.

I don't think homeliness and friendliness is a sufficient trade-off for awe and terrible majesty, I'm afraid.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
None. They are illicit, presumably, because those in CW/BCP are the only ones authorised, we are forbidden from using unauthorised forms of service (B1 et al), and they do constitute a 'substantial' change, thus making Canon B5 moot.

The only time I've heard a coherent argument as to why such things are allowed, it was relying on Canon B5. So I guess the question is: Does either side have proof that 'substantial' has a precise definition in this context?

quote:
CW's Service of the Word (the only flexible form of service permitted under Canon, I think?), specifically says that the EP "must follow an authorized [sic] text". Presuming that, being authorised, and that only authorised services are permitted by Canon, then CW's rubric is surely binding?

But someone who believes that their alternative Eucharistic prayer was permitted under Canon B5 would consider it to be an authorized text for the purpose of this rubric (since canon B5 authorizes it)

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
None. They are illicit, presumably, because those in CW/BCP are the only ones authorised, we are forbidden from using unauthorised forms of service (B1 et al), and they do constitute a 'substantial' change, thus making Canon B5 moot.
The only time I've heard a coherent argument as to why such things are allowed, it was relying on Canon B5. So I guess the question is: Does either side have proof that 'substantial' has a precise definition in this context?

In the final resort I imagine the decision rests with the Ordinary. Don't have time to look up the Canons on it, though. I imagine that said Ordinary would (privately or officially) take a dim view of someone pretending that Eucharistic prayers could be changed without it being a substantial change. As you say, though, I know of no definite definition thereof.

quote:

quote:
CW's Service of the Word (the only flexible form of service permitted under Canon, I think?), specifically says that the EP "must follow an authorized [sic] text". Presuming that, being authorised, and that only authorised services are permitted by Canon, then CW's rubric is surely binding?
But someone who believes that their alternative Eucharistic prayer was permitted under Canon B5 would consider it to be an authorized text for the purpose of this rubric (since canon B5 authorizes it)

I think I'd want to say that Canon B5 allows certain innovations or interpolations, not authorises them. "Authorised" here has a specific meaning within the Canons, and so one would expect something "authorised" to be available for use by everyone, not ad hoc, subject to the provisions of Canon B5.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
None. They are illicit, presumably, because those in CW/BCP are the only ones authorised, we are forbidden from using unauthorised forms of service (B1 et al), and they do constitute a 'substantial' change, thus making Canon B5 moot.
The only time I've heard a coherent argument as to why such things are allowed, it was relying on Canon B5. So I guess the question is: Does either side have proof that 'substantial' has a precise definition in this context?

There is no precise definition: words like "substantial" can only really be argued case by case.

So, for example, I'd argue that it's "insubstantial" when, saying the eucharistic prayer, I default to the words of institution that are in my memory, regardless of what might be on the page. I don't like looking at the book at that point, and the words in my memory are those currently in CW Prayer B. Therefore authorised, and I don't think it matters if I use them even when I'm saying Prayer E.

But I'd argue it would be "substantial" if I were to include a prayer for "Francis our Pope" into the eucharistic prayer. For one thing, no CofE eucharistic prayer allows for prayers for named individuals, and for another, Francis is not "our" Pope.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

In fairness to the reviled Prayer G, it does include potential intercessions, albeit bracketed:

Remember, Lord, your Church in every land.
Reveal her unity, guard her faith,
and preserve her in peace...

The dots would seem to allow some possibly specific intercessions. None of the other EPs have anything like intercessions.

Prayer G, like B, D and F, allows for the naming of N and all your saints, which any catholic would made the most of, I hope. For N, read M.

I've just checked Bradshaw. It is F, not G, that is supposed to be based on St Basil. G was based on a discarded RC original.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

I don't think homeliness and friendliness is a sufficient trade-off for awe and terrible majesty, I'm afraid.

That is the eternal paradox between transcendence and immanence. Something the liturgy ought to get right but often doesn't. IMHO some prayers are too chatty but this one isn't. YMMV.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why so many Eucharistic Prayers?
Because at the last minute the committee responsible were nobbled by:...

I think the simpler explanation is that liturgy designed by Synod is invariably bad liturgy. Far too many people who had peculiar axes to grind and often little real appreciation or understanding of liturgy were able to demand this change or that modification.

In principle, the idea behind Common Worship is good. C of E worship takes place in a multiplicity of contexts - rural, suburban and inner city; evangelical, middle of the road and anglo-catholic; with ageing, conservative congregations and congregations of younger people who may not know much about the nuances of the BCP. Etc etc etc. Therefore, rather than try and provide ONE form of liturgy to cater for all these variations, we have a deep supply of liturgical resources to be used as appropriate. Well - that's the theory.

In reality, too many people (even on General Synod) failed to understand some of the key ideas behind CW. Too many rather random and idiosyncratic additions and amendments were made, making CW overly large and messy. And too many parishes have failed to understand how to use the material wisely - what they should use and what they can simply ignore.

Prayer G is NOT a bad EP. It may not rock your boat, so just don't use it. But for some parishes it will fit well. I really despair of some of the preciousness shown on this thread. The phrase "get a life" comes to mind.

But I DO think that, given the wide range of EPs available within CW and that there is clear instruction given to priests to only use authorised EPs, there is no justification for wheeling in something from the RC or whatever. Certainly not on a regular basis. If you can't find something in CW that meets your needs, then I suspect that the C of E may not be the right place for you.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
<snip>And it's the whole phrase, Angloid: 'Supper' might be excused, but 'came to supper with his friends' implies an humdrum thing, something unimportant. Besides which, 'came' implies that the disciples were having a dinner party to which Christ happened to come along to: when we know he ordered it to be prepared and was the centre of it.<snip>

I suppose the language resonates differently for different people. For me, though, what comes to mind is this

quote:
I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

Yes. Or, obviously, that he is 'coming to supper with his friends', shortly before he will 'lay down his life' for them.

Agree that the tension between warmess and transcendence is difficult to hold in one EP, but then the service isn't only the EP.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Responding to the OP, it isn't the Canon which specifies that the EP must be one of the authorized EPs, but rather the liturgical text itself which specifies it in the rubric stating

quote:
An authorized Eucharistic Prayer is used.

ISTM that this removes the wiggle room of "or allowed by canon" which is present in the Declaration of Assent.

Within the EPs themselves, there is (AIUI) liberty with those prayers that allow for Proper Prefaces for the prefaces to be drawn from any source or composed for the occasion provided that they are

quote:
reverent and seemly and … neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter

The onus then is on the good sense and integrity of the minister.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The simple point, as I understand it, is that if you are CofE, the 1662 and Common Worship eucharists are authorised and the RC or DIY ones are not. This is a matter for the Catholic hierarchy, but I am strongly under the impression that if you are an RC priest, you are only allowed to use the authorised Catholic mass.

CW allows a lot of alternatives, and that fact is the authority to use them, but not others that one makes up oneself or borrows from somewhere else, even a church that one is in communion with.

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch
But I DO think that, given the wide range of EPs available within CW and that there is clear instruction given to priests to only use authorised EPs, there is no justification for wheeling in something from the RC or whatever. Certainly not on a regular basis. If you can't find something in CW that meets your needs, then I suspect that the C of E may not be the right place for you.

I'd agree. I'd add that it's probably a symptom of missing the point to regard one's personal preference in eucharistic prayers as the key criterion for selecting which ecclesial community to join.

It seems to me that there is only one valid reason for regarding the RC form as having some special status. That is not, that one thinks it is better, but that it is the form prescribed by the Pope. If one believes that, one should become an RC, and should not whittle about the revisions last year.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Responding to the OP, it isn't the Canon which specifies that the EP must be one of the authorized EPs, but rather the liturgical text itself which specifies it in the rubric stating
quote:
An authorized Eucharistic Prayer is used.
ISTM that this removes the wiggle room of "or allowed by canon" which is present in the Declaration of Assent.

Thank you - simultaneous, I found that this applies to experimental series too:

quote:
One of the authorized forms must always be used. A Eucharistic Prayer, whether it takes the form of extended monologue with acclamations, or a dialogue between president and congregation,

New patterns for Worship

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thank you, Oscar.

I don’t understand all this nit picking at the texts of Eucharistic prayers. If I’m so fortunate as to be present at Eucharistic prayer, what I believe is happening and involving me is so awesome that words are inadequate in any case and provided all the classic bits are present in the prayer in a more or less classic order, the details are irrelevant.

1662 as written does in barely adequate to my mind.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Thank you, Oscar.

I don’t understand all this nit picking at the texts of Eucharistic prayers. If I’m so fortunate as to be present at Eucharistic prayer, what I believe is happening and involving me is so awesome that words are inadequate in any case and provided all the classic bits are present in the prayer in a more or less classic order, the details are irrelevant.

1662 as written does in barely adequate to my mind.

Classic reductionism

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

To listen to some of the words spilt on this subject over the years, there are people who if they had been present at a Eucharist presided over by St Peter, St Paul, or the Last Supper itself, would still have felt themselves qualified to explain in detail why the president hadn't celebrated quite as they thought it ought to be done.

To look at another aspect of this. Very often, those who are most picky that they, and only they are dear late Father Wilfred, of St Quiricus and Julietta of Somewhere Vaguely North West of Euston (Confessions by Appointment) really know how the how it should be done, haven't really considered the implications for another doctrine dear to their hearts, and as it happens, critical to their arguments against women at the altar, that is, sacramental assurance.

If you really believe that the elements only truly become the body and blood of Christ using some Eucharistic Prayers, and not others, or if you feel you need to correct them by muttering other words under your breath, or using some other ecclesial household's form rather than your own, some rather disturbing things follow. For example:-

- The Eucharistic Prayer becomes a sort of spell that only works if you get the words right.

- Does that mean there is anyone who change the words without causing them to cease to work (the Lefebvre type argument)?

- From at least the end of the Middle Ages until within my lifetime, both Catholics and most (but not all) Protestants omitted an epiclesis. This would mean that north or west of Novi Sad, either all Eucharists before that change, or all after it, didn't 'work'.

- On what basis could a person maintain that it would not 'work' once a president pronounced all the right words, whether the president was a priest, a layman or even (horror of horrors) a lay woman.

- This sort of a theology presents a picture of a God who is not attractive and doesn't IMHO fit the revelation of scripture.

IMHO, the more one looks into this, the more 'sacramental assurance', if that is important to you, derives not from getting the ritual right but from authority. If St Quiricus and Julietta comes under +Richard and +++Justin, sacramental assurance for the congregation means being recognised by them and following the forms and ceremonies they require or permit. If it comes under ++Vincent and +++Francis, then it means being recognised by them and following the forms and ceremonies they permit. If you take your authority from being recognised by +Richard, you can't say 'well for some purposes I really think +++Francis has more authority than my own hierarchy'. To be able to give your congregation sacramental assurance, you owe to them to follow your own bishop's rules, and not think you know better.

There's an encouraging upside to this, which is that even if you disagree with your own communion's views on e.g. ordination of women (either way) or would really like to see everyone adopt the Eucharistic Prayer of the Scottish non-Jurors, the Sarum Use or a westernised form of the Liturgy of St Basil that you happened to have found recently while surfing the web in the small hours, you should have sacramental confidence in the Eucharist celebrated at your own church, however much you might feel you could do it better if the bishop would just see fit to lay hands suddenly upon you.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To listen to some of the words spilt on this subject over the years, there are people who if they had been present at a Eucharist presided over by St Peter, St Paul, or the Last Supper itself, would still have felt themselves qualified to explain in detail why the president hadn't celebrated quite as they thought it ought to be done.

[snipped several more paras of good stuff]

While all that is true, I think we need to distinguish between theological and literary grounds for criticizing a Eucharistic Prayer. My criticism of Prayer G upthread was on a literary basis: I don't have any interest in the "validity" game (1662's just fine by me, as are all of the prayers in the URC's book). But I do dislike authorized texts that do things such as leaving verbs out of sentences and indulging in allusions that manage to both be sentimental and meaningless at the same time and serve only to show how clever the anonymous author was.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
From at least the end of the Middle Ages until within my lifetime, both Catholics and most (but not all) Protestants omitted an epiclesis.

It's a bit hard to omit something that never was there in the first place. The traditional Roman Canon never had an epiclesis to begin with, and it existed in differing forms from around 2-300 BC (and was thus 2-300 years older than the start of the Middle Ages). The Roman Canon is, as far as I know, older than most of the Eastern liturgies we have knowledge of.

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why so many Eucharistic Prayers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because at the last minute the committee responsible were nobbled by:
1) a bunch of people with absolutely no liturgical taste whatsoever (Prayer H);
2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
3) a bunch of people who had such good taste that they wouldn't let them ditch the one the apparatchiks allegedly wanted to ditch because it might have a couple of long theomological words in (Prayer C).

Without wishing to get back into the debate above too much, you may wish to note that H was written by David Stancliffe and myself in its original form and uses material from Mark Earey and Colin Buchanan in its final form. Some prople may not agree with what we did or even agree with us on anything, but we do, I suggest, have a modicum of liturgical taste between us.(And taste is in the eye of the beholder... er no, wait a minute that's a mixed metaphor.. silent music of his praise..)

G got in due to the lobbying undertaken by the then +Oxford, Richard Harries. He may well love his mother, but he did not tell us that when he came to give evidence to the Revision Committee.

We had been sent away by Synod with 6 prayers and a hint GS wanted fewer and so we were lothe to return with more. G was going in and Synod also asked for something like H (yes, I know that is inconsistent with Synod hinting it wanted less than 6 to come back). We toyed with dropping C for this reason, not because of any lack of merit in C - we thought it would be the least used. However we quickly decided to keep C as for some people it would be the only prayer that floated their boat. So the apparatchicks who brought you G and H also preserved C.

quote:
But returning to the OP's question, there is a degree of leeway even on the Eucharistic Prayer. Look at note 2 on p330:

"2 Traditional Texts
In addition to the places where they are printed in the service, traditional versions of texts may be used."

This note is meant to refer to using traditional language texts of e.g. the Sanctus in a modern language service. It is not meant to give permission to use Roman texts in the eucharistic prayer. It is to give comfort etc to musicians who want to use traditional texts and settings of these items.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
... H was written by David Stancliffe and myself in its original form and uses material from Mark Earey and Colin Buchanan in its final form...

Follow me. I know a safe back way out of Ecclesiantics. Keep your head down, pull your Canterbury cap down over your eyes and if anybody says "The Lord be with you", run!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
... H was written by David Stancliffe and myself in its original form and uses material from Mark Earey and Colin Buchanan in its final form...
Follow me. I know a safe back way out of Ecclesiantics. Keep your head down, pull your Canterbury cap down over your eyes and if anybody says "The Lord be with you", run!

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

FWIW I love prayer G, and always use it if I have a free choice. "The silent music of his love" is, to my mind, a powerful and moving image, as is Christ as a mother which comes a bit later. Your mileage clearly varies!

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Without wishing to get back into the debate above too much, you may wish to note that H was written by David Stancliffe and myself in its original form and uses material from Mark Earey and Colin Buchanan in its final form. Some prople may not agree with what we did or even agree with us on anything, but we do, I suggest, have a modicum of liturgical taste between us.(And taste is in the eye of the beholder... er no, wait a minute that's a mixed metaphor.. silent music of his praise..)

Of course taste is in the eye of the beholder; that is why I didn't use a stronger word. But totally anecdotally, this prayer seems unrivalled in its tendency to cause upset, and I actually think it fails the test of "individual prayers are not 'party' prayers, and all of them are intended for use across the Church of England" (Bradshaw p122f), as it suits precisely the party that made "strong requests for more 'interactive' material" (Bradshaw p143) to the exclusion of others. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if it were put in New Patterns for Worship instead of the Main Volume.

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
G got in due to the lobbying undertaken by the then +Oxford, Richard Harries. He may well love his mother, but he did not tell us that when he came to give evidence to the Revision Committee.

Presumably the Revision Committee received lots of requests from individuals (at the very least, I imagine something similar to the Welsh prayers for use with children under 7 and 7 to 11 got presented). Why did it privilege Bishop Harries' request above the others? Indeed, a compendium of individually-requested eucharistic prayers, screened only to ensure a baseline of quality and to avoid offence, might be a useful publication, but it seems a very strange inclusion in the Main Volume.

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
We had been sent away by Synod with 6 prayers and a hint GS wanted fewer and so we were lothe to return with more. G was going in and Synod also asked for something like H (yes, I know that is inconsistent with Synod hinting it wanted less than 6 to come back). We toyed with dropping C for this reason, not because of any lack of merit in C - we thought it would be the least used. However we quickly decided to keep C as for some people it would be the only prayer that floated their boat. So the apparatchicks who brought you G and H also preserved C.

Why didn't you consider ditching A, D, or E instead? (Says he demonstrating that his boat is well-and-truly floated by C, and that B and F offer some amount of buoyancy...) As I see it, A is a rehash of quite tired material from the ASB and lacks quite a bit in the way of flow (at the very least, it really deserved to be moved away from the front of the list); D suits the "interactive" crowd without being as jarring to others as H — but if they want H, they should arguably have lost D; and E is perfectly nice, but a bit blink-and-you've-missed-it.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

A - one person's tired is another person's much-loved, and a conventional prayer with a corporate doxological ending, and the option of acclamations was a good move

D - is a good prayer, interactive and with a potential for fully musical use, in a way that the others are not.

E - offers the option of a short conventional prayer, and we needed something like that for use when consecrating at home communions or in care/nursing homes. It is a workmanlike replacement for the ASBs eucharistic prayer for use with the sick. Personally I wouldn't use it on a Sunday without an extended preface (unless the Church caught fire during the Sursum Corda or something)

H - to my mind this is one which should not have been included, but the mind of the Church (as expressed through General Synod) was that it should be. (Brings to mind Michael Vasey's dictum that taking liturgy through general synod was like doing embroidery with a rugby scrum). I don't actually dislike it, but if one had to go this would be it. People tend to be very liturgically surprised by finishing with the Sanctus, and not quite ready for what follows.

EPs couldn't go in New Patterns because they had to go through a full process that because AIUI the authorised material in New Patterns was all authorised elsewhere, and the other material in New Patterns is only commended by the House of Bishops or material which falls within the discretion allowed under Canon B 5 and by the rubrics or notes in authorised forms of service.

In other words New Patterns as a volume did not require (or get) authorisation in that technical liturgical legal sense from General Synod.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Thank you Charles for passing through and giving the 'insider' view of things - and hopefully clearing up a few misconceptions while we are about it!

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

I think that the CW prayers are actually pretty good (except for H, which seems to have been designed for celebrants who were either astonishingly lazy or had such bad emphysema as to be incapable of speaking for more than a minute). Look at the ones in other Provinces: most of those in the 1979 American Prayer Book have weak and/or oddly placed epicleses, which is odd given that the American Prayer Books have always had an epiclesis (I wonder if the fact that it wasn't an issue made them a bit complacent). Again oddly, Eucharistic Prayer C from the American Prayer Book, which is much mocked for its 'Star Trek' imagery, actually conforms more closely to the shape that would be recognized by one familiar with CW or the Novus Ordo.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

St John's Wood Church uses Eucharistic Prayer H for its 'All Age' Service, which, it seems to me, is a big improvement on the general assumption that 'Family' or 'All Age' services are not Eucharistic. The vicar says, 'At least the epiclesis is in the right place!'

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

It all comes back to the "horses for courses" thing. A lot of churches won't ever use Prayer H. But for some, it will work well. The "interactive" feel is certainly a little strange to begin with but it is "doable".

I think I agree with most (if not all) of what BroJames said.

With regards to A - it would certainly have been disastrous to omit it, being the standard default for so many parishes! I know of a number of parishes where "implementing Common Worship" basically meant doing as little as possible to change from what they knew and were comfortable with. Hence Prayer A remains the default setting for many.

In my present parish, when I arrived I found that they had no idea of any other possibilities. They are now used to a certain amount of variation, but it has been hard work at times!

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

quote:
Follow me. I know a safe back way out of Ecclesiantics. Keep your head down, pull your Canterbury cap down over your eyes and if anybody says "The Lord be with you", run!

You can run but you cannot hide from the Liturgical Commission and their associates....

And in other news....

A is meant to derive ultimately from the Roman Canon and F is based on Basil, but I think that is debateable when you compare them with those texts. This does not mean they are Bad Prayers.

D is meant to be a different style - narrative rather than propositional. (Hence the refrain, which we altered in revision and then changed back to 'This is his story' etc.)

E was an attempt to rescue something from the 1996 'defeated' prayers.

A and B were devised to keep ASB prayers 1 and 2 (=A) and 3 (= B) as we were told (and believed) these ASB prayers to be popular. C of course revises ASB 4.

And i do like prayers from other provinces / churches and wish we could just get on and authorise them. I have used Star Trek (in training contexts of course...) - but find it hard to resiost lapsing into a mis-Atlantic accent. 'fragile earth' is where I can resist it least...

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

It should have said...

And I do like prayers from other provinces / churches and wish we could just get on and authorise them. I have used Star Trek (in training contexts of course...) - but find it hard to resist lapsing into a ]B]mid [/B]-Atlantic accent.

Though a mis-Atlantic accent might be true too...

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
With regards to A - it would certainly have been disastrous to omit it, being the standard default for so many parishes! I know of a number of parishes where "implementing Common Worship" basically meant doing as little as possible to change from what they knew and were comfortable with. Hence Prayer A remains the default setting for many.

Which is why I think it was a mistake to put it first. Much better would have been F-B-C-A-E-G-D-H. Then they'd have had to think about it.

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
A is meant to derive ultimately from the Roman Canon and F is based on Basil, but I think that is debateable when you compare them with those texts. This does not mean they are Bad Prayers.

I would never have recognized either.

I suppose the slightly weird "Accept our praises..." is vaguely like the Te Igitur (at least inasmuch as both ignore the Sanctus) fused with the Quam Oblationem, with the intervening Memento Domine, Communicantes, and (most disappointingly of all) Hanc Igitur all absent! Then the Qui Pridie, Simili Modo, and Unde et Memores are obvious now, but somehow Melchizedek has been lost from the Supra Quae (so we can have weird allusions to works of the saints, but not an obvious one to the book of Genesis...). Then the Supplices Te Rogamus, Memento Etiam, Ipsis Domine, Nobis quoque Peccatoribus, and Per Quem have all wandered off, thereby removing all trace of the intercession that the Roman Canon is so notable for. I suppose it looks like it's sourced from the Roman Canon once one's been told that's where it's from (and that would also explain why I don't feel Prayer A to be particularly coherent: it's a rather severe edit of something that wasn't very coherent to start with).

And any Eastern liturgy inevitably needs a lot of editing, just because of the ways they pile up synonym upon synonym and talk endlessly about the action instead of just doing it — unedited forms would inevitably try Western people's patience.

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
And i do like prayers from other provinces / churches and wish we could just get on and authorise them. I have used Star Trek (in training contexts of course...) - but find it hard to resiost lapsing into a mis-Atlantic accent. 'fragile earth' is where I can resist it least...

Yes, please, can we all have Star Trek!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There must be other Eucharistic prayers knocking around - we were asked to trial two fairly recently and I can't believe we were the only parish being asked to do that. What I've not heard is what happened after the trial - how long does it take for feedback to take place and for a decision, to use them or not, to happen?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

There's two for children. Here they are on the Common Worship webpage.

http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/additional-eucharistic-prayers.aspx

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I can still remember the little book we used at Church when I was a child - an explanation of the 1662 Service of course.

It had little pictures in it and I remember that, just before the Eucharistic Prayer, it said something about "now we are coming to the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the service". Does anyone else remember it?

Re. other prayers: as the Minister of a combined Baptist/URC Church I have access to all kinds of Eucharistic Prayers published by both denominations (some of them cribbed from elsewhere, such as "Wild Goose"). None of these are of course authorised for use in the CofE.

And, besides that, I can make up or adapt my own prayers to suit the occasion (shouts of horror from the Anglicans and Catholics!). I am actually the exception to the rule: most Baptists (but not Methodists or URC) would use nothing written except the "words of institution" and do everything extempore.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
There's two for children. Here they are on the Common Worship webpage.

http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/additional-eucharistic-prayers.aspx

I like those. The first one is admirably short.

The second has good words and ideas suitable for children but also appropriate for adults.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I can make up or adapt my own prayers to suit the occasion (shouts of horror from the Anglicans and Catholics!).

No horror from me - It's a return to primitive practice - in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the celebrant at the liturgy had considerable freedom to compose his own prayers but soon, however, standardization set in as the various communities began to adopt the prayers of their more eloquent celebrants such as Hippolytus (c. 215).

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
And i do like prayers from other provinces / churches and wish we could just get on and authorise them.

Yes!

It seems peculiar to me that, officially at least, we cannot used EPs from other Anglican provinces. What damage would it do to simply make ALL Anglican provinces' liturgy authorised for use in the C of E?

(But then, I've hung around the C of E long enough to know that no new idea (whether it be Eucharistic Prayers or women bishops) is valid until the C of E thinks it has invented it for itself.)

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I've a fundamental problem with much of this discussion - maybe it's a subject for another thread, I don't know. What it is, is the assumption that it's good to have endless variation and change. This is something I experience in some churches I've been to: the eucharistic prayer is never the same two weeks running.

Isn't stability a virtue? If we're forever swapping the prayers, how will the people ever get those prayers into their hearts? And who gave the clergy ownership of the people's worship, to change at their whim?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I think Adeodatus has a good point.

The variation I appreciate is in the preface - my usual church has Prayer B every week with the extended prefaces in the seasons, which is fine by me.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Yes!

It seems peculiar to me that, officially at least, we cannot used EPs from other Anglican provinces. What damage would it do to simply make ALL Anglican provinces' liturgy authorised for use in the C of E? ....

I disagree. We have more than enough options already - I suspect more than in most other provinces. Living somewhere where the next diocese in one direction is in a different province, it seems entirely reasonable to me that each province should have its own forms of worship. That is a good thing about having provinces. But I don't think individual clergy should be entitled to say, 'I just happen to be particularly fond of the EP in Ireland or the Church of the Province of Central Africa, or wherever. So henceforth, that's what you're all going to get'.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

The variation I appreciate is in the preface - my usual church has Prayer B every week with the extended prefaces in the seasons, which is fine by me.

We have C, and only C. (Other than when we use the Roman Canon - but that's been once in four years.)

Thurible

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Isn't stability a virtue? If we're forever swapping the prayers, how will the people ever get those prayers into their hearts? And who gave the clergy ownership of the people's worship, to change at their whim?

I would agree with that, to an extent. I've certainly known churches where the liturgy changes every week and the congregation grumble that they never know what is coming next and find that they are always stumbling over unfamiliar prayers.

But a certain degree of variation can be healthy, IMHO.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Yes!

It seems peculiar to me that, officially at least, we cannot used EPs from other Anglican provinces. What damage would it do to simply make ALL Anglican provinces' liturgy authorised for use in the C of E? ....
I disagree. We have more than enough options already - I suspect more than in most other provinces. Living somewhere where the next diocese in one direction is in a different province, it seems entirely reasonable to me that each province should have its own forms of worship. That is a good thing about having provinces. But I don't think individual clergy should be entitled to say, 'I just happen to be particularly fond of the EP in Ireland or the Church of the Province of Central Africa, or wherever. So henceforth, that's what you're all going to get'.

Again, I sort of agree. Personally, I wouldn't want complete free-for-all. But I would appreciate the ability to use (occasionally) liturgies from other provinces. Quite apart from anything else, it would be a healthy reminder to the church that the C of E really is part of a family of churches across the world.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

My last church varied the EP for the seasons, which strikes me as a good way.

We also had Prayer H for the children’s mass for a while, but it was felt not to be a good idea. The congregation needs a head in the pamphlet and on the ball to follow exactly what’s going on.

I’d have had no difficultly doing that even when I was seven, but then I’m a liturgical geek. Most people aren’t and it may well be confusing for them to have a complicated text to follow and make them afraid of doing something wrong.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Since the TEC 1979 'Star Trek' EP has raised its 'lovely?' head, I'll mention my own reactions to it.

I was one of the diocesan 'Reader-Consultants' for Prayer Book revision, and so saw MUCH material before the final draft book ever got to General Convention. I must confess a giggle over that EP right from the start -- it just seemed so trendy. (Of course, TEC was big into trendy in those years -- late 60s/early 70s.)
'This fragile earth, our island home' seemed to cue the TV theme music (or worse).
But the grave marker was put on it for me by a priest who flubbed the line 'from the primal elements' into 'from the primal elephants'! Prayer C had a good long rest after that day!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:

But the grave marker was put on it for me by a priest who flubbed the line 'from the primal elements' into 'from the primal elephants'!

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

My favourite mistake happened years ago, when I was a curate. A local priest, during the Words of Institution, said: "In the same way, after supper, he took the cup, broke it and gave it to them". That could occur with any of the EPs.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
'This fragile earth, our island home' seemed to cue the TV theme music (or worse).

A priest I once knew would always render this bit, starting with "the vast expanse of interstellar space," in that nasal yet resonant declamatory style often used by narrators of newsreel films in the mid-20th century. I really think he didn't know he was doing this. Once I noticed it, I thought it quite funny.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
'This fragile earth, our island home' seemed to cue the TV theme music (or worse).
A priest I once knew would always render this bit, starting with "the vast expanse of interstellar space," in that nasal yet resonant declamatory style often used by narrators of newsreel films in the mid-20th century. I really think he didn't know he was doing this. Once I noticed it, I thought it quite funny.

It's very Carl Sagan's Cosmos, isn't it? I'm beginning to wonder if he, inspired by the liberalism of 1970s Protestant Episcopalianism, dropped into an Episcopal church and got the idea for a television series.

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

Now that the '79 BCP is brought into this, I will take the opportunity to enumerate the anaphorae authorized for use at a principal Sunday service in The Episcopal Church.

1. Eucharistic Prayer I from Rite I, and its close cousin Eucharistic Prayer II - so close as to really be textual variations of the same Cranmerian tradition.

2. Eucharistic Prayer A, the designated successor to the above.

3. Eucharistic Prayer B, which I recall was composed by ++Frank Griswold before he was a bishop. Similar themes to A, but different execution.

4. Eucharistic Prayer C, Star Trek. Notable for its congregational responses and for the fact that the rubrics imply an eastward orientation ("facing the people" and "facing the Holy Table" being treated as distinct concepts) but no kneeling.

5. Eucharistic Prayer D, TEC's version of the Anaphora of St. Basil; as such it is similar to Eucharistic Prayer IV in the Roman Missal and sees just about as much use as the latter.

6. Enriching Our Worship 1's Eucharistic Prayer I, which draws heavily on Genesis. It reminds me a lot of my Presbyterian days for some reason.

7. EOW 1 Eucharistic Prayer II, which I personally don't find flows very nicely. It seems to have a very feminine focus, with female images of the divine and a particular Marian emphasis.

8. EOW 1 Eucharistic Prayer III, which seems to draw heavily from Exodus.

In addition, of course, the "Rite III" provision allows texts meeting minimal standards and using set forms for the words of institution (from either BCP or EOW) at non-principal services with "careful preparation." Though I suppose that if someone wants to use a non-authorized eucharistic prayer at the late service, it can be argued that the "principal service" is the early one, because it comes first.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

With regard to actual practice in TEC (as opposed to what's strictly legal), the New Zealand Prayer Book has its fans in the US, and I've encountered eucharistic prayers from that book in Episcopal services. And TEC is in full communion with ELCA (as opposed to the "impaired communion" with some of the Global South Anglican churches), and I've encountered eucharistic prayers from Evangelical Lutheran Worship in Episcopal services, both Episcopal churches, and in joint Episcopal-Lutheran parishes (of which there are a number).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0