Thread: ACNA Texts for Common Prayer 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=026539

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
The Anglican Church in North America, which splintered from The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada, has released a working (but usable worship) draft of its new prayer book.

http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/texts_for_common_prayer#faq

Thoughts? I found the combination of traditional-sounding and modern sounding texts interesting, along with the varied choice of source material.
 
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :
 
Very interesting. There was a Book of Common Prayer (2011) that came out that was described as "...for trial use by the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America for liturgical review." The texts there are not the same as in your link (BCP 2011 has "I believe" in the Nicene Creed, and no texts to accompany the fraction, although the fraction has been moved from its 1928 position, to after the Lord's Prayer). The driving force behind the BCP 2011 was Keith Acker, who seems not to be involved with the work that you have described.
The most interesting feature of BCP 2011 was in Christian Initiation: the deacon baptizes, the priest leads the prayers after the baptism, and the bishop confirms.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
Rant-type portion of post

quote:
The original Greek text used "We Believe" because this Creed reflects the belief of the whole Church as a united body, as contrasted with the Apostles' Creed which is a personal profession of faith used at baptism.
Argh! How wrong can this possibly get? The original (which indeed happened to be in Greek) was in the plural because it was part of a conciliar decree. The liturgical form in Greek has always been the singular. It's even generally referred to as το πιστεύω ("the I-believe"). The sense of this should be obvious: we are each pronouncing his continued assent to what the Church once agreed in a general council.

(And really, if they want to play "the original Greek", what do they think they're doing including the Filioque? Oh yes, there's a footnote on that one in the service book. [Killing me] )

It is only the West that uses the Apostles' Creed in the Baptism service; Eastern Orthodoxy uses the Nicene Creed. This is directly parallel to the Nicene Creed being added to the Communion service in the West at a comparatively late date (according to Dix, the dates are Antioch 473, Constantinople 511, Spain 589 (and that after the Fraction!), Gaul 798, and Rome 1014). In both of these cases, this merely reflects the greater perception of the problem of Arianism — both as a risk of converts being misled and among the faithful, particularly the clergy — in the East, with the West preserving the older usage of a simpler pre-Nicene creed at Baptism and no creed at all at the Communion.

Why is it that "the original Greek" is such a sure sign that someone doesn't know either (a) anywhere near enough Greek or (b) what they're talking about? </rant>

Non-rant-type portion of post

Generally, this is a good attempt at achieving a modern-language service that doesn't go too far along the road of trite 1970s paraphrase. The simple change of "And also with you" biting the dust goes a long way.

Things I think could be better:
Morning and Evening Prayer
The Lord's Supper

And that's more than enough for now!
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
...although the fraction has been moved from its 1928 position, to after the Lord's Prayer).

[Confused]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Rant-type portion of post

[QUOTE]
[*]"O Lord, save our nations; // And guide us in the way of justice and truth." doesn't have the character of the other responses. I'd suggest strengthening the allusion to Psalm 86 along the lines of "All the nations you made shall come and worship you, O Lord // Teach us your way, and we will walk in your truth."

Obvious answer is for the US bit of ACNA to de-recognise the unpleasantness of 1776. Then you could have " O Lord, save the Queen..." But I suppose that's not going to happen, is it.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:


Thoughts?


The work seems to be a lot of cut and paste amounting to no more than a dull rendition of the of the American 1979 BCP. Now, well over thirty years down the road, I see no evidence of new scholarship or thinking incorporated in the texts. The work seems overly cautious and conservative.

It's quite a brazen act of hubris for ACNA to put together such a work with a "task force," or committee composed of no internationally recognized liturgical scholars. The great majority of members hold D.Min, honorary or inferior credentials. Arnold Klukas, who does hold the Ph.D, form the University of Pittsburgh, did his work there in art and architecture.

Oh well, it's ACNA. What did I expect, after all? May they rejoice in their orthodoxies and say their prayers well.

*
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Rant-type portion of post

quote:
The original Greek text used "We Believe" because this Creed reflects the belief of the whole Church as a united body, as contrasted with the Apostles' Creed which is a personal profession of faith used at baptism.
Argh! How wrong can this possibly get? The original (which indeed happened to be in Greek) was in the plural because it was part of a conciliar decree. The liturgical form in Greek has always been the singular. It's even generally referred to as το πιστεύω ("the I-believe").
No more wrong than you, since in effect all you've done is restate the same thing with the words rearranged. The Nicene Creed's origins are corporate - "the belief of the whole church," in their words, or "a conciliar decree" as you put it, but six of one. That the liturgical form was rendered into the singular early on hardly undermines your (and their) point.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Mr. Rob -

*Please* try to discuss the topic at hand without making such snide asides about the people concerned. We aim to respect each other's traditions hereabouts and lines like 'It's {x}, what do you expect?' don't help this.

Your criticism of the academic credentials of ACNA also slides very close to this: I'm reasonably sure that the majority of historical liturgies were drawn up by people who were NOT 'liturgical scholars', and it is a moot point whether those that were are any the better for it.

Please note, your tendency to throw out such comments about ecclesial groups for whom you do not care has not gone unnoticed. Let this be the last of them.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Mr. Rob -

*Please* try to discuss the topic at hand without making such snide asides about the people concerned. We aim to respect each other's traditions hereabouts and lines like 'It's {x}, what do you expect?' don't help this.

Your criticism of the academic credentials of ACNA also slides very close to this: I'm reasonably sure that the majority of historical liturgies were drawn up by people who were NOT 'liturgical scholars', and it is a moot point whether those that were are any the better for it.

Please note, your tendency to throw out such comments about ecclesial groups for whom you do not care has not gone unnoticed. Let this be the last of them.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

I was made no "snide asides," bur merely stated the facts in regard to the ACNA published work and the committee that produced it as was presented here. I was asked for comment and I gave it in brief, concise terms. I expected something better.

I apologize for any offense taken because of that brevity, the facts as I see them, and the lack of respect I see that I showed toward the Anglican Church of North America.

However, let me say that the hyper-sensitivities so often and markedly shown on this Ecclesiantics board, and your own public criticisms of my last post, will now relieve you of my further presence as a shipmate here. In future It will be a time saver for me to entirely avoid Ecclesiantics. That will also provide you and others with more time to track and mind someone else. Rest at ease, because I won't be back to post here or look at the contents.

*

[ 20. October 2013, 21:30: Message edited by: Mr. Rob ]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
Flounce galore
 
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :
 
I found the two eucharistic prayers interesting. In both, the epiclesis has been moved to before the Institution Narrative, a position it has never held in a traditional BCP of the Episcopal Church (and only in Prayer C, if my memory is correct, in 1979 BCP). The "long form" prayer has an explicit oblation, the "short form" does not. The "short form" has a memorial acclamation, the "long form" does not. Seems a bit odd to me; for those parishes in ACNA used to 1979 BCP, it would seem to significantly reduce the options available to those parishes.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Sitting in my hostly chair

Mr Rob.

I am sure that you have been here long enough now to know that the correct place for commenting on or challenging the ruling of a host is in the Styx (see Commandment 6).

In addition, in view of the tone of your response to my hostly friend, dj_ordinaire, I will be making the Admins aware of it.

seasick

Rising from my hostly chair
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
I found the two eucharistic prayers interesting. In both, the epiclesis has been moved to before the Institution Narrative, a position it has never held in a traditional BCP of the Episcopal Church (and only in Prayer C, if my memory is correct, in 1979 BCP). The "long form" prayer has an explicit oblation, the "short form" does not. The "short form" has a memorial acclamation, the "long form" does not. Seems a bit odd to me; for those parishes in ACNA used to 1979 BCP, it would seem to significantly reduce the options available to those parishes.

I noticed that too.

One of the biggest mistakes I see in modern liturgical planning is varying the people's interactions during the eucharistic prayer. It's okay to offer a small handful of acclamations, but each should have its own distinct invitation, and they all should be common to all prayers. Otherwise, it keeps people print-dependent, or burdens the priest with using the same prayer over and over until people get the acclamations right. Likewise, I was disappointed by the multiplication of entrance acclamations. Three was plenty; they got carried away here. Had I been consulted, I would have suggested that instead of playing with the acclamation, perhaps the option of reading a sentence of scripture (almost like an entrance antiphon or a modern take on the Introit) be borrowed from the offices. It would have given them the scriptural variety they desired, with no pressure on the congregation.

In any event, I thought that it was a well-composed resource, drawing upon the BCP79 Rite 2, yet adjusting those areas in which there had been some grumbling (eg...they restored the Prayer of Humble Access to the modern liturgy, also slipping the words that had been deleted entirely from the BCP79).

I actually think this resource has the potential to tempt some trad-language churches to do some experimenting, or to add a liturgy in modern language.

[ 21. October 2013, 21:51: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0