Thread: Will there ever be a new prayer book for The (US) Episcopal Church? 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=027896
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
If so, when? Will it be a myriad of options so complex that it couldn't possibly fit in one book, like the C of E's Common Worship? How will it differ from BCP '79? Will people who want to keep doing things exactly the way they are with Rite I or II of BCP '79 be able to do so? Will people who miss things about BCP '28 (or about BCP 1549 ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) get things they want in a new prayer book? What would the "new" things be and what would be the likely "edits"?
I know that there are already many supplements to BCP '79 that have been released over the years - I'm talking about changing the core prayer book itself. Do many people want this or are they happy enough with just releasing new optional supplemental stuff from time to time? Or do the few people who want liturgies very, very different from the MOTR seem so intent on doing their own thing that they don't care what any Prayer Book says?
I'm not exactly sure what the liturgical pressure groups are in the US Episcopal Church anyway. There don't seem to be very many anti-liturgical evangelicals or "we'll do the Roman Rite no matter what the Prayer Book says" Anglo-Papalists in this country. What would some people be looking for in a new Prayer Book?
What do you think would be good ideas for a new TEC Prayer Book if there ever is one?
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
FFS, what is this idiot fascination with novelty? It used to be that what was old was seen to be good, with the new viewed with great suspicion. Now, once the shine of off, we're itching for something really new.
Its only been 35 years since that last upheaval. You'd have us spend the larger portion of the beginning of the 21st century doing it again?
I know the Presbyterians, for example, have brought out four or five hymnals since I was born, but can't we at least see the babyboomers into their well-padded graves before we throw the Episcopal Church back into the mayhem and chaos of a prayer book revision?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What do you think would be good ideas for a new TEC Prayer Book if there ever is one?
We've only had this one 35 years - I'm not sure why there should be a rush to replace it.
Mildly amusing sidenote: I went to our early morning rite I service today (not my usual habit), and noticed that about half the congregation were giving the rite II responses (presumably because they too went to the early service because it suited their schedule better, but were on liturgical autopilot.)
(xpost with TSA.)
[ 08. June 2014, 21:30: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I know the Presbyterians, for example, have brought out four or five hymnals since I was born . . . .
Not sure how old you are, but 1955, 1990 and 2013—unless you count The Worshipbook, which very few Presbyterians would count. It was intended more as a service book with some hymns than as a true hymnal, and while it was very influential liturgically, relatively few congregations used it as a hymnal. Just because we publish a new hymnal doesn't mean congregations are required to use it.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I'm echoing my mother's weary complaint. I believe the first one in her litany of foolish replacements started with the 1933 Hymnal (1950 printing). Not that that was a foolish replacement, but that it was perfectly serviceable and why were there so many replacements hard on its heels.
[ 09. June 2014, 01:46: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Prayer Books come in generations. 1979 was on the late end of the generation of prayer books that were concurrent with and not long after Vatican II. Since then, most of the rich majority-white provinces, it seems, have either issued new prayer books or new "Alternate Service Books" that stand alongside the "Old Fashioned" prayer book that is still officially "the" prayer book. The US hasn't swung that way in terms of having two prayerbooks at a time. Anyway, the whole generation of Prayer Books that began around the late 80s hasn't "hit" the US yet. Sorry, The Silent Acolyte, but it's only a matter of time.
That is, unless this is just another way TEC is "different" - in that it entered the post-liturgical-revision-as-a-way-of-trying-to-solve-your-other-problems era before the rest of the Anglican Communion in some way...which would mean that it would be the only province in the world where that had ever happened if in fact it has happened here. I suspect that isn't true, though.
I'm all for something like the Ordinariate Use except you are allowed to use both the Tridentine AND the 1662 elements and whatever Scottishisms we have in the American prayer book tradition. But I don't suspect most Episcopalians would be down with that. So the committees will produce something eventually that everyone will have to replace '79 in their pews with unless they are in some form of rebellion (or as it is often called in the Anglican Communion, business as usual). So a good little Anglican should start politicking to make the new product as unoffensive to him/her as possible. What might this least of all evils look like?
[ 09. June 2014, 02:29: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm echoing my mother's weary complaint. I believe the first one in her litany of foolish replacements started with the 1933 Hymnal (1950 printing). Not that that was a foolish replacement, but that it was perfectly serviceable and why were there so many replacements hard on its heels.
Ah, yes '33 would have been the one before '55 (except for those of us up in the old "Southen church," when it would have been '26). The 1955 Hymnbook was partially driven by uniting and ecumenical concerns, as it was produced by various Presbyterian and Reformed churches. By 1990, they were old.
/tangent.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So the committees will produce something eventually that everyone will have to replace '79…
See. This is another damn problem. Those 815 people seem to think that replacing BCPs in the pews is no big thing.
We run our parish on a shoestring, looking at ever nickel on both sides before we spend it.
We have perfectly serviceable prayer books: it is evangelically imprudent for us to waste money on replacing a book that doesn't need replacing.
quote:
Prayer Books come in generations.
Just for the record, the American Episcopal Church has had prayers books in (unavoidably) 1790, 1892, 1928, and 1979, or, up to now, on average, every three-quarters of a century.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
With three widely varying periods of time being measured, that average is pretty meaningless. Only 36 years passed between the 1892 and the 1928 revisions, and next year it will be 36 years since the last revision.
Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on
:
There is a discussion brewing on this topic at the levels that can make things happen. Personally, I don't think it's time yet. However, there are personalities who want to put their stamp on a new book. One of the funny things about the discussion, though, is that no one is certain of the actual status of the "Enriching Our Worship" collection. My own hope is to direct things into a "Prayer Book Studies" format in order to encourage intelligent discussion before diving headlong into the morass...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If the current liturgical project of the Episcopal Church—Holy Woman, Holy Men— is any indication, I would rather stick with the '79 Prayerbook for the foreseeable future.
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
From across the pond, do google 'common worship pdf' and see what the CofE did!
We didn't replace the 1662 BCP, oh no, we added a whole new variety of liturgical books, so now the selection is at least as complex as before the Reformation. We have the core text, President's Edition, Times & Seasons, Festivals, Daily Prayer, Pastoral Services and Christian Initiation together with an additional composite for Holy Week.
You may be tempted not to ask for change because you never know just what you are going to get...!
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on
:
Would a simple way forward if BCP'79 is feeling a tad dated be to authorize the Church of England's Common Worship in toto for use in TEC? Now that half of its epicleses are post-consecration (yes, I know) it might not be as weird a decision as it would once have been.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If the current liturgical project of the Episcopal Church—Holy Woman, Holy Men— is any indication, I would rather stick with the '79 Prayerbook for the foreseeable future.
HWHM is being reworked by some very capable people. I have high hopes for a far better resource to come.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
Would a simple way forward if BCP'79 is feeling a tad dated be to authorize the Church of England's Common Worship in toto for use in TEC? Now that half of its epicleses are post-consecration (yes, I know) it might not be as weird a decision as it would once have been.
I don't think that would be a bad idea for TEC (or for Canada). There is a huge amount of liturgical material available in CW and it would be a nonsense to try and do something new without referring to what is in CW.
(Actually, I have long thought that it should be easier to legitimately borrow from the liturgical resources of other Anglican provinces. I am not necessarily suggesting a complete free-for-all, but some (ordered) way of enabling use of material from outside one's own province)
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Ignoring the US-specificity, the NZ Prayer Book, much lauded but I think seriously patchy, is being eroded by our charismatic wing with an emphasis on hymn sandwiches and our remaining wing with an emphasis on more pseudo-mystical celebrations of Mother-Womb, Goddess of No Name Who Helps us Find our Inner Yang.
I exaggerate, but to be honest, in an era of electronic transmission I doubt a book as such will be a big part of future revisions anywhere on the euro-centric globe...
[ 09. June 2014, 19:49: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Frankly, I think the majority of US Episcopalians would be genuinely frightened about the prospect of prayerbook revision. We should probably wait to see if the new translation of the Novus Ordo Missae takes or whether it is tweaked to make it more euphonious to the English-speaking ear. I imagine a future Rite II should be using the "And with your spirit" phrasing of the newly rendered Novus Ordo, rather than "And also with you". There may be some other bits we'd want to adopt, as well, particularly in the Nicene Creed (though with fewer Latinisms).
I think many of us would be terrified at the prospect of a wholesale dumping of Rite I and other traditional language texts. I'd actually prefer to see the rubric about conforming Rite II texts to Rite I language and vice versa actualized by taking a cue from the Alternative Service Book, which does in fact provide several of the Rite II eucharistic prayers translated into Rite I idiom (originally created and published by Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, PA, though currently out of print). Too, there is some very good stuff in Common Worship that we'd do well to adopt if we do prayerbook revision, including a traditional language eucharistic canon that has the epiklesis preceding the words of institution.
It's going to be a dangerous undertaking, however. Perhaps we should allow my generation of churchmen to die off first.
[ 09. June 2014, 20:40: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LsK:
Frankly, I think the majority of US Episcopalians would be genuinely frightened about the prospect of prayerbook revision.
Hey, what's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?
Sometimes it's possible to negotiate with a terrorist!
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
My advice is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As a Canadian, I'm quite satisfied with the 1962 Book of Common Prayer and the 1985 Book of Alternative Services. The BAS, our defacto "unofficial" main service book* has some dated language, i.e. no one nowadays uses "races" as a synonym for "peoples", but by in large, it still is readable to most people.
*Canadian Anglicans are wise enough to not call the BAS a prayerbook lest they upset or enrage the Prayerbook Society."
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I wonder how much influence the legacy of Gregory Dix will still exercise on any new Prayerbook revision. I gather many liturgy geeks are now looking at his ideas in a way not dissimilar to how we now tend to view Percy Dearmer.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I wonder how long it will take before Howard Galley is banished to the same corner.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I wonder how much influence the legacy of Gregory Dix will still exercise on any new Prayerbook revision. I gather many liturgy geeks are now looking at his ideas in a way not dissimilar to how we now tend to view Percy Dearmer.
Guilty as charged, m'lud.
I have never understood the fascination with Dix. I first came across his ideas at university, when I was doing a module on the development of the Eucharist. Didn't buy it then and I don't but it now. I would gladly welcome any Dix-free liturgy.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
What would be the possible impetus for a new prayer book? I do not see any reason to change things just for change's sake.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
What would be the possible impetus for a new prayer book? I do not see any reason to change things just for change's sake.
I surmise that you have never served on a parish committee.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
What would be the possible impetus for a new prayer book? I do not see any reason to change things just for change's sake.
I surmise that you have never served on a parish committee.
No, but then my parish could be characterized as reactionary.
Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on
:
I'm thinking that it might be quite a good idea to allow the use of authorized liturgies from Full Communion partners (with the bishop's approval). That way we could get an even fuller sense of what's out there, and regularize what's already going on under the radar (i.e., one side using the NZ prayer book; the other side doing 1662 Evensongs...).
What think ye?
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on
:
The 1979 Prayer Book came out the liturgical movement that found much fruit in Vatican II. It post-dated that council and foreshadowed the prayer book revisions that you saw in some other traditions. So while Stonespring thinks it should be in one generation or another, it seems to me that it has elements of each. Of course, I could be wrong.
Every time our TEC bishops come back from General Convention, they assure us that no serious prayer book revision is on the horizon. Not from lack of agitation in some camps, but rather from the recognition that we’ve got lots of other issues to deal with. For example, it wouldn’t make a lot of sense try to put out a revision anytime soon before seeing more come out of the ongoing work on the meaning of marriage and its related rites.
Hymnal revision, I hear, is what you’ll see first. But since nobody has strongly held opinions about hymnody, that’ll be a cinch. Right?
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
I'm thinking that it might be quite a good idea to allow the use of authorized liturgies from Full Communion partners (with the bishop's approval). That way we could get an even fuller sense of what's out there, and regularize what's already going on under the radar (i.e., one side using the NZ prayer book; the other side doing 1662 Evensongs...).
What think ye?
By "Full Communion partners" do you also include ELCA and the Moravian Church? (The latter would allow deacons to celebrate the Eucharist). There were some, I gather, in ELCA who had hoped that there would be an ELCA/TEC joint liturgical revision, but TEC wasn't ready, and ELCA went ahead with Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006). Frankly, there is already, in effect, permission to use ELCA materials - at least in a number of joint ELCA/TEC parishes. I would personally love to think that a joint ELCA/TEC book was possible, but........really? Pretty unlikely, I suspect. Think: ordinal, diaconate, the oblation in Eucharistic prayers, the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral. Sigh....
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I can understand the appeal of using materials from the CofE or other parts of the Anglican Communion, but I don't think there would be a need to introduce *quite* so many options.
As I see it, TEC has a far narrower breadth of liturgical taste that the Church of England for example, with very few parishes equivalent to our ultra-low church Reform movement, Prayer Book evangelicals or arch anglo-papalists, whose divergent needs have fueled the diversification of possible liturgical options in Common Worship, so less accommodation ought to be needed.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Playing into what dj said, a greater and greater percentage of Episcopalians are converts, and a great many of us came to the Episcopal Church because we like Prayerbook worship.
Which is something I am not quite sure our liturgists are fully aware of.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Playing into what dj said, a greater and greater percentage of Episcopalians are converts, and a great many of us came to the Episcopal Church because we like Prayerbook worship.
Which is something I am not quite sure our liturgists are fully aware of.
This point needs to be emphasized. At least in the North American context, although this might be stronger in the US than in Canada, denominational loyalties are much more fluid, so if a worshipper wants something else, it is more easily achieved by a move than by internal change.
When Anglicans are only 5-12% of the population, those who seek out prayer book worship or who have stayed with it, do so because that is their preference. If they want more bells and smells, they incline to the Orthodox (the RCs tend to be lower in practice than Anglicans) and if they want something more evangelical, they have dozens of options.
One other factor in US reluctance for a new prayer book is that the last change was opposed by many at the grass roots and felt that it was imposed upon them, strengthening the dissident Anglican movements in the US (a complex phenomenon, but that's another thread), and most of the bishops are of age where they remembered those fights, and would like to avoid them. The Canadian church, by bringing it in as a Book of Alternative Services, and many parishes retaining the 1959/62 book for the 8.00 am service, minimized the disruption.
[ 11. June 2014, 12:47: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
When Anglicans are only 5-12% of the population, those who seek out prayer book worship or who have stayed with it, do so because that is their preference. If they want more bells and smells, they incline to the Orthodox (the RCs tend to be lower in practice than Anglicans) and if they want something more evangelical, they have dozens of options.
[raises hand]
Question - it's interesting that you use "evangelical" as an antonym of "bells and smells". I wonder about "informal liberal". Is this even a thing? Or just a very small thing?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Playing into what dj said, a greater and greater percentage of Episcopalians are converts, and a great many of us came to the Episcopal Church because we like Prayerbook worship.
Which is something I am not quite sure our liturgists are fully aware of.
Yes, that makes sense. In England there are still plenty of traditions who remain Anglican because of family tradition or because it is the parish church or whatever, even if one might suspect they would be happier as baptists or quakers or RCs or whatever.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
When Anglicans are only 5-12% of the population, those who seek out prayer book worship or who have stayed with it, do so because that is their preference. If they want more bells and smells, they incline to the Orthodox (the RCs tend to be lower in practice than Anglicans) and if they want something more evangelical, they have dozens of options.
[raises hand]
Question - it's interesting that you use "evangelical" as an antonym of "bells and smells". I wonder about "informal liberal". Is this even a thing? Or just a very small thing?
First, what I mean by that might not be what you mean.
Using my definition, it is a very big element in Canada and is predominant in the UCC and Anglicanism (where the Book of Alternative Services takes primary place and is essentially a form of prayer book worship). In Anglican circles in Canada, there are very few evangelical or bells & smells parishes, and a high degree of liturgical conformity. TEC has a slightly higher degree of practice, but is also marked by adherence to the authorized book.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
The notions that came to my mind as soon as I read the OP. Several have already been mentioned by others.
---It has only been 35 years since the last revision.
---The trend of supplementing the BCP with other tomes would seem to "take up the slack" of what some groups would want to see in a revised BCP. Thus, the need for issuing a new BCP is lessened.
---The retranslation of the Latin texts into English by the RCC will likely impact future BCP revision (though probably not as much as it did the 1979 BCP).
---Regardless of one's view of the 1979 BCP and the process of BCP revision in general, the fact remains that the process is seen as a major factor in TEC membership losses. True, it was alongside women's ordination (and was directly linked to it, in providing for such change by general convention vote, rather than constitutional amendment), and there were other factors at the time, as well. But most accounts have indicated that prayer book revision was a major player in these losses. (That process technically began in the 1950s, with the numbered Prayer Book Studies series, but it became "real" to the person in the pew beginning in 1967, when the first trial use book was issued.) I simply cannot believe that a denomination that has suffered heavy membership losses and much rancorous division over several decades would willingly take on such an arduous and contentious process again, within the lifespan of people who lived through it the last time.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One other factor in US reluctance for a new prayer book is that the last change was opposed by many at the grass roots and felt that it was imposed upon them, strengthening the dissident Anglican movements in the US (a complex phenomenon, but that's another thread), and most of the bishops are of age where they remembered those fights, and would like to avoid them. The Canadian church, by bringing it in as a Book of Alternative Services, and many parishes retaining the 1959/62 book for the 8.00 am service, minimized the disruption.
I concur with this. TEC is already struggling with diminishing congregations and fractures over DH issues. A new BCP would inevitably lead to further controversy over changes that implicate particular theological stances, which would further strain existing internal divisions.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
And the Episcopal Church has scads of supplemental material that nobody really uses. If there was a hankering for prayerbook reform, you would think parishes might avail themselves of the opportunity to use the supplemental materials.
I think if there were a move from the TOP to push revision if would be for that reason: The top brass thinks parishes should be using the supplemental materials, so they would take away the current BCP.
I don't, however, think that will happen soon either for the reasons mentioned above. There's just too much rancor still left over from the last revision.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
I don't, however, think that will happen soon either for the reasons mentioned above. There's just too much rancor still left over from the last revision.
We may move in different circles in the same diocese, but I've never encountered rancor regarding the 1979 BCP.
I've also never encountered anyone who thinks we need a new BCP. Anyone who wants to occasionally make changes has Enriching Our Worship and the Rite III option.
Also note: it's hard to simultaneously blame young people and the "new" prayer book for the numerical decline in the church. The fact that it's no longer a requisite part of New England high society might have more to do with it...
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
Oh I agree. The current prayer book is great. But the fact of the matter is there were quite a great deal of rancor and hurt feelings when the book was first put out.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Oh I agree. The current prayer book is great. But the fact of the matter is there were quite a great deal of rancor and hurt feelings when the book was first put out.
Oh, I see what you mean!
I think what's actually wonderful about the system we have I place is that almost everyone is happy rotating prayers A/B/D within the usual rubrics, and that most battles that happen over language can be resolved with either Rite I or EOW, in whichever direction the feelings lie!
It's also my sense that every congregation has its own particular "use" (as, indeed, every congregation always has!) and that people are pretty comfortable with "live and let live." Of course having an Oxford Movement bishop means there's little desire for liturgical uniformity in any case.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
Another factor that ISTM mitigates the need for prayer book revision is that a lot of parishes print liturgy booklets everySunday now instead of using the physical book. Depending on how much latitude their bishop allows they can choose from a pretty good range of authorized texts. So why revise thebook?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Oh I agree. The current prayer book is great. But the fact of the matter is there were quite a great deal of rancor and hurt feelings when the book was first put out.
As there was in 1662.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Another factor that ISTM mitigates the need for prayer book revision is that a lot of parishes print liturgy booklets everySunday now instead of using the physical book. Depending on how much latitude their bishop allows they can choose from a pretty good range of authorized texts. So why revise thebook?
We've been doing this for so long in our parish that I'll bet a lot of our parishioners have never cracked the book itself.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
Not trying to beat any dead horses, but just reminding those who downplay, or are even oblivious to, the rancorous aspects of the last prayer book revision that many people left TEC precisely because of this very issue. The Prayer Book Society exists because of it. The Anglican Service Book exists precisely because of it. Many parishes who are part of Forward in Faith (formed for another, but related issue, the OOW) cite access to traditional BCP as an item of major importance. Much of The Christian Challenge was given over to this issue.
I think that most here realize that many for whom BCP revision (and again, OOW, as the two are connected) was a major issue ultimately left TEC. Various Continuing Anglican Churches were formed over the course of several decades, right up until this past decade. Many others became RC through the same period. There are only a fraction of the original 1979 opponents left in TEC (which is why some, in addition to age, may not realize the extent of the controversy), but there are still a good number of parishes and individuals who, for whatever reasons, remained within, and recall the difficulty of being told that they could no longer use the 1928 BCP, either by a priest or bishop. Often they were told, directly or indirectly, that they could not be loyal Episcopalians if they persisted in doing so. Many of these have long since settled by using primarily rite one, as that seemed the best that they could do without being forced to leave, and thus they seem to be churning smoothly along, but mention another BCP revision and see the response, as old wounds are reopened. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I simply cannot believe that a denomination that has suffered heavy membership losses and much rancorous division over several decades would willingly take on such an arduous and contentious process again, within the lifespan of people who lived through it the last time.
Didn't bother Rome from re-translating the missal!
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I simply cannot believe that a denomination that has suffered heavy membership losses and much rancorous division over several decades would willingly take on such an arduous and contentious process again, within the lifespan of people who lived through it the last time.
Didn't bother Rome from re-translating the missal!
Irrelevant to TEC because of the very different polity and geopolitical situations.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
In some ways, I do wish TEC could go the way of the Church of England. Common Worship is a treasure and we could benefit from their wonderful Offices which have some much more variety than TEC's and much more seasonal input. I really love they way the seasons are done in Common Worship. We could really benefit from them. Maybe not so much from the "this is my story, this is his song" stuff, but most of it.
The wounds are still there among people who remember the era. Regardless of what 815 said, or what dioceses said or ordered, I have yet to find anybody who did not feel left out and forced to use the 79 and 82.
I remember the heady feeling in the 70s of praying "that we may delight in your will" and perplexed by the ugly "and also with you" and horrid "You are God. We praise you." I remember being angry at them leaving out phrases from the Mass, "by the merits of his most precious death and passion" and taking out "miserable offenders" and all that. It still hurts after all these decades. I remember just recently a lady in her 80s asking me why didn't they just cut and paste the 1928 communion and MP into the 79 and make them the Rite I instead of fiddling with every thing? I know why, but said I didn't.
I truly love the 79 Psalter, a better anointing for the sick, a much better baptism, the official sanction of paschal candles, Easter vigils, and to be honest, a much better divine office.
It is about time to move on and learn from our mistakes. I don't think the authoritarian top down approach should be tried again. Nobody likes the Acts of Uniformity.
Common Worship isn't really one book but a collection of resources. We could learn from that and go to printed booklets.
I know there's a large crowd who "want to feel a real book in my hands" but if most of the books are from the 70s with yellow greasy spots on Rite II Eucharist and the rest basically untouched, why not use booklets. Easier to recycle and can be changed seasonally as needed.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Another factor that ISTM mitigates the need for prayer book revision is that a lot of parishes print liturgy booklets everySunday now instead of using the physical book.
And, then there are those parishes with little need for liturgy booklet nor book, for we know the liturgy by heart. We have prayer books in the pews with helpful listing of page numbers in the bulletin for those who are new or for whom a reminder is welcomed.
But, it is primarily Common Prayer—remember that?—committed to heart, with language soaked into the soul.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
In contrast to MamaThomas, I loathe Common Worship.
I fear that with the multiplication of Eucharistic prayers, rites, and the plethora of options, we are losing the "common" of common prayer.
Part of the Liturgical Movement's prescription was more flexibility, allowing liturgical leaders to adapt the liturgy to different circumstances. So instead of Cranmer's uniform Prayer of Consecration, we now have several to choose from. As a Canadian, 6 Eucharistic Prayers in the BAS is plenty enough. IMHO, We don't need any more.
[ 15. June 2014, 03:34: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
As a Canadian, 6 Eucharistic Prayers in the BAS is plenty enough.
That's six in the p185 order alone! Add two in the p. 230 (even if prayer A is just BCP with a memorial acclamation), plus the three "supplementaries" (inclusive-language, and Reformed theology) and that's without even getting into provision made through Waterloo for Lutheran texts. (I have yet to experience the bare verba in an Anglican setting, mind you).
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Also note: it's hard to simultaneously blame young people and the "new" prayer book for the numerical decline in the church. The fact that it's no longer a requisite part of New England high society might have more to do with it...
I think it is more that what constituted New England high society has lost its prior prominence, and what constitutes "high society" has significantly changed from years past.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
And, then there are those parishes with little need for liturgy booklet nor book, for we know the liturgy by heart. We have prayer books in the pews with helpful listing of page numbers in the bulletin for those who are new or for whom a reminder is welcomed.
But, it is primarily Common Prayer—remember that?—committed to heart, with language soaked into the soul. [/QB]
I completely agree about the language soaking into the soul.
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
I suspect that the '79 BCP may prove to be TEC's 1662- endlessly supplemented and modified but never officially supplanted. This is because there is no consensus on how it should be revised- one fraction would like a liturgy along the lines of "Enriching Our Worship", with inclusive language throughout the liturgy both for humans and for God, and with no reference to the Bible as the Word of God. Another fraction, smaller but probably younger on average, would prefer a more traditional Anglican liturgy, including the complete Prayer of Humble Access and "miserable offenders" in Morning Prayer. Members of this group would probably want to replace "and also with you" with "and with your spirit", but would be divided about adding "men" to "for us" in the Creed. While fine with traditional language for God, even the liturgical traditionalists in TEC tend to shy away from using exclusively masculine language to describe groups of human beings of both genders. If there is a new TEC BCP it will probably be along those lines, but not for another generation. Yes, I would agree that the '79 BCP is on the cusp between the era of the liturgical movement and that of the reaction against the liturgical movement, but so was the ASB and that did not stop the Church of England from putting out Common Worship. However the difference is that no-one really liked the ASB while most Episcopalians are satisfied with the '79 BCP.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Are you sure that "And with your spirit" would appear in the modern-language version of any liturgical revision? After the RCC's recent retranslation, those words seem to represent authoritarianism (and clericalism) to many (not to me, though, who prays for the day no one ever says "And also with you" again). Same thing with "it is right and just" or "meet and just" or anything other than "it is right to give him thanks and praise." These and the modern Gloria would probably remain untouched for "ecumenical" reasons - not only because they remain in several other mainline protestant denominations but because the current RCC translation is seen as the antithesis of ecumenicalism given the way it was prepared and implemented.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
When Anglicans are only 5-12% of the population, those who seek out prayer book worship or who have stayed with it, do so because that is their preference. If they want more bells and smells, they incline to the Orthodox (the RCs tend to be lower in practice than Anglicans) and if they want something more evangelical, they have dozens of options.
[raises hand]
Question - it's interesting that you use "evangelical" as an antonym of "bells and smells". I wonder about "informal liberal". Is this even a thing? Or just a very small thing?
First, what I mean by that might not be what you mean.
Using my definition, it is a very big element in Canada and is predominant in the UCC and Anglicanism (where the Book of Alternative Services takes primary place and is essentially a form of prayer book worship). In Anglican circles in Canada, there are very few evangelical or bells & smells parishes, and a high degree of liturgical conformity. TEC has a slightly higher degree of practice, but is also marked by adherence to the authorized book.
Quite. I'm very high up the candle for a United Churcher, but by Anglican standards I'm Low Church. My congregation will do a sung communion service as published in the service book and hymn book, but smells and bells aren't even on the radar.
Methodism in North America gets higher the further south you go; many old Methodist places in the United Church are extremely low (Bible Christian or Primitive Methodist) while Methodism in Texas does things that would rate as High Anglican up here.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are you sure that "And with your spirit" would appear in the modern-language version of any liturgical revision? After the RCC's recent retranslation, those words seem to represent authoritarianism (and clericalism) to many (not to me, though, who prays for the day no one ever says "And also with you" again). Same thing with "it is right and just" or "meet and just" or anything other than "it is right to give him thanks and praise." These and the modern Gloria would probably remain untouched for "ecumenical" reasons - not only because they remain in several other mainline protestant denominations but because the current RCC translation is seen as the antithesis of ecumenicalism given the way it was prepared and implemented.
I don't think it would.
It's worth noting that, as time goes on, the number of people who have ever known the Sursum corda to be anything other than "The Lord be with you/And also with you...It is right to give him/our/God thanks and praise" approaches zero. Language is good by virtue of its prayerful use by the worshipping community; it does not become prayerful language for the worshipping community by being (pedantically?) more correct. With the exception of a few people who are historically inclined, most young people don't even know "And with your spirit" would be an option. And indeed, the shift from a parallelism we're familiar with to Semitic parallelism would require a bit of explanation!
That said, the RCC having changed back may in fact make it more visible in TEC over time, given our large post-Catholic contingent.
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
I do NOT think that Latinisms such as "it is right and just" will ever find their way into Anglican liturgy. "And with your spirit" echos Rite I (which most Episcopalians have attended), and it is also perfectly understandable modern English. The other changes in the new Roman Missal translation are not good English.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
After the RCC's recent retranslation, those words seem to represent authoritarianism (and clericalism) to many (not to me, though, who prays for the day no one ever says "And also with you" again).
We do well to remind ourselves periodically that the distinction - and any significance read into it - is limited to the English language (and initially to the anglophone RC episcopal conferences, though it later spread from there). One of things I find to be a relief when I sleep in and attend the French Mass at my local cathedral is not having to remember two versions of every phrase. BCP or BAS, page 185 or page 230, the answer to "Le seigneur soit avec vous" is always "Et avec ton esprit."
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I do NOT think that Latinisms such as "it is right and just" will ever find their way into Anglican liturgy. "And with your spirit" echos Rite I (which most Episcopalians have attended), and it is also perfectly understandable modern English. The other changes in the new Roman Missal translation are not good English.
"It is right and just" is much more understandable than the old "It is meet and right."
What does "It is meet" mean, anyway?
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
From my handy-dandy Merriman-Webster's Tenth Collegiate: precisely adapted to a particular situation, need, or circumstance: very proper syn see Fit
Since this dictionary orders its sense etymologically, it is likely this sense that Cranmer had in mind.
But, you do make your point.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
"And with your spirit" echos Rite I (which most Episcopalians have attended...
I beg to differ with this. I grew up with the 1928 BCP, but have been to very few Rite I services since the 1979 BCP was approved. My parish never uses it, and I know of almost none that do. Maybe it's geographical.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Maybe it is chronological. If you'd bestir yourself earlier on a Sunday morning you could attend the fabled (and actual) celebration of the Rite I eight o'clock service, celebrated from Boston to Atlanta to Overland Park and on to San Diego and Seattle.
Posted by Julian the Orthodox (# 18107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I do NOT think that Latinisms such as "it is right and just" will ever find their way into Anglican liturgy. "And with your spirit" echos Rite I (which most Episcopalians have attended), and it is also perfectly understandable modern English. The other changes in the new Roman Missal translation are not good English.
"It is right and just" is much more understandable than the old "It is meet and right."
What does "It is meet" mean, anyway?
This is why I prefer usage of Elizabethian, Prayer-book English in the liturgy. It tends to be precise, poetic, and harmonises the hymns with the propers.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Maybe it is chronological. If you'd bestir yourself earlier on a Sunday morning you could attend the fabled (and actual) celebration of the Rite I eight o'clock service, celebrated from Boston to Atlanta to Overland Park and on to San Diego and Seattle.
No, the 8:00 service at my church is Rite II -- which is why I said my parish never uses Rite I. Never.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I know of almost none that do.
You were quite clear that your parish never uses Rite I.
Is there is another parish in Hogwarts that does? At the eight o'clock.
Perhaps my coast-to-coast merism wasn't clear enough: there are many parishes that do just that. Rite II at the principal service and Rite I at the eight o'clock.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
I would agree that the assertion that "the number of people who have ever known the Sursum corda to be anything other than "The Lord be with you/And also with you...It is right to give him/our/God thanks and praise" approaches zero" is an overly broad and sweeping maxim to which assent should be withheld. As someone else pointed out, there are very many TEC parishes that offer rite I at 8AM, and there are even some others for whom it is their standard at all times, That said, the implication that people who have heard "And with thy spirit" are dying off is also questionable. World War II veterans are dying off, yet at the recent D-Day 70th anniversary observances, I was surprised to see how many service vets of the period are still alive. (My own father, one of them, is not.) So "And with thy spirit" veterans, of a period thirty-plus years later, would not be as difficult to find, one would think.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
"It is right and just" is much more understandable than the old "It is meet and right."
What does "It is meet" mean, anyway?
See the third sense.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Around here, 8(30) services cater almost exclusively to the elderly and using the BCP (or at least the simulation in the BAS) is pretty much part of their raison d'être. I did know one prayer book parish that used it as an "off-time" to which to punt the BAS service, but otherwise a "modern-language 8 o'clock" would almost be a contradiction in terms.
"Main services" in traditional language would be a minority by now but are hardly unusual: Pigwidgeon's "almost none" would seem a bit extreme unless ECUSA is more dramatically different than I thought from the episcopal churches here. Anecdotally, I would say there's a correlation between a professional choir and the proportion of the music budget, and the likelihood of finding a "Rite I" (p230) service at 10h30 or 11 (though there are also some churches with fine choral programmes in a contemporary language context too).
[ 20. June 2014, 15:56: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Is there is another parish in Hogwarts that does? At the eight o'clock.
Very few -- and they have very low attendance, mostly the elderly who grew up with 1928*. Thus my comment, that the majority of Episcopalians today are not familiar with Rite I.
*Not saying that only elderly grew up with 1928 -- I did -- but those who cling to the Elizabethan language are mostly more the age that my parents would be.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
The TEC parish that several of my friends belong to (and the one parish in the East Bay that is actually growing) never uses Rite I as far as I can tell. I doubt this has any relation to the state of their community, though.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
Although my place does not use Rite I (I have never had the opportunity to celebrate RI at my current posting, I'm rather sorry to say), it really is quite common to have a Rite I early service with the main service Rite II.
Losing Rite I in the transition to a new prayerbook would anger a small-but-vocal minority within the church; that alone might be a reason to tap the brakes on the matter. Even so, I just don't think we *need* a new prayerbook. The 79BCP gave us things that we desperately needed and were not in the 28. What will the 2016 BCP give us that we desperately need and don't have now? Maybe rites for SSM, but we can have those anyway without a new book.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Very few -- and they have very low attendance, mostly the elderly who grew up with 1928*.
That's generally true of "early celebrations," though. I would be surprised if the few places that use modern language for it pull dramatically higher numbers.
[ 21. June 2014, 00:47: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Losing Rite I in the transition to a new prayerbook would anger a small-but-vocal minority within the church; that alone might be a reason to tap the brakes on the matter. Even so, I just don't think we *need* a new prayerbook. The 79BCP gave us things that we desperately needed and were not in the 28. What will the 2016 BCP give us that we desperately need and don't have now? Maybe rites for SSM, but we can have those anyway without a new book.
Agreed. I would not want to lose Rite I. I don't think it should be removed in any future American BCP. My point was only about "And with your spirit."
And Ceremoniar, I didn't say that all people familiar with Rite I/1928 are dying off. But people who are dying off are disproportionately familiar with Rite I/1928, if you see what I mean. I'm not saying it's close to nobody, I'm saying it's approaching nobody, i.e., decreasing. My point still stands even if we only admit that as time goes on, the proportion of people for whom "And also with you" is "native" increases, which seems impossible to deny over the next 50 years or so.
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Very few -- and they have very low attendance, mostly the elderly who grew up with 1928*. Thus my comment, that the majority of Episcopalians today are not familiar with Rite I.
*Not saying that only elderly grew up with 1928 -- I did -- but those who cling to the Elizabethan language are mostly more the age that my parents would be.
Very people attend the 8 AM service at my church; I'm one of them. It's always Rite II. I'm fine with it.
I grew up with 1928 and have a very nice copy of the 1928 BCP that I got at the Washington National Cathedral many years ago. I rarely use it--it doesn't have Compline, for one thing--but I'm very glad to have it. I wouldn't say that I "cling" to 1928; more like these are the words that I was soaked in during my formative years--almost like they are part of my DNA. I credit 1928 with giving me an appreciation of the beauty of the English language, and giving me the sense of the majesty of God. That is no small thing.
PS I remember the "trial liturgy" before the 1979 BCP was instituted.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:
...more like these are the words that I was soaked in during my formative years--almost like they are part of my DNA. I credit 1928 with giving me an appreciation of the beauty of the English language, and giving me the sense of the majesty of God. That is no small thing.
PS I remember the "trial liturgy" before the 1979 BCP was instituted.
Well put, indeed. Same here--combined with bits from the Anglican Missal, 1928 contributed substantially to my love of our God and our language, even though at the same time, I also loved Latin in the same way. The latter started with the Ordinary of the Mass, which I frequently heard sung in Latin by the choir, and I beheld the italicized titles/opening words to the psalms in the BCP, along with similar Latin titles for the various prayers in the Anglican Missal.
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on
:
I neither want nor expect a new Prayer Book soon. The one we have, while it can be improved, is adequate for now.
I posted a proposal for the next revison on this board in 2005, but Oblivion doesn't go back that far. So here it is again, in an updated version. The revision of the Nicene creed to conform to its Greek text is not explicitly listed here since General Convention has already resolved that this revision will be made.
-------
Here are some proposals that the next revision of the American Prayer Book will include if the revision (if ever there is one) is handled by people of good sense:
1. Align the right hand margin, for crying out loud.
2. Calendar:
a. Scrap the following festivals:
August 6: The Transfiguration (Redundant. We have the Last Sunday after the Epiphany for this.)
July 26th: The Parents of the BVM (Silly.)
September 14th: Holy Cross Day (Redundant. We have Good Friday).
b. Delete the following festivals, or transfer them to the 3rd week of Advent:
March 25th: The Annunciation
May 31st: The Visitation
c. List the lunar epacts along with the Golden Numbers. Provide more detailed discussion of the theory of the Easter cycle.
3. Liturgy of the Hours:
a. Devise an Order of Worship for Morning, corresponding to the Order for Evening already provided.
b. Devise more authorised intercessions and thanksgivings that depart from the traditional "collect" format. (The General Thanksgiving already moves in this direction, as do a few other prayers. We might have more such).
c. Translation of the Te Deum Laudamus: return to "We praise you O God." "You are God. We Praise you" may be a slightly better rendering of the Latin, but it's silly English.
d. Venite: Provide, within the pages for Morning Prayer Rite II, a printed contemporary-language version of the old Venite, (i.e.with the verses from Psalm 96.)
e. Allow at least some Psalms to be used as canticles. More generally, provide more scriptural canticles.
4. Liturgy of the Table
a. Amend the rubrics to emphasize the integrity of the Offertory and Thanksgiving as two parts of a single whole: The one should move immediately to the other, and the dialog (sursum corda) at the beginning of the Prayer should never depart from the fixed text: No "orate fratres" or other such intrusions.
b. Eucharistic Prayers: follow the Lutherans in providing for the use of the Pauline version of the words at the cup: "This cup is the covenant in my blood". (One of the transitional Eucharistic Prayers, in the early 1970s, had this, but it got lost in the revision process.)
c. Eucharistic Prayers: Allow for omission of the words of institution altogether. Their presence is a relic of an unfortunate failure of liturgical nerve on the part of the early church: they lost the early mystical understanding of the rite and had to fall back on the legalistic rationale that our Lord had "instituted" it.
d. Eucharistic Prayers: Revise to make the element of thanksgiving clearer. "Therefore we praise you" in the run up the the Sanctus isn't bad, but we could do better, as we do in Rite II Prayer B, in which the main part of the prayer begins "We thank you". All the Eucharistic prayers should give explicit thanks at least as well as this.
e. Order for Eucharist (so-called "Rite III"): amend the rubrics to allow a full meal to be fully integrated with the Eucharist, if carfully and reverently done. The present rubrics (p. 401) forbid this by requiring that a full meal, when one is eaten, always follow the Eucharistic rite.
f. Translation of the Gloria: Replace the present contemporary-language translation with one that translates all the Latin words in their proper order.
5. Ordinations: revise the rites to make more explicit reference to the priesthood of all believers.
6. Language: the new book will never address God as "mother", or refer to him in such a way except in direct quotes of scripture passages that make this analogy.
[ 21. June 2014, 14:45: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
I neither want nor expect a new Prayer Book soon. The one we have, while it can be improved, is adequate for now.
Here are some proposals that the next revision of the American Prayer Book will include if the revision (if ever there is one) is handled by people of good sense:
I'm afraid I agree only with 3c and 3e.
And as for aligning the right margin, I don't understand the need for that. There are many things I love about the BCP 1979, and its typography is one of them. Dignified, classic yet modern, and very legible.
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
e. Order for Eucharist (so-called "Rite III"): amend the rubrics to allow a full meal to be fully integrated with the Eucharist, if carfully and reverently done. The present rubrics (p. 401) forbid this by requiring that a full meal, when one is eaten, always follow the Eucharistic rite.
I'm a tad confused about this one. Are you talking about eating a regular meal, non-consecrated food, during the actual Eucharist? Wouldn't that mean any pre-communion fasting is now out the window?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
I neither want nor expect a new Prayer Book soon. The one we have, while it can be improved, is adequate for now.
I posted a proposal for the next revison on this board in 2005, but Oblivion doesn't go back that far. So here it is again, in an updated version. The revision of the Nicene creed to conform to its Greek text is not explicitly listed here since General Convention has already resolved that this revision will be made.
-------
Here are some proposals that the next revision of the American Prayer Book will include if the revision (if ever there is one) is handled by people of good sense:
1. Align the right hand margin, for crying out loud.
2. Calendar:
a. Scrap the following festivals:
August 6: The Transfiguration (Redundant. We have the Last Sunday after the Epiphany for this.)
July 26th: The Parents of the BVM (Silly.)
September 14th: Holy Cross Day (Redundant. We have Good Friday).
b. Delete the following festivals, or transfer them to the 3rd week of Advent:
March 25th: The Annunciation
May 31st: The Visitation
c. List the lunar epacts along with the Golden Numbers. Provide more detailed discussion of the theory of the Easter cycle.
3. Liturgy of the Hours:
a. Devise an Order of Worship for Morning, corresponding to the Order for Evening already provided.
b. Devise more authorised intercessions and thanksgivings that depart from the traditional "collect" format. (The General Thanksgiving already moves in this direction, as do a few other prayers. We might have more such).
c. Translation of the Te Deum Laudamus: return to "We praise you O God." "You are God. We Praise you" may be a slightly better rendering of the Latin, but it's silly English.
d. Venite: Provide, within the pages for Morning Prayer Rite II, a printed contemporary-language version of the old Venite, (i.e.with the verses from Psalm 96.)
e. Allow at least some Psalms to be used as canticles. More generally, provide more scriptural canticles.
4. Liturgy of the Table
a. Amend the rubrics to emphasize the integrity of the Offertory and Thanksgiving as two parts of a single whole: The one should move immediately to the other, and the dialog (sursum corda) at the beginning of the Prayer should never depart from the fixed text: No "orate fratres" or other such intrusions.
b. Eucharistic Prayers: follow the Lutherans in providing for the use of the Pauline version of the words at the cup: "This cup is the covenant in my blood". (One of the transitional Eucharistic Prayers, in the early 1970s, had this, but it got lost in the revision process.)
c. Eucharistic Prayers: Allow for omission of the words of institution altogether. Their presence is a relic of an unfortunate failure of liturgical nerve on the part of the early church: they lost the early mystical understanding of the rite and had to fall back on the legalistic rationale that our Lord had "instituted" it.
d. Eucharistic Prayers: Revise to make the element of thanksgiving clearer. "Therefore we praise you" in the run up the the Sanctus isn't bad, but we could do better, as we do in Rite II Prayer B, in which the main part of the prayer begins "We thank you". All the Eucharistic prayers should give explicit thanks at least as well as this.
e. Order for Eucharist (so-called "Rite III"): amend the rubrics to allow a full meal to be fully integrated with the Eucharist, if carfully and reverently done. The present rubrics (p. 401) forbid this by requiring that a full meal, when one is eaten, always follow the Eucharistic rite.
f. Translation of the Gloria: Replace the present contemporary-language translation with one that translates all the Latin words in their proper order.
5. Ordinations: revise the rites to make more explicit reference to the priesthood of all believers.
6. Language: the new book will never address God as "mother", or refer to him in such a way except in direct quotes of scripture passages that make this analogy.
Thanks for posting this. This is the kind of list I was hoping people would post instead of arguing so much about whether it is the right time or not to have a new Prayer Book. Can't people just work in hypotheticals? I couldn't disagree more strongly with some of your suggestions, but others are good.
-I, for one, would explicitly authorize the "Orate Fratres" and all other kinds of Romanisms as acceptable options in any future BCP, along with any 1662isms or 1928isms that people hold dear.
-I would even be ok with a Eucharistic prayer without the words of institution, but ONLY if it had ancient roots in a liturgical church like the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.
-I would allow the epiclesis to be moved before the words of institution, if not there already, in any Eucharistic prayer if so desired
-I would allow the Agnus Dei to be said or sung by the priest and congregation during the fraction and have the "Christ our passover" moved to afterwards, if a priest or congregation so desires.
And more, if I get the motivation to post them... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
You want to abolish the Annunciation? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That seems a sure-fire way of courting controversy.
Nor am I convinced that a prayer book is the place for discussion of lunar epacts and other astronomical details...
But I agree about justify the right-hand margin.
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
You want to abolish the Annunciation?
That seems a sure-fire way of courting controversy.
Every Good Bruiting Dons Flamebait.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
I am happy enough with a pot luck after Mass. I've been in places where the Holy Sacrifice and dinner have been combined and from what I have seen it doesn't lead to greater reverence.
We need the Annunciation and Transfiguration and other old holy days. I do wish that in the future they would reclassify days according to rank and impose if possible the concept of holy days of obligation. Probably won't happen though.
I find HWHM's idea of saying celebrating the day of the guy who started a men's group in Muncie or some heretofore unknown lesbian poet with Collect, Gloria, Old Testament, Psalm, Epistle and Gospel sermon, Creed and preface overkill for a brisk Wednesday afternoon said service.
I do wish they would provide more variety in the proper prefaces.
I admire and use the way the CofE has each season in low gear and high gear modes. There is a shift in focus during the last days of Advent, the last fortnight of Lent, from Ascension onwards in Easter. In Lent, that means the hymns that have been unsung since the 1979/1982 books can be sung again. Passiontide is a great shift in focus from "me" to Jesus and shows up in Common Worship. In TEC, since Passiontide has been conflated with Holy Week, the mood has been lightened.
Also, restore Pre-Lent either with the old names or the CofE's "third Sunday before Lent" or what have you.
I know the old canard about how stupid it is to "prepare for preparation, (eye roll)." But nowadays most Episcopalians I know haven't the foggiest notion of giving up anything for Lent "Father So-and-So said not too; we must take something on instead!"
Now, Ash Wednesday takes many people by surprise and people in my experience don't do much of anything for Lent or Easter. YMMV of course.
Better translations of Te Deum and Gloria and everything really. Make Scripture snippets conform to NRSV or whatever comes next.
I'd prefer "blessed" instead of "happy" if there is a choice. I have never seen a happy person mourning, but have seen them blessed.
Agnus Dei should be required.
Orate fratres would be cool.
Prayers over the gifts
Seasonal blessings in the BCP
And Daily Offices revised more in line with the CofE and Rome, probably in separate books, or apps as they will be by then.
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
e. Order for Eucharist (so-called "Rite III"): amend the rubrics to allow a full meal to be fully integrated with the Eucharist, if carfully and reverently done. The present rubrics (p. 401) forbid this by requiring that a full meal, when one is eaten, always follow the Eucharistic rite.
I'm a tad confused about this one. Are you talking about eating a regular meal, non-consecrated food, during the actual Eucharist? Wouldn't that mean any pre-communion fasting is now out the window?
I was thinking more in terms of a banquet with devotions before it, including the ritual sharing of the bread, and devotions after it, including the ritual sharing of the wine. Such a rite would only be appropriate in very small gatherings.
Fasting, as always, would be a matter of one's own conscience, though we should continue to encourage the old view that fasting is inappropriate on the Lord's day of during the Fifty Days of Easter.
[ 21. June 2014, 17:56: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
One thing I really don't want (which I've heard suggested) is replacing "The Lord be with you" with "The Lord is with you." It's in the subjunctive for a reason! Of course I'm one of the last defenders of the subjunctive mood in English.
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I do wish that in the future they would reclassify days according to rank.
The rules of precedence that we now have are sufficient.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
In TEC, since Passiontide has been conflated with Holy Week, the mood has been lightened.
We are well rid of a separate "Passion Sunday". Around here, I am not aware of any "light" mood during Holy Week.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Also, restore Pre-Lent either with the old names or the CofE's "third Sunday before Lent" or what have you.
Nope. Scrapping the -gesimas was a good move. Good riddance to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Orate fratres would be cool.
Orate fratres reeks of clericalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Prayers over the gifts
We already have a prayer over the gifts. It is called the Eucharistic Prayer.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
And Daily Offices revised more in line with the CofE and Rome
Nope. Stick with the classical Anglican pattern for MP and EP. My proposed "Order of Worship for Morning" would probably allow enough room for departure from the classical pattern in special circumstances, just as the Order of Worship for Evening already does for evening worship.
[ 21. June 2014, 18:09: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
a. Scrap the following festivals:
August 6: The Transfiguration (Redundant. We have the Last Sunday after the Epiphany for this.)
July 26th: The Parents of the BVM (Silly.)
September 14th: Holy Cross Day (Redundant. We have Good Friday).
The reason for the celebration of multiple feast days for the same event is to acknowledge the different emphases of the event in question. Holy Cross Day focuses on the Cross as a sign of triumph while Good Friday focuses on mourning and suffering.
As for July 26th, what's wrong with remembering Our Lord's Nana?
quote:
b. Delete the following festivals, or transfer them to the 3rd week of Advent:
March 25th: The Annunciation
May 31st: The Visitation
Disagree: Annunciation commemorates the precise moment of the Incarnation when God became flesh within the womb of Our Lady. The Visitation foreshadows the relationship between Our Lord and John the Baptist and IMHO is important because it highlights a relationship between two women that is not often acknowledged or celebrated by the Church given its patriarchal heritage.
quote:
c. Eucharistic Prayers: Allow for omission of the words of institution altogether. Their presence is a relic of an unfortunate failure of liturgical nerve on the part of the early church: they lost the early mystical understanding of the rite and had to fall back on the legalistic rationale that our Lord had "instituted" it.
Strongly disagree, the Words of Institution are IMHO essential to the consecration. The recitation of Our Lord's words, preserve the memorial character of the Sacrament.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
c. Eucharistic Prayers: Allow for omission of the words of institution altogether. Their presence is a relic of an unfortunate failure of liturgical nerve on the part of the early church: they lost the early mystical understanding of the rite and had to fall back on the legalistic rationale that our Lord had "instituted" it.
Strongly disagree, the Words of Institution are IMHO essential to the consecration. The recitation of Our Lord's words, preserve the memorial character of the Sacrament.
I have to agree with Anglican Brat. This would certainly be a radical change, in my opinion. In fact, I do not think I have ever been to a church, of any denomination, that omitted the Words of Institution during the Eucharist.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
One thing I really don't want (which I've heard suggested) is replacing "The Lord be with you" with "The Lord is with you." It's in the subjunctive for a reason! Of course I'm one of the last defenders of the subjunctive mood in English.
Even though Bill Gates is always trying to correct it ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
In fact, I do not think I have ever been to a church, of any denomination, that omitted the Words of Institution during the Eucharist.
I did once, almost 40 years ago, and I was horrified. The service was at St. Paul's, Darien, Connecticut, during the heyday of
Terry Fullam, and the entire service was such a mish-mash of non-liturgical "stuff" that I couldn't bring myself to receive Communion. Theologically and liturgically, it was probably the most upsetting service I've ever attended.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
though we should continue to encourage the old view that fasting is inappropriate on the Lord's day of during the Fifty Days of Easter.
The Eucharistic fast is distinct in purpose and mood from the penitential discipline of fasting, which is traditionally precluded on Sunday and in the Great 50. There is no "old view" that is in inappropriate on the Lord's Day (that would make it unnecessary for most Communions!). It is certainly, for Anglicans and (other) Protestants, a matter of conscience. I remember being unimpressed at Prayer Book Society summer camp when the final day Mass was scheduled after brunch - and that was in a decidedly anglo-catholic leaning group.
Of course there's the old anecdote about the lady who would never observe the Eucharistic fast because "it would be a sin to pile bacon and eggs on top of Our Lord!"
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
c. Eucharistic Prayers: Allow for omission of the words of institution altogether. Their presence is a relic of an unfortunate failure of liturgical nerve on the part of the early church: they lost the early mystical understanding of the rite and had to fall back on the legalistic rationale that our Lord had "instituted" it.
Strongly disagree, the Words of Institution are IMHO essential to the consecration. The recitation of Our Lord's words, preserve the memorial character of the Sacrament.
I have to agree with Anglican Brat. This would certainly be a radical change, in my opinion. In fact, I do not think I have ever been to a church, of any denomination, that omitted the Words of Institution during the Eucharist.
I think it is fair to say that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is a bit of an outlier on this but I cannot see any reason to suggest that the rest of the Xn world suffered from a failure of nerve and find the statement perplexing.
As far as Anglican penitential fasting goes, I had been taught during my catechism class that Friday was a day of abstinence and the BCP confirms my memory. I was always told that red-letter days and Sundays were days of exemption from the Lenten fast and I recall a child of the rectory telling me how much she looked forward to Sundays in Lent as there would be jam at breakfast. I do not know more than a half dozen others who observe a fast before Communion and it seems to have become a eccentricity in Canadian Anglicanism--LQ's account of the PB Society's post-brunch Mass does not shock me, such are our savage times.
Canadian Anglicans can always maintain the gesimas because of our canonical oddity that the BCP is the liturgical and doctrinal standard, while the universally-used BAS is simply an authorized text. I take a perverse delight in dating letters thus, or making a date for the Tuesday after Septuagesima. Good for winnowing out redheads who don't know their Barbara Pym.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
My heart is with the earlier Prayer Book tradition, but if I had to reform the 1979 book while retaining its essence, here's what I would do:
* Remove modern-language Creed in Rite I, since the whole point of Rite I is to avoid the dreadful 1970s translations.
* Likewise, restore proper Gloria Patri with "Holy Ghost" for Rite I, instead of relegating it to an appendix.
* Restore "miserable offenders" and "there is no health in us" to Rite I Daily Office confession.
* Add Rite I services of Baptism and Matrimony.
* In interests of fairness toward Rite II, add modern-language Great Litany.
* Add Blessed Charles the Martyr to Kalendar for January 30, and St. Valentine for February 14. (I don't care how little we actually know bout him - we shouldn't let the secular romance industry monopolize a Christian martyr.)
* Remove Independence Day from Kalendar.
* Create Daily Office Lectionary that is either three-year (to align with the RCL) or one-year (to align with simplicity and tradition). Current practice with three-year lectionary for the Eucharist and two-year one for the Office is MUCH too complicated.
* Either way, said lectionary should have four whole Lessons assigned per day, to avoid current awkward situation where one has to borrow First Lesson from another year if one wants the classical 2 + 2 office.
* Integrate "Collects-Traditional", "Collects-Contemporary", "Proper Liturgies for Special Days", and the Eucharistic Lectionary into a single section; each page therein should have both Collects, and all nine readings, in a single place for easy comparisons between Rites I and II and between Years A, B, and C.
* As some other people have mentioned, align the right-hand margins. Also, return to classical liturgical typography by printing the initial letter of each prayer as a drop cap, and capitalize the remaining letters in the first word of every prayer.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
* Create Daily Office Lectionary that is either three-year (to align with the RCL) or one-year (to align with simplicity and tradition). Current practice with three-year lectionary for the Eucharist and two-year one for the Office is MUCH too complicated.
The Consultation on Common Texts has devised a three-year daily lectionary that aligns with the RCL. The readings for Monday-Wednesday relate to the previous Sunday's readings, while those for Thursday-Saturday relate to the readings of the following Sunday.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
* Create Daily Office Lectionary that is either three-year (to align with the RCL) or one-year (to align with simplicity and tradition). Current practice with three-year lectionary for the Eucharist and two-year one for the Office is MUCH too complicated.
The Consultation on Common Texts has devised a three-year daily lectionary that aligns with the RCL. The readings for Monday-Wednesday relate to the previous Sunday's readings, while those for Thursday-Saturday relate to the readings of the following Sunday.
But that loses the reading of scripture (more or less)* continuously in the office -- at least I guess it does.
I don't see the problem with a two yearly office and daily Eucharist lectionary. The little references lectionary gives what should be read at everything and we use that and the BIble at the office. We have RCL lectionary/gospel book to read from on at the Eucharist Sundays and a daily Eucharist lecionary (or Exciting Holiness) to read from at weekday Eucharists (plus Exciting Holiness) .
Carys
*I have a habit of reading the bits of the OT which are skipped over if they aren't too long...
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
]Very few -- and they have very low attendance, mostly the elderly who grew up with 1928*. Thus my comment, that the majority of Episcopalians today are not familiar with Rite I.
As I mentioned earlier, we do rite I at 8am, and in my recent experience, about half the congregation were giving the rite II responses. So I might even claim that plenty of those who attend a rite I service aren't familiar with rite I.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
One thing I really don't want (which I've heard suggested) is replacing "The Lord be with you" with "The Lord is with you." It's in the subjunctive for a reason! Of course I'm one of the last defenders of the subjunctive mood in English.
Even though Bill Gates is always trying to correct it
You're right! I just opened Word, typed "The Lord be with you," and sure enough a green squiggly line appeared. Word thinks it's a subject-verb agreement problem.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I have to agree with Anglican Brat. This would certainly be a radical change, in my opinion. In fact, I do not think I have ever been to a church, of any denomination, that omitted the Words of Institution during the Eucharist.
My experience has been that the Words of Institution are said if nothing else. With one exception. I visited Mars Hill Church here in Seattle, and the elements were simply distributed with no prayer of any kind, not even the Words of Institution. I'm pretty broad-minded about liturgical customs in different traditions, but in my mind this was simply not Communion, this was just passing out bread and wine.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The Consultation on Common Texts has devised a three-year daily lectionary that aligns with the RCL. The readings for Monday-Wednesday relate to the previous Sunday's readings, while those for Thursday-Saturday relate to the readings of the following Sunday.
But that loses the reading of scripture (more or less)* continuously in the office -- at least I guess it does.
I don't see the problem with a two yearly office and daily Eucharist lectionary. The little references lectionary gives what should be read at everything and we use that and the BIble at the office. We have RCL lectionary/gospel book to read from on at the Eucharist Sundays and a daily Eucharist lecionary (or Exciting Holiness) to read from at weekday Eucharists (plus Exciting Holiness) .
Carys
*I have a habit of reading the bits of the OT which are skipped over if they aren't too long...
The experience of daily office lectionaries in the C of E indicates that there is no single right solution. Far better to have a variety of daily lectionaries to suit different needs:
- Daily office (morning and evening) for use in a church setting. This could be consecutive readings OR connected to the Sunday readings. Different churches will want different things.
- Daily office for individuals at home, wanting a single set of readings each day. These could, of course, be a subset of the church readings. But they don't have to be.
- "Pillar" readings for use in places like cathedrals, where you cannot assume that people will be coming back tomorrow, or that they will be in church on Sunday.
What is needed is NOT a "one size fits all" approach, but a real attempt to encourage the regular reading of scripture by as many people as possible, taking into account their different needs and circumstances.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What is needed is NOT a "one size fits all" approach, but a real attempt to encourage the regular reading of scripture by as many people as possible, taking into account their different needs and circumstances.
I'll cast a vote here for a "one size fits all" approach: the current daily office (of whatever BCP) seen as the ongoing prayer of the larger church, into which individuals and local praying communities enter, whether daily or weekly or just occasionally, but which goes on day after day whether each of us attends to it or not.
This is why I wasn't a fan of what we used to do at monthly evensongs: use the lessons from another year's eucharistic lectionary because those attending might not be daily evening pray-ers and so tying the lessons to the eucharistic day might make more sense than keeping the daily office cycle going. My take: keep the daily office cycle going; those attending monthly evensong can then enter into this ongoing cycle and perhaps be encouraged to take it up more often. (This is in a parish with daily morning and evening prayer in church...another reason, IMHO, not to make an exception in lectionary use just for one office.)
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What is needed is NOT a "one size fits all" approach, but a real attempt to encourage the regular reading of scripture by as many people as possible, taking into account their different needs and circumstances.
I'll cast a vote here for a "one size fits all" approach: the current daily office (of whatever BCP) seen as the ongoing prayer of the larger church, into which individuals and local praying communities enter, whether daily or weekly or just occasionally, but which goes on day after day whether each of us attends to it or not.
Yes, various people I follow on Twitter tweet comments on Morning Prayer from time to time. Sometimes I read these before I say the office (which is 0830 for me, some of them say it before 0700) and they suddenly make sense when I get to the same bit.
I can understand the desire for (and use of) the pillar lectionary in cathedrals, but am not keen on it. For a start it means that if I, who prays the office in my own church, drop into Evensong in the cathedral I don't get continuity with what I have been reading. I suppose it comes down to who the office is for.
Carys
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The TEC parish that several of my friends belong to (and the one parish in the East Bay that is actually growing) never uses Rite I as far as I can tell. I doubt this has any relation to the state of their community, though.
Extremely curious, what parish is this?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The TEC parish that several of my friends belong to (and the one parish in the East Bay that is actually growing) never uses Rite I as far as I can tell. I doubt this has any relation to the state of their community, though.
Extremely curious, what parish is this?
All Souls, Berkeley.
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The TEC parish that several of my friends belong to (and the one parish in the East Bay that is actually growing) never uses Rite I as far as I can tell. I doubt this has any relation to the state of their community, though.
Extremely curious, what parish is this?
All Souls, Berkeley.
Would it be okay to poke you about Anglican antics in the Bay Area privately?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Do * even have to explain my reasons?
THREAD CLOSED
[* ]SPK, Eccles Ruling Elder (Pro Tem)[/* ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0