|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: The 1928 prayer book - some questions for ecclesiantick anoraks
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I regret this is a fairly long post, for which my apologies in advance.
There recently came into my hands a copy of "The Book of Common Prayer with the additions and deviations proposed in 1928". This was given to someone as a Confirmation present in 1931. It contains the ordinary BCP + the alterations that were proposed first in 1927, and then in a very slightly different form in 1928. This includes a preface that the failed book would have had.
Now, I know, or think I know, the following.
A. There was an attempt to introduce an alternative prayer book at that time.
B. It went to Parliament with as much official recommendation from the Church as was possible at the time, and Parliament rejected it.
C. It contained some things that look fairly uncontroversial, a Compline for example. But I assume that whatever was controversial was in the alternative Communion Service.
D. Because it had a church imprimatur, this was seen by its supporters as representing an improper interference by the state in church affairs.
E. As a result, many (perhaps all) bishops said they would not restrain clergy from using it if they want to.
My experience in the 1950s and 1960s when all services were still 1662, was that it had never caught on widely. Just occasionally, you would go to a church where the prayer books were dark green in stead of the more usual black, which denoted they used some or all of this book. After that time alternative services came in, Series 2, Series 3, the ASB leading to Common Worship.
I can remember a vicar saying in the 1960s or 1970s that much as he might have liked to have used the 1928 marriage service, he didn't as because of its history, he wasn't confident that it worked, and that people married using it, were actually lawfully husband and wife.
Having looked at the abortive 1928 book, it's difficult to see what the fuss was about. True, I can work out that those that opposed it, did so because they saw it, and any change, as bound to be creeping popery, an attempt to subvert a Protestant king for a Protestant nation.
No, what I can't work out is what it was in the alternative Communion Service that its supporters were so keen to sweat controversy to introduce. The main change it seems to make is to move part of one of the two alternative BCP prayers that comes after communion into the consecration prayer, so that by the time you leave church, you've said Amen to both.
There was no attempt to update the language to something prevalent even in 1828, rather than 1928. All new material is written in fake Elizabethan. Mousethief opened a thread a few days ago on this in an Orthodox context. Nor does it appear to be any real ancestor of Common Worship or the experimental services that preceded it.
So I suppose, these are my queries:-
1. What am I missing about the book that made so many people so keen to press for it? What was there that anyone thought was worth the fuss?
2. Is it a good thing that it failed? If it had succeeded, we'd probably still be stuck with something that was just as remote from modern requirements, but which being only 82 years old, all the arguments would have been against changing it 'yet again'.
3. Even now, there is a Prayer Book Society that advocates the original 1662 BCP, but is there anyone who still advocates either the 1928 book or any forgotten feature of it?
And as an extra,
4. Even though this had been legalised in 1907 and 1921, does anyone know why there's no change in the table of kindred and affinity to delete the bar on marriage to ones deceased wife's sister, or deceased brother's wife?
[ 29. September 2011, 07:37: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
A preliminary Internet search turned up this from the Church Society.
Essentially the HC service was too Roman, er, Anglo-Catholic, Prayers for the Dead would be been given Prayer Book Authorization as would Reservation. The last point especially would make the HC service a sticking point.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
While I can answer none of the questions posed, I would urge those interested to read 'Rivers of the Flood' by Dom Anselm Hughes, for an account of the 1927/28 events, but more for an excellent snapshot of the religious and political ethos and prejudices of that time.
His first-person recollections of many of the events of that era are enlightening, and his writing style is crisp and clear.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
One of the reasons the 1928 prayer book came about was a result of the First World War where hundreds of thousands of young men were killed in action. Many clergy, particularly military chaplains, found the wording of the 1662 funeral service inappropriate with its message of Hell and Damnation, but little of Salvation. The marriage service needed re-vamping too. 1662 went into great detail about carnal lust and brute beasts, but there was little mention of love between husband and wife.
The book was never officially authorised, because back then any changes to CofE liturgy had to be approved by Parliament. There were quite a few Evangelical Anglicans as well as members of hte Church of Scotland, Jews and Atheists in parliament who had a say in this which perhaps is why it didn't get through. It was also a result of this (among other things) that General Synod came about and Parliament allowed the Synod to have the final say on liturgical matters. However, although not fully authorised as such, individual bishops had permission to allow it in their own dioceses if they wished, so Enoch's vicar probably had nothing to worry about when marrying people using this rite unless his bishop was one of the very few who chose not to authorise it.
Much of the 1928 book went on to form "Series 1" in the 1960s and the 1928 marriage and funeral services have generally been the services used for people who wanted services in traditional language. The traditional language pastoral services we now have in CW are basically the 1928 services with a few minor tweaks.
[ 15. January 2011, 22:04: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Americans should, of course, realise that this discussion is to do with the English 1928 BCP-Proposed, and NOT with the adopted and official USA 1928 BCP!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The first problem the 1928 PBCP had was that neither Archbishop was that enthusiastic about it. Randall Davidson was generally lukewarm on revision, and it is suggested that Cosmo Lang would have preferred an update of 1549.
Most lay Central Churchman could not see the point. Most of them did not come into contact with a Sung Communion service often enough to want to change 1662, though they would have been broadly supportive of the overhauls given to the Marriage and Burial Offices. I also imagine the slightly wider range of canticles at MP and EP would have eventually been accepted to.
The extreme Anglo-Catholics and the Conservative Evangelicals did not want it either. The former because it would have given the bishops more authority to rein in their liturgical oddities and because it was not Romish enough; the latter because it was too Popish.
In the final analysis the book had broad support from moderate Evangelical, Central Churchmen, the sensible Liberals Catholics (e.g. Percy Dearmer), Modernists, and Moderate Anglo-Catholics, and to the people who get elected to committee. However, it did not appeal to the extremes or to generic Protestant public opinion. As a result it failed - but not by much - both times it was presented to the House of Commons.
The aftermath was interesting. Establishment Henson became Disestabishment Henson. Davodson retired; Cosmo was tramslated to Canterbury and quietly encouraged the Bishops to allow the use of the 1928 PBCP on their own authority. Generally it was on the basis of "we will not discipline anyone for devoating from the BCP within the limits proposed in 1927/8." The Green Book was issued in either 1946 or 1948 which incorporated a lot of the less controversial material from 1928 proposal. However, it should be noted that the 1928 Communion service was not part of this. Holy Communion in the Green Book was basically Interim Rite not 1928.
When I was a kid we used the Green Book which was, as I have explained a 1662/1928 hybrid. The Communion service was 1662 but with the ninefold Kyrie substituted for the Decalogue except in Lent, and the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei added. MP, EP, Marriage and Burial were pretty much 1928. And very happy I was with it too!!!
PD
[ 16. January 2011, 02:23: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
And in turn, the Green Book was the cause of legal action in NSW against the +Bathurst, who had authorised its use. Some dissentients (basically fronts for the then Sydney majority faction) were largely successful in their aim of preventing the use of the Green Book. However, the High Court said, in dismissing the appeal, that such matters were really to be resolved within the Church, and not by the lay courts.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
I am not sure the green book did print the Interim Rite. It printed the 1928 options during the first part of the service (the Summary of the Law, the Kyries and the alternative Prayer for the Church Militant); but the Prayer of Humble Access was printed after the Sanctus, the Prayer of Consecration finished after the Words of Institution, and the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Oblation were printed post-communion only – as in 1662, but not as the Interim Rite would have it.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
But didn't the backdoor authorising of the interim rite and the 1928 lead to priests basically doing whatever they wanted to do?
For example, a 1662 with a threefold Greek kyrie instead of the commandments, here? Another priest adding the secret and the last gospel, there?
Made it impossible to prosecute liturgical variation, I suppose. Didn't many people seem to think The Shorter Prayer Book WAS the 1662 for years?
The 1928 opened up a great era in liturgical experimentation in the CofE as far as I can tell.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
They were doing what they liked before 1928 and that included the Tridentine Mass. 1662 & 1928 basically gave you two well defined orders for Holy Communion, and the Interim Rite was somewhere in-between. However, I do not think that really slowed any of the more aggressive rule benders down at all.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thank you for all your comments and the links. Please keep them coming.
I suspect though that 'Rivers of the Flood', which I've certainly never heard of, may be a bit difficult to find. Is it the sort of thing that just might turn up in a bundle of 'all these for 20p' at a fete or in the shelf outside a second hand bookshop?
I hadn't appreciated that the green prayer books were a pot pourri. It's a long time ago, and was a bit arcane for a young person to have been all that interested in.
It does though look as though it was the 1928 book that introduced the Shema' as an alternative to the Ten Commandments in full, which I seem to remember was used even back in the sixties.
Spike, I'm not sure that if this had ever come to court, the question whether the diocesan bishop had or had not said he would turn a blind eye to using the form of service would have had much relevance for a judge in what was then the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. The deciding question would be more likely, how accurately did you have to get the format right for a wedding to be valid. Was it enough to be 'basically a wedding' and for the parties to be of age, and bans called, or was the wedding only valid if the everything had been done exactly correctly, even including reading the banns with exactly the right words, and vows exchanged with peoples Christian names in the right order etc.
It ought to have been the former, but knowing a bit about how bizarre English matrimonial law was between the wars and down until the sixties, I don't think I would have wanted to take the risk. I'm quite surprised that presumably nobody had tried this one as a simple way of not having to get a divorce.
Mama Thomas, what on earth was "adding the secret and the last gospel"? They sound like something from the Da Vinci Code.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Probate, Admiralty & Divorce Division, known to one and all as "Wills, Wives & Wrecks". ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
My mistake - the book authorised for use in Bathurst was the Red Book, not the Green. I ought to hav echecked before posting, but offer as a lame excuse that I'm in holiday mode. That said, the Red Book adopted many of the changes in ritual which were legitimised in the 1928 BCP (UK). The Chief Judge in Equity held that these went beyond the doctrines and practices of the Church of England, and thus in contravention of the trusts upon which church property was held. Although the appeal was dismissed, the High Court frowned upon the use of secular courts to determine ecclesiastical matters. For those interested in this byway of the law of trusts, the case in the High Court is Wylde v Attorney General (NSW ) 78 CLR 244.
What Enoch says as to the legality of changes to the Order for Marriage is correct. A judge hearing a divorce petition, or determining if a maraige was valid for all sorts of reasons, could well have found that a union contracted pursuant to the alternative use was not a valid marriage - disastrous consequences for property inheritance and so forth. It would have been much safer to have continued strictly to use the 1662 procedure. Any additional matters sought by the couple could then have been dealt with as a separate service.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Interesting. I believe this concept is alien to Canadian law. All churches have had equal marriage powers since the 1850's. The Presbyterian Church(es) always laid claim to special status by relationship to the Church of Scotland. In Quebec the Roman Catholic Church has had its traditional marriage powers since the Quebec Act of 1764.
Even though Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction, the French concept of marriage at the town hall is not present in Quebec law.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you for all your comments and the links. Please keep them coming.
I suspect though that 'Rivers of the Flood', which I've certainly never heard of, may be a bit difficult to find. Is it the sort of thing that just might turn up in a bundle of 'all these for 20p' at a fete or in the shelf outside a second hand bookshop?
Rivers of the Flood, though a classic, is available as a used book on Amazon. As I write this there are no fewer than four copies available on that website, and a google reveals additional copies on other sites, as well. They are not always inexpensive, naturally, but they are nearly always available and fairly easy to find on the web.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mama Thomas, what on earth was "adding the secret and the last gospel"? They sound like something from the Da Vinci Code.
I'll take a stab at this, or perhaps half a stab. The "last Gospel" refers to the reading of the preamble to John's Gospel at the end of the service. This was done at the Biretta Belt church of my yoof. I believe the "secret" is a prayer whispered by the priest during the Canon of the Mass, but that's about all I know. This being Ecclesiantics, I'm sure someone will come along and set me straight if I'm not correct. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 16. January 2011, 22:15: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, the secret is that portion of the Canon said by the celebrant either silently or in a very low voice. If the mass/eucharist was high and being sung in an elaborate setting, the secret would be said during the singing of the Sanctus and Benedictus. AIUI, this explains the length of this portion of some settings. For example, in Haydn's Little Organ Mass, the text of the Gloria is split between parts, and takes little more than a minute; by contrast, the Sanctus and Benedictus together take 6 or 7 minutes.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The Last Gospel is occasionally proper (yes, I do still do that!) The best known example of the LG being proper is Christmas when the Gospel is John 1, 1-14, there for LG is the Epiphany Gospel. IIRC, the proper LG only occurs when the feast being commemorated has a Gospel of its own, i.e. it is not one of the Commons. The (American/English) Missal usually tells you when the LG is proper. This morning we commemorated Bl. William Laud, but there was no proper Last Gospel because the commemorated feast uses Mass 4 from the Common.
The secret is the prayer recited immediately the offertory and before the Prayer for the Church (old Anglo-Catholic practice) or the immediately before the sursum corda (new Anglo-Catholic/Roman practice).
Re-reading that lot makes me wonder how many supplemental questions I have just created...
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
OK, I may be completely wrong here and, if so, one of our clerical Shipmates will correct me, but I think the secret prayer is the prayer the priest prays silently over the unconsecrated bread and wine at the offertory.
[ETA: X-Posted with PD. Well, I was sort of right]
[ 16. January 2011, 22:37: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
For the removal of doubt, it is that which is referred to in modern RC and Anglican rites as the "prayer over the gifts."
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
I am not sure the green book did print the Interim Rite. It printed the 1928 options during the first part of the service (the Summary of the Law, the Kyries and the alternative Prayer for the Church Militant); but the Prayer of Humble Access was printed after the Sanctus, the Prayer of Consecration finished after the Words of Institution, and the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Oblation were printed post-communion only – as in 1662, but not as the Interim Rite would have it.
A false association on my part. Most of the places that were Green Book when I was a kid were Interim Rite. The Green Book was basically 1662 with the 1928 alternatives as far as the end of the Prayer for the Church Malignant, then pretty much straight 1662 thereafter apart from the addition of the Benedictus and Agnus. That just served to make it a bit easier to sneak in the Interim Rite ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
For the removal of doubt, it is that which is referred to in modern RC and Anglican rites as the "prayer over the gifts."
I don't think it is. I think it's prayed silently by the priest, hence the term "secret prayer"
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
For the removal of doubt, it is that which is referred to in modern RC and Anglican rites as the "prayer over the gifts."
I don't think it is. I think it's prayed silently by the priest, hence the term "secret prayer"
It was - over the gifts. The Canon was silent too, but it's still the "Eucharistic Prayer" of the new rites.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The "Prayer over the Gifts" was the "Secret" until the 1965 revision of the Rubrics. In the back of my copy of Ritual Notes 11 is a sheet of paper outlining the changes made to the Roman Rite in 1965. This suggests that my copy was printed late '65, or '66, as another raft of changes came in 1967/8 before the Nervous Ordo was adopted in 1969/70. There was a certain amount of liturgical frog boiling going on at that time in both the CofE and the Roman Church.
Growing up I was lucky enough to know a handful of priests who had not gone with the Anglo-catholic version of the new Mass. As a result I gained an insight into the slightly off the wall culture of old-fashioned Anglo-Catholicism. This taught me an important lesson - you can be dead serious about religion and still have fun with it. This realisation has been keeping me almost sane ever since!
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The "Prayer over the Gifts" was the "Secret" until the 1965 revision of the Rubrics. In the back of my copy of Ritual Notes 11 is a sheet of paper outlining the changes made to the Roman Rite in 1965. This suggests that my copy was printed late '65, or '66, as another raft of changes came in 1967/8 before the Nervous Ordo was adopted in 1969/70. There was a certain amount of liturgical frog boiling going on at that time in both the CofE and the Roman Church.
Correct. As others have asserted, the secret--in Latin, secreta--is the old name for the prayer over the gifts, which until 1965 was said secretly. This is not to confused with the secret voice, which was the old term for the low voice used for all inaudible prayers in the Mass. The terms secret voice and secretly are still used in today's Latin texts of the missal, but in English they are now translated quiet voice and quietly.
As for the 11th edition of Ritual Notes, this was published in 1964, just before the changes. I see no such list in my copy. You mentioned a "sheet of paper" being in the back. Could this have been something that someone added to the book?
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
This particular sheet of paper was printed by Knotts and represents a temporary updating of the book pending a new edition when things settle down a bit.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Even though Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction, the French concept of marriage at the town hall is not present in Quebec law.
Sober Preacher's Kid, is this because Quebec got separated from France before the Revolution in 1789?
In England, a CofE wedding takes place under the law of the land, but clergy of other denominations have to be appointed deputy registrars. So the 'magic bits' of a Methodist or RC wedding must be present in accordance with the legislation, but provided they are there, the details of the rest of the ceremony is legally irrelevant. As far as I know, it isn't clear which mechanical errors are or are not fatal to the civil effect of a CofE wedding, or what the position was, say, 60 years ago.
This 'secret prayers' bit is bugging me. I can't see them in the BCP or the 1928 book. It would seem to me to go against everything I've ever experienced or understood for part of the service to be said in a way so that people can't hear it and can't join their own thoughts and prayers to the words. Is this part of the ordinary service - in which case which part - or is this extra material from somewhere else?
If the latter, I can see why the opponents of revision might be so suspicious. It conjures up a mental image of a certain type of 1920s very high church priest who thinks the CofE words don't quite work, and mutters extra Roman ones under his breath, just in case.
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
Reading all this in the immediate aftermath of the creation of the Ordinatiate of Our Lady of Walsingham at the weekend, it occurs to me to wonder whether the 1928 BCP will be accepted for use within the Ordinariate.
I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This 'secret prayers' bit is bugging me. I can't see them in the BCP or the 1928 book. It would seem to me to go against everything I've ever experienced or understood for part of the service to be said in a way so that people can't hear it and can't join their own thoughts and prayers to the words. Is this part of the ordinary service - in which case which part - or is this extra material from somewhere else?
If the latter, I can see why the opponents of revision might be so suspicious. It conjures up a mental image of a certain type of 1920s very high church priest who thinks the CofE words don't quite work, and mutters extra Roman ones under his breath, just in case.
This is a matter of perspective and, no, they have never appeared in the BCP. Those of us who grew up in a missal parish were always taught that there were certain prayers of the priest, common to the West, that pertained to his priestly role as the celebrant of the sacrifice and, as such, were offered to God in a "mystical" voice, as was historically part of most sacrificial rites. These in no way usurped the role of the people as the assembly or their own prayers. Those who wished to join their prayers to the celebrant's in this context were expected to do so by following in a missal. It is part of understanding the Eucharist as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and was common, obviously to RCs, ACs and, to some degree, even some purely High Church folks. The Eastern rites had/have their own version of the secret prayers, as well. It was not a matter of thinking that the BCP prayers did not "work" (only a few extreme Anglo-Papalists thought that), but of preserving the understanding of the nature of the Mass. To this end, Western (i.e., Roman) forms were used for the secret prayers.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....
I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)
An interesting point that had been noted by canon lawyers is that the Ordinariate may have to seek and acknowledge the permission of the (Anglican) copyright holders (Cambridge University Press for the BCP) for its liturgical texts.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suspect though that 'Rivers of the Flood', which I've certainly never heard of, may be a bit difficult to find. Is it the sort of thing that just might turn up in a bundle of 'all these for 20p' at a fete or in the shelf outside a second hand bookshop?
You never know how lucky you can be; e.g., I bought a copy of one of Elinor M. Brent-Dyer's Chalet School books for my wife as a thank-you present on the birth of our daughter. Having paid £95 for it I was intrigued to discover from careful examination of the front free endpaper that the previous purchaser appeared to have picked it up for £2! I'm sure that there are like bargains out there still if you look, and I don't think that the Rivers of the Flood is so rare as to be unobtainable at a good price, with a little luck. I have a few booksellers which I can recommend if you would care to try.
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....
I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)
An interesting point that had been noted by canon lawyers is that the Ordinariate may have to seek and acknowledge the permission of the (Anglican) copyright holders (Cambridge University Press for the BCP) for its liturgical texts.
I was about to say the same; the Anglican forms will be as prescribed - presumably by the Ordinary in conjunction with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - I do not think that there will be any question of the whole BCP being imported wholesale. More likely is something on the Book of Divine Worship model, as used by Anglican Use /Pastoral Provision Catholic parishes in the US, which combines BCP and Missal elements, including a Canon of the Mass based on Bishop Miles Coverdale's 16th century translation of the Roman Canon.
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
By the time I join this thread, most of what I had to say has already been said for me. I have at least two copies of this book. When I was a boy (1950s) the vicar I had, used at the communion service, the 1928 version of the prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church militant. This is slightly longer than the 1662 version.
[ 17. January 2011, 16:29: Message edited by: Ecclesiastical Flip-flop ]
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mama Thomas, what on earth was "adding the secret and the last gospel"? They sound like something from the Da Vinci Code.
I'll take a stab at this, or perhaps half a stab. The "last Gospel" refers to the reading of the preamble to John's Gospel at the end of the service. This was done at the Biretta Belt church of my yoof. I believe the "secret" is a prayer whispered by the priest during the Canon of the Mass, but that's about all I know. This being Ecclesiantics, I'm sure someone will come along and set me straight if I'm not correct.
The Last Gospel weas always read, sotto voce, at the church of my youth - which was Percy Dearmer/Prayer Book Catholic with not a biretta in sight.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
E. As a result, many (perhaps all) bishops said they would not restrain clergy from using it if they want to.
I think most, but not all. But by that stage bishops had no real power to force incumbent clergy to use, or not use, any liturgy they fancied, so it probably didn't make much difference. The stable door was unlocked in the 1870s, by the 1910s the door was wide open and the walls had tumbled down, and horses bolted freely in and out and all round about.
My experience in the 1950s and 1960s when all services were still 1662, was that it had never caught on widely. Just occasionally, you would go to a church where the prayer books were dark green in stead of the more usual black, which denoted they used some or all of this book. After that time alternative services came in, Series 2, Series 3, the ASB leading to Common Worship.
quote:
I can remember a vicar saying in the 1960s or 1970s that much as he might have liked to have used the 1928 marriage service, he didn't as because of its history, he wasn't confident that it worked, and that people married using it, were actually lawfully husband and wife.
AINAL, but IIRC the legally relevant bits of the marriage service are only a few lines and they are in 1928 so in fact there is no problem there.
quote:
1. What am I missing about the book that made so many people so keen to press for it? What was there that anyone thought was worth the fuss?
I think the main controveries may have been, roughly in this order of importance, worst first:
- Reservation of the sacrament
- Use of the words "altar" and "sacrifice".
- The words "that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of Thy Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ" at the consecration
- Wording that suggested the bread and wine were being "offered" to God.
- Legalisation of wafers instead of real bread
- Prayers for the dead
- Possible celebration without a congregation
- Legalisation of chasubles
- Adding a "Thanksgiving for the Institution of Holy Communion" to the calendar which was seen as Corpus Christi through the back door.
- Addition of "All Souls" to the calendar, as it was associated with prayers for those in Purgatory.
Of course all these practices were common in Anglo-Catholic parishes, and had been for two generations.
Things didn't always turn out as feared. In practice evangelicals rather liked All Souls because instead of using it for prayers for dead Christains they made it a missionary festival and prayed for live pagans. For them All Saints was the memorial for all Christians, and All Souls for everyone else. Also evangelicals took to taking reserved elements to the sick on the quiet - they would be kept behind in the vestry safe or the vicar's fridge, but never displayed or carried about or adored.
In the long run what the fuss seems to have really been about is "who is allowed to change CofE liturgy". Neither Ritualists nor Reformed liked the idea that the bishops could control the liturgy, because they didn't want to be told to stop doing what they had been doing for the best part of a hundred years. Everyone knew that it was absurd for Parliament to make liturgy, but that's what they carried on doing. Change was shelved for almost another forty years, and when it did come in it was made acceptable by some kind of intra-church democratic process, ac cxknowledging (without making it explicit) that neither the bishops nor parliament hd the authority to dictate liturgy, even if they had the legal power to do it.
quote:
2. Is it a good thing that it failed? If it had succeeded, we'd probably still be stuck with something that was just as remote from modern requirements, but which being only 82 years old, all the arguments would have been against changing it 'yet again'.
3. Even now, there is a Prayer Book Society that advocates the original 1662 BCP, but is there anyone who still advocates either the 1928 book or any forgotten feature of it?
The end result was that much of the CofE skipped a generation of liturguical reform, and went straight from 1662 to the genuine modern English of Series Three without ever going through a Mock Tudor phase that 1928 represents.
As far as I remember the 1960s/70s "Series One" liturgy was basically 1928, complete with thees and thous; and "Series Two" was a somewhat modernised version of it. When I first started regularly going to CofE services in the early 1970s, they were the default liturgies of mildly anglo-catholic parishes, the sort of places that probably called themselves MOTR or Central (every Anglican parish thinks they are are in the Middle Way) and later became "Affirming Catholic".
From the 1920s to the 1970s the evangelical & low-church end of the CofE mostly still used 1662 Morning and Evening Prayer. Then in the late 1970s and in the 1980s they moved straight to Series Three Holy Communion, skipping over the whole residue of 1928. (or at least those evangelicals which didn't go the worship-band and OHP route did) S3 is more or less a Protestantised version of post-Vatican II RC liturgy (with a dash of Dix and a soupcon of South India), and it later became the basis of ASB and Common Worship which therefore doesn't owe much at all to Anglican liturgy from the late 19th or early 20th centuries, whether 1928 or anything else. And has very little cod Shakesperean in it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thanks Ken for your summary. I can remember Series 2, but never encountered a Series 1. I've sometimes wondered if there ever was one, but what you say confirms there was.
I'm interested in what you say about Series 3 onwards being more like a Protestantised version of the post Vatican II Roman Mass than anything that came before, as that's the impression I've got. They both have separate beginning sections, Word sections and Eucharist sections, though one of the big differences is that the Roman Mass includes commemoration and intercessory material in the Mass prayer.
quote:
Originally posted by Leo
The Last Gospel was always read, sotto voce, at the church of my youth - which was Percy Dearmer/Prayer Book Catholic with not a biretta in sight.
Where did this come, how did it fit in the service, and where does it come from? Presumably it was in addition to the Gospel at its normal place. Was it in the Tridentine Mass? As far as I'm aware, it isn't in the present one. Does anyone else (apart from PD if I've understood correctly) still do this?
I'm still intrigued by these 'secret prayers'. What were they or is that something secret that priests had passed on to them the day they were ordained?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....
I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)
1662 MP and EP ought to be perfectly acceptable to RCs as private devotions rather than public worship, maybe with a few droppings from the state prayers (which most people never say all of anyway) Even the present Pope has been known to say nice things about those services. But the catholics already have their own Liturgy of the Hours so its hard to see why they'd need to authorise another.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Dear Ken,
I can vouch for your version of how the changeover occured in MOTR and High-ish places. The main service in my home parish alternated between Matins and Communion until the mid-1960s when they went through a phase of 9.15am Parish Communion (Series 2) and 10.30am BCP Matins. They dropped Matins and went to Series 3 for Parish Communion when I was a small child c.1974. I think that is when my family stopped going to Church as they were Matins folk. I drifted back in my teens and became an Evensong stalwart. The ASB was adopted for Communion and the Daily Office the day it was published.
Most of the smaller neighbouring parishes went BCP - Series 2 - ASB as they dropped Matins in favour of Parish Communion. The change-over was quite slow in my neck of the woods. It started in the mid-60s and took about 20 years, by which time only the diehard MOTR parishes where the Colonels were in control and the conservative Evangelicals still had BCP MP as the main service, and they had gone by the mid-1990s.
The Evangelical changeover seemed to start in the mid-1980s. Then they started introducing ASB:A for Parish Communion once a month. A few years later they added ASB Shortened MP for a Family Service. I think that our two or three Evo parishes had very long serving vicars left over from heaven knows when. We used to joke that one have them had been there so long he had been appointed by Archbishop Whitgift when he was Dean of Lincoln! Eventually they phased out the BCP altogether for the main service by about 1995.
OTOH you still find the BCP used for the early celebration of HC occasionally - where it usually alternates with CW1-trad - and EP a couple of times a month.
I got stuck in one of the transitional stages. I am used to Parish Communion but at the Series 2/ASB:B stage of development. That made it pretty easy to change over to the 1928 BCP, or '79 Rite 1, when I moved to the USA. I still dislike the multiple choice liturgies, and therefore tend to avoid them wherever possible.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Even though Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction, the French concept of marriage at the town hall is not present in Quebec law.
Sober Preacher's Kid, is this because Quebec got separated from France before the Revolution in 1789?
In England, a CofE wedding takes place under the law of the land, but clergy of other denominations have to be appointed deputy registrars. So the 'magic bits' of a Methodist or RC wedding must be present in accordance with the legislation, but provided they are there, the details of the rest of the ceremony is legally irrelevant. As far as I know, it isn't clear which mechanical errors are or are not fatal to the civil effect of a CofE wedding, or what the position was, say, 60 years ago.
Exactly. Quebec didn't do the French Revolution. The Quebecois were as aghast as the rest of the world at what happened.
The Civil Code of Lower Canada/Quebec is a new compilation put together in 1866. It used the Custom of Paris, the civil code in all French colonies, the Corpus Juris, popular Common Law imports and a eye over the shoulder to the French code.
Things like marriage at the town hall which were part of the Revolutionary spirit of the French Code had no place in Quebec.
In Canada provinces regulate the "form of marriage" but the laws are all similar. In Ontario the Marriage Act specifies that every clergyperson who performs marriages must have a licence to do so and that licence must belong to essentially a "proper and regular minister" (my paraphrase).
There is no requirement that the rite take any particular form except for a few words on free intent.
Anglicans have no particular right to anything more than anybody else. Actually the Marriage Act uses the phrase "Parish or Pastoral Charge". Pastoral Charge is a United Church term.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....
I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)
1662 MP and EP ought to be perfectly acceptable to RCs as private devotions rather than public worship...
I can't see why they would, given that most of the non-Biblical bits were nicked from them in the first place! Add a few antiphons and use a Kalendar with a suitable range of Marian argey-bargey a la various Anglo-catholic Office books and there's nothing at all objectionable.
But as you say, there's also nothing that the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Latin Use doesn't also do.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
From SPK:
quote:
In Canada provinces regulate the "form of marriage" but the laws are all similar. In Ontario the Marriage Act specifies that every clergyperson who performs marriages must have a licence to do so and that licence must belong to essentially a "proper and regular minister" (my paraphrase).
Much as here, but the Marriage Act - presently 1961 - is Commonwealth, not State.
To be valid, a marriage must be performed by a licensed celebrant, either religious or lay. Clergy of the mainstream churches are licensed as of course. There's more scrutiny of those from more unusual groups, and quite a detailed procedure for lay celebrants. There are courses to be attended and passed, and references to be obtained.
[ 17. January 2011, 21:02: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
On the question of the validity of the 1928 wedding service -- someone has just raised questions about all ASB weddings because of something in the wording of an act referring to the 1662 but it has been dismissed.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
There's an interesting constitutional split over marriage in Canada. The federal government gets to define marriage and controls divorce, the provinces are responsible for the "celebration of marriage" and the forms used.
In practice that means the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act, the Civil Marriage Act (same-sex marriage provisions) and the Divorce Act are federal while the Marriage Acts are provincial. Marriage Licenses are a provincial matter, in Ontario you get that at your city hall.
One interesting quirk is that certain portions of the Civil Code of Lower Canada of 1866 were federal matters under the Constitution Act, 1867. Quebec recompiled and modernized its Civil Code in 1994 (some of the provisions reflected antiquated values) and the Federal Parliament had to pass its own Civil Law Harmonization Act to update those portions of the Civil Code of Lower Canada which had passed into its control.
There have been three Civil Law Harmonization Acts so far as additionally federal law is interpreted in light of provincial civil law. This is a really big thing for taxation especially.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where did this come, how did it fit in the service, and where does it come from? Presumably it was in addition to the Gospel at its normal place. Was it in the Tridentine Mass? As far as I'm aware, it isn't in the present one. Does anyone else (apart from PD if I've understood correctly) still do this?
I'm still intrigued by these 'secret prayers'. What were they or is that something secret that priests had passed on to them the day they were ordained?
The last gospel was a feature of the Tridentine Mass, and is still used in parishes and chapels where the Extraordinary Form is celebrated. It was also used by Anglican parishes who used the missal, or parts of it. It is the prologue of the gospel of St. John and was said at the very end of Mass, after the dismissal and blessing. See the link below.
I think that you are obsessing rather much over the secret prayers. As stated before, in this context, secret refers to a low tone of voice, and not anything secret in the sense of covert. I sense that you are not terribly familiar with the history of the Mass, so check the link below for the texts of the old Latin Mass, now known as the Extraordinary Form. The rubrics direct which prayers are recited secretly, by saying quietly, or inaudibly. Anglo-Catholic priests typically added all or some of the prayers.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I'm still slightly awed at the thought that the BCP can, as of Saturday, legitimately be used in Catholic services now, albeit only within one of the arms of Catholicism....
I do not think this is the case, nor is it likely to be (except perhaps for MP and EP.)
1662 MP and EP ought to be perfectly acceptable to RCs as private devotions rather than public worship, maybe with a few droppings from the state prayers (which most people never say all of anyway) Even the present Pope has been known to say nice things about those services. But the catholics already have their own Liturgy of the Hours so its hard to see why they'd need to authorise another.
The point is though that the Ordinariate is intended to be a place where Anglican traditions continue rather than be replaced by Roman ones where there is no need to do so for doctrinal reasons. For that reason there is no chance of the 1662 HC service being allowed, but MP and EP are strong contenders. In the American Anglican Use Book of Divine Worship this is just what has happened. MP and EP from the 1928/1979 books in either modern or traditional language are permitted. As I say above in this country there may be copyright issues, but I think an Ordinariate version of sung Evensong is precisely what many are hoping for.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
On the question of the validity of the 1928 wedding service -- someone has just raised questions about all ASB weddings because of something in the wording of an act referring to the 1662 but it has been dismissed.
Carys
The 1928 Marriage Service in disguise as the Alternative Services First Series remains valid; the ASB one does not.
The issue, though, was not the ASB rite but a modern version of the banns which had not been properly authorized.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where did this come, how did it fit in the service, and where does it come from? Presumably it was in addition to the Gospel at its normal place. Was it in the Tridentine Mass? As far as I'm aware, it isn't in the present one. Does anyone else (apart from PD if I've understood correctly) still do this?
I'm still intrigued by these 'secret prayers'. What were they or is that something secret that priests had passed on to them the day they were ordained?
The last gospel was a feature of the Tridentine Mass, and is still used in parishes and chapels where the Extraordinary Form is celebrated. It was also used by Anglican parishes who used the missal, or parts of it.
It was more widespread among Anglicans than missal users/adaptors.
We were 'Prayer Book Catholic' - i.e. we used 1662 with some 1928 additions but nothing Roman. Yet we started with 'the preparation' by priest(s) and server(s) and ended with the Last Gospel.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where did this come, how did it fit in the service, and where does it come from? Presumably it was in addition to the Gospel at its normal place. Was it in the Tridentine Mass? As far as I'm aware, it isn't in the present one. Does anyone else (apart from PD if I've understood correctly) still do this?
I'm still intrigued by these 'secret prayers'. What were they or is that something secret that priests had passed on to them the day they were ordained?
The last gospel was a feature of the Tridentine Mass, and is still used in parishes and chapels where the Extraordinary Form is celebrated. It was also used by Anglican parishes who used the missal, or parts of it.
It was more widespread among Anglicans than missal users/adaptors.
We were 'Prayer Book Catholic' - i.e. we used 1662 with some 1928 additions but nothing Roman. Yet we started with 'the preparation' by priest(s) and server(s) and ended with the Last Gospel.
Yes, that sounds very familiar. Over here in the US, even in parishes where the 1928 BCP was used without additions, the Prep and the Last Gospel were heard pretty reguarly according to me old timers. Perhaps in the case of the Preparation one should say 'not quite heard!'
PD
[ 18. January 2011, 16:09: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We were 'Prayer Book Catholic' - i.e. we used 1662 with some 1928 additions but nothing Roman. Yet we started with 'the preparation' by priest(s) and server(s) and ended with the Last Gospel.
You say "nothing Roman," but then mention the "preparation" (i.e., the prayers at the foot of the altar) and the last gospel. Didn't these forms come from the Roman Missal? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Yes, that sounds very familiar. Over here in the US, even in parishes where the 1928 BCP was used without additions, the Prep and the Last Gospel were heard pretty reguarly according to me old timers. Perhaps in the case of the Preparation one should say 'not quite heard!'
Again, the "1928 BCP was used without additions," but neither the prayers at the foot of the altar nor the last gospel are in the 1928 BCP. They were therefore additions, were they not? And Roman ones, no less.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
In an unsuccessful attempt ar compromise 1928 produced a "devotion" to preceed the Holy Communion Service that consisted of the prayers at the foot of the altar, but omitting the mutual confessions because of the general confession in the liturgy proper.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
