|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will there ever be a new prayer book for The (US) Episcopal Church?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Ænglican
Shipmate
# 12496
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
The subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. --W. H. Frere
Posts: 177 | From: Baltimore-ish | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
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...!
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I wonder how long it will take before Howard Galley is banished to the same corner.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Ænglican
Shipmate
# 12496
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
The subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. --W. H. Frere
Posts: 177 | From: Baltimore-ish | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LostinChelsea
Shipmate
# 5305
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Best when taken in moderation.
Posts: 237 | From: Deep South USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
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....
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
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)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
