tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post7416226759028513822..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Just what is the Book of Common Prayer?Fr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79036374584055859852011-05-07T01:00:10.144-04:002011-05-07T01:00:10.144-04:00Having come in recently to liturgical worship vis ...Having come in recently to liturgical worship vis a vis the BCP [I use the 1662] this conversation has been most interesting. I have looked into a number of Prayer books, diurnals, breviaries,rites - including the 1549 and honestly have found nothing quite like the 1662. From the invitatory to the benediction one feels that one is in encounter with God. Such a glorious work what a "great benefit"the Lord has bestowed on His Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79131095904305692022009-07-07T14:27:08.484-04:002009-07-07T14:27:08.484-04:00"I personally have not been agreeable to usin..."I personally have not been agreeable to using the term Mass, as it implies a Roman Liturgy."<br /><br />Division in Christ's Church, good idea!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56287116480056334992008-08-10T22:16:00.000-04:002008-08-10T22:16:00.000-04:00I am very embarrassed that it has taken me so long...I am very embarrassed that it has taken me so long to find this particular post on The Continuum. Not only is it excellent, but the comments are equally so. I simply wish that I had been able to borrow it for my own blog, Prayer Book Anglican. Instead I will simply have to direct readers here where they will find Anglican riches heaped upon Anglican riches.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61289018020129787352007-09-21T00:03:00.000-04:002007-09-21T00:03:00.000-04:00Mr. Pacht wrote, "Wish I could document it, but I ...Mr. Pacht wrote, "Wish I could document it, but I have noted an interesting turn of phrase in some old Anglican sources in which 'Common Prayer' was applied to the Daily Office...."<BR/><BR/>I've mislaid my copy of Procter & Frere but I think it is there ("A New History of the Book of Common Prayer", in various editions over the first half of th 20th Century) that you will find the suggestion that "the Prayer that is common to the whole Church" is the Daily Offices, the Litany, and the Occasional Prayers.<BR/><BR/>Allied to this is the concept that the set of covers we are accustomed to think of as "the Book of Common Prayer" actually binds together several books that were historically distinct: a Breviary (the "Common Prayer"); a Missal; a Psalter; a Manual (for the various other services that a Priest normally takes, such as Baptism, Matrimony, Burial, etc.); a Pontificial (for the various services that only a Bishop takes, such as the Ordinal, Confirmation, Institution of a Rector, Consecration of a Church, etc.); and the remnants of a Primer (the "Family Prayer" section in the 1928 BCP).<BR/><BR/>Thus most of the rites and ceremonies required in the normal life of the Church are placed in one handy compendium where not only can the clergy find them at need but the laity can be directed to them for teaching and devotionalk purposes. Thus the concept of what is "common" to the Church, in the sense of what all the members of the Church USE or celebrate in common, gets subtly -- and, I think, wisely -- expanded to include the sense that all the members of the Church have a proprietary interest in, and are to BENEFIT from, the offices and litrugies so made readily available.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57848402338644455362007-09-19T23:06:00.000-04:002007-09-19T23:06:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart wrote: "Our Book of Common Prayer traditi...Fr. Hart wrote: "Our Book of Common Prayer tradition is worth preserving and passing on because it was formed by men who believed in the serious business of saving souls."<BR/><BR/>It does the heart good to read these words. Though I'm no longer in the Anglican Church, I fully agree. Hold on to the good thing that God granted to you through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48958503567288395192007-09-19T12:03:00.000-04:002007-09-19T12:03:00.000-04:00I agree with Fr Hart's article enthusiastically. ...I agree with Fr Hart's article enthusiastically. The "Anglican Service Book" was/is a dubious enterprise, undertaken by those who have an aesthetic preference for "olde Englishe" but who fail to grasp the doctrinal errors of the 79 compilation. It mortifies me to see CC websites, indicating that this thing is making inroads in a few places. Error is error, whether it is in modern journalistic language or ersatz Cranmer.<BR/><BR/>I also deplore the trend toward what is called rewriting the 1662 or 1928 Prayer Books into "contemporary" language. It is simply disgraceful that the Prayer Book Society has been turned into a platform for this ill-conceived notion. The founders of the PBS must be whirling in their graves over this development. Those tempted by such a concept should read again C. S. Lewis essay "Miserable Offenders," a defense of BCP language, as well as Fr Ralston's essay "The Weaker Tapestry." The notion of "contemporary language" was the original invisible virus which was floating around in the 1950's, and little-by-little mushroomed into the abomination of 1979.<BR/><BR/>I feel that it is time to found a Society for the Preservation of the Prayer Book Society, to honor the intentions of the original founders.Laurence K. Wells+https://www.blogger.com/profile/10688545563493033720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10429464517650546052007-09-19T11:30:00.000-04:002007-09-19T11:30:00.000-04:00Bill, when calling for special services in the C o...Bill, when calling for special services in the C of E the word "mass" was the one she was known to use. She could not avoid the C of E, as the Queen is expected to be its governor and to be present for services. But, I mentioned that she liked to use the word "mass" because her well known Low Church beliefs give it that seemingly ironic touch; rather an instructive touch. It has never been, as I said, a sign of churchmanship among Anglicans. <BR/><BR/>Fr. Hollister wrote:<BR/><I>As you say, neither the 1979 "Book" or any of its progeny is a legitimate "Book of Common Prayer" as that term was always understood prior to the 1970s.</I><BR/><BR/>That includes, as far as I am concerned, the embarrassing effort to translate its Rite II into <I>olde</I> English. I just don't get the Anglican Service Book idea at all.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59403819746859866792007-09-19T11:27:00.000-04:002007-09-19T11:27:00.000-04:00Wish I could document it, but I have noted an inte...Wish I could document it, but I have noted an interesting turn of phrase in some old Anglican sources in which 'Common Prayer' was applied to the Daily Office, which was thus seen as the major purpose of the book. I recall one piece by one of the old High Churchmen (and memory doesn't permit me to be more specific) to the effect that<BR/><BR/>"The Communion ought to be offered every Lord's Day, immediately after the Common Prayer."<BR/><BR/>At least some seemed to have regarded the BCP as primarily a Breviary, in which the sacramental offices were also printed.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-74935266290556257482007-09-19T09:37:00.000-04:002007-09-19T09:37:00.000-04:00"Oueen Victoria favored it." I find this very har..."Oueen Victoria favored it." I find this very hard to believe this of the Old queen, who much preferred communicating in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (at Craithie Church, near Balmoral) than in the Church of England.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26808015945598898392007-09-19T03:29:00.000-04:002007-09-19T03:29:00.000-04:00I don't like how the Episcopal Church has changed ...I don't like how the Episcopal Church has changed the title of the rite to "Holy Eucharist" from "Holy Communion". The term Communion implies the communal activity of recieving the Eucharist. The Eucharist is note a rite in of itself either, but is part of the Communion service. I personally have not been agreeable to using the term Mass, as it implies a Roman Liturgy.<BR/><BR/>I think the Anglican Tradition calls their Eucharistic Celebration the Holy Communion Service, the Romans The Mass, and the Orthodox; the Divine Liturgy. They are all the same celebration though they may vary in wordin and length.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03670360109098788884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41095223687541138772007-09-19T00:17:00.000-04:002007-09-19T00:17:00.000-04:00Bravo, Fr. Hart!As you say, neither the 1979 "Book...Bravo, Fr. Hart!<BR/><BR/>As you say, neither the 1979 "Book" or any of its progeny is a legitimate "Book of Common Prayer" as that term was always understood prior to the 1970s. Furthermore, after ECUSA had been fraudulently induced to adopt it, even its own redactors and promoters admitted that it was most definitely intended to create a seismic shift in the theologies of any church that used it.<BR/><BR/>For these reasons, it should simply be set aside. If anyone truly needs a "modern language" BCP -- and that need, I think, has never been convincingly demonstrated -- then he should go back to square one and start with the 1928 BCP (or, in other Anglican Provinces, with their equivalents), not try to chop and change an edition that is known to have been produced with heretical intentions.<BR/><BR/>And by all means, let us cling to the fine old tradition of Sanctified Time, by the use of the Daily Offices. Those who cannot say the full Offices can, with profit, use the shortened forms found in the 1928 BCP's "Family Prayer" section -- an idea that was adopted elsewhere in some of the revisions of the 1950s and 1960s.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.com