1979 Book of Common Prayer

Esdra said:

Interesting.
And why should the (US) TEC Church see them like that?
It would make more sense that the Church of England would see them that way. As Africa was a British and not American colony.

Click to expand...

Not because the US ever owned any of their territory, but because TEC's relative wealth in the Anglican Communion has permitted it to create what in politics would be called client states. That is what accounts for TEC's standing in the AC, after all; it has fewer than 2 million members in the 75 million member Anglican Communion.

Given the financial aid TEC has sent to Africa over the years, TEC thinks it has the right not to be crossed by these Anglican provinces when TEC goes out on its own doctrinally. When that didn't happen, and the Africans opposed TEC for its defiance of the Anglican Communion in the matter of homosexual bishops and same-sex blessings, that was seen by TEC as coming from junior partners in the AC who should know their place and not be so impudent. That, at least, is the way some of the latter described the matter at about the time that they (some of them) broke intercommunion with TEC and told it to keep its money.

Oh I see.
Sorry, to say that, but I am glad that the RCC hasn't stepped (yet) into such liberalism.
IMO, you can see how this leads to division...

Esdra said:

What are the Reasserters? I read a bit about Anglicanism, also here at STR-AO, but haven't heard of that term so far.

Click to expand...

Reasseter is a bit perjorative, but it's the term some Episcopalians use for those who haven broken off or support the schism against the Episcopalian Church. Almost always Reasserters are single-issue: they are homophobic, the only thing that holds them together is finding one openly gay bishop unacceptable. Otherwise, they can't even agree on women's ordination or churchmanship.

The Anglican Communion is a mess, in some ways this extreme comprehensiveness and liberalism, toleration of all viewpoints, has to come to an end somewhere, the conservatives are right on that. I just happen to think they are wrong on most other issues. These root issues, the disagreement about churchmanship being at the core, should have been delt with long ago but to their discredit the powers that be have kept up the charades for too long. I hope other Christian communions will learn from this.

FireDragon76 said:

I know, MKJ, you objected to the American prayer book revisions in the 70's, but don't you think the Church has a right to determine its own liturgy?

I do agree that the 60's and 70's played a big role in the language and ethos of the prayer books (and perhaps it is outdated now, perhaps we deserve a more timeless liturgy, but I don't think the Episcopal church is in a situation anymore to rewrite a liturgy that would satisfy this need. I admit the liberal faction probably has no appreciation for such a thing). But it seems to me unavoidable, in the same way that the 1928 prayer book was influenced by Romanticism, and the 1979 liturgy seems "serviceable" and dignified in its own way.

And the 1928 prayer book, much like the 1662 prayer book, has all the hallmarks of Anglican fudge designed by committee in its theology (including the quasi-receptionism and virtualism). At least the 1979 prayer book is more consistent and explicit in its theology. In short, if you think the 1979 Prayer Book is bad because of faddishness, I'd say the same of the 1928 book, or the 1662 book. All of them were influenced heavily by the politics and ethos of their eras.

Click to expand...

I would not say the American BCP liturgies specifically - I would say all the liturgies based on the 20th century liturgical movement. The American one is probably not so bad as the Canadian one found in the BAS. The Catholic OF is just as bad too.

As for whether a church has the right to determine its own liturgy - well, yes, in a way I suppose. Though right is a funny word to use in that context and perhaps gives the wrong emphasis. I think one comment I would make on the question though is who is the Church. I do not think we can limit it to the people who happen to be alive in the here and now. Saying the Church determines the liturgy does not mean that a group of people in the present now have the responsibility to decide what they want in a liturgy.

One of the major differences between the more modern revisions and earlier ones is a real loss of a sense of Tradition in Anglicanism, and that is a big problem when it comes to liturgy - it makes it difficult to impossible to fit things together. THe introduction to the Canadian BAS talks about the philosophy of those who put the book together - they talk about Scripture as a repository of images from which we can pick and choose to find images that reflect ourselves and are relevant. (I suppose that is why they offer so many different options for congregations.) This is quite a reversal of understanding of what liturgy is supposed to do compared to the whole history of Christian liturgy.

I agree that Anglicans are in no state to produce a new liturgy or update anything. In truth we are not really one Church at all. I would tend to say the older books are rather less in need of revision than the newer ones at the moment.

MKJ said:

THe introduction to the Canadian BAS talks about the philosophy of those who put the book together - they talk about Scripture as a repository of images from which we can pick and choose to find images that reflect ourselves and are relevant. (I suppose that is why they offer so many different options for congregations.) This is quite a reversal of understanding of what liturgy is supposed to do compared to the whole history of Christian liturgy

Click to expand...

Tradition for its own sake is not the point- Arianism is a very old tradition too! The fact is that the 1928 prayer book had alot of mushy, messy theology left over from the Elizabethan political settlement. The 1979 prayer book and catechism at least tries to streamline this around a more solid "mere Christianity". Alot of the pre-1979 liturgy was an almost pedanticly Protestant tone in a way that it didn't have to be... "hey, we are not Catholic... this isn't really flesh and blood, just a memorial, or not... we'll leave you to decide!" It's 400 years later and the number of die-hard Protestant distinctives in Anglicanism is alot less, save for the fundamentalist witch-doctor faction, so an update of the liturgy was needed.

I agree that Anglicans are in no state to produce a new liturgy or update anything. In truth we are not really one Church at all. I would tend to say the older books are rather less in need of revision than the newer ones at the moment.

Click to expand...

We seem to be making a good argument why not to be Anglican, or any kind of Western christian that thinks liturgy is important- perhaps understanding liturgy has been completely beaten out of us.

I've thought about becoming Methodist (the church I was raised in) or Eastern Orthodox... in some ways two very different traditions but at least they don't have an impossible comprehension where a Calvinist, a Catholic, and an Agnostic try to live together under one roof, which is impossible. That's the real root of our troubles, beyond debates about modernism and homosexuality, Anglicanism tries to be all things to all people. But a doctrine that believes in everything teaches nothing. People need to stop focusing on the debates about sexuality, that's just the tip of the iceberg and there are much deeper divisions in Anglicanism under the surface of are some real issues that have never been adequately addressed, just swept under the rug so as to not "peer into men's souls" and other excuses to have a lazy spiritual and religious life. Perhaps the Episcopalians are as much at fault, I admit this.

FireDragon76 said:

Tradition for its own sake is not the point- Arianism is a very old tradition too! The fact is that the 1928 prayer book had alot of mushy, messy theology left over from the Elizabethan political settlement. The 1979 prayer book and catechism at least tries to streamline this around a more solid "mere Christianity". Alot of the pre-1979 liturgy was an almost pedanticly Protestant tone in a way that it didn't have to be... "hey, we are not Catholic... this isn't really flesh and blood, just a memorial, or not... we'll leave you to decide!" It's 400 years later and the number of die-hard Protestant distinctives in Anglicanism is alot less, save for the fundamentalist witch-doctor faction, so an update of the liturgy was needed.

We seem to be making a good argument why not to be Anglican, or any kind of Western christian that thinks liturgy is important- perhaps understanding liturgy has been completely beaten out of us.

I've thought about becoming Methodist (the church I was raised in) or Eastern Orthodox... in some ways two very different traditions but at least they don't have an impossible comprehension where a Calvinist, a Catholic, and an Agnostic try to live together under one roof, which is impossible. That's the real root of our troubles, beyond debates about modernism and homosexuality, Anglicanism tries to be all things to all people. But a doctrine that believes in everything teaches nothing. People need to stop focusing on the debates about sexuality, that's just the tip of the iceberg and there are much deeper divisions in Anglicanism under the surface of are some real issues that have never been adequately addressed, just swept under the rug so as to not "peer into men's souls" and other excuses to have a lazy spiritual and religious life. Perhaps the Episcopalians are as much at fault, I admit this.

Click to expand...

Arianism is a heresy, not Tradition.

Tradition in the Church is not for the sake of tradition - it is part of the teaching of the Church, the deposit of faith.

I dont know if I would say I was making an argument not to be a Western Christian, but certainly the mainstream of many of the main denominations seem to have really lost their way on the question. I suppose the question then is whether it will change or not. I tend to think that the more inadequate liturgies will, for a variety of reasons, whither and die. So I see it as a temporary state of affairs. What you see in popular Christianity seems to always be at least 50 years behind what is going on in the academic world, so there are still people in the pews repeating the explanation that the changes of the liturgical movement were really about moving back to the practices of the early church. I expect eventually that will run its course.

And who knows - maybe if things go really badly, the only really Anglican liturgies will be those found in Western rite Orthodoxy or something similar.

The debates about homosexuality are really about the deeper issues you mention. So yes, if we want to get to the heart of them, we really need to address them straight on. Cleaning house with heterodox bishops and seminaries might be a good first start - it is hard to get anywhere when some of the people speaking the loudest dont actually believe the basics.

FireDragon76 said:

Reasseter is a bit perjorative, but it's the term some Episcopalians use for those who haven broken off or support the schism against the Episcopalian Church. Almost always Reasserters are single-issue: they are homophobic, the only thing that holds them together is finding one openly gay bishop unacceptable. Otherwise, they can't even agree on women's ordination or churchmanship.

The Anglican Communion is a mess, in some ways this extreme comprehensiveness and liberalism, toleration of all viewpoints, has to come to an end somewhere, the conservatives are right on that. I just happen to think they are wrong on most other issues. These root issues, the disagreement about churchmanship being at the core, should have been delt with long ago but to their discredit the powers that be have kept up the charades for too long. I hope other Christian communions will learn from this.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Thank you for explaining.
I honestly hope that these splittings won't occure in the RCC.

Jesus never wanted division but he prays in John 17,

FireDragon76 said:

I know, MKJ, you objected to the American prayer book revisions in the 70's, but don't you think the Church has a right to determine its own liturgy?

I do agree that the 60's and 70's played a big role in the language and ethos of the prayer books (and perhaps it is outdated now, perhaps we deserve a more timeless liturgy, but I don't think the Episcopal church is in a situation anymore to rewrite a liturgy that would satisfy this need. I admit the liberal faction probably has no appreciation for such a thing). But it seems to me unavoidable, in the same way that the 1928 prayer book was influenced by Romanticism, and the 1979 liturgy seems "serviceable" and dignified in its own way.

And the 1928 prayer book, much like the 1662 prayer book, has all the hallmarks of Anglican fudge designed by committee in its theology (including the quasi-receptionism and virtualism). At least the 1979 prayer book is more consistent and explicit in its theology. In short, if you think the 1979 Prayer Book is bad because of faddishness, I'd say the same of the 1928 book, or the 1662 book. All of them were influenced heavily by the politics and ethos of their eras.

Click to expand...

Well said and I agree. All of the prayer books are a reflection of the culture and politics of their times to a large degree. Also, let's not forget that the 1928 BCP was met with a lot of controversy as well.

Also, I strongly agree that today's TEC is in no shape to write a new BCP. There are rumblings in TEC of a new BCP being needed, however, I am horrified at what TEC would come up with.

I'm thinking the prayers might look something like this:

"O divine female feminist God the Mother, whose non-divine transgender daughter, Jesus Christ, came into the world and died for the feminist revolution of the 1960s, be with us always and save us from white heterosexual males. Amen"

I make up this prayer only half kidding, maybe I should delete it before the Liturgical Committee or a bishop sees it?......

In conclusion, the '79 BCP is fine with me!!

Sean611 said:

Well said and I agree. All of the prayer books are a reflection of the culture and politics of their times to a large degree.

Click to expand...

Considering that the various versions prior to the 1979 book span the period from the 16th to the 20th centuries--from a few years after Columbus through the Enlightenment, the coming of the Industrial Revolution, and on to the era of global politics--but yet differ mainly in minor grammatical matters and the positioning of a few prayers used during the liturgy, that doesn't seem like a very convincing argument.

Also, I strongly agree that today's TEC is in no shape to write a new BCP. There are rumblings in TEC of a new BCP being needed, however, I am horrified at what TEC would come up with.

I'm thinking the prayers might look something like this:

"O divine female feminist God the Mother, whose non-divine transgender daughter, Jesus Christ, came into the world and died for the feminist revolution of the 1960s, be with us always and save us from white heterosexual males. Amen"

I make up this prayer only half kidding

Click to expand...

No need to apologize. In New Zealand, it's already in use.

Albion said:

Considering that the various versions prior to the 1979 book span the period from the 16th to the 20th centuries--from a few years after Columbus through the Enlightenment, the coming of the Industrial Revolution, and on to the era of global politics--but yet differ mainly in minor grammatical matters and the positioning of a few prayers used during the liturgy, that doesn't seem like a very convincing argument.

Click to expand...

Yes, this.

I find it hard to figure out how people see the scope of the differences, or the method applied, as comparable.

Sean611 said:

"O divine female feminist God the Mother, whose non-divine transgender daughter, Jesus Christ, came into the world and died for the feminist revolution of the 1960s, be with us always and save us from white heterosexual males. Amen"

Click to expand...

I'd take the 1928 prayer book, mushy theology and all, over that.

That's my fear, that any prayer book revision would result in a liturgy not recognizable as Christian. And I think it's only a matter of time till it happens.

MKJ said:

What you see in popular Christianity seems to always be at least 50 years behind what is going on in the academic world, so there are still people in the pews repeating the explanation that the changes of the liturgical movement were really about moving back to the practices of the early church. I expect eventually that will run its course.

Click to expand...

Assuming, arguendo, that this somewhat twisted characterization of the liturgical movement be true, what in the Prayer Book (1979) do you find doctrinally incompatible with Christianity and Christian liturgy as reflected in the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the early church orders such as Serapion's, Ambrose's De Sacrementis, Cyril of Jerusalem's homilies, the early sacramentaries, the early antiphoners and graduals, the Leofric Missal of the 11th century, and the Sarum Missal of the 14th?

Narrowing the historical focus somewhat: the early sources for Gregorian chant indicate that the mass propers early stabilized to (1) introit, (2) gradual (3) alleluia (sequences were added a little later) (4) offertory and (5) communion. Other sources indicate that these chants corresponded to (1) entrance of clergy (2) (3) readings, with Gospel last (4) offertory and (5) communion. The 1979 book's Sunday rite follows this same outline. In its "ordinary" in includes even late elements such as the Nicene Creed on all Sundays--which the 1928 book did not require. So I find the 1979 eucharistic rite to be reasonably consistent with both the early evidence, the medieval English rites, the first English Prayer Book of 1549 and the ill-fated Scottish Prayer book of 1637. If it is less consistent with 1552-1559-1604-1662, that is because that line of books departed more from earlier tradition than 1549-1637-1979. The biggest variable, perhaps, is the position of the bidding of the bedes, which has varied among the historic rites--and even within the Sarum rite. There position in 1979 is as good as any, and better than some.

The office rite in the 1979 book follows the classical Anglican framework of psalmody-readings and canticles-prayers, set by Cranmer in 1549, which has been followed in all previous prayer books. Again, consistency.

Mockingbird0 said:

Assuming, arguendo, that this somewhat twisted characterization of the liturgical movement be true

Click to expand...

It is true and not at all twisted. Feel free to rebut it from your own recollection of the debates of the 1960s and 70s, however.

The office rite in the 1979 book follows the classical Anglican framework of psalmody-readings and canticles-prayers, set by Cranmer in 1549, which has been followed in all previous prayer books. Again, consistency.

Click to expand...

"Framework?" Goodness. You'd expect there to be SOME similarities, wouldn't you? This doesn't in any way refute the statement that the changes were substantial.

Albion said:

It is true and not at all twisted. Feel free to rebut it from your own recollection of the debates of the 1960s and 70s, however.




"Framework?" Goodness. You'd expect there to be SOME similarities, wouldn't you? This doesn't in any way refute the statement that the changes were substantial.

Click to expand...

What Albion said.

Esdra said:

Oh, I see. Thank you for explaining.
I honestly hope that these splittings won't occure in the RCC.

Jesus never wanted division but he prays in John 17,

'And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. ' (John 17:11, RSV)
​

Click to expand...

On the other hand, he saw divisions even in his own time.

“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

I just can't imagine the Jesus of the Gospels being concerned about the 1928 vs. 1979 BCP. I picture him saying "That's nice, now what have you done for the least of my children lately?"

kern said:

On the other hand, he saw divisions even in his own time.

“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

I just can't imagine the Jesus of the Gospels being concerned about the 1928 vs. 1979 BCP. I picture him saying "That's nice, now what have you done for the least of my children lately?"

Click to expand...

Sympathic/nice post. It made me .


And I think pope Francis is a good role model here.

MKJ said:

What Albion said.

Click to expand...

Except that Albion said nothing.

It was you who asserted

there are still people in the pews repeating the explanation that the changes of the liturgical movement were really about moving back to the practices of the early church.

Click to expand...

You imply that these hypothetical "people in the pews" are wrong in some way. How are they wrong? Do you mean that those who made up the liturgical movement were deceivers who lied about their true intentions? Do you mean that they tried to "move back" to earlier practices, but failed? You are the one who made the statement, so you should be the one to back it up.

Mockingbird0 said:

Except that Albion said nothing.

Click to expand...

Hopefully, you are making the point that we WRITE things here rather than SPEAKING. If not, here's what you missed.

Albion said:

"Framework?" Goodness. You'd expect there to be SOME similarities, wouldn't you? This doesn't in any way refute the statement that the changes were substantial.

Click to expand...

Mockingbird0 said:

You imply that these hypothetical "people in the pews" are wrong in some way. How are they wrong? Do you mean that those who made up the liturgical movement were deceivers who lied about their true intentions? Do you mean that they tried to "move back" to earlier practices, but failed? You are the one who made this statement, so you should be the one to back it up.

Click to expand...

The liturgical movement of the late 20th century was mistaken about the worship practices of the early church. Clear enough? The changes made to the historic Book of Common Prayer from 1549 to 1928 were very modest and did NOT provide a precedent for the wholesale changes adopted in 1979. OK now?

Mockingbird0 said:

Except that Albion said nothing.

It was you who asserted

You imply that these hypothetical "people in the pews" are wrong in some way. How are they wrong? Do you mean that those who made up the liturgical movement were deceivers who lied about their true intentions? Do you mean that they tried to "move back" to earlier practices, but failed? You are the one who made the statement, so you should be the one to back it up.

Click to expand...

I thought I had already covered this, but maybe that was another discussion.

What I meant was that many of the conclusions drawn by the liturgical movement, the ones incorporated into the liturgies of the 70s and early 80s, have been shown to be incorrect. They are no longer current in the academic world.

If you are asking why the errors were made, it was probably largely to do with the newness of the type of research they were doing. As often happens, they were too broad in their claims and came to conclusions that were too sweeping and based on too little evidence, or the misunderstood the evidence - and for a variety of reasons the normal scholarly questioning that tends to follow such new areas of research was muted, and as well changes began to be adopted so quickly that they did not have time for the questions to be fully developed.

People were also tending to be more interested in liturgical forms in that period, rather than coherent theology, which was really a result of the direction of 20th century philosophy overall. But that did not really serve the attempts at a historically rather radical change very well.

As for why people did this - well, scholars are always inclined to want to say as much as possible. There is no doubt that the research was adopted in some cases by people and groups with a clear political or theological agenda. Many others were excited by the idea that we could dispel doubts about what it meant to be a Christian by looking at the early worship of the Church, or others were excited at what was seen as a real possibility for creating Christian unity - people thought that the adoption of similar liturgies might result in the reunion of many Christian bodies sooner rather than later.

I do not think there is any doubt that much of what was adopted liturgically was actually adopted to satisfy modern feelings rather than to really return to the worship of the early church. The changes made all seem to be the ones that correspond to 20th century sensibilities (even 1960s sensibilities), as opposed to the things that could have been adopted that do not. I dont know that this was an attempt to be insincere rather than just a sort of blind spot - probably the answer is different for different people.

Very interesting discussion!


I've heard many say that the changes made in the 1979 BCP was the Episcopal Church's Vatican II, so to speak. The idea at the time was that the liturgies needed to be updated to reflect modern language. Like Vatican II for Catholics, the idea was that the church needed to be updated and the liturgies needed to be updated to reflect modern society. Many in TEC, at the time, thought that we needed to move in a Vatican II direction and adopt liturgies that were similar to what the RCC was doing. Through doing this, I imagine that they thought TEC and the RCC would be closer to achieving some sort of unity. This was very important to many TECers at the time and still is important in some TEC circles. This was certainly not the only motivation regarding the changes made in the '79 BCP, but I would say that it is a big one.


I think that many have glossed over just how much controversy the '28 BCP seemed to cause at the time, especially for those who leaned in a Reformed direction. Many Reformed Anglicans saw the '28 BCP as a step in an Anglo-Catholic direction and felt that the doctrine of sin had been diluted. Many Anglicans, at the time, saw the '28 BCP as the first major revision of the Prayer Book.


Was the '28 BCP as radical of a change as the '79 BCP? No, but I think it was more of a revision than just some subtle changes.


Here is an awesome website that notes the changes made in the '28 BCP:

What’s Wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer? | The Heritage Anglican Network


And yet another article detailing the changes made in the '28 BCP and the Anglo-Catholic/Broad Church direction it took:

Anglicans Ablaze: Liturgy, Doctrine, and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer