I dislike it intensely, and in fact (since it is optional in our rite) refuse to use it. After confession and absolution, to go back to "we are not worthy..." is to deny the effectiveness of God's action in our lives. It is Christ's worth given to and made real in us which enlivens, and we should not deny or avoid it!
Actually that’s a really valid criticism of the Cranmerian text. Is Archbishop Cranmer in fact overrated compared to some ancient liturgists, such as, we assume, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and whoever wrote the Roman Canon and the liturgies attributed to St. Mark, St. James and the Twelve Apostles, or in more recent centuries, someone like Rev. John Hunter of the King’s Weigh House? We do know the pattern for the most exquisite Morning and Evening Prayer was in fact based on the rejected reform of the Roman Breviary by Cardinal Quinones? I myself have always been spellbound by Cranmer as a liturgist even as I disagree with other aspects of his work, and agree with the consensus that the BCP is on a par with the Authorized Version, but you do raise a valid point concerning anaphoral structure, that being, at what point does it cease to become appropriate, if it doess, to include a confiteor or language suggesting a fear of unworthy reception?
If we look at the ancient Roman missal, we do find the Priest saying things questioning his worthiness to partake right up until the moment he does “I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof.” In the Coptic Rite on the other hand, the last thing the Priest prays is a more confession of faith, but with a certain fear and contrition.
Now it seems to me it would be cheap to suggest that the Prayer of Humble Access or equivalents such as what one finds in the Roman Canon are necessary because of the fact that people in the Congregation have perhaps inadvertently sinned in between the Confiteor and communion. But perhaps there is another alternative liturgical function relating? Or it could be that because the state of sin is constant, ancient liturgists followed a pattern wherein some contrition is maintained as the Eucharist approaches. Or lastly, all such prayers could be late additions, which Fr. Robert Taft refers to as “accretions,” a word I personally dislike in liturgical settings because it assumes that whatever presumed pastoral necessity prompted additions to ancient liturgical texts is no longer there.
Returning again to Archbishop Cranmer, there are always some texts of his that despite the overall captivating quality of the old BCP, I am personally uneasy with. Most specifically the Commination. This goes substantially past the anathemas the Eastern Orthodox intone on the eve of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and basically seems to have a condemnatory effect on everyone. I’ve always been baffled by that service.
Yes, but my point is not that they won't bless an existing marriage, but that they consider existing marriages outside their church to be less-than. That's a position I find detestable; my marriage, or yours, or that of any other couple, is not any less a marriage for not having been conducted as an Orthodox sacrament.
I don’t know that’s the case at all (that they hold that position) because whether or not a prior marriage was blessed or not, it seems to be assumed valid in Orthodox pastoral praxis. To the extent that if that prior marriage was with a non-Orthodox, and one then divorced and married an Orthodox, to my knowledge the rule is the more penitential liturgy would be applied. Unless the priest really didn’t care, and some don’t. And I recall the case of several couples who did convert via chrismation whose existing marriages were simply accepted. But this does run into the paradox I mentioned in my initial post concerning their idea on who performs the marriage: if indeed the priest does perform the marriage on the couple, one would have to assume the Orthodox Church, which developed this doctrine probably well before Chalcedon, since we see the same liturgy with minor variations in the Oriental churches, simply disagreed with Rome on who actually performed the marriage.
I would also note that when the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who I greatly admire (despite the various criticisms I could make about the 1984 Welsh BCP), did wed the current heir apparent to the Crown in 2011, and in general in Western liturgies, even the most humble Baptist services in the Southern US where you have a “Reverend” or “Preacher,” it does appear that in most cases even where the text, as in the unforgettable “Dearly beloved breathren” does explicitly say “witness,” is sacramentally participating in the matrimonial liturgy in an indispensable manner, and that when judges or ship captains perform marriages, even then it has the appearance of the Orthodox sacrament.
Side note, but since you mention the All Night Vigil, have you ever heard Rachmaninoff's setting of it? Absolutely wonderful.
It is splendid, and fascinated me for months when I first heard it although where Rachmaninoff really gets me is in the Cherubic Hymn and the pre-communion hymn from his setting of the Divine Liturgy, to the extent that music seems to echo in my ears every time some blessing arrives in my life. The Anglo-Catholic C of E parish in London, All Saints Margaret Street, which is known for being musically well-equipped, did attempt with partial success to adapt Rachmaninoff to the Anglican Evensong and Communion Service, but its not quite the same because Rachmaninoff relied on the rhythmic qualities of Church Slavonic and when you translate it and swap out the text for a shorter one there will be something lost.
Now for those who like me, greatly admire Rachmaninoff, I have found Dmitri Bortniansky and Pavel Chesnokov to be worth seeking out in terms of their liturgical settings. There is also a contemporary Ukrainian Catholic composer, Roman Hurko, whose works I like. He also composed a moving Requiem for victims of the Chernobyl accident. Actually most distinctly Slavonic church music I like, even the simple chant systems like Znamenny and so-called “Greek Chant”, which is nothing like the Byzantine Chant associated with the Greek Orthodox Church, but which the Russians and Bulgarians do also use.
There is also a related musical region which one might find difficult to listen to at first, that being the triphonal music of the Church of Georgia, which has three cantors rather than the ancient antiphonal system of early church music, which one sees reflected in Byzantine or Syriac or Coptic chant. Although difficult to approach, I now absolutely love Georgian church music; unfortunately they have only three parishes in the US which due to the pandemic are inaccessible or inoperative.
Lastly, a fun fact: according to St. Anthony’s Monastery (the one in Florence, Arizona, not Egypt or California), some Byzantine chant if transposed to Western notation from Byzantine notation can experience up to a 66% loss of fidelity. It’s highly technical, Byzantine even, but I think it is safe to say Byzantine Chant should be written in Byzantine notation:
Byzantine vs. Western Notation
