Differences between 1979 BCP rite 1 and 1928 BCP?

[G19shooter]

I much prefer the language of rite 1 in the 1979 BCP. I was just wondering if there is a major difference in language between the 1979 BCP rite 1 and the 1928 BCP? Any other differences in structure etc. that I should know about? I have a 1979 BCP that I use for daily office prayer, but am thinking of picking up a 1928 BCP for daily office prayers.

 

[Albion]

I much prefer the language of rite 1 in the 1979 BCP. I was just wondering if there is a major difference in language between the 1979 BCP rite 1 and the 1928 BCP? Any other differences in structure etc. that I should know about? I have a 1979 BCP that I use for daily office prayer, but am thinking of picking up a 1928 BCP for daily office prayers.

Roughly speaking, the answer would probably have to be "no." While the adoption of the 1979 book was controversial because of the new language used in many sections, for departing from the idea of Common Prayer, and for downplaying the idea of sin in favor of an emphasis upon God's loving kindness...the setting for Holy Communion that is called Rite I was not, in fact, so controversial.

Interesting to me, all of this is known to most Continuing Anglicans but not to most Episcopalians, who seem to assume that the reason the 1979 book was opposed by traditionalists was because of the modern language used for Rite II, period.

 

[G19shooter]

the adoption of the 1979 book was controversial...for departing from the idea of Common Prayer, and for downplaying the idea of sin.

By departing from common prayer and downplaying the idea of sin, are you saying section of the 1928 BCP in morning or evening prayer are completely missing in rite 1 of '79 BCP for morning or evening prayer? Can you give any examples?

Thank you very much for the reply!

 

[Albion]

By departing from common prayer and downplaying the idea of sin, are you saying section of the 1928 BCP in morning or evening prayer are completely missing in rite 1 of '79 BCP for morning or evening prayer? Can you give any examples?

Thank you very much for the reply!

No, I didn't mean that. I meant to say that by offering alternative settings for many parts of the book--not just for the liturgy, but that also--it defeats the idea of there being "Common" prayer, whatever that prayer might be. It was once said of Anglicanism that one of its strengths was that any member would be right at home no matter what parish he was visiting, and irrespective of whether he was an Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical or something in between. That's seriously damaged now, although not just by the 1979 book. The alternate services books had their start elsewhere, and even the Anglican Church in North America is about to produce its own BCP, I'm sorry to say.

I can probably give examples of the change in wording, by comparing the two books again as I did years ago when this was a hotter topic. But you'll have to be patient if you want me to do some of that. It is definitely there, though, and throughout the book, just as the critics said.

The question is whether or not the individual worshipper finds the change important or distressing. I'm sure that there are plenty who think it's terrific to not be confessing that we "bewail our manifold sins and wickedness" any longer.

 

[G19shooter]

No, I didn't mean that. I meant to say that by offering alternative settings for many parts of the book--not just for the liturgy, but that also--it defeats the idea of there being "Common" prayer, whatever that prayer might be. It was once said of Anglicanism that one of its strengths was that any member would be right at home no matter what parish he was visiting, and irrespective of whether he was an Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical or something in between. That's seriously damaged now, although not just by the 1979 book. The alternate services books had their start elsewhere, and even the Anglican Church in North America is about to produce its own BCP, I'm sorry to say.

I can probably give examples of the change in wording, by comparing the two books again as I did years ago when this was a hotter topic. But you'll have to be patient if you want me to do some of that. It is definitely there, though, and throughout the book, just as the critics said.

The question is whether or not the individual worshipper finds the change important or distressing. I'm sure that there are plenty who think it's terrific to not be confessing that we "bewail our manifold sins and wickedness" any longer.

Ah, I see now. Thank you very much for the clarification!

 

[Destiny2015]

Interesting to me, all of this is known to most Continuing Anglicans but not to most Episcopalians, who seem to assume that the reason the 1979 book was opposed by traditionalists was because of the modern language used for Rite II, period.

Maybe I'm too young, but the Rite I language drives me crazy. I just don't think I could handle that on a weekly or daily basis (and I assume the 1928 BCP language is the same). That's discouraging, since we'd like to look into Continuing Anglican churches if we ever move to an area that has one.

 

[Albion]

Maybe I'm too young, but the Rite I language drives me crazy. I just don't think I could handle that on a weekly or daily basis (and I assume the 1928 BCP language is the same). That's discouraging, since we'd like to look into Continuing Anglican churches if we ever move to an area that has one.

I'm afraid you're not alone as one too young to remember when this (1549-1928 BCP) was called "the second most beautiful book in the English language." But it was called that for a reason, and the reason was not only that it is historic but also elegant. The language of prayer, we used to say, should be above ordinary conversation.

Anyway, if you'd used it regularly over some period of time, it would be quite comfortable for you, I am positive. Most of the members of the church I attend don't even bother opening the book because they know the wording of the liturgy by heart.

 

[Shane R]

For comparative purposes, this website has most historic editions of the BCP available as PDF files:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/short_history_BCP.htm

 

[Destiny2015]

I'm afraid you're not alone as one too young to remember when this (1549-1928 BCP) was called "the second most beautiful book in the English language." But it was called that for a reason, and the reason was not only that it is historic but also elegant. The language of prayer, we used to say, should be above ordinary conversation.

Anyway, if you'd used it regularly over some period of time, it would be quite comfortable for you, I am positive. Most of the members of the church I attend don't even bother opening the book because they know the wording of the liturgy by heart.

I think I'm mostly more comfortable with the 1979 Rite II because it's the same as the liturgical UMC I grew up in. It's comforting to me. I'm up for a change, though.

 

[Albion]

I think I'm mostly more comfortable with the 1979 Rite II because it's the same as the liturgical UMC I grew up in. It's comforting to me. I'm up for a change, though.

Very understandable. And different people will have different thoughts about either book. My own feeling about that is that the historic version is truly a remarkable book in many ways, so I hate to see it replaced, no matter which jurisdiction may be making the move. People often say that the language is archaic, but really, it doesn't take much to understand what the meaning is.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

With respect to BCP 1962 v BAS 1980 in Canada, I've always found there to be inherent virtue in the need to decipher archaic language because it forces you to contemplate the exact meaning of a phrase/prayer. It's much harder (personally speaking) to allow the liturgy to become rote because I'm always thinking of what the particular archaic words mean.

 

[Albion]

With respect to BCP 1962 v BAS 1980 in Canada, I've always found there to be inherent virtue in the need to decipher archaic language because it forces you to contemplate the exact meaning of a phrase/prayer. It's much harder (personally speaking) to allow the liturgy to become rote because I'm always thinking of what the particular archaic words mean.

I guess we're all different then, for when I learn the meaning of the several words in the historic BCP that are often cited as being archaic or obscure, that understanding always sticks with me and brings home the meaning with even greater clarity, each time I recite it.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Maybe I was clear, but that's what I meant, Albion. Having taken the step of finding out the precise meaning of a term, every time I see it as I'm participating in the liturgy I'm reminded of that precise meaning, which doesn't happen when I'm using a modern English liturgy where you don't tend to think with as much precision about the words being said.

 

[Albion]

Maybe I was clear, but that's what I meant, Albion. Having taken the step of finding out the precise meaning of a term, every time I see it as I'm participating in the liturgy I'm reminded of that precise meaning, which doesn't happen when I'm using a modern English liturgy where you don't tend to think with as much precision about the words being said.

Apologies. I don't know how I reversed that. Probably a too-quick reading of the last sentence. Anyway, we can now say that there are "a lot" of Anglicans who aren't put off by the more historic language.

 

[Mockingbird0]

I much prefer the language of rite 1 in the 1979 BCP. I was just wondering if there is a major difference in language between the 1979 BCP rite 1 and the 1928 BCP? Any other differences in structure etc. that I should know about? I have a 1979 BCP that I use for daily office prayer, but am thinking of picking up a 1928 BCP for daily office prayers.

Here is my list of the flaws in the 1928 book's office, compared to the 1979 book:

Compared to the 1979 BCP, the 1928 BCP Morning Prayer had:

a. Reduced suffrages. (Presumably this was because, on Sunday, the Litany was expected to follow. But it almost never did.)
b. No provision for use of antiphons with psalms. (Antiphons were only allowed with the Venite.)
c. The congregation was required to kneel at the prayers. The old traditional posture for prayer, standing, was utterly forbidden.
d. No provision for a hymn or anthem, as in Evening Prayer, after the collects. (Though this was mitigated by the general rubric allowing hymns at the beginning and end of any service and before and after the sermon. On the other hand, the rubrics didn't actually provide for a sermon at Morning Prayer, though this was universally ignored.)

Compared to the 1979 BCP, the 1928 BCP Morning Prayer had:

(a) No Phos hilaron or other opening hymn as part of the rite (though the general rubric on hymns would have permitted it as the very first thing, before the Sentence of Scripture.)
(b) No "Deus in adjutorium meum intende." Opening preces was as at Morning Prayer.

Advantages of the 1928 BCP office over the 1979 BCP office:

The 1928 had the traditional American Venite, with its verses from Psalm 96. This should have been retained in the new book.

Compared to the 1979 BCP, the 1928 BCP Calendar had:
a. No black-letter days. (But the canons must have been revised at some point, for The Lesser Feasts and Fasts was available since I can remember.)
b. Marginal Easter Season. Fridays during the Fifty Days were considered fasting-days as if they were any other Fridays. An antiphon was provided for the Venite for use from Easter to Ascension Day, and, though the rubrics don't explicitly so state, the Sentence of Scripture marked "Easter" was presumably allowed during the same period. At Communion, a proper preface was provided for "Easter Day, and seven days after." The Pascha Nostrum (which was printed with the Collects, Epistles and Gospels, not within the Morning Prayer rite) was permitted "throughout the Octave" but not otherwise.

Advantages of the 1928 BCP Calendar over the 1979 BCP Calendar:

The discussion of the Easter cycle was in some respects more informative. Also, the discussion of the Easter cycle in the 1979 BCP contains a mistake which the 1928 BCP did not have.

 

[Albion]

You know, critics of the 1979 book are frank to admit that it made SOME improvements. In the Rubrics, for example. It's just that so many of the other changes were wrong on so many levels, that when it comes to a "this book or that one??" decision, the answer has to be for the 1549-1928 BCP.

Here is my list of the flaws in the 1928 book's office, compared to the 1979 book:

Compared to the 1979 BCP, the 1928 BCP Morning Prayer had:

a. Reduced suffrages. (Presumably this was because, on Sunday, the Litany was expected to follow. But it almost never did.)
b. No provision for use of antiphons with psalms. (Antiphons were only allowed with the Venite.)
c. The congregation was required to kneel at the prayers. The old traditional posture for prayer, standing, was utterly forbidden.
d. No provision for a hymn or anthem, as in Evening Prayer, after the collects. (Though this was mitigated by the general rubric allowing hymns at the beginning and end of any service and before and after the sermon. On the other hand, the rubrics didn't actually provide for a sermon at Morning Prayer, though this was universally ignored.)

Compared to the 1979 BCP, the 1928 BCP Morning Prayer had:

(a) No Phos hilaron or other opening hymn as part of the rite (though the general rubric on hymns would have permitted it as the very first thing, before the Sentence of Scripture.)
(b) No "Deus in adjutorium meum intende." Opening preces was as at Morning Prayer.

Advantages of the 1928 BCP office over the 1979 BCP office:

The 1928 had the traditional American Venite, with its verses from Psalm 96. This should have been retained in the new book.

Compared to the 1979 BCP, the 1928 BCP Calendar had:
a. No black-letter days. (But the canons must have been revised at some point, for The Lesser Feasts and Fasts was available since I can remember.)
b. Marginal Easter Season. Fridays during the Fifty Days were considered fasting-days as if they were any other Fridays. An antiphon was provided for the Venite for use from Easter to Ascension Day, and, though the rubrics don't explicitly so state, the Sentence of Scripture marked "Easter" was presumably allowed during the same period. At Communion, a proper preface was provided for "Easter Day, and seven days after." The Pascha Nostrum (which was printed with the Collects, Epistles and Gospels, not within the Morning Prayer rite) was permitted "throughout the Octave" but not otherwise.

Advantages of the 1928 BCP Calendar over the 1979 BCP Calendar:

The discussion of the Easter cycle was in some respects more informative. Also, the discussion of the Easter cycle in the 1979 BCP contains a mistake which the 1928 BCP did not have.

 

[Destiny2015]

With respect to BCP 1962 v BAS 1980 in Canada, I've always found there to be inherent virtue in the need to decipher archaic language because it forces you to contemplate the exact meaning of a phrase/prayer. It's much harder (personally speaking) to allow the liturgy to become rote because I'm always thinking of what the particular archaic words mean.

I find myself stumbling over it more and spend mental energy trying to catch up. I don't read aloud very well though, which might be part of the problem.

 

[Korah]

Perhaps no one under 60 is reading this thread, but for their sake let me provide the context that ordinary Episcopalians who attended church in olden days (like 1960's, early 1970's) rarely took Communion because that was not integral to the Morning Prayer service. At the church in my town in California that I explored before getting baptized RC across the street, that was 10:30. Holy Communion was at 8:00 with less than half a dozen attending.
Parenthetically I loved Rite II during my 1992 to 2004 years in ECUSA.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

I find myself stumbling over it more and spend mental energy trying to catch up. I don't read aloud very well though, which might be part of the problem.

There are resources available which you might find helpful that discuss the meaning of terminology.

http://www.stpeter.org/DBCP.html

If you start just with book one, it covers a lot of the discussion of language as well as a broad introduction to the BCP and the Daily Offices themselves. The second book covers Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist, and the third book covers the remainder of the BCP. It's written at a very easy reading level and I've found the entire book both illuminating and engaging. If you really are finding issue with the language, though, I would suggest then simply using the BAS so that the language itself does not become a barrier to your devotion. When you do understand it, it can be beautiful and helpful, but if you don't, it's not worth the struggle of understanding it on your own unless you have that kind of resource. I'm sorry I can't offer any free or online resources. The Prayer Book Society of Canada (http://prayerbook.ca/) has a few other resources there you might find valuable and they are free.

I hope some of this might be helpful!

 

[Albion]

Perhaps no one under 60 is reading this thread, but for their sake let me provide the context that ordinary Episcopalians who attended church in olden days (like 1960's, early 1970's) rarely took Communion because that was not integral to the Morning Prayer service. At the church in my town in California that I explored before getting baptized RC across the street, that was 10:30. Holy Communion was at 8:00 with less than half a dozen attending..

It would have been a rare Episcopal church that had Holy Communion ONLY at the 8:00 service.

I am inclined to think you are saying it was always HC at 8, with Morning Prayer and HC alternating weeks at the 10:30 service...or perhaps HC once a month. But never HC except at 8? I can't think of any parish I ever encountered where that was the case.