Liturgical Development

[Paidiske]

I don't see any point to prohibiting the older books. They're not prohibited here, and there is still a smattering of parishes offering an early-morning BCP service.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We can use the 1662 and Common Worship.

TBH, Common Worship is so broad, that there should always be a liturgy that speaks to your church family.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't see any point to prohibiting the older books. They're not prohibited here, and there is still a smattering of parishes offering an early-morning BCP service.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that you have never actually replaced the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Like from what I understand, the Prayer Book for Australia and An Australian Prayer Book are supplemental and not normative. For us we actually replaced the earlier BCPs and no longer consider them to be normative. Ireland also has a similar approach from what I know.

 

[gordonhooker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that you have never actually replaced the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Like from what I understand, the Prayer Book for Australia and An Australian Prayer Book are supplemental and not normative. For us we actually replaced the earlier BCPs and no longer consider them to be normative. Ireland also has a similar approach from what I know.

That is correct we have a congregation in the Parish next door that celebrate 1662 Evensong and a Sung Eucharist once a month and use the new prayer book at all other times.

 

[Paidiske]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that you have never actually replaced the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Like from what I understand, the Prayer Book for Australia and An Australian Prayer Book are supplemental and not normative. For us we actually replaced the earlier BCPs and no longer consider them to be normative. Ireland also has a similar approach from what I know.

That's correct. In practice I don't know of any parish that uses the BCP as its main form of worship, but it remains authorised for use.

 

[Shane R]

I thought those who are not familiar with the book may be interested to know that the Anglican Missal was really the first book to offer a choice of Eucharistic prayers. The American Missal has three choices for the Canon of the Mass: 1928 BCP, 1549 BCP, and Roman (sometimes called the Gregorian Canon). The Canon of the Mass begins with Sursum Corda.

Serving the Missal rite is actually quite easy because it's packed full of rubrics. Every little motion of the priest is scripted. You just have to practice synchronizing the genuflections of the whole team of altar servers.

 

[Paidiske]

So is the American Missal a creation of one of the continuing groups?

 

[Shane R]

No. The Missals were done in the 1920s. The Anglican Missal (English) was first issued in 1921. The American is a light edit of it that appeared not long after. The Missal was essentially the product of some very Anglo-Papalist or Romish Anglo-Catholics.

 

[Paidiske]

The English missal was never authorised, though? I know there was a serious attempt at prayer book reform in England resulting in a 1928 book that failed to get parliamentary approval; I'm not aware that any other book did at about the same time?

 

[Shane R]

The English missal was never authorised, though? I know there was a serious attempt at prayer book reform in England resulting in a 1928 book that failed to get parliamentary approval; I'm not aware that any other book did at about the same time?

No. To my knowledge none of the Missals were ever authorized by a province of the Anglican Communion (I have a .pdf of an obscure Canadian version). However, they have had significant influence on Anglo-Catholic piety in some regions. And in certain break away provinces, such as the ACC, they have become the default text for worship despite the protestations of the bishops that they are adhering to the BCP tradition. I've seen various continuing bishops celebrate according to the Missal rather than the BCP.

 

[Albion]

Agreed. And in my view, the Missal is 'BCP-like' at best but Roman in feel and Roman where it counts. At every step in the liturgy it would be possible to argue that the wording is compatible with Anglican theology, but the impact upon the worshipper, minus a careful explanation, is something else.

 

[Paidiske]

That's interesting. Given the enormous variation of Anglican liturgies, if a liturgy is compatible with Anglican theology, finding that it is "something else" than Anglican is a big claim. I'd be curious to see the text.

 

[Albion]

This is the book that I was referring to which is promoted by the Anglican Catholic Church. I have not read the whole of the accompanying remarks on that page, but I recognize the pages that are shown as being taken from the Missal.

An Examination of the So-Called American Missal, by Carl Eckhardt Grammer (no date)

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, if it invokes saints and stuff, then that's not compatible with Anglican theology.

 

[Albion]

I think you'd have to read through the entire liturgy at the least. I have a copy here, but I couldn't locate the whole thing online when I was looking for that for you. It may be there somewhere.

 

[Shane R]

This one was lightly edited by a breakaway Canadian group. They've only printed one Canon of the Mass but it gives you a feel for the book. You'll notice there are no offices or services other than Holy Communion in this particular edition.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I am equally bemused and belwildered by liturgy-wonks that I encounter in CF-land.

I’ve just read a post that took pity on evangelicals for not following liturgy. In reality, we draw from Common Worship. We are good Anglicans.

What is so wrong with authorised liturgy that you have to have to dig into experimental liturgical archaeology, and then impose it on your congregations?

The powers-that-be, as part of the body of Christ, have developed and authorised liturgy for this generation. Out job is to be the hands and feet of Jesus, for this generation. Look, see how evangelicals are obedient to their bishops!

 

[Paidiske]

To be fair, there are many evangelicals who eschew any form of authorised liturgy. I have been to some communion services where I wasn't even sure the sacrament was validly celebrated (and I don't say that lightly). The Anglican world is a lot bigger than the particular corner of it that each of us inhabits.

What is so wrong with authorised liturgy...? There's nothing wrong with it, per se, but I have definitely found that it doesn't necessarily meet the desires - or even needs - of everyone who might want to worship as an Anglican. My answer to that doesn't tend to be to experiment with older forms, but I can see how in some contexts that might have appeal.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

My experience of talking about liturgy is exclusively from my 12 or so years at CF. I have learnt a lot and am grateful to all the members of STR who have taught me.

What I find difficult is that Anglo-Catholic members of STR are often dissatisfied with authorised liturgy. But I also found that Anglo-Catholic members also take great pride in being obedient to their bishops. This confuses me. I am a scientist and like things to be orderly.

How can you be obedient to the church hierarchy, yet be dissatisfied,to the point of seeking alternatives, to what that hierarchy has authorised and blessed?

It’s an honest question.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm obedient to the church; my bishops, the canons, the constitution and so forth. That doesn't mean I think every decision to which I'm obedient is right or the best possible decision.

I'd add, too, that there are areas where obedience is... routinely fudged. There's hardly a clergy person out there who hasn't broken their vow to use "a lawfully authorised form" [of service] "and none other."

If you've ever been to a service of lessons and carols, for example, you've been to a form of service which is not authorised. Yet if I were to ring my bishop and ask his permission to have one, he'd probably roll his eyes, because they're so embedded in the life of the church. Should we not have carols services, then?