You have actually experienced the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or a Tridentine Latin Mass chanted by a full sanctuary of priests, monks, and laity?
Yes, I have. One of the largest Tridentine congregations in the U.S. is here in Chicago, and I have attended Solemn High Mass in a full sanctuary with numerous monks, just as I have also experienced the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with my cousin's Greek Orthodox husband.
I'd agree that nothing in Lutheranism has soared to those heights, but I wouldn't rule out all other denominations whatsoever.
While I believe that nothing in Lutheran liturgy has come close to the wording of the 1662 BCP, Lutheranism surely has soared close to the heights of the liturgies you mentioned. Just take a look at Bach's
Mass in B Minor, or Luther's
Deutsche Messe, which was entirely chanted/sung except for the Sermon.
Yes, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is quite lovely textually, but it completely lacks musical notation; this is indicative of the whole philosophy behind it, wherein the core of worship is the relationship between text, book, and word.
Often because hymns are also used in conjunction with the liturgy, and the liturgy is rarely, if never, used alone.
Have you ever been to an Evensong in an English Cathedral?
Tell me that's just a "relationship between text, book, and word."
It's a peculiarly early modern and western way of looking at worship, that ignores gesture, sound, taste, smell, and non-textual sight;
Have you ever been to an High-Church Anglican Choral Eucharist that uses the 1662 BCP? Or again, to an Evensong in an English Cathedral?
it is truly, to borrow the phrase from Islam, a religion of the book,
That's a pretty out of context quote that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
rather than a religion of the community gathered around the Eucharist.
I disagree.
And even when it comes to its text, it may be lovely, but it also lacks many important parts of the historic western liturgy, owing to the pan-Reformation tendency to abridge and eliminate (manifested in England, particularly, in Thomas Cranmer's 1552 edition).
Yet I still think that as a liturgical work, it is far better than the 1552 and all other BCPs, and, as stated before, what I consider to be the best liturgical prayer book.
I also find the inclusion of the entire lectionary fairly odd and, honestly, a complete waste of paper; better to include the hymns, instead, since Anglicans must have both a hymn book alongside the Book of Common Prayer.
The lectionary is actually quite useful, and the addition of hymns would increase the size of the book to beyond comfortable in my opinion.
The format is the Lutheran Service Book is, honestly, one of the most accessible and ingenious methods for assembling a service manual in the history of Christian worship.
Well, I would also consider the old red Lutheran Hymnal, and some of the more Scandinavian influences of the Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary, such as the potential for individual altar-rail absolution in service.
Although I have critiques of the Lutheran liturgies as well (textual deficiencies, musical insanity),
Care to expand in another thread?
my only real critique of the LSB is that it only has two ribbons (because come on, you need at least three: for the liturgy, for the next hymn, and for the Psalm).
Many LCMS congregations simply print out an Order of Worship with the hymns and liturgy printed, specifically so you do not have to continually flip within the LSB.
That, and it tells you to sit down to sing. What a strange and stupid Lutheran tradition that is.
Only for some parts during the Divine Service. Most hymns are sung while standing. But I see your point. To quote the traditional Lutheran adage, "we're the ones who sing "Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus" while sitting down."
