Question: Who said the following (about the Book of Common Prayer):

“It is only fair, in concluding, to note Cranmers “splendid command of the English language and his instinctive sense of what would suit average English minds. His genius for devotional composition in English is universally recognized . . . “I value the Prayer Book, as you cannot do”, says one of the Anglican characters in Newman’s “Loss and Gain” (ch. viii), “for I have known what it is to one in affliction. May it be long before you know it in a similar way; but if affliction comes on you, depend on it all these new fancies and fashions will vanish from you like the wind, and the good old Prayer Book alone will stand you in any stead"."

How interesting that about the only nice thing that the entire “Catholic Encyclopaedia” can bring itself to say about Anglicanism (and it’s not very flattering about it) is in the entry on the BCP.

This is the Prayer Book - Cranmer’s, mostly! - that our Church, in an ignorant act of folly and vandalism, threw out (together with the AV)—apparently on the basis that prospective Anglicans might be repelled by the most beautiful liturgy in the english language.

In doing so we swapped the numinous and the palpably real (‘we do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings: the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the burden of them is intolerable’) for the complacent and the grindingly banal: ‘we repent and are sorry for all our sins’; ‘We turn from our sins and are truly sorry for them’.  Errgh.

Listen to this delightful line in an optional prayer that the new C of E prayer book “Common Worship” (and it is so-o-o-o common) prescribes for the marriage service:

“Let them be tender with each other’s dreams”.

It is beyond parody.

More power to those few places like St Andrews, St Phillip’s and St Mark’s where you can still hear it.

Tom

And St James’ and St James’ and St Thomas’ and St Martin’s and St John’s—and I suspect a few more as well.  [I’m not commending them, by the way, just noting that there are quite a few churches around that still conduct a BCP service.]

And St James’ and St James’ and St Thomas’ and St Martin’s and St John’s—and I suspect a few more as well.

Not St James King St, if you meant to include it in the list. A pity that you can’t hear the BCP in Sydney’s oldest church.

I appreciate that this topic is about as interesting a a posting on Akkadian glyphs and I don’t actually expect anyone to engage with my splenetic little outburst, which I have been bottling up for about 20 years.

Cheers,

Tom

Hi Tom,

There are certainly a couple of churches in Canberra which still have weekly BCP services - St John’s Reid and St Paul’s Manuka.

If I may say so, I don’t think the BCP has always been served well by those who wax lyrical about the profundity of its language while simultaneously wishing to distance themselves from the theology which that language expresses - Prince Charles being a classic example.  NB I’m not assuming you fall into the category.

How do you feel about the First Order services in AAPB and APBA, which essentially follow the BCP in wording and structure while removing some of the archaisms?

Mark.

Hi Mark

Peter Mullen, the blunt and very funny rector of St Michael’s Cornhill in London sums it up:

All the sonorous religious phraseology of the old Bible and prayer book has gone. All those profound and sometimes severe words which alone could actually speak to the extremes of human joy and sorrow have been discarded; and not the least of the ill-effects of the new services is that ours is the first generation which knows no prayers by heart.

Traditionalists are hounded by a hierarchy consumed with modernising rapacity; as Mark Santer, the former Bishop of Birmingham, boasted to me: “I have no prayer book enclaves in my diocese.” Traditionalists are also often accused of being “elitist” about “mere” language. But there is nothing “mere” about language - for the choice of words determines what is being said. And the old prayer book should be valued not for its aesthetic qualities alone, but for its deadly accurate presentation of human nature and human psychology.

Another example . .

http://archive.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/2004/9/21/38944.html

(sorry can’t seem to hyperlink it)

Hi Tom,

There’s always a tension at work here.  On the one hand we need to assert the inherent translatability of the gospel.  That is, it is not tied to a specific form of words or language otherwise we’d be requiring new converts to learn New Testament Greek.  One implication I draw from this is that if the BCP is a faithful expression of gospel truth then it MUST be capable of being expressed in other words and language.  Indeed, to treat it otherwise would be to deny the very principles expressed in the BCP itself (specifically in Article XXXIV and the prefaces).

The other side of the tension is of course that translation can be done poorly.  It can either distort the content of the original or express the content accurately but banally.

But for all this, translation is an inevitable part of Christian life and mission.  We’re more likely to do it well if it’s done in dialogue both with the contemporary faith community and with the classic documents of that community, particularly where those classic documents remain in use rather than tucked away in a museum somewhere.  It’s for this reason that I’d be concerned to see the BCP disappear entirely from current usage, even if many churches decide for a variety of reasons that its not the best liturgy for them.

Mark

Mark,

I’m not suggesting for a minute that truths can’t be expressed in different ways, or that the prayer book cannot be cast in different ways. My point is simply about the choices. Choices have to be made - or else why is one form of service chosen over another? I don’t think the the APBA or its variations is a good choice over the BCP.

I don’t think you give quite enough attention to the entirely legitimate importance of the form of the liturgy. One could pretend that the form of a service is quite unimportant as long as it is doctrinally sound, but no-one acts on that principle alone. A particular style of service is chosen over another, both being doctrinally equal, because it is perceived to be more attractive, more likely to get the point across and more likely to engage the congregation. Church A chooses not to have the BCP, or APBA, or Sunday Worship, but to present a contemporary service for all those reasons.

I adhere to the view that in a choice between the BCP and the modern equivalents - I am not talking about the abandonment of a prayer book altogether, which is a separate issue - I am entirely unconvinced that anyone has been attracted to a service by the APBA, or SW, who would have been repelled by the BCP. What was the evidence for it, other than the enthusiastic conviction that we needed to get rid of all that old language to fill up the pews? Mostly they haven’t filled up; to the extent they have, I see no convincing evidence that it is on account of the use of a new prayer book over an old one.

Tom

Tom,

Are you saying there could never in your estimation be a good reason for choosing another form of service over the BCP (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether that form of service is AAPB, APBA or ACME)?

And if so, doesn’t this carry carry the implication that the BCP couldn’t even in theory be improved?

But in that case, why do we have the BCP of 1662 and not 1549, 1552 etc etc?

My point is that the BCP itself envisages and even exemplifies the process of liturgical revision.

I do worry that BCP enthusiasts sometimes move from ‘the BCP hasn’t been improved upon’ to ‘the BCP can’t be improved upon.’ The first attitude is indeed defensible and I, would argue, an incentive to do better next time.  The second attitude strikes me as contrary to the spirit of the BCP itself.

On another note, I’d be interested to explore more what you mean by the ‘form’ of a service.  Do you mean the actual words used or the way in which elements of the service are ordered and used (eg whether the Gloria is placed at the beginning of the service as per Second Order HC in APBA or at the end as per BCP).  Another way of putting it might be to ask whether you would prefer

(a) a service which used the language of the BCP but re-arranged the elements - eg the traditional language options in Common Worship, or

(b) a service which retained the elements of the BCP but used slightly updated language - eg first order in AAPB and APBA

I must admit I find (a) odd but have some appreciation for (b)

Mark.

Bob Cameron - 25 July 2008 02:34 PM

And St James’ and St James’ and St Thomas’ and St Martin’s and St John’s—and I suspect a few more as well.  [I’m not commending them, by the way, just noting that there are quite a few churches around that still conduct a BCP service.]

And the 5th Sunday of the month at St Mark’s Anglican Church Pennant Hills (www.stmarks.com.au)!

Bob Cameron - 25 July 2008 02:34 PM

And St James’ and St James’ and St Thomas’ and St Martin’s and St John’s—and I suspect a few more as well.  [I’m not commending them, by the way, just noting that there are quite a few churches around that still conduct a BCP service.]

And St Stephen’s Penrith at 11am. Two Sundays per month are BCP, two are AAPB, one Morning Prayer and one Communion from each. If there’s a fifth Sunday it’s the Litany from the BCP

The Jerusalem declaration of GAFCON holds up the 1662 Book as the definitive liturgy. I have mentined the fact that Anglo-Catholic signatories have rendered the reaffirmation of the 39 Articles as meaningless...however how many Evanglicals are happy at the 1662 Prayer book baptism service:, where the officiating minister says:

May this water be sanctified for the mystical washing away of sin

,....Now seing this child is now regenerate and grafted into....

Both these expressions have been struck out of the CESA alternative prayer book and that of the REC. Both signatories to GAFCON.

Sorry that the Cranmer post has gone , as no one answered my serious charges about Archbishop Cranmer...Beautiful language , or beauty per se is a very superficial quality. What lies beneath the surface is the heart of the matter ...truth is genuine beauty.

May this water be sanctified for the mystical washing away of sin

,....Now seing this child is now regenerate and grafted into....

“mystical” means symbolic.  the water is a symbol of the invisible work of God by which he “washes” (again a metaphore) the guilt and pollution of sin from our conscience and heart.  It is done in response to faith in the death of Christ as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of anyone in the world who believes.

“Now seeing this child is regenerate” is after previous profession of faith by parents, and commitment to instruct the child in gospel truth. It is an assumption that the profession was genuine, and trusting that God will save a child of such a faith-filled family and upbringing.

However, that thought is not obvious to many people, and the phrase could be taken to imply the grossly material error of baptismal regeneration, so it is probably better to leave those words out.

as if water on the skin can reach into the spirit to wash the human heart or conscience!!  .... no more possible than that the blood of bulls and goats could atone for the sin of a human.

Thanks for affirming my contention.  I appreciate your honesty and your courage that you can be out of sync with 1500 years of Christian witness as regards baptism. Could you just ,as one side, tell me how you can recite wuith a clear conscience “And I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”.Do you have a deeper meaning than the episcopal framers of the fourth century?

By the way if I was an Evangelical Anglican i would use the English prayer book, drawn up by Church Society....the theology of 1662, and slightly modernised and shortened..a bit like the New King james Version.

Tom, you can add St Andrew’s Wahroonga to the list of churches where the BCP is used (on 5th Sundays).

Whilst I don’t believe we should be using BCP every week with all our congregations, I am very sympathetic to your comments on the banality of the language of more modern prayer books.  The theology is also weeker.

This is true even the 1st order revisions, which are more conservative in nature.  For example, the giving of the ring in marriage no longer has the words (or an equivalent) ‘with all my worldy goods I thee endow’ .  The Funeral Service omits 1 Corinthians 15:56 in AAPB, and the language of the exhortations in the 1st Order Communion are either omittted or watered down.  The Second Order Communion is structurally more in keeping with the 1549 service, and the order matters for those who’ve reflected on Cranmer’s theology.  In congregations in which no prayer book is used, it is often (not always- I don’t think we’re guilty of this at St Andrew’s where I serve) the case that there is no ‘common prayer’, the principle of consecutive Bible readings has been lost, prayers of confession are often omitted, as are creedal statements, and there has been little analysis of the consequences of all this.

What is the way forward?  I’d like to see a great deal more discussion among our leaders on the way we do church in a post-set liturgy environment.  We need to read our Bible’s very carefully.  I’d also suggest Cranmer’s Of Ceremonies would be a good place to start in understanding what we should be aiming for in deciding what to do in church.

In congregations in which no prayer book is used, it is often (not always- I don’t think we’re guilty of this at St Andrew’s where I serve) the case that there is no ‘common prayer’, the principle of consecutive Bible readings has been lost, prayers of confession are often omitted, as are creedal statements, and there has been little analysis of the consequences of all this.

I’m not sure I see the problem, for from what I can see, the NT churches had none of this either (or at least not in a mandatory formalised way.)

Dannii says ......For from what I can see,,,,,,,,

Is this not the heart of the problem..private sincere opinions , rather than submission to authority?