for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us

ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
edited August 14 in Ecclesiantics
hosting
Herewith the elsewherementioned deviation to BCP from all things Marbeck, Merbeck and Merbecke.

I think the unintentional segue began with Enoch, who opined (in response to Exclamation Mark, as quoted)
Forthview wrote: »
I have to agree with Enoch here (as I often do on many other topics) I don't usually feel qualified to comment on other denominations ,but I do find it strange that Anglicans argue sometimes quite vehemently about what is the correct way to do this, that or the other.
Surely they have a book which tells them what to do and if they are Anglicans they should follow it.

Why on earth use different bits and pieces from the Tridentine Missal and other Mass texts which have papal approval ? In the RC church the prescribed texts simply have to be followed, on the basis that this is the prayer 'of the Church', not of the particular pastor.

Granted there are a number of options,but they have to be taken within a distinct rite and not just mixed and matched 'ad libitum'.
Technically Anglicans have no authority to follow RCC forms of liturgy. One wonders why such churches as do are still members of the CofE
Liturgy has to follow the 1662 BCP, Common Worship or additional material formally authorised since. Common Worship is versatile and extremely flexible. It comes with several supporting books covering special occasions etc. Clergy, Readers etc need to understand their way round it, but apart from a few ambiguities, it's not that difficult to follow.

It can be a bit wordy. I can see why a person might sometimes want to shorten it, or leave bits out. However, there should be no need to look outside it.

Material from elsewhere, like RCC forms of liturgy, or, for that matter, liturgy from other Anglican provinces and formerly authorised liturgy like the ASB, however authorised it might be where it belongs, or have been in its day, is not authorised.


After a comment from PDR Oblatus quoth

There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms
before a diversion to the 39 Articles of salvatio religion, Dante, and Data projection.

(to be continued ... )

Comments

  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    edited August 14
    Angloid picked up the baton, observing ...
    Oblatus wrote: »
    There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

    Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
    https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms


    Takes me back! A reminder that impersonal worship can be reverent and holy. Although my proletarian inverted snobbery found the priest's upper-class accent grating.

    Alan29 piped up
    angloid wrote: »
    Oblatus wrote: »
    There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

    Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
    https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms


    Takes me back! A reminder that impersonal worship can be reverent and holy. Although my proletarian inverted snobbery found the priest's upper-class accent grating.

    I wasn't expecting a chas, or a server in a Roman cotta.

    PDR responded (I'll have to get my thesaurus out soon)
    Alan29 wrote: »
    angloid wrote: »
    Oblatus wrote: »
    There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

    Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
    https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms


    Takes me back! A reminder that impersonal worship can be reverent and holy. Although my proletarian inverted snobbery found the priest's upper-class accent grating.

    I wasn't expecting a chas, or a server in a Roman cotta.

    I was wondering whether it was that video, and that answers my question. It is nicely done, but I thought the aesthetics were a bit un-1662, but of course the parish where it was made is halfway along the road to Rome ceremonially speaking, so that is their house style. In the days when I did 1662 regularly, one church were I did it was very definitely chasuble and eastward facing; the other preferred the celebrant at North End in choir habit, and as both are licit I played along. I found I got to quite like North ending after a while ...
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    edited August 14
    and, this being The Ship, conversation focussed on screens (not rood, but rude perhaps). Alan29 however was not to be silenced, and protested
    Alan29 wrote: »
    angloid wrote: »
    Oblatus wrote: »
    There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

    Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
    https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms


    Takes me back! A reminder that impersonal worship can be reverent and holy. Although my proletarian inverted snobbery found the priest's upper-class accent grating.

    I wasn't expecting a chas, or a server in a Roman cotta.

    Having watched I am surprised at the amount of clerical ritual there was from kissing the altar to hand gestures. Does this really count as BCP?

    To which PDR asseverated (I was going to write "ejaculated" but only Capt. W. E. Johns ever did that with a straight face) @Alan29 - It depends on who you ask. I would consider it a bit over the top for BCP, but others would be fine with it. Celebrating AO with 1662 I would tend to gravitate towards the Gospel ("north") side of the altar for the Ante-Communion, but cart the book across to the epistle side for the Epistle if I did not go down to the chancel step for the readings. I would bow at the name of Jesus, the Incarnatus, and the Sanctus as usual, but I would leave much else out.

    Oblatus reentered the discourse,

    I wondered about that as well when I first saw the video, but I think the rector added a comment in YouTube that it reflects his parish use at Sussex Gardens and not a pure 1662 ceremonial. So chasuble, genuflexion on the way in and out, etc. I do like the server's accent and manner of reading the Epistle. Yorkshire? Northern, in any case.

    So it does seem to conform to 1662 textually but doesn't try to take us back to that era ceremonially.

    A friend said that when the rector says, "I believe in one God," he sounds like Sir Christopher Lee. :)


    PDR reflected @Oblatus - I took another squint at the video, and it actually isn't that far off how I used celebrate 1662. The main think I noticed was that he did not observe the turn to face by the right, and turn back to the altar by the left rule, and did not start at the north side (i.e. read the Lord's Prayer, Collect for Purity, and Decalogue on the gospel side of the altar before having the server flit it to the Epistle side for the collects and Epistle.) The other thing I caught was that he did not do the fraction at the Verba as 1662 requires. Other than the fact that I am a profound bow, not genuflect guy it all looked alarmingly familiar. I am pretty sure the server's accent in W.R. of Yorkshire, but somewhat scrubbed.

    This led Angloid to muse

    Gosh, I am familiar with St James Sussex Gardens but it wasn't till I read the comments above that I realised that's where it was filmed, although I didn't watch the whole video. If that is the present vicar's preferred style I wonder how he manages with the quite different central altar designed for modern catholic liturgy and his interlocutor to respond, noting I've never visited St James's, but I get the impression from the website, at least, that Fr. Paul is comfortable with different styles; I think the video reflects a focused quality that befits a PBS demonstration.

    ...





  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    edited August 14
    PDR responded to Angloid, observing

    It isn't that difficult to turn things through 180 degrees provided you do not have trouble with left and right - which is what usually lets me down. :disappointed: It is also possible to be pretty comfortable with different styles of celebration. I manage it myself, and I am not exactly the most flexible of people,

    while Ex_Organist offered further links to the liturgical style under consideration (sorry ... don't want to add too many links to the one long post). Oblatus moved an amendment to his previous observations, and Enoch returned to the fray:

    As a person whose memory goes back to a time when all services were 1662, I found that service interesting but a bit odd.

    It's not that there weren't services done like that then. It's that one of the multiple drivers of Series 2, 3, the ASB and CW were to satisfy and legitimise the aspirations of the 1928 people, who didn't really like 1662. If you're one of those who like thee and thou, Common Worship includes traditional English versions of some at least of its permutations. So, even if you like chasubles, choosing now to celebrate according to 1662 but turning your back on the congregation, huddling over the altar and mumbling (though I accept he did speak fairly clearly) strikes me as making very little sense, and really a bit weird. I can't really see the logic now of insisting on sticking to 1662, if you don't celebrate from the north end of the altar, wearing cassock, surplice and either a seasonal stole or a black scarf.


    To which PDR replied Because the rubric at the beginning of Matins actual mandates the ceremonial customs of 1549 - which included eastward position, chasuble, etc.. Unfortunately, although the 1565 Injunctions and the 1604 Canons modified this 1660-62 left us with the 1604 Canons and the Ornaments' Rubric more or less unchanged. Until 1965, the last word on the subject was the Lincoln Judgement of 1890 which pretty much said the O.R. means use the 1549 ceremonial if you wish.

    Enoch explained (utilising some vernacular), Yebbut - that's not what I was saying.

    The people who wanted to celebrate 'turn your back on the congregation, huddle over the altar and mumble', were the ones who didn't like 1552/1662 and got all excited about the 1549 book which was only in use for three years. They were the ones who were more likely to push the boundaries in the extent to which they used the abortive 1928 book.

    So if you're that way inclined, I can't see why you'd want to insist on 'all services 1662'. And why if you're asked to celebrate according to 1662, do so in a way which so far as one knows was unknown between about 1570 and 1870?
    and PDR parried You are forgetting rule 1 - "People are odd."

    I would tend to north end the 1662, if the altar is set up for it, but I can understand some folks our are a bit more catholic leaning doing the eastward position given the rubrics. What I have been able to tumble to is the English Missal way of celebrating, which always feels a bit baity-switchy.

    By the way, to some folk facing the people looks like a puppet show, or a closed circle where priest and people worship each other
    .

    SirPalomides chimed in

    That’s how it feels to me,

    before Angloid honed in:

    Yes I can understand catholic-minded Anglicans being attracted to the old language, but not to the theology of Cranmer's rite. Since 1928 unofficially, and since the 1960s officially, there has always been the option for a 'traditional' [sic] liturgy that expresses more mainstream eucharistic theology. I can't understand why people would want to perform the text of 1662 with the rubrics and style that belong to another tradition. [PS why is this discussion in the Church Music thread?]

    (though of course as noted elsewhere he never made the query that doesn't appear in square brackets).

    SirPalomides sought clarification, asking

    But wouldn't that have been the rubrics and style instituted by Laud?,

    to which Angloid rejoindered

    I don't know. Laud and his followers certainly strove for dignity in worship, but I'm not sure if that amounted to a ceremonial style that included chasubles, genuflections etc. Does anybody know how Laud actually celebrated the eucharist?.

    This observation led SirPalomides to note

    I don't know about vestments but Laud's reforms did include, prominently, placing the altar on the east end, with the celebrant facing east, and also genuflections. These reforms did not obtain universally but I don't think they can be seen as alien to 1662 BCP practice

    and Angloid to reemphasize

    Whatever the practice of the Laudians, it's clear that they were forced to comply with the text of 1662 which was probably as alien to their theology as it was to that of the Tractarians. Since the middle of the last century the C of E has been free to use other rites which reflect a different theology from that of Cranmer. That's the point I was making.

    At that point yours truly rudely interrupted and here we are.

    [/hosting]

    (Good luck ... I've run out of time and have a mass to celebrate ... not 1662 and indeed not in English)
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited August 15
    Many years ago I did some snooping around to try in Hierurgia Anglicana and other places of that ilk to find out what Laud did ceremonially, and did not come up with anything much that was reliable. I think the worse any of that set could be accused of was copes, wafer cakes, bowing to the altar, and the eastward position, which in itself was enough to give a puritan a major bellyache. Lancelot Andrewes burned incense during the service in his private chapel, but it seems to have been a little brazier-like contraption, rather than a thurible, and he seems to have been a north ender. The records indicate that after the Restoration the eastward position (occasionally), bowing to the altar (frequently), and from time-to-time incense to try and abate that musty smell appeared in English cathedrals and greater churches. For example, one of the clerics in the engraving of James II's coronation procession reproduced in 'The Parson's Handbook' is carrying a little censer shaped like a warming pan to burn incense. Eastward position seems to have disappeared fairly quickly, which makes me think it was unusual to start with, and quickly fell out of favour even with the consciously High Church.
  • As I recall even Newman kept northward until he went to Rome. It was the Cambridge movement rather than the Oxford one that pushed for the eastward position.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited August 15
    Yes, we had a fairly example of the Cambridge variety in my home parish, and he introduced the Eastward position in 1859. He got away with it for a few years until he did something fairly egregious - celebrating holy Communion at a funeral which shouted REQUIEM to the locals - and there was a strong averse reaction. He calmed it down after that, and ministered to the parish very successfully until declining health forced him to take a less demanding parish in 1888. Thereafter we tended to be late moving things up the candle: weekly Communion 1889; surpliced choir 1890; Eucharistic vestments c.1910; reservation of the MBS 1923; but Holy Communion as the main service every Sunday did not come until 1972.

    The next three Vicars (which covers the period 1889-1944) were all Oxford men, and moved more slowly on ceremonial issues, and did not do anything that might overexcite the locals on Victorian deceased equine issues. I have it on fairly reliable authority - the then vicar's son - that the place went to 1928 as soon as the Bishops had decided that they were going to turn a blind eye, but the next incumbent went back to 1662. Eastward facing 1662 in mass vestments was the regime for certain celebration of HC when I was a kid, but it disappeared about 1980 when we went over to the exclusive use of ASB:A for all communion services.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @PDR I am amazed that these things should be recorded in any parish in such detail. I suspect that's fairly unusual.

    Were they still using a band until 1890, or had they gone over to an organ earlier? Although many town parishes undoubtedly had organs by the 1820s, I think most places made the change sometime between 1840 and 1865. And do you know when they introduced their first hymn book and what it was? The first edition of A&M was not until 1861.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited August 16
    The first record of an organ is 1717, though a surviving account book suggests there may have been an instrument in the 1620s and 30s, which was destroyed in 1643. The 1717 organ was replaced c.1815, 1856, and 1898. The 1821 instrument was probably a traditional English instrument which would have seemed hopeless old-fashioned in the mid-1850. It spent a year or two in the west gallery, before being moved to the north aisle as part of the 1857/8 restoration. This restoration resulted in the loss of the 14th century bench ends, and the original wall plaster all of which was sacrificed for the sake of Ecclesiolgical Conformity.

    The first collection of hymns was locally produced, and was snappily entitled "The Psalms of David in Metre, with Select Hymns for Sundays and Feast Days" printed locally c.1825-30. Hymns A&M appeared about 1868. The local Vicar was usually a relative of the squire whose house occupied the old Rectory plot, as they had the right of presentation. Most were professional competent, and usually employed an assistant Curate to handle of population of about 3000 which increased to 7000 through the course of the 19th century.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    The first record of an organ is 1717, though a surviving account book suggests there may have been an instrument in the 1620s and 30s, which was destroyed in 1643. The 1717 organ was replaced c.1815, 1856, and 1898. The 1821 instrument was probably a traditional English instrument which would have seemed hopeless old-fashioned in the mid-1850. The 1856 instrument spent a year or two in the west gallery, before being moved to the north aisle as part of the 1857/8 restoration. This restoration resulted in the loss of all but one of the 14th century bench ends, which the Georgians had reused, and the original wall plaster all of which was sacrificed for the sake of Ecclesiological Conformity.

    The first collection of hymns was locally produced, and was snappily entitled "The New Version of the Psalms of David in Metre, with Select Hymns for Sundays and Feast Days" printed locally c.1825-30. Hymns A&M appeared about 1868, but there was a switch to English Hymnal at one stage - probably after the 1904 A&M debacle. When I was a "yout'" we were on HA&M Revised which had replaced the English Hymnal in the 1950s.

    In the 18th and 19th centuries, the local Vicar was usually a relative of the squire whose house occupied the old Rectory farm, as they had the right of presentation. Most were professionally competent, and usually employed an assistant Curate to handle of population of about 3000 which increased to 7000 through the course of the 19th century.
    Would some friendly host please delete the first typo riddled version.

    Taa very much!
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    :smile:
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    That's really interesting @PDR. Thank you. I'd love to ask a few more questions, but it would be grossly unfair of me to do so - particularly because you must be a long way from that particular parish, and I'm amazed that the records have survived so well.

    A parish with 3,000 inhabitants in the early C19 and 7000 by the end would have been quite substantial, geographically large, an industrial village or at least semi-urban. It would be quite interesting to know how many of the 'Select Hymns' are still used today and what tunes they sung them to. I've a copy of Houldsworth's edition of Cheetham's Psalmody from mid century. It's pre, or on the cusp of the Oxford Movement. It appears to have been produced primarily for the sort of substantial parishes that had early C19 organs, were still using a mixture of the New Version and hymns, and were by then singing the prose canticles and some prose psalms.

    It gives an interesting impression of what preceded A&M. Quite an impetus for the production of A&M seems to have been to purge parochial music of things they didn't like. That included the New Version and the ornamentation (sometimes exuberance) of hymn tunes that had been prevalent for the previous 100+ years.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    A small and fairly isolated market town which was blest with a number of local historians and diarists. Another of invaluable help was that the Archdeacon's reports from the early to mid-19th century have been preserved, and pretty large chunks of the churchwardens' accounts from about 1660 onwards also survive.

    Unfortunately, all we know about the original hymnal is that it contained the New Version, some hymns, and was printed locally. It was inventoried back in the 1950s, but has disappeared since - which is unfortunate. My recollection of HA&M Standard was that it was pretty grim - enthusiasm of any variety was to be suppressed in favour of Tractarian correctness. Hymns A&MR was a big improvement in that regard.

    Apart from 1929-50 the parish seems to have stuck with the 1662 until the late 70s when it embraced Series 3 and then the ASB for HC, though Series 1 may have got a look in, but I am too young to remember. The daughter church, however, retained the BCP until closure. I cannot say I have ever embraced the newer rites enthusiastically. I could live with ASB:A, but did not actually like it. When I am in the UK I usually attend a local parish which still uses 1662/CW 2 in traditional language/Series 1 by another name for Communion.
  • PDR wrote: »
    Yes, we had a fairly example of the Cambridge variety in my home parish, and he introduced the Eastward position in 1859. He got away with it for a few years until he did something fairly egregious - celebrating holy Communion at a funeral which shouted REQUIEM to the locals - and there was a strong averse reaction.
    @PDR , May I ask the difference between holy communion and a requiem? I had thought communion was part of a requiem service? Was the congregation expecting the distinctive requiem parts, but no communion? Or was the problem that the priest didn’t add the distinctive requiem parts to the communion service?
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited August 19
    Personally I would say that a good portion of the congregation was probably itching to get home as soon as they decently could so they could write to the bishop and complain vigorously. The problem was that the priest was caught doing he should not have been doing, but as to specifics. His daughter's diary is quite specific that he got into trouble for celebrating communion at a funeral, which suggests that he used the Propers of the preceding Sunday, not the Propers for a Requiem. As you will recall, the 1662 contains no Collect, Epistle and Gospel for a funeral, so unless he was using some additional resource, then he could not have had a Requiem in the full sense of the word. The Vicar's daughter was well enough educated in church stuff to know the difference. My home parish was traditionally High Church of the pre-tractarian variety, but the Tractarian and Cambridge Camden Society leanings of the Vicar were something new, and not altogether welcome as the considerable expenditure of column inches in the Stamford Mercury would seem to indicate.

    Personally, I am much more sympathetic to the Old High Church cause than I am to the Tractarians who seem to have their Alice-in-Wonderland moments of the 'words mean whatever I want them to mean' variety. Mid-nineteenth century church history would be a lot duller without them, if only because they wound everyone else up so much. Interestingly, they changed Evangelical theology almost as much as they did that of the High Church movement confirming them in what has usually been a very low view of Sacraments.

  • Thank you, @PDR. That is very helpful.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited August 23
    To pick up on a remark up thread, the theology is precisely why I tend to stay with the Old Rite. The 1662 BCP articulates the theology of the 39 Articles quite nicely, and in the USA where I live now I keep as close to 1662 as I can, which usually means Rite 1/1928 taking some of the more protestant options - Decalogue; Exhortations; etc. - that most other folks would give a wide berth to.

    Cranmer's rite, and to a certain extent both 1928s, have a definite shape and logic of its own which is built around two key concepts

    (1) The doctrines of the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture, and of justification by grace through faith
    (2) That Cranmer believed in a true presence in the Communicants, rather than a real presence in the elements.

    The structure of Cranmer's rite strikes me as starting with self examination (the Decalogue) followed by the offer of Christ through God's Word (readings - creed - sermon) leading to prayer and penitence before the actual Lord's Supper proper begins. The Supper itself focuses on the act of Communion rather than the consecration, which declares the Cranmerian/Bucerian form of true/real presence theology. Given that C. was being deliberately Biblical in his inspiration, it should not surprise us that he moved the Gloria in Excelsis to the end to supply the hymn mentioned in Matthew 26.30.

    What often misleads folks about Cranmer is that he was very adept at using traditional material to articulate Reformed theology. As a rule, those who reject Cranmer's theology also reject his rite. However, with a little adaption, it has proved patient of other interpretations, though very often that has involved moving or removing various bits of the liturgy.
  • PDR wrote: »
    To pick up on a remark up thread, the theology is precisely why I tend to stay with the Old Rite. The 1662 BCP articulates the theology of the 39 Articles quite nicely, and in the USA where I live now I keep as close to 1662 as I can, which usually means Rite 1/1928 taking some of the more protestant options - Decalogue; Exhortations; etc. - that most other folks would give a wide berth to.

    Cranmer's rite, and to a certain extent both 1928s, have a definite shape and logic of its own which is built around two key concepts

    (1) The doctrines of the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture, and of justification by grace through faith
    (2) That Cranmer believed in a true presence in the Communicants, rather than a real presence in the elements.

    The structure of Cranmer's rite strikes me as starting with self examination (the Decalogue) followed by the offer of Christ through God's Word (readings - creed - sermon) leading to prayer and penitence before the actual Lord's Supper proper begins. The Supper itself focuses on the act of Communion rather than the consecration, which declares the Cranmerian/Bucerian form of true/real presence theology. Given that C. was being deliberately Biblical in his inspiration, it should not surprise us that he moved the Gloria in Excelsis to the end to supply the hymn mentioned in Matthew 26.30.

    What often misleads folks about Cranmer is that he was very adept at using traditional material to articulate Reformed theology. As a rule, those who reject Cranmer's theology also reject his rite. However, with a little adaption, it has proved patient of other interpretations, though very often that has involved moving or removing various bits of the liturgy.

    I think that's why I've never been a huge fan of his liturgies! And also why I've always been a bit suspect of attempts to reinterpret his liturgies in a more big-C Catholic way.
  • OblatusOblatus Shipmate
    I think that's why I've never been a huge fan of his liturgies! And also why I've always been a bit suspect of attempts to reinterpret his liturgies in a more big-C Catholic way.

    Like the idea that in the 1549 BCP Cranmer was simply giving us an English version of the Latin Mass? I've always considered that an interesting idea but have never quite grasped it. (The English Missal does this, but the 1549? Or am I overthinking it?)
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    1549 was written after Cranmer's Eucharistic theology had change and differs little in actual theology from 1552. However, it is much more traditional in shape. The 1928 Proposal (of which I am fond) was an attempt to create a more traditional rite without upsetting Cranmer's theology in its essentials with the additional safeguard that the 1662 version would still be available for those who wanted it. If you like 1928 was an attempt to find a middle way between 1549 and 1552. Given that Cranmer's theology was softened not overturned by the Carolines, the 1928 was a liturgy which resembled the Durham Book in that it carried on this sort of Eucharistic theology common to Cosin, etc., which maintained that basic outlines of Reformed thought without getting into its more negative aspects. This would suit MOTR folks with Protestant leanings like me quite well, but would irritate the full-on Anglo-Catholics, and the Evangelicals about equally.

    By contrast, the English Missal is about as dishonest as it comes. An attempt to hide the theology of Rome behind the prose of Cranmer. It does not even have any organic connection with the older sort of High Church theology. That line of development went into the 1928 BCP Proposal, and the moderate High Church suggests for revision that preceded it.
Sign In or Register to comment.