TEC: Theological liberals who are wedded to the 1979 BCP

2»

Comments

  • I was not referring to the use of grape juice instead of wine, which is an interesting but quite different topic. From my memory of the account (the website on which I read it has disappeared into the ether) it had to do with the Eucharist becoming a fun celebration using available party ingredients.

    Dredging through my memory, I do recall two cases (in Canada, so this might not be relevant to a TECocentric thread) where the priest admitted the unbaptized to communion as a matter of policy. In one case, the relevant bishop and the relevant priest made certain not to talk to each other-- a diocesan administrator said in my presence that they embraced the politician's notion of plausible deniability. In the other, the priest felt that they were the sole determinant and took no notice of the bishop's existence; for other reasons that cleric ended up seeking employment in another sector.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    At my TEC church our vicar announces that no matter where you are on your faith journey you are welcome at the Lord's table. Same at the recovery ministry. Our recent bishops haven't seemed to have a problem with it. My guess is that Bishop Curry wouldn't mind, either.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    We welcome all baptized Christians. That seems about right to me.
  • Lyda wrote: »
    At my TEC church our vicar announces that no matter where you are on your faith journey you are welcome at the Lord's table. Same at the recovery ministry. Our recent bishops haven't seemed to have a problem with it. My guess is that Bishop Curry wouldn't mind, either.

    Rubrics exist to provide clarity on this matter (and others) and direction to ministers and worshippers in general. If common practice diverges from what is laid out, then either change the rubrics, or change the practice. Keeping rubrics while neglecting them strikes me as problematic in terms of integrity.
  • Yes, keeping rubrics and neglecting them can indeed be problematic. However the rubrics are part of the BCP. To the best of my knowledge changing the text of the BCP requires approval of General Convention, which meets only every three years.

    The most recent major ammendation expanded the wording of the marriage service, aligning it to include same sex couples as well as different sex couples. That took time, discussion, and a good deal a harrumphing (not so much here in the States, but in the wider communion).

    In the face of such changes, local bishops I have known generally look the other way on what appear to be, at least for them, minor rubrics such as who can receive, or if grape juice is legitimate if it meets the needs of those in recovery. Most bishops appear to avoid the role of 'cop on the beat.'
  • BabyWombat wrote: »
    *snip* In the face of such changes, local bishops I have known generally look the other way on what appear to be, at least for them, minor rubrics such as who can receive, or if grape juice is legitimate if it meets the needs of those in recovery. Most bishops appear to avoid the role of 'cop on the beat.'

    The nub of the question is "at least for them, minor rubrics..." These are two items which cause a challenge for our relations with other churches, and it's really hard to call them adiaphora.

    Bishops, like most managers, really like to have it both ways.
  • I sometimes wonder if we in TEC carry a certain revolutionary spirit within us. It appears that we may indeed go against the grain, which certainly may cause challenge for relations with other churches.

    We sought out non-juring bishops in Scotland in order to get Samuel Seabury consecrated bishop. As early as 1802 we ordained Absalom Jones, our first African American priest. More recently we elected Barbara Harris, the first woman suffragan bishop; Mary Adelia McLeod, the first woman diocesan bishop; Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop; Katherine Jefforts Schori, the first woman Primate. And in the trial of Bishop Walter Righter our House of Bishops ruled that sexual orientation of any candidate for holy orders is indeed adiaphora. In all those episcopal elections our polity requires significant input from laity, and perhaps that favors our pushing back against established norms.

    I would hope that as a church we in TEC will continue to seek and serve Christ in all people. If wine vs grape juice, or open communion become stumbling blocks for others we must look at them carefully, and our bishops must be wise. But I think we must also seek out what works best for our richly diverse people in binding them together in the Spirit.
  • The entire point of rubrics is so that people are clear on what to do, and to resolve problems in advance. If there are clerics and laity who wish to change their church's agreed consensus, then they should go about changing it, not by pretending that it's not a consensus, or that they are smarter and wiser than their church's decision-making process. TEC, like other synodal churches, lays out the process, so if a faction wants to replace wine with grape juice for the Sacrament, they can try to secure that change. In the meanwhile, respect for their church's discernment would, I would think, require observance of the rubrics.

    I fear that I have encountered an awful lot of ego and politics in these matters, and several instances where this worked itself out through messing with rubrics. There's an extraordinary amount of good which can happen when we free ourselves from fury and distractions by just sticking with saying the black, and doing the red.
  • The evolution of the liturgy has never come about through top-down instructions alone. Bit by bit local churches have incorporated a new practice here, a different prayer there, and so on; commonly accepted developments are eventually ratified by authority, and others quietly dropped. You can see this process if you compare Common Worship with the 1662 BCP. It might work slightly differently in a TEC or other non-CofE context, but I'd be surprised if it didn't happen at all.
  • The CoE's historical traumas in liturgical change (1927/8 BCP and all that) pretty well directed organic change to be the default for many years, and it's now part of CoE culture. As Angloid notes, the process unfolds and gets to be acceptable, or not. And (although this is debatable), there is a dual path of reiterating the rubrics and studiously blinking when factions or individuals go astray from them.

    As the CoE is a broad umbrella church comprising (theoretically) much of the nation, its membership has a somewhat different nature than the minority churches of North America (1.2% in the US, 5% in Canada) where the membership has a tendency to be more focussed on their denominational nature, and where liturgical questions get defined and resolved (hopefully!) on a regular basis. That's intended to be a descriptive statement of a different direction rather than a judgement.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Apologies for the late reply; I missed this thread.
    BabyWombat wrote: »
    Now, when I teach church history, I make a big point about how revolutionary the BCP was, in that it put the words of the services in the hands of the people (well, at least those who could read.).
    Could I ask for a mini-lecture on church history, or a link to one? My point of fascination is the "how revolutionary the BCP was, in that it put the words of the services in the hands of the people" -- I assume you mean 1979 not 1662? If so, why? Was this the first time a complete book was available? It does seem a rather long wait to my mind.

    (if I am missing an obvious point, please bear me with me: I have just completed 3 full days of econometrics lectures -- and at 19:00 on a Saturday I am in my PJs and ready to head to bed :sleeping: )
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @Climacus I think @BabyWombat is referring to the original ones in 1549 and 1552. Before then, all services were in Latin.


    1662 is the direct descendant of 1552. The differences are small, technical and very geeky. Liturgical geeks get much more excited about the differences between the 1549 and 1552 books, which is odd when the 1549 book only lasted three years. To us over here, as I've mentioned on the liturgical matters thread, to refer to any book published since 1662 as a BCP sounds really odd and more than a bit of a misnomer.

    Is the book from 1979 basically 1662 in modern English or is it something totally different? This isn't a fair question perhaps, as it's asking of you knowledge of something there's no reason why you should have encountered, but does it have much resemblance to the real BCP of 1662 (1662 with a few whirls and whistles), or is it totally different?
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Thank you very much, @Enoch -- that makes a lot of sense. Rereading I see I got confused between references to the British BCP and the American BCP, and missed the point I think Wombat and Ruth were making about a consolidated and complete liturgical book. Thanks again.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    My impression is that the 1979 BCP emerged from a similar process to the 1980 ASB. One difference was that the ASB was presented as a liturgical resource alternative to the 1662 BCP, whereas the 1979 BCP was conceived as a more or less complete resource in itself. This seems to me to be one reason why the 1979 BCP has more extensive traditional language provision than the ASB.

    The decision to produce alternative services in England, rather than a complete new BCP was, I think, partly driven by the fact that alternative services could be approved by the church itself through General Synod. Replacing the 1662 BCP would have required a different level of Parliamentary approval. The church was very wary of trying for that in light of the difficulties the 1928 English Prayer Book had faced. (The 1928 English Prayer Book was technically not authorised for use, but when it failed to get through Parliament, the Bishops simply let it be known that no action would be taken against those who did use it.)
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @BroJames one consequence of the introduction of Common Worship in 2000, is that the 1928 is no longer a permitted book, either by a nod and a wink or in any other way, for anyone. It is now as unauthorised as the ASB is.

    I think, but would defer to anyone who has greater knowledge of it than me, than the only bit of the 1928 book which survives is that that may be where the alternative preface in the CW marriage service has been plucked from. If so, as it's now an authorised part of CW, it can be used without risking invalidating the wedding. Because a CW church wedding must comply with CW, if one were to omit both the standard preface and the only permitted alternative, that may make the ceremony void.

    CW gives quite a lot of flexibility as to what order the ingredients in a wedding service are taken in, but the core ones have all got to be there.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Is the book from 1979 basically 1662 in modern English or is it something totally different? This isn't a fair question perhaps, as it's asking of you knowledge of something there's no reason why you should have encountered, but does it have much resemblance to the real BCP of 1662 (1662 with a few whirls and whistles), or is it totally different?
    I would say it’s a book derived from the 1928 and earlier (1789, 1892) American BCPs, which in turn have strong roots in the 1662 BCP and the 1764 Scottish BCP—remember TEC originally owes its episcopate to the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the American Communion liturgy drew on the Scottish Episcopal liturgy—informed by Vatican II and other liturgical renewal movements of the mid-20th C.

    You can check it out for yourself. The entire book is available in PDF from TEC’s website here.

    You can also find a Wiki article on the development of BCPs in the US (and elsewhere) here.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I would say it’s a book derived from the 1928 and earlier (1789, 1892) American BCPs . . . .
    Too late to edit my earlier post, but I wanted to make sure it was clear that I was referring to the American 1928 BCP, not the English 1928 BCP.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    Is the book from 1979 basically 1662 in modern English or is it something totally different? This isn't a fair question perhaps, as it's asking of you knowledge of something there's no reason why you should have encountered, but does it have much resemblance to the real BCP of 1662 (1662 with a few whirls and whistles), or is it totally different?

    As someone who is reasonably familiar with both, they are quite different but there are certainly points of similarity. As already pointed out, the American Prayer Book tradition is descended from the Scottish Episcopal liturgy, not the Church of England one. Furthermore, the 1979 BCP was created after the liturgical movement and owes a lot to ecumenical dialogue with Roman Catholics and Orthodox, as well as to research (some now outdated) about the earliest Christian churches. The same, of course, is true of the Church of England's Common Worship.

    That said, the 1979 BCP, even in Rite II (which diverges much more from Cranmer than does Rite I) includes such recognizably Cranmerian features as the Collect for Purity, and a version of the post-communion prayer that is basically a stripped-down and modernized version of Cranmer's.

    In more abstract terms, the editors of the 1979 BCP owed a lot to Cranmer's prose style. Indeed, I would argue that they were far more successful in preserving some of its distinctive and powerful elements than many other framers of modern liturgies have been.

    Compare suffrages from Evening Prayer in the 1662 BCP and the 1979 American one:

    1662:
    Priest: O Lord, shew thy mercy upon us.
    Answer. And grant us thy salvation.
    Priest. O Lord, save the Queen.
    Answer. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.
    Priest. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.
    Answer. And make thy chosen people joyful.
    Priest. O Lord, save thy people.
    Answer. And bless thine inheritance.
    Priest. Give peace in our time, O Lord.
    Answer. Because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God.
    Priest. O God, make clean our hearts within us.
    Answer. And take not thy Holy Spirit from us.

    1979:
    V. Show us your mercy, O Lord;
    R. And grant us your salvation.
    V. Clothe your ministers with righteousness;
    R. Let your people sing with joy.
    V. Give peace, O Lord, in all the world;
    R. For only in you can we live in safety.
    V. Lord, keep this nation under your care;
    R. And guide us in the way of justice and truth.
    V. Let your way be known upon earth;
    R. Your saving health among all nations.
    V. Let not the needy, O Lord, be forgotten;
    R. Nor the hope of the poor be taken away.
    V. Create in us clean hearts, O God;
    R. And sustain us by your Holy Spirit.

    Most of the 1979 petitions are direct (and, I think, rather elegant) rewordings of the 1662 versions, with such obvious changes as converting a prayer for the person of the monarch into one for the nation. Those that are not ("Let not the needy...") still preserve a distinctively Cranmerian prosody.
    Enoch wrote: »
    is.

    I think, but would defer to anyone who has greater knowledge of it than me, than the only bit of the 1928 book which survives is that that may be where the alternative preface in the CW marriage service has been plucked from.

    Common Worship also includes the Series 1 Order for the Burial of Dead, which is lifted from the 1928 proposed book. This is most obvious in the option for the burial of a child, which is taken is taken almost verbatim from the 1928 book (there are no new elements in Common Worship, but there are a few omissions). No such service exists in the 1662 BCP.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @Columba_in_a_Currach are you sure about the abortive 1928 book being the source of the CW funeral service. I'm under the impression it's largely a fresh ensemble with a quite different shape from any of its predecessors.

    I've got a copy of the 1928 book which turned up a few years ago in some boxes of family books that got passed on to me. I can't see much resemblance.

    One other incidental query about the suffrages which I agree look rather a success. Obviously in a republic, "O Lord, save the Queen." would need to be changed, but in line with 1 Tim 2:1-4, I'm slightly surprised the prayer is "Lord, keep this nation under your care;" rather than for the President specifically. I'm fairly sure when I lived for a time in a republic, a different one, not the USA, the prayer was for the President.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    @Columba_in_a_Currach are you sure about the abortive 1928 book being the source of the CW funeral service. I'm under the impression it's largely a fresh ensemble with a quite different shape from any of its predecessors.

    There are many, many options for funerals in CW, one of which is taken from Series 1 and based on the 1928 proposed book. The order for an adult is basically unchanged from 1662, but the one for a child was a new liturgy in 1928, which made its way into Series 1 and thence to Common Worship.
  • [/quote]
    Enoch wrote: »
    One other incidental query about the suffrages which I agree look rather a success. Obviously in a republic, "O Lord, save the Queen." would need to be changed, but in line with 1 Tim 2:1-4, I'm slightly surprised the prayer is "Lord, keep this nation under your care;" rather than for the President specifically. I'm fairly sure when I lived for a time in a republic, a different one, not the USA, the prayer was for the President.

    The US Prayer Books have never included a prayer for the president at that point (although he is prayed for at other points, naturally). The 1928 and 1892 American Prayer Books had the suffrage "V: O Lord, save the State. R: And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee."

    The first American BCP, in 1789, simply cut out that suffrage altogether, although it did replace the prayer for the monarch with one for "the President of the United States, and all in Civil Authority," which remained mandatory in 1892 and 1928 but is now optional.

    Out of curiosity, how many CofE churches still have the collects for the Queen and royal family at mattins and evensong? Not many in my experience. I'm almost certain that neither King's nor St. John's in Cambridge use them daily. I don't think I've ever heard that All Saints, Margaret Street, either. I'm trying to remember about St. Paul's, Ely, and Canterbury (the three cathedrals I know best).
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    @BroJames one consequence of the introduction of Common Worship in 2000, is that the 1928 is no longer a permitted book, either by a nod and a wink or in any other way, for anyone. It is now as unauthorised as the ASB is.

    I think, but would defer to anyone who has greater knowledge of it than me, than the only bit of the 1928 book which survives is that that may be where the alternative preface in the CW marriage service has been plucked from. If so, as it's now an authorised part of CW, it can be used without risking invalidating the wedding. Because a CW church wedding must comply with CW, if one were to omit both the standard preface and the only permitted alternative, that may make the ceremony void.

    CW gives quite a lot of flexibility as to what order the ingredients in a wedding service are taken in, but the core ones have all got to be there.

    Would it? I'd have thought that the essential part of any marriage was the exchange of vows.
  • The US Prayer Books have never included a prayer for the president at that point (although he is prayed for at other points, naturally). The 1928 and 1892 American Prayer Books had the suffrage "V: O Lord, save the State. R: And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee."

    The first American BCP, in 1789, simply cut out that suffrage altogether, although it did replace the prayer for the monarch with one for "the President of the United States, and all in Civil Authority," which remained mandatory in 1892 and 1928 but is now optional.

    Out of curiosity, how many CofE churches still have the collects for the Queen and royal family at mattins and evensong? Not many in my experience. I'm almost certain that neither King's nor St. John's in Cambridge use them daily. I don't think I've ever heard that All Saints, Margaret Street, either. I'm trying to remember about St. Paul's, Ely, and Canterbury (the three cathedrals I know best).

    I have heard prayers for the President (with the President's name) in the Good Friday Liturgy and in a normal Sunday's Prayers of the People (I think). I think somewhere in the 1979 BCP there is a prayer that includes the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court, along with local government officials.

    I have heard the President's name included in the Prayers of the People in a Roman Catholic church as well, but these prayers usually are drafted by each parish for each Sunday (in accordance with the guidelines and suggested prayers in the Missal and sometimes including prayers issued by the diocese).

    Most people in the US viewed praying for the President and praying for the country as very different things long before the current polarization in politics that makes many people loath to mention the President's name in church (although I think it's very important to pray for her/him, regardless of your political beliefs). I think a lot of the public associates praying for the President with praying for her/his policies, and this is reinforced by the tendency of some Evangelicals (actually of both the religious left and the religious right, but especially of the religious right), to pray for the passage of certain laws, to pray for specific politicians to succeed in enacting those laws, for the courts to interpret the laws in a certain way, even for certain politicians to win elections so that they can pass or enforce certain laws (when this happens in public places of worship it can technically endanger a church's religious exemptions from certain taxes, but this has almost never been enforced and the current administration has announced it will not enforce it).

    Of course, many churches pray for the President in general so that s/he can be guided to serve the common good, etc., and I think this is a very good thing. But you won't see it in some places, unless liturgical rules require it, because of the current political climate. It was even true under Obama. Or, the President will be prayed for but his/her name will be omitted because. I don't think that's a good thing.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Just a point of comparison, the head of state is routinely commemorated in Eastern Orthodox liturgies; in my experience, usually not by name, regardless of who it is. Orthodox Churches in UK will commemorate the queen. And it definitely doesn't signify political agreement- St Nicholas of Japan famously required his Japanese parishioners to pray for the Japanese Emperor even though Japan and Russia were at war. And during the Mongol occupation all the Rus' churches commemorated the Khan.
  • Churches in the Persian Gulf will regularly pray for (e.g.) Qaboos our Sultan etc.

    I was once in a Floridian church when the supply priest, a retired Canadian, forgot her geography for a minute and prayed for Elizabeth our Queen, and apologized during the sermon. Afterward, I suggested that it would be better if she prayed for Elizabeth our rightful Queen, and I was sure that the congregation would be happy. She was not so certain.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    He he.

    It must be tough to move about like that...you could easily fall back on what you were used to.
    Just a point of comparison, the head of state is routinely commemorated in Eastern Orthodox liturgies; in my experience, usually not by name, regardless of who it is. Orthodox Churches in UK will commemorate the queen.
    In Australia, at least in the Greek and Antiochian churches, it is along the lines of:
    Deacon: For this land, its civil authorities and all
    its people, let us pray to the Lord.
    People: Lord, have mercy.

    I cannot be certain, but I think "Elizabeth, our Queen" may have been used in Russian parishes.
Sign In or Register to comment.