I grew up with the BCP, but recall being amazed, and delighted, with Series 3 Holy Communion (1973?) - the little eau-de-nil coloured booklet!
Not without its idiosyncrasies, I agree, but O! how refreshing to at long last have a service in the language of the people...
The snake-belly low Church of My Yoof quite quickly adopted it for one 1030am and one 630pm service each month, for the 8am service on the other Sundays, and for the 915am Wednesday service. The Vicar, in response to Complaints™, soon restored the Sunday 8am service to BCP each week, however.
Around my way HC Series 3 appeared in 1975, but I think that was three years after publication. Initially not really liked by nearly everyone in our parish, after five years it got firmly implanted to the point where it became 'this is the way we do it.' I was too young for Communion at that point so I missed the hubbub. My home parish was either modern rite-modern language or 1662 with none of the stages in-between being given any house room.
In The Episcopal Church (US), there have been the 1789 BCP, the 1892 BCP, the 1928 BCP and the 1979 BCP. The 1789 is an adaption of the 1662, with influences (particularly in the liturgy for Holy Communion) from the Scottish Episcopal Church and things like royal references removed. The 1892 and 1928 BCPs were revisions of the 1789, while the 1979 was a more thorough revision, drawing on ecumenical influences.
If reference is made simply to “the BCP,” 1979 is assumed.
Or if you are one of the semi-detached Episcopalians the 1928 BCP, which sort of grates on me even though it is the default in the jurisdiction I belong to.
The snake-belly low Church of My Yoof quite quickly adopted it for one 1030am and one 630pm service each month, for the 8am service on the other Sundays, and for the 915am Wednesday service. The Vicar, in response to Complaints™, soon restored the Sunday 8am service to BCP each week, however.
Mine was MOTR, but the 8am congregation was largely made up by the older farmers of the parish, who liked their BCP communion. When CW1 came along they did start alternating. (checking the website they still do)
Am I correct that BCP means something different over the pond - here it means the 1662. I gather you have something from 1928 or thereabouts?
In Canada it means the 1959/1962, much closer to TEC's 1928 than to the CoE's 1662 (most aboriginal language texts are translations of the 1662 or its 1918 Canadian version). This is still the official prayer book, although the Book of Alternative Services is used in the great majority of worshipping activities). The nature of church life in Canada is that there is very little deviation from the approved texts.
In The Episcopal Church (US), there have been the 1789 BCP, the 1892 BCP, the 1928 BCP and the 1979 BCP. The 1789 is an adaption of the 1662, with influences (particularly in the liturgy for Holy Communion) from the Scottish Episcopal Church and things like royal references removed. The 1892 and 1928 BCPs were revisions of the 1789, while the 1979 was a more thorough revision, drawing on ecumenical influences.
If reference is made simply to “the BCP,” 1979 is assumed.
That's why I raised it. If a CofE person says "BCP", they mean 1662.
Mind you - I was once told that the first Lord's Prayer was put in by mistake...given that one always says/sings the LP later in the service, whether or not the penitential introduction has been used, the first one does seem superfluous.
Actually, the first's Lord's Prayer is a left over from the triple prayer (Creed, Paternoster, Ave) at the beginning of the Breviary, and the double prayer (Paternoster, Ave) at the beginning of each office. I do wish folks would read what went before, then invent their theories. <sigh>
In The Episcopal Church (US), there have been the 1789 BCP, the 1892 BCP, the 1928 BCP and the 1979 BCP. The 1789 is an adaption of the 1662, with influences (particularly in the liturgy for Holy Communion) from the Scottish Episcopal Church and things like royal references removed. The 1892 and 1928 BCPs were revisions of the 1789, while the 1979 was a more thorough revision, drawing on ecumenical influences.
If reference is made simply to “the BCP,” 1979 is assumed.
That's why I raised it. If a CofE person says "BCP", they mean 1662.
Right, which is why on the Ship, with folks from around the globe, I always try to be specific about references to “the BCP”—the 1662 BCP, the 1979 American BCP, etc.
Yes, though I bet some C of E clergy use (illegally! Inform the Archdeacon immediately!) bits of the 1928 Book, never actually authorised.
One example of a bit that might be used today is the shorter introduction to Matins/Evensong.
Where I used to run into trouble with the purists was that when celebrating 1662 BCP Communion I would substitute the Kyrie for the Commandments except in Lent and Advent aswhich is technically a 1928-ism. Mind you, I would also surprise them by reading the Exhortation several times a year, which they were unaccustomed to.
With the Exhortation at MP/EP I would follow the Shortened Services Act and just leave it out altogether most Sundays - which was a bit hard on the late arrivals.
Over the years I have been to many Anglican services in England, Wales, Ireland, Jersey and (once) West Africa (a somewhat diplomatic affair).
I don't think I can recall a single occasion when the service has not deviated in some way from the Prayer Book/Booklet/Service Sheet that I have been given, either by omitting something that should have been included or (more usually) by including something which hasn't been written down but which all the "regulars" know.
Ah - you have never had a good natured curmudgeon like me who is:
(a) ever so slightly OCD, and
(b) had a bucket load of priests who could not follow a bulletin before I hit 21.
I won't say I never deviate from the bulletin, but it is very, very rare, and usually the result of me forgetting to do something we did not usually do.
I do deviate very slightly from the 1662 when I am somewhere that uses it, which hasn't been for some years now. I am better behaved with the US 1928, though I do have a couple of things in there that I moan about regularly to anyone who will listen.
I do deviate very slightly from the 1662 when I am somewhere that uses it
When presiding 1662 miseries I do deviate at "indifferently" and "bishops and curates" ... while as an English lit scholar I am fully aware of semantic shift I am also aware that there are occasions when the shift is too great and the meaning is be-muddled too much to enhance worship.
My usual one is skipping the Decalogue in favour of the Kyrie outside of Advent and Lent, and I think bishops and curates becomes bishops, priest, and deacons. Holy Ghost would not even get on my radar as something that folks might not understand. On other hand, I read the exhortation more than most folks.
Comments
Not without its idiosyncrasies, I agree, but O! how refreshing to at long last have a service in the language of the people...
The snake-belly low Church of My Yoof quite quickly adopted it for one 1030am and one 630pm service each month, for the 8am service on the other Sundays, and for the 915am Wednesday service. The Vicar, in response to Complaints™, soon restored the Sunday 8am service to BCP each week, however.
If reference is made simply to “the BCP,” 1979 is assumed.
Mine was MOTR, but the 8am congregation was largely made up by the older farmers of the parish, who liked their BCP communion. When CW1 came along they did start alternating. (checking the website they still do)
In Canada it means the 1959/1962, much closer to TEC's 1928 than to the CoE's 1662 (most aboriginal language texts are translations of the 1662 or its 1918 Canadian version). This is still the official prayer book, although the Book of Alternative Services is used in the great majority of worshipping activities). The nature of church life in Canada is that there is very little deviation from the approved texts.
That's why I raised it. If a CofE person says "BCP", they mean 1662.
One example of a bit that might be used today is the shorter introduction to Matins/Evensong.
Mind you - I was once told that the first Lord's Prayer was put in by mistake...given that one always says/sings the LP later in the service, whether or not the penitential introduction has been used, the first one does seem superfluous.
Where I used to run into trouble with the purists was that when celebrating 1662 BCP Communion I would substitute the Kyrie for the Commandments except in Lent and Advent aswhich is technically a 1928-ism. Mind you, I would also surprise them by reading the Exhortation several times a year, which they were unaccustomed to.
With the Exhortation at MP/EP I would follow the Shortened Services Act and just leave it out altogether most Sundays - which was a bit hard on the late arrivals.
Alleluia!
I don't think I can recall a single occasion when the service has not deviated in some way from the Prayer Book/Booklet/Service Sheet that I have been given, either by omitting something that should have been included or (more usually) by including something which hasn't been written down but which all the "regulars" know.
(a) ever so slightly OCD, and
(b) had a bucket load of priests who could not follow a bulletin before I hit 21.
I won't say I never deviate from the bulletin, but it is very, very rare, and usually the result of me forgetting to do something we did not usually do.
I do deviate very slightly from the 1662 when I am somewhere that uses it, which hasn't been for some years now. I am better behaved with the US 1928, though I do have a couple of things in there that I moan about regularly to anyone who will listen.
When presiding 1662 miseries I do deviate at "indifferently" and "bishops and curates" ... while as an English lit scholar I am fully aware of semantic shift I am also aware that there are occasions when the shift is too great and the meaning is be-muddled too much to enhance worship.
I leave the Ghost in, though.