Category Archives: Prayer Book

Field Guide to the Prayer Book Studies (PBS I-XVII)

3 Replies

Post Motivation

A friend was asking me the other day which volume of the 9-volume set would be the best to look into the background of the Baptismal Covenant. He had thought maybe Volume 1—perfectly understandably—as PBS I is about Baptism. But no! It turns out the first inklings of what we know today as the Baptismal Covenant doesn’t actually appear until PBS 26, the revision of the Trial Use PBS 18. (Furthermore, even the explication of PBS 26 in its very large supplement only contains the phrase “Baptismal Covenant” once; it wasn’t as nearly big then as it is now…)

In light of that, I thought it might be helpful to provide my guide to what’s in the various volumes and which ones you might be interested in for various purposes. In what follows, I will be relying quite a bit on the introductions I wrote to the 9 volumes, but I’ll be adding other thoughts and tidbits as well.

The Series as a Whole

The Prayer Book Studies (PBS) series documents the 26-year process of study and conversation that led to the adoption of the American 1979 Book of Common Prayer. It falls broadly into two parts, distinguished by the use of Roman numerals and Arabic numerals. PBS I-XVII were published by the members of the Standing Liturgical Commission between 1950 and 1966 to communicate research and draft liturgies leading towards a revision process; PBS 18-29 were published by the various drafting committees between 1970 and 1976 once the revision process was formally begun and the earlier drafts were being transformed into new usable liturgies leading up to the adoption of the new prayer book in 1979. Finally, PBS 30 and its commentary were an addition in 1989 to discuss inclusive and expansive language for God for further liturgical efforts.

The First Series, Part I (PBS I-XIV)

These fourteen studies that appeared in ten publications (four volumes contain two studies) systematically explore all of the liturgical materials within the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, incorporating scholarly research alongside input from clergy and congregations, concluding each study with a sample liturgy based on the study and reflection of the Commission. 

Each of these fourteen studies begin with an identical preface laying out the guiding principles: to objectively and impartially inform the broader church on the principles and issues involved in the revision of each portion, not for the benefit of one theological party but to the education of all.

The overwhelming impression of these documents is of a committee, anchored by Bayard Jones, Morton Stone, and Massey Shepherd, Jr.–the professors of the leading Episcopal seminaries of the day–that accomplished its work in a careful and thorough fashion. A great deal of thought, discussion, and argument has gone into these materials. The results are careful and fairly conservative modifications, assuming a retention of the “traditional” Elizabethan/Jacobean idiom of the English Prayer Book and the King James Bible.

I’ve got a post in process about what I call the “American 1960 BCP”—what the prayer book would have looked like if we had received the prayer book as envisioned by the end of this comprehensive survey of the 1928 book. Spoiler: it would have been a relatively conservative update of the 1928 with some interesting catholic additions and retaining a certain Anglican identity lost in the triumph of the Liturgical Renewal Movement especially post-Vatican II…

Volume 1 (PBS I-IV)

PBS I/II

The initial study on Christian initiation specifically identifies Baptism and Confirmation as the two rites that have raised the largest numbers of suggestions and criticisms received by the commission. Not only were there complaints about the structure and intent of the baptismal liturgy, but even then the purpose and ecumenical implications of Confirmation were hotly debated. 

This study provides the basic template that will be followed in many of the successive works: an historical survey incorporating the latest liturgical thought on the matter, a discussion of the principles of revision based on that historical and liturgical work, and a revised text of the rite for study and reflection–but not use. That last point is important; there was no mechanism for trial use at this time, so the liturgies could only be read and debated rather than fully experienced.

The historical survey here focuses mostly on the baptismal material in the Apostolic Constitutions. The rest is a brief drive-by of the medieval evolution, basically putting the separation of Baptism and Confirmation at the feet of the Scholastics, Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas in particular.

The second study focuses on the Eucharistic lectionary, considering the purposes of the seasons of the Church Year, then proposing a slightly amended version of the 1928 lectionary. At all points, keeping step with the contemporary Roman Catholic lectionary is kept in view. Of interest as well is a final section that advocates for largely retaining the historical text of the King James Bible except for certain words where the sense is no longer the same. In these cases, substitutes from the Revised Version are being considered–but no changed texts are included here.

PBS III

This third study on the Visitation of the Sick recommends a complete shift away from the rites of earlier prayer books and radically revamps the tone, structure, and intent of the rite. This study gives a first glimpse into what “radical” revision might look like, the boundaries of what “radical” might encompass, and the attention to earlier rites and patterns even when proposing something “radical.” It also represents a path not taken, as none of the forms here appear in the revised prayer book.

PBS IV

Weighing in at a whopping 360 pages, this fourth study on the Eucharist contains ten times more words than either PBS I or III. The first part, “The History of the Liturgy” rehearses the history of the Eucharistic rite from the New Testament to the present, incorporating the latest liturgical scholarship on the matter. A great deal of attention is given to the transition from the Latin Sarum Mass to the first Book of Common Prayer, comparing the texts section by section. From that point, each English prayer book is discussed including the Non Jurors and Scottish liturgies that would contribute to the American branch Each American book is then discussed in turn. Finally all Anglican revisions from 1928 to 1952 receive discussion. 

The second part, “Proposals for the Revision of the Liturgy,” begins with General Considerations that are then implemented as every portion of the liturgy is discussed in detail, concluding with the proposed rite itself. The resulting rite is very similar–but not identical–to the current Prayer II of the Rite One Eucharist.

If your interest is in the history of the Eucharistic liturgy—especially the relationship between Cranmer’s 1549 and the Sarum Missal—I highly recommend getting ahold of this. This section presents a very thorough look from the earliest recoverable materials through the Anglican books—English, obviously, but also the changes in other bodies of the Anglican Communion up to the early 1950’s.

Volume 2 (PBS V-IX)

PBS V

This first study on the Litany follows the typical pattern with a historical survey, principles of revision, and a revised rite. It’s quite brief. The version of the Great Litany here contains some minor tweaks in terms of phrases and individual words and is substantially that found in the revised prayer book. It also includes a Byzantine-derived “Litany of St. Chrysostom” not included in the revised book.

PBS VI/VII

This second study on the Morning and Evening Prayer betrays by its brevity that it is a very modest revision of the 1928 rites. A few new canticles have been added, but psalms are still offered as alternates in Evening Prayer, and the concluding collects are largely those of former editions. The lectionary is not addressed at all. 

The third study on the Penitential Office is a revision of the old Commination, a liturgy of repentance originally derived from the Sarum Ash Wednesday liturgy. While bound with the previous study, it does not pertain to the Daily Office. Here the commission is thinking through the sin and repentance from a mid-century psychological perspective. While little, if any, of this material ultimately appears in the revised prayer book, this study is helpful in illuminating their initial thinking around a modern approach to penitence.    

PBS VIII

The other study not pertaining to the Daily Office in this volume, the fourth study contains initial work on the Ordinal: the making of deacons, priests, and bishops. Another conservative revision, it takes great pains to point out that the essential structure and intent of the rite is in no way changed. Thus, the shadow of Roman concerns regarding the efficacy of Anglican orders still lies upon this effort as well as implications for relations with other Anglican churches. 

PBS IX

By far the largest study in this volume (although only half the size of PBS IV on the Eucharist), the fifth and final study tackles the Calendar and, in particular, the question of the liturgical celebration of sanctity. While there is the usual survey of historical materials and recent efforts across the Anglican Communion, it is noteworthy that in exploring historical and contemporary sanctoral calendars there is very little theological discussion of sanctity and how the notion of sanctity connects to Anglican theology as a whole. Thus–in my subjective opinion–the seeds for the ongoing controversy around the prayer book’s sanctoral calendar were sown here with the recommendation of such a calendar, but with no clear theology of sanctity to underpin it.

I find myself coming back to this study again and again when thinking about and writing on saints and sanctity in the Anglican Communion/Episcopal Church. If you have an interest in the Sanctoral Calendar, understandings and misunderstandings of it, this one is not to be missed!

Volume 3 (PBS X-XV)

The studies contained in this volume, PBS X-XV, hit the first major seam in the series. The first five studies (X-XIV) mostly deal with the pastoral offices, with the exception of PBS XII which takes on the collects of the Church Year, and should be seen within the broader context of PBS I-XIV. These fourteen studies that appeared in ten publications (four volumes contain two studies) systematically explore all of the liturgical materials within the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, incorporating scholarly research alongside input from clergy and congregations, concluding each study with a sample liturgy based on the study and reflection of the Commission.

The final study, PBS XV, is not–properly–a study of any particular liturgy. Rather, it is a plea directly from the Standing Liturgical Commission to the delegates of the 1961 General Convention for the adoption of the category of “trial use” in order that the liturgies produced by the Commission could be experienced by worshipping congregations and be tested in actual practice rather than in theoretical read-throughs.

PBS X/XI

This first study on Marriage is a now-typical gentle revision of the 1928 rite, primarily concerned with altering rubrics and words that have changed meaning. Other changes, like both rings now being blessed before either are given, are relatively minor.

The second study revising the former rite of the Churching of Women makes some major changes. Here the original prayer book logic for the rite–removing the ritual taint of childbirth from a new mother–is rejected and the rite is rethought and restructured as a communal thanksgiving for the birth of a child.Like the studies on the Visitation of the Sick (PBS III) and the Penitential Office (PBS VII), this study demonstrates the way the revisers reinterpreted a rite no longer in step with modern beliefs and attitudes.  

PBS XII

Far and away the longest study in this volume, the third study picks up where PBS IX on the sanctoral calendar left off. Taking the list of recommended feasts and fast from there, this study provides the liturgical materials in terms of Epistles, Gospels, and collects for their Eucharistic celebration. The new groupings of saints such as Pastors, Missionaries, Theologians, etc. are first found here, and most saints share collects with a small group of like-minded souls (biographical collects having been explicitly rejected).

Propers for some weekdays of Lent are also given here, appointing Epistles and Gospels for Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. There is no sense yet of a dropping of the Pre-Lenten season.

PBS XIII/XIV

The fourth study on Burial is remarkably terse in its initial material. There is only the briefest sketch of historical development, and barely a nod to the principles of revision. The vast majority of the content is simply the revised rites which are lightly amended from their 1928 models.

The fifth study on the Institution of a Rector contains much more historical detail than Burial, as well as principles of revision. There are few revisions from the 1928 rite, with the exception of one alteration that already points a to a key shift in Episcopal public worship: whereas the institution in the 1928 rite could occur in the context of Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, or Eucharist, this revised rite requires the celebration of the Eucharist by the newly instituted rector.

PBS XV

The fifth and final “study” in this volume is not a true liturgical study, but rather a plea to the delegates of the 1961 General Convention. It is a study in that it rehearses the history and failures of American prayer book revision based on the lapses of parliamentary procedure; it notes that the 1928 book was passed over a period of fifteen years and five successive conventions before all parts were ratified twice by both houses and that only because the 1925 convention halted all new business until the prayer book matters were completed! Indeed, a resolution to initiate a formal process of prayer book revision was passed by the House of Deputies in 1958, but never taken up by the House of Bishops. Rather than making the same mistake or worse, this study calls for new solutions to old problems, chiefly the designation of “trial use.”

Volume 4 (PBS XVI-XVII)

First Series, Part II

These studies bring to an end the First Series–those studies designated with Roman numerals. They sit in an interesting place between what has come before and what will come after. These studies revisit ground already trod in the first series. Returning to them now is significant because two major shifts have occurred since the original studies were written. 

First, the plea of PBS XV succeeded: the change to Article X of the Canons allowing “trial use” passed overwhelmingly by voice vote in the 1961 General Convention (before the publication of PBS XVI) and a second time in the 1964 General Convention (before the publication of PBS XVII). Thus, both of these are written looking forward to or actually receiving the benefits of trial use in actual worshipping congregations.

Second, these studies appeared in the context of the greatest ecclesiastical shift of the 20th century, the Roman Catholic reforms of Vatican II that took place between 1962 and 1965. For the first time in a millennium and a half, the Roman Catholic Mass was revised along 4th century lines and made available in vernacular languages; for the first time, Roman Catholic and Episcopal laity could compare the liturgies of their co-religionists and discover their similarities. 

However, with these publications, the Episcopal Church had not yet turned the corner to full revision; that would not come until the 1967 General Convention. Thus, these two studies are the last words of academically inclined theoretical study. From the publication of PBS I-XV–that is, from 1950 to 1961–the membership of the Standing Liturgical Commission consisted of 20 people, 4 of whom remained in key roles the entire time. The time from 1961 to 1966 added 7 new people to that number. In other words, the First Series was governed by disciplined academic and ecclesiastical control that emphasized a cautious and reverent approach to the materials. What will come next will be a radical expansion of voices and authors at the same time that tight deadlines and turnarounds will be demanded from those crafting the new liturgies.  

PBS XVI

This first study on the Calendar draws together the calendrical contents of PBS IX and XII into a usable form. The initial portion describes changes that have occurred within other Anglican Calendars as well as sanctoral changes wrought at Vatican II and their impact on the developing Episcopal Calendar. The proposed material presents the 12-month Calendar of observances, then the Collects, Epistles,and Gospels for the Fasts starting with the Ember Days of Advent and all Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, the Rogation Days and the Summer and Fall Ember days. After the Fasts come the Lesser Feasts, starting with Channing More Williams on December 2nd through the Church Year until Clement on November 23rd. From there it takes on the Common of Saints, followed by the Propers for Special Occasions.

This proposed material would be accepted for trial use at the 1963 General Convention and would be published in 1964 as the first Lesser Feasts & Fasts.   

This also brings us to our new shape of the Church Year with a dropping of the Pre-Lent section, but without the Triduum liturgies.

PBS XVII

Where there was not much change in the sanctoral material from the previous Studies, quite a bit was needed for this second study on the Eucharist. Indeed, this volume is explicitly framed as a report on PBS IV. Over 150 responses from groups large and small had been received by the time the drafting of this new study began in 1960–six years before its eventual publication. By that point it had become clear that a mere revision of the rite of PBS IV would not be acceptable, and that work would need to begin again from the ground up. In addition to offering critiques of PBS IV, the study also discusses changes due to Vatican II and includes a selection of consecration prayers from worldwide liturgical efforts through the 1950’s and 60’s.

Further changes in later studies would demonstrate that this proposed prayer, too, would be found lacking in several important respects.   

Conclusion

I hope this has been helpful; if so, I’ll do a similar post on the Second Series (PBS 18-30)!

Prayer Book Studies Series: It’s Here!!

2 Replies

At long last, the full Prayer Book Studies series is finished and available!!

This has been a very long time in coming.

For those unfamiliar with this material, here’s the blurb I wrote to describe them:

The creation of the landmark 1979 American Book of Common Prayer was the fruit of nearly four decades of discussion within the Episcopal Church. Prayer Book Studies is a series of official reports by the Church’s Standing Liturgical Commission that were published irregularly over the course of that period, representing the work of the committees deliberating over and drafting the materials that would eventually become the 1979 revision. These reports provide an extraordinary window into the work of leading liturgical scholars during an age characterized by huge transformation in the fields of liturgy. Long out of print and unavailable, these reports, collected in nine volumes, are an invaluable resource for liturgical scholars and clergy. 

I originally conceived of this project in early 2018. After some initial discussions and wrangling, an editor I knew at Church Publishing and I hashed out a plan for me to digitize the 29+ soft-cover/pamphlets that constitute the publications leading up to the publication of the Draft Proposed Book of Common Prayer in 1976 before its final ratification as the new American 1979 Book of Common Prayer. She insisted I add in the two later volumes from the late ’80’s I had not been aware of, and so we did.

The fundamental concept was a “diplomatic” edition of the primary source documents. In this context, “diplomatic” means an edition that replicates the format and contents of the original as closely as possible in its new form. Thus typos in the original, changes in formatting between volumes, and such would all be preserved. The idea is that whomever is looking at the new edition will essentially receive the same visual information from the page as an original viewer. This meant after scanning in all of the volumes, doing the OCR work to convert images to text, proofreading it all, and applying html code to structure the result, I also added styling markup to reflect the original as closely as possible.

We put out the First Series, volumes I-XVII, that contained the background academic work before Prayer Book Revision was formally engaged by General Convention as an e-book in January 2020. I’d hoped to get the Second Series, volumes 18-30, finished fairly soon after, but then COVID hit. That completely stalled my progress for a whole variety of reasons including four different job changes in just a few years.

Once things stablized, I got back to it—albeit slowly—and finally got everything finished last year. I reached out to the editors I’d worked with before with the finished draft: no response. Turns out they’d both moved on.

After a bit of emailing around, I was hooked up with some new editors. I had to explain the whole project again–what it is, what I had done, why it was important, etc. I received a heart-stopping reponse that began, “Well, we’ve looked things over… And we’ve decided to go in a different direction…” To my shock, they’d decided not just to do an e-book but also softback and hardback editions!

As great as this was, it did cause a few issues, mostly relating to the original goal of a diplomatic edition. All of the formatting was standardized which caused issues around headings and levels of headings across the 40-year spread of the series; the restoration of footnotes also changed things as I had marked editorial notes differently based on the original formatting of each volume. This didn’t get fully worked out, so you’ll notice a shift in how these appear as you go through the volumes!

All in all, we ended up dividing the full series into 9 separate volumes, with new (and brief) introductions for each. When they initally told me the projected pricing I flipped out; the paperback and digital prices were the same. The whole point of this project was to get these works back into the hands of anyone who wanted them! So, I pushed back and we were able to get the digital price dropped.

Now, at long last, I’m happy to present the new complete edition of the Prayer Book Studies! They’re all listed separately on Amazon, so here’s a link to the first one.

(I’ve also advocated for topical collections that would gather the Eucharist stuff in one volume; the Initiation stuff, the Daily Office stuff, etc.; let me know if that would be something you’d like to see so I can report back interest in that option too!)

PDF of the trial Offices for the Dead

At the request of some folks who had seen the previous post on my Offices for the Dead, I have compiled them in a PDF.

This contains an introduction that briefly introduces the history and purpose of the devotion (largely adapted from the blog post below)  and also offers some suggestions for how individuals and communities might use them.

Then follow Morning and Evening Prayer for Form 1, then Morning and Evening Prayer for Form 2.

After being asked about it, I decided to remove the rubricized note at the beginning regarding the doubling of antiphons. In a nutshell, in a chockful multi-Office environment,  antiphons were not said in full before and after every psalm. If it wasn’t a fancy day, only the first few notes of the antiphon were sung so the rest of the choir would know what note to start singing the psalm on. (Yes, this goes back to the period of sung Offices and limited books.) Because I left the daggers in for the sake of the liturgical purists amongst us—you know who you are—I included the note in the web versions. For a standalone general-use document for Episcopalians, it is probably unnecessary.

The PDF is located here.

PBS I-XIV

The end of the school year for two different schools has happened for me. That’s been rough, but we’re through it now…

Here’s a quick update on where the Prayer Book Studies digitization project goes. I have now finished Prayer Book Studies volumes I through XV. (Well, almost—there’s still a bit to do on XII, but I’m ignoring that for now.)

This is an important point to stop and make on observation on this collection.

Looking back, it’s clear that PBS I-XIV form a fairly coherent theological and liturgical unit. This body of material goes through all of the main rites and sections of the prayer book and reflects work done since the 1940’s but published in the span between 1950 (with PBS I) and 1959 (with PBS XIV) following the authorization of the series at General Convention in 1949. One of the clear signals of the coherence is that every single one of these volumes begins with an identical preface laying out the premise of the work. Furthermore, that preface makes clear that the work incorporated here did not begin in the 1940’s but, rather, consists on unresolved work and discussions that began in the 19-teens and that did not fully make it into the 1928 BCP:

The last revision of our Prayer Book was brought to a rather abrupt conclusion in 1928. Consideration of it had preoccupied the time of General Convention ever since 1913. Everyone was weary of the long and ponderous legislative process, and desired to make the new Prayer Book available as soon as possible for the use of the Church.

But the work of revision, which sometimes has seemed difficult to start, in this case proved hard to stop. The years of debate had aroused widespread interest in the whole subject: and the mind of the Church was more receptive of suggestions for revision when the work was brought to an end than when it began. Moreover, the revision was actually closed to new action in 1925, in order that it might receive final adoption in 1928: so that it was not possible to give due consideration to a number of very desirable features in the English and Scottish revisions, which appeared simultaneously with our own. It was further realized that there were some rough edges in what had been done, as well as an unsatisfied demand for still further alterations.

The materials we find in PBS I-XIV center around the work of three men, the liturgy professors of the central Episcopal seminaries of the day: Bayard Jones, Morton Stone, and Massey Shepherd, Jr. While Jones died in 1957, the work he had done in the decades prior was still fully incorporated up through PBS XIV.

The overwhelming impression that I get while I go through these documents is of a committee, anchored by these three, that does its work in a careful and thorough fashion. A great deal of thought, discussion, and argument has gone into this work. There are references to earlier liturgical tomes—often those written by one or more of the three—as well as great attention to the sources of antiquity, with a tremendous amount of weight placed on the Apostolic Constitutions (as one might expect in this period of liturgical history).

Nowhere does this stand out more than in the two heftiest and most involved volumes of the collection, PBS IV (On the Eucharist) and PBS IX (On the Calendar). Both of these studies involve searching looks at the past, and an extremely careful survey of the current situation in the Anglican family. I see frequent off-handed and usually silent references to the great minds of the English revision efforts just after the turn of the 20th century. Indeed, it is impossible to read the volume on the Calendar without feeling the tremendous influence of Walter H. Frere’s writing.

The work is careful, thorough, fairly conservative, and completely in touch with sources. I believe I’ve remarked on this before on this blog, but it is worth repeating again: virtually all of the sanctoral collects in PBS XII (Propers for Minor Holy Days) are based on pre-existing collects that have been adapted, tweaked, and modified to be appropriate. Nobody is making stuff up off the top of their heads. Furthermore, this judicious source-based approach was taken up after a test and failure of a “biographical collect” trial run. [As should be well-known to students of our Calendar, this approach and body of work was complete scrapped in 1980 with the triumphal (?) return of the “biographical collect”…]

Furthermore, after PBS XIV we see a shift in the contents of the series. PBS XV is not, actually—despite the name—a volume of study on the prayer book. Instead, coming in 1961 in anticipation of that year’s General Convention, it is a plea. Having established that prayer book revision has been at work in many of the other churches of the Anglican Communion, it has proceeded in those places on the principle of “trial use”: testing stuff out rather than legislative line-editing. Shepherd writes:

For the past three General Conventions (1952, 1955, and 1958) the Standing Liturgical Commission has offered with its report to the Convention a resolution seeking an amendment to Article X of the Constitution that would set up the possibility of trial use in any forthcoming revision of the Prayer Book. This resolution has been defeated in all three Conventions.

The volume is, essentially, a direct appeal to the broad body of General Convention, especially the House of Deputies, for passing a measure that would make trial use possible.

After the publication of PBS XV (which came out 3 years after PBS XIV), PBS XVI would not be published until two years later (1963) and PBS XVII does not appear until 1967. Beginning with these two publications and continuing through the rest, two things happen with the Prayer Book Studies series as a whole. First, the PBS publications begin reworking earlier material (PBS XVI is a re-working of the Calendar material; PBS XVII is a reworking of the Eucharistic material from PBS IV). Second, the studies begin engaging with changes coming from the Roman Catholic world. While the earlier volumes showed influence from the Ecumenical Movement , the great sea-change had not yet occurred. As you’ll note from the date span (1950-1959), this early body of work occurs before the single biggest bombshell of twentieth century liturgics: the reforms of Vatican II.

There is a definite shift in character between the First Series—those denoted with Roman numerals, comprising PBS I-XVII—and the Second Series—those denoted with Arabic numerals, comprising 18-29. I’ll say more about that as I get into them. However, I did want to note this moment, this turn, with a simple observation.

One way to think about the movement we see in the Prayer Book Studies volumes is that this First Series represents a view of prayer book revision that seeks to complete work left undone in the 1928 revision. Although it draws in ecumenical sources and is influenced by the Ecumenical Movement and work by Roman Catholic scholars, it comes from a profoundly and intentionally Anglican perspective.

And I think that’s where I’ll leave it for now: Prayer Book Studies volumes I through XIV represent an Anglican extension of revisions not yet completed for the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

Prayer Book Studies II: The Lectionary

Sharing the latter half of the volume with PBS I is Prayer Book Studies II: The Liturgical Lectionary which examines and recommends changes to the lectionary appointed for the Eucharist.

Note the timing: this was published in 1950 and was based on work done before that time. The three-year lectionary is not even a twinkle in Rome’s eye at this point. As a result, this book is focused entirely on tweaks to the classical one-year lectionary. This volume could be considered an anachronistic waste of time as it refers to a system we no longer use any more but for two important points.

First, the three-year lectionary has come under fire lately and there have been a number of pieces written on the superiority of the one-year system and calls for its restoration. In light of that call, I find it quite valuable to see this list of considerations on what needed to be changed in that system by people who had lived within it for decades. It’s easy enough for people of my age and younger who have never lived under it to wax eloquent about its benefits; it’s more instructive to hear trained scholars with lengthy experience with it hold forth on how it could be made better.

Second, this volume addresses what I understand as a fundamental principle of any good Eucharistic lectionary:

In other words, it is none of our concern to impose any individualistic idea of our own as to what the Christian Year is, much less to reform it to what we might like to make it. As a matter of fact, we know what the Christian Year is only by studying what it has been: and any emendations we may make should be limited to those which will actually enable it to say better what it is evidently trying to say. (PBS II, 45)

One of the brief side-arguments I made in my dissertation that I’d like to revisit and expand upon at some time is just this notion—that there is an Aristotelian back-and-forth between the character of our liturgical seasons and the content of our Eucharistic lections. That is, the themes of the season inform the choice of the lessons; the content of the lessons establishes the themes of the season.

The argument rightly presented here is that “…the Church’s cycle of commemorations was not a system which was systematically planned and executed at any one time, but a collection which was gradually piled up through many centuries” (PBS II, 40). Indeed, further scholarly work like McKinnon’s magisterial The Advent Project (published in 2000 and argued about since then) gives a fascinating visibility into the fits and starts by which accumulation and systematic planning alternated in the life of the Church and the growth of its lectionaries and Minor Propers.

There is a not insignificant amount of unhappiness with certain aspects of the Revised Common Lectionary—the three-year cycle we currently use for our Eucharistic lectionary. While many folks take the opportunity to spout off about what’s wrong with it, this volume offers an opportunity to examine how to go about thinking through what careful, intentional, systematic revision could and should look like.

It’s worth noting that the changes discussed here are grounded in one particular book, The Eternal Word in the Modern World, by Burton Scott Easton and Howard Chandler Robbins (Scribners, New York, 1937). The introduction to PBS I/II states :

The Commission records its loss in the deaths of two of its members, whose final contributions to the Church they served are reflected in this first issue of the Prayer Book Studies. . . . The Reverend Doctor Burton Scott Easton, late Associate Member, in his published work on the Epistles and Gospels of the Christian Year, furnished the foundation and inspiration for the Study on “The Liturgical Lectionary.”

So—the first author of the book was also a participant in the drafting of this volume. I’ve never seen a copy of this work for myself, but now I’m curious about it…

Another interesting throw-away line was this one:

It is a curious fact that no Lectionary of any Church ever made a systematic attempt to secure a definite ‘liturgical harmony,’ featuring a single common theme between all the portions read at each service, until the American Lectionary of 1943. (PBS II, 44)

The reference here is not to a Eucharistic lectionary, but to the revision of the Daily Office Lectionary. While I’m aware of this lectionary and have interacted with it to a certain degree,  I’ve not yet studied it in depth. When I have the opportunity to do so, the starting point will no doubt be Bayard Jones’ The American Lectionary (Morehouse-Gorham, 1944).

Jones was one of the Big Three in the early work of the Standing Liturgical Commission, the other two being Morton Stone and Massey Shepherd, Jr. All three of these guys—as liturgy professors at Episcopal seminaries—wrote important books on the 1928 BCP and its liturgy that might make interesting reading to supplement what is found in these Prayer Book Studies volumes.

PBS I: Baptism & Confirmation

I’d hoped to glance quickly over the text of PBS I, which I’ve already finished, and to jot out a quick post pointing out a few highlights. Instead, I started reading through the text and got bogged down into a few google searches leading inevitably to the agreement between two bishops of the 1750’s that they’d be happy to give away the body of St. Anselm to the superstitious King of Sardinia on the principle that if they could give away some dusty bones to the benefit of a single Protestant they’d be ahead in the bargain! (And, of course, that any old Anselm would do to be sent off anyway…). [Both plans A & B were thwarted.]

However, I did find myself making a number of footnote additions to the text. The authors assume that the readers either know the text of the 1928 BCP intimately or that they have a copy of it at hand while they read the Studies.  While that’s probably not a bad idea, I’ve elected to include footnotes containing the various prayers and other things they make reference to in case there isn’t a ’28 BCP around.

In any case… The study does open with the question of the relationship between Baptism and Confirmation which will continue to be a major topic in Anglican liturgics to the present. While the question is identified, it is not solved or even fully engaged here. Rather, the proposed changes to Baptism: “may be subsumed under three headings: the length of the service, the clarification of rubrics to meet modern needs and demands, and the simplification of the ritual text.” (PBS I, 12). What this line doesn’t mention but explains later is one of the central planks of the revision of Baptism, namely that the baptismal service should be shortened so that it is not overly burdensome when inserted into a regular Sunday Service, preferably a Eucharist.  Private baptism are not forbidden but certainly discouraged.

The discussion of the Blessing of the Font under the third heading brings up again the Confirmation question which concludes in this way:

All that the present revision claims for itself is that it has sought to avoid any phraseology which would foster an interpretation of Baptism with Water in such a way that it usurps or makes superfluous the normative and necessary place of Confirmation in the perfecting of the Christian, or would reduce the meaning of Confirmation to a mere strengthening of what has been received in Baptism. (PBS I, 19)

After this, they do hasten to add that Confirmation should follow directly after if at all possible.

The changes to Confirmation include making it a full stand-alone service, but also a move back towards a second giving of the Spirit:

The most significant alteration in the prayers which follow are designed to restore the primitive view of Confirmation as the gift of the indwelling Spirit in all His fulness to the baptized, and not merely as an added, strengthening grace. Thus, “Send into their hearts thy Holy Spirit” is substituted for “Strengthen them with the Holy Ghost” as in the present form. This brings the prayer closer not only to the 1549 form, but also to the original Gelasian wording: immitte in eos Spiritum sanctum. Similarly, “Confirm” has replaced “Defend” in the prayer said by the Bishop at the imposition of his hand. This change makes it clear that Confirmation means primarily the action of God in confirming His children. In our present rite the word “confirming” is confusingly used only of the action of the candidate in renewing his vows. Moreover the word “confirm” includes all that is implied in “defend” and more! (PBS I, 21)

Needless to say, this direction will be significantly reversed in later volumes…

The second big topic here is the question of bringing  Chrismation back into the service. The Sarum materials mention the bishop “signing and sealing” but don’t mention oil.  While Cranmer had kept the language of “signing and sealing” in the 1549 book, this was all excised in the 1552 BCP. This revision notes that many bishops are signing and sealing with oil, and as much as you get the sense that they’d like to go there, the authors stop short of actually proposing it. It’s floated as a trial balloon in the text, but not included within the proposed service itself.

In summary, then, this study offers some initial steps towards baptismal revision. Private baptisms are discouraged, but there is no sense here of the Baptismal Covenant. The Confirmation revision doubles down on the rite as an invocation of the Spirit upon the confirmand, emphasizing thereby that the “confirming” is something done just as a much by God as it is by the individual.

Prayer Book Studies: Digital Edition

One of the things I have hoped and intended to do for a long time is to make the Prayer Book Studies series more available throughout the church.

For those not familiar with it, “Prayer Book Studies” was a concept set into motion by the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in 1949. This would be a study of liturgy, liturgical principles, and the rites of the church that would guide progress towards a new Book of Common Prayer. Prayer Book Studies I/II (containing the first two studies) appeared in 1950; Prayer Book Studies 29: Introducing the Proposed Book of Common Prayer was published in 1976.  Appearing (mostly) in floppy blue pamphlets of varying length, these booklets are invaluable looks into the thoughts, logic, knowledge, and assumptions of the men (mostly men…) who shaped our present American Book of Common Prayer (1979).

As we discuss liturgical revision at this time, and as we have memorialized the 1979 BCP—whatever that means—it is imperative that we as a church gain a clear sense of this book that we have and the principles and priorities that produced it.

And these topics are discussed and made explicit in the volumes of the Prayer Book Studies.

I have signed a contract with Church Publishing to produce a digital edition of the full series. Exactly how they will be gathered and distributed is a marketing decision, and not entirely in my hands. Nonetheless, the goal is to produce the complete text containing footnotes (and introducing editorial footnotes where I think something needs to be added or clarified) for the reflection and edification of the church.

Want to know why a text was chosen? Check here first.

Want to understand the reason for a rubric? Check here first.

Want to get a better sense of why we do what we do? Check here first…

We plan to move quickly on this. I’ve already begun the first series, and PBS 1-3 are in the hands of the good folks at CPG. I intend to finish the first series (Prayer Book Studies I-XVII) by the early summer; I don’t know what that means exactly for a release date, but I hope not too long after that. I plan to blog as I go, sharing some of the gems I discover, and whetting your appetites for the arrival of the full set.

(Work on the Psalms book still continues, albeit at a sluggish pace, and will be back on the front burner when this is done…)

So—check back frequently for more updates, ask me if you don’t see any, and keep me in your prayers as I work to make this great set of resources available for the church!