Fr. Griffiths at Hypersync presents a call for Prayer Book Anglicans at the same time that a very thoughtful post by Fr. Haller makes the rounds and shows up on the Cafe. There’s an interesting, inevitable and contructive tension between these two reflections. One polarity is the call to continuity, consistency and stability in the call back to prayer book faithfulness. The other polarity is the recognition of basic reality: there is no monolithic prayer book that contains and describes the whole of the Anglican Way; while the English 1662 BCP has a special claim given its long-standing status and its role during the era of imperalistic evangelism, the Laudian prayer book (Scottish 1637 BCP) and its American offspring should not be denied their proper place. Furthermore, not all the changes motivated by the broad Liturgical Renewal following Vatican II (contained in the American 1979 BCP and other recent national variants) should be excluded as aberrations as some of these changes put far firmer historical footing on the intentions signalled by Archbishop Cranmer in the preface to the 1549 BCP.
Between these polarities, I believe there is a constructive tension that can responsibly be called Prayer Book Anglicanism that is not static but holds within itself possibilities including my preferred position–Prayer Book Catholicism. I would suggest that this position can best be staked out by a set of indispensible liturgical texts from which Anglicans draw their core theology and identity. Here’s my thesis–I’d love to hear your thoughts and disagreements…
Central Thesis: The heart of all Anglican Books of Common Prayer and thus the heart of the Anglican Path of Spirituality is the complimentary use of the Mass and the Office within the structure of the Liturgical Year.
Common crucial Mass texts include:
- The Collect for Purity
- Gospel and non-Gospel Reading(s) keyed to the mysteries of the Liturgical Year
- the Nicene Creed
- The Canon of the Eucharistic Prayer (This last is, historically, the most problematic, as Christopher and others more knowledgeable than I can attest. However, I believe that a general precis of characteristics can be identified including the distinctive double epiclesis where the Holy Spirit is invoked upon both the eucharistic elements of the bread and wine and the echaristic element of the gathered congregation [[yes–I know it’s not in all books–it’s still characteristically Anglican…])
Common crucial Office texts include:
- Regular constant repetition of the Psalter as the heart of the Office
- A lectionary that attempts to cover a vast amount if not the whole of Scripture within a set period
- Regular if not daily repetition of: the Te Deum, the Benedictus, the Magnificat, and the Nunc Dimittis
- The Apostles Creed
- A seasonal pattern that leads us to reflect upon the mysteries of the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of our Lord through the lenses of various aspects of our Lord’s words and works. I.e., minimally Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter
- a yearly recollection of a handful of stars that form the great and brilliant constellation of the Communion of the Saints including saints from the Scriptures and through the scope of Christian history
- A body of collects, mutable though rooted in historical precedents, that bind both Mass and Office to the framework of the year
Wanna be a Prayer Book Anglican? Then I’d suggest that these are the materials we need to be mastering. Not just using, but reflecting upon, digging into, and embodying as we attempt to live our faith. Mastering–as we offer and present unto the Lord our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice in order–not to live into a label, even as one as great as “Anglican”–but into the life in which we are hid with Christ in God.
I think Fr. Griffiths was not so much focused on a particular version of the Prayer Book, but rather on heedless violation of ordination vows and canons by clergy.
That’s what I took from it, anyway, and his complaint rings very true, to me; great numbers of priests of the Episcopal Church (again, on all sides and from all parts of the spectrum) seem completely unable to obey any authority except themselves. If they don’t like something, they do it their own way; they take a congregational, individual approach rather than a corporate one.
Which is fine – except that is not what we are. It seems to be a complete inability to recognize reality, to me – and I’ve personally grown (as I think you can tell) to have very little respect for this group.
As Anglicans, we are by definition open to change – but these priests are also, I’m afraid, under authority. (Anglo-Catholics seem to understand this better than others, I will say.)
It’s a childish free-for-all at the moment. I’m really tired of the juvenile behavior and theatrics, when even the very simplest basics – daily prayer, for one very good example – are utterly ignored. Not that anybody should necessarily care what I think, but I’ve just grown completely indifferent to the church and its alleged leadership.
The Prayer Book is only one aspect of this, but it is an important one. I don’t think anybody thinks it should be set in stone forever.
To answer your question, though: what I care about are: Mass and Office in equal measure, the continual recitation of Psalms, and especially the Great Church Year. And – oh, yes: the Collects. Those are terrific. I’m not too attached to the rest, actually. Not even the Nicene Creed (except in Bach Masses!); I could easily do with the Apostles’, or with leaving it out entirely. (If it’s there, it should be sung.)
(You can’t have the Te Deum recited daily, though.
Otherwise, what would you have for special occasions?
;-) )
Good point on Fr. Griffith’s post… His primary focus was the inability to keep canons and rubrics…
I’ll fight for the creeds as necessary boundaries for how we read Scripture–but you knew that…
As for the Te Deum, the earliest English BCP mandates its use daily; 1662 seems to prefer its daily use. The venerable Directorum Anglicanum commends its use daily except on penitential days; Ritual Notes agrees with you, preferring its use on feast days. Of course, if you’re using the Universal kalendar or even the Sarum kalendar, that’s pretty much every day anyway outside of Lent and Holy Week… ;-)
Well, I’m fine with keeping the Creeds as the statement of faith. I’m just not sure why we have to recite them every week during Eucharist.
The Nicene is too long and involved anyway. 4 x a year for that one, I say, at most.
I guess that’s true, isn’t it, about the plethora of feast days in the medieval period. Well, I must say I prefer a period I(like now, for instance) with nothing much going on; it’s more like real life that way.
Derek, this is an interesting post for me practically at this point as I’m wrestling with developing a Celtic liturgy and a children’s liturgy for fall, and trying to convince the powers-that-be (i.e., my rector) that certain things are non-negotiable. This really helped reinforce some things I was already thinking.
My only question–and maybe a dumb one-why the emphasis on the collect for purity?
No, not a dumb question… In some sense the collect for purity is an outlier and perhaps the most negotiable thing on the list. However, I think it captures something ineffable about the spirit of Anglican worship–as well as being a huge personal favorite of mine…
A Celtic liturgy? Good luck with that one…I’ve spoken my piece on that particular topic. However, I’d point you in particular to the book that Michelle mentions there in the comments.
I think on the whole you’re “ordo” of formation is fine. Does it make me not Anglican that the Te Deum shows up so rarely in my praying? Or Benedictine Anglicans who use a Chapter sentence or two rather than extensive lectionaries? Both of these practices tend to mark off my own praying of the Office.
I miss that the Collect of Purity is so rarely in use in liturgies I encounter. I would add the Prayer of Humble Access. Both are something very distinctly ours, but negotiable. I would also add my second that many of the Collects themselves comprise a vital portion in the Mass–and Office. Especially in the Office (but in the Mass especially following the Ec. Mvmt.), the return of the Prayers (Preces) as intersessions, which says something very important about the role of the laity.
My first concern is that we must recognize that Anglicanism has always been both local and catholic. Localism is not the same thing as parochialism–in that sense, it often feels to me that though spread far and wide, the Roman Rite feels quite parochial because of a sense of not feeling the need to connect to other locales/rites. Our reforming divines drew not only from Sarum (and by extension Rome), but from the East in their reforms–that is one example of this locality that remains aware of a diversity acceptable as catholic.
My other concern is that lex orandi, lex credendi needs to be taken quite a bit more carefully. Kenneth Stevenson makes the argument I myself have made that Hooker and the Caroline Divines read 1549 through a Reformed Patristic lens, something Cranmer likely did not intend, and that we owe them a great deal in that reading for what we consider “Anglicanism” today. This set the direction of the Non-Jurors, for example. It’s more a case of a hermeneutical lex credendi, lex orandi; lex orandi, lex credendi. More a hermeneutical spiral rather than the unidirectional perspective or perhaps circle the dictum usually and to my mind incorrectly implies.
Since I am diving into examining the Canons/Anaphorae/Eucharistic Prayers/Prayers of Holy Communion (note that the latter is a most Anglican term and theological emphasis), I could say a lot, but suffice it to say that we are heavily indebted to many both East and West–that double epiclesis is a classic holding together of tensions in Anglican theology between emphasis on location of the Presence and emphasis on who the Presence shows up for–us.
Here is something I noted on the Creeds in my first chapter:
Weil frames his discussion of the duplicatory effects of including the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in the Rite of Holy Communion around an observation made by Robert Taft regarding the creedal thrust of the eucharistic prayer in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. While not to be argued further here, it should be noted that a significant difference marks off both Taft’s and Weil’s arguments concerning the inclusion the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed from some current trends in the Episcopal Church. The eucharistic prayers of Taft’s study are living, yet ancient, prayers that have remained relatively stable and remain in present use to this day; the eucharistic prayers of Weil’s study are largely those of an authorizing church body and are presumed the only prayers used for Holy Communion, especially at the principle Sunday service of Holy Communion. The stability and orthodox proclamation which these prayers maintain through long-time use and/or authorized status cannot be taken for granted in an era when one is likely to encounter parishes using “unvetted” eucharistic prayers self-composed, found in a resource other than those authorized, or downloaded from the internet. The inclusion and function of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed under such conditions may be other than duplicatory.
Trust me, the Celtic liturgy is not my baby, but I have to sort of whip it into shape from the bits and pieces my rector (who’s not that liturgically astute, and I can say that here but not on my blog) gleaned from various sources.
If you’ve read the pieces on evangelism at Father Jake’s new blog, what we’re trying to do gives me pause on more than one level, b/c it is definitely “build it and they will come” thinking. But I digress from your topic…
Hope you and M and the girls are settling in your new home!
Christopher,
I waffled back and forth on the Prayer of Humble Access. That’s another favorite of mine and I’d be quite happy having it on but also accept that I may be in the minority on that one.
Your Office practices are soundly within the catholic tradition and are essentially those of Lay Roman Catholic piety where the emphasis is on praying Lauds and Vespers. Naturally, the yearly lectionary and the Te Deum do not make an appearance as these are both features of the Matins Office. Are these wholesome practices in the mainline of the Christian tradition as we have received them in the West? Certainly! Do they bear the distinctive marks of the Anglican tradition? Well…no, as the classical Anglican formulation of Morning Prayer is rooted in the aggregation practice common in the later medieval period (and beyond) of praying Matins, Prime and Lauds in a single sitting and thus uses elements from all three.
Should you change? Well, I’m not saying that either, but–as you know–the key is to figure out another way to faithfully maintain a yearly or biyearly discipline of reading the Scriptures.
As you’ve heard me rant before, the principle of a selective Mass lectionary is completely intended to stand within a discipline of reading and knowing the whole Scriptures and it’s the loss or monasticization of the lectio continua part that led to the functional illiteracy of congregants that continues to plague the liturgical churches.
Rev. Dr. Mom,
I didn’t think that sounded like your idea! Good luck with it… Actually we’re finding this diocese very friendly and helpful! The ladies are all doing well and G is loving school as a kindergartener.
Derek, I am trying to figure out how one could pray the daily office according to your minimum standards and still remain in the orbit of 1979 BCP/ECUSA usage. I think it would take a few books and some leeway with the accepted standards:
1. The ’79 BCP (or Anglican Service Book)
2. A Bible with Apocrypha and a copy of the English office lectionary of 1922 (here is where leeway with accepted standards will need to be taken if you want to pursue the “coverage model” of reading lessons but maintain observance of the liturgical year)
3. A copy of the latest LFF for collects of feast days (or a People’s Anglican Missal for collects if you want to follow the Universal Kalendar, or the OHC Monastic Breviary or OJN Collects for a via media)
This doesn’t cover “Prayer Book Catholic” observances like the Angelus, the Marian Anthems, and office hymns–here you might need a fourth volume like the Monastic Diurnal or the Manual of Anglo-Catholic Devotion.
It’s a lot of book-juggling, unless there are omnibus volumes like the combined BCP/NRSV involved.
Derek,
The problem with the aggregation practice, at least for me, is that it makes MP quite top heavy, which means I am either rushing or non-attentive. 10 minutes, maybe 15 is what I have for this on an average day. If I’m lucky, I get in 20 minutes of meditation. The PB MP service is meant to be parochial (here meaning parish, not insular). Not a parish around that does it. That’s a lot to then bring back to bear on the individual and household. I can only do my best, adapting materials to that reality.
Monasticization of the Anglican variety in my opinion may need to take a different turn for the average lay person in modern life, something Anglicanism should be flexible enough to recognize.
And let me say, I was an oddball in the RC tradition because I prayed the Office, so it’s not well-established there either. When my confessor asked me what prayers I pray, my response “the Office” was meant with puzzlement, and “Well, certainly the Office is prayer…The psalms…”.
I think a way I find useful for getting in a full range of Scripture is a lectio continua for Lectio. And simply just reading a chapter a day because I enjoy reading the bible as devotion.
And what of the Monastic Breviary used by Benedictine Anglicans and the use of sentences only? Again, I recognize it’s not mainstream Anglican with the aggregation piece, but certainly it is Anglican. I guess I’m pulled between Benedict’s call for realism adapted to the lay estate and Anglican practice in need of adaptation to that estate in light of modern realities and a fall off of parochial consistency.
Brian M, I think it’s totally possible with the ’79 BCP.
2. Of course you need a Bible with the Apocrypha–what do you think we are, Lutherans? :-) If you’ll note, though, this is why I used the hedge “over a vast amount if not the whole of Scripture within a set period“. You and I know that the historical standard for that “set period” is, indeed, the liturgical year and that there are very good historical and theological arguments for tying certain books to certain seasons a la the 1922–however, the ’79’s 2 year office lectionary also qualifies as “a set period”.
3. The sanctoral collects are a great aid to devotion and I certainly prefer them. However, what is necessary is the kalendar and a sufficient Common of Saints which the ’79 does have. (Indeed under this criterion the 1662 and American ’28 would similarly be defective…)
So yes, my minimum does require a BCP and a Bible but no more than that.
Christopher,
Do you mean A Monastic Breviary by the OHC or the Monastic Diurnal? The first has four Scripture readings. The second does not–but it’s also a diurnal and therefore does not contain Matins with the main reading (and Te Deum).
Trust me, I totally understand the difficulty of fitting in a full office (evenings are harder for me than mornings) due to household obligations. Yes, the PB MP is parochial but barring that the household is likewise an appropriate context. What we’ve seen from the beginning of the Anglican era to the present is a consistent shortening of the lessons which is what required the American ’79 to break to a 2 year cycle to approach any kind of meaningful coverage. That is, the successive lectionaries indicate that households have *always* had difficulty fitting this in.
And I know that most Roman Catholics don;t know the Office. I only know two who pray it. One is a also a New Testament Medievalist type, the other an Anglican convert…
I don’t really understand Brian M.’s complaint. Your four points are according to the BCP for the Offices.
That’s exactly what I do for morning and evening prayer, and it’s right out of the Prayer Book; I don’t even have a breviary. The only change I make, really, is that I sing actual monastic hymns because I happen to know them – but I also sing hymns out of the 1982.
And Compline, of course, is directly out of the prayer book; I learned to sing it on a recording from the SSJE, which uses the Prayer Book without alteration in the least.
(Actually, all the Episcopal monastic communities I’m familiar with pray right out of the Prayer Book as is, with only a few extras (Marian things, especially, and of course the “little hours.” Some of these things may actually be in the BOS; I’m not sure because I’ve only seen that one a couple of times.
Yes, all this is perfectly doable with the Prayer Book; I don’t know any other way to do it.)
Mine were not complaints, but observations. Here are a few more:
1. The ’79 office lectionary skips a lot. A LOT. I don’t think it counts for a coverage model for lessons, even if you allow for the 2-year period. I assume no ECUSAn prelates would begrudge us private use of another lectionary, though.
2. The ’79 BCP sanctoral calendar is not bad, but it requires some enrichment if you want to make some traditional Catholic observances like Corpus Christi. Even Howard Galley, who missed a lot, included a special office it in his PB Office volume.
3. That said, you could still get away with BCP. Bible, a different lectionary and perhaps a collated booklet for Angelus and Anthems. That still leaves the hymns.
Again, I don’t think complaints make sense or are valid.
For instance, Derek said nothing about any of: Corpus Christi, anthems, the Angelus, or hymns. I don’t think it’s reasonable to add conditions only to argue against him by means of these very added conditions.
I pray Morning Prayer at least almost every day of the year using only the BCP. Anybody can do it, quite easily.
“These” complaints, that is….
Brian,
I do think you’re missing my purpose. I’m not identifying minimum requirements for a Prayer Book Catholic Office/Breviary but what should be considered the minimum for texts and sources of doctrine for Anglicans who claim to be “Prayer Book” whether catholic, broad, or evangelical.
I agree–in order to do a Prayer Book Catholic Office the ’79 falls short of what I desire.
“The stability and orthodox proclamation which these prayers maintain through long-time use and/or authorized status cannot be taken for granted in an era when one is likely to encounter parishes using “unvetted” eucharistic prayers self-composed, found in a resource other than those authorized, or downloaded from the internet. The inclusion and function of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed under such conditions may be other than duplicatory.”
Yup. Definitely yup. It’s funny that the most stable element of my parish liturgy on this list is the Collect for Purity.
Brian:
I appreciate your bewailing the collection of “wee bookies” necessary.
Our solution (for Mass) was to compose our own “Book of the Chair” with all noted Glorias and Kyries, ALL collects (BCP+LFF+locals), a topical BCP Collect for after Prayers of the People, a Proper Offertory verse (from the Gospel, if possible), and a tri-fold seasonal blessing for every possible commemoration.
I made up a pure BCP+Hymnal settings version of this Book of the Chair and sent it to Church Publishing. They didn’t want it.
P.S. We also produced our own Julian Missal so we could include proper prefaces for Corpus Christi, etc.
Derek:
I think you are on a wonderful course here. And I think one of the tension-reducers on the part of “progressives” (like me) would be to accept strict rubrical adherence (or at least episcopal permissions for aberrations).
Also, I guess it’s not a “content” issue, but one must suggest that one of the dynamics in the formation of the 1549 was that it be “in the hands of the people” as nothing theretofore had been –– suggesting that lay “participation” in Eucharist was a value even then. [This has led, of course, to the ubiquitous enslavement-to-the-book at Mass for many laity. (Why. in God’s name, give out page numbers — it only encourages noses-in-the-book rather than participation?) BUT it suggests that active engagement of the congregation was a desideratum.] I think that that “function” might be added to your list of contents for optimal contemporary/traditional Anglican Eucharist.
That’s enough for now.
*looks around for the guy who is arguing, or complaining*
Fair points about PB *Anglican* versus PB *Catholic.* If we only consider the former, I would still make the observation that the ’79 office lectionary falls short of “cover[ing] a vast amount if not the whole of Scripture within a set period.”
Oops. Diurnal.
I think what this conversation reveals is a number of faithful people doing their best to adapt a rich tradition, and doing so with seriousness and care. Were that such was happening more widely as parishes. That we might not all pray the Office exactly the same in nowise means that our chorus isn’t taken up in our Great High Priest as incense before our Merciful Father, or that it’s not within a wide breadth of Anglican practice.
I once bucked at the increase in canticles, for example, in 1979, forgetting that many of them are a part of Benedictine tradition. I think had they been timed to days or seasons rather than left as a myriad of choices, they would be more helpful. But the regulars: Benedictus, Benedicite, Magnificat, Te Deum, Nunc Dimittis should set stability.
And I think stability is key again. Adapt and do. Better to pray a shortened Office than a long Office done poorly or not at all.
Caelius. I too know this by experience. Sometimes, only the Collect for the Day is Prayer Book. I might add that Enriching Our Worship is not supposed to be meant for Sunday use, and yet, it seems to be the thing in many parishes. And yet, we wouldn’t dream of giving the 1928 the same permission.
I’m going to add another canticle, the Benedicite. I think our Anglican wholism around Creation is in part due to such texts as these being a part of our praying.
I definitely agree with you, Christopher! You know me–I’m trying to draw little categorizing circles… Blame it on my databasing brain! :-D
Since you bring it up, I’ll continue to grouse about canticles… Yes, there is a strong historical tradition of other canticles being used–but very few of ones introduced in the ’79 book are the traditional ones and, as you note, they’re not tied to times as well as they could even given the table on p. 144. (I refuse to acknowledge the existence of p. 145 at all…)
Stability is key. A shorter Office is better than no Office at all.
Brian M,
Yeah, I can’t argue too hard against you there; you’ve just about won me over to the 1922 lectionary… :-)
Does anybody else use Celebrating Common Prayer for the Office? It was prepared by Anglican Franciscans in Britain. I find the pocket edition very handy when traveling. Of course the Scripture passages are short, but the overall structure seems good to me (and no flipping back and forth!). Plus, I read that ++Rowan gives out these books as gifts to his visitors… Otherwise I use the 2vol Office book that includes the Scripture readings in it.
I would only add that the collect for purity is an essential for me at the Eucharist, as is the prayer of John Chrysostom in the Office (Cranmer’s initiative, I think, moved from the Mass).
Patrick. I have taken a look at CCP. It’s interesting, and there is much beauty to it, it just doesn’t feel Benedictine enough for me.
Derek,
I am reminded of one of Aune’s Liturgical Laws: Categories leak. :)
Hi Derek,
Thank you. I just muddle through and follow the BCP very closely. Repititon never harms anything–in my estimation–but makes it richer. So that is my answer for the Te Deum. I’m still reveling in the Creeds as tools of mysticism–indeed the whole liturgy–and so I’m not into trimming . . .
Now, I’d like to know a bit more about the tradition of praying in the morning and the evening–and it is a bit off topic here. I’ve been involved in discussions with Jews lately and they pray at the “between times” at the break of day and at the end of day. A charming thing to do–I think! We are so much more modern in our reliance on clocks. I noticed a while back that for monastics the Morning Office is done at 7:00 even on days they will be going to mass later. Is there any connection? Okay, call me weird for looking back to pre-
Christian liturgies! I admire their faith and I admire their practice of faith. It looks to me as if the common observant Jew is very much in the way of a daily walk with God.
Annie
On the other hand! ;)
If we wish to encourage daily practice–I think encouraging the minimum is the best to begin with so it is less daunting. If Catholic practice errs in anything, it is creating a situation of guilt for failure and for most of us good habit formation is difficult, at best.
Before I began to do the Morning Office–Evening is harder to get to, as you say–I thought it would be difficult, that time would weigh heavily on me. It didn’t take many days for me to begin to see that the time could be too short and that lingering is enriching. And the benifits follow throughout the day. In short, it was the most rewarding part of my day.
So, I think what I did was good. I began with a goal to do it daily through Lent. It was limited and it was simple and so at the outset I was forgiving with my own tendency to fail to succeed at goals. So, the guide that gives us more to do should be optional, the objective initially kept simple until benifits are experienced.
Everybody, at some point, should be encouraged to try. Keep it encouraging. ;)
Annie
Just posted some further thoughts.
Like many of you writing in, I find myself omitting the Evening Prayer
more often than MP. Usually I sing the canticles (to plainsong settings of
Rite I, which I learned back in 1928 days), sing the psalms (using a very simple
setting) have periods of silence after the readings, sing a hymn (either seasonal or, during the ‘green times’ a rotation of morning/evening hymns). That takes around 23-25 minutes. OTH, there are times when the morning schedule allows for what I call the ‘minimum’
rapidly reading the texts almost soto voce, running phrases and sentences together. That
takes about 7 minutes. I would not like it as a steady diet, but it is better than nothing.
Fr. John Julian writes:
“And I think one of the tension-reducers on the part of “progressives” (like me) would be to accept strict rubrical adherence (or at least episcopal permissions for aberrations).”
How far can the Bishop go in giving permission for ‘aberrations’? Can the rites of the New Zealand book be used in place of BCP? Or can some texts be substituted?
Or perhaps this version of the Creed, from the ‘Alternative Order for Morning and Evening
Prayer’ of the Church in Wales:
I believe and trust in God the Father
who created all that is.
I believe and trust in his Son Jesus Christ
who redeemed mankind.
I believe and trust in his Holy Spirit
who gives life to the people of God.
I believe and trust in one God:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.
Can the Bishop give ‘permission’ or only state that s/he will
not be punitive about the ‘aberration’?
The Lord of Passion, cleanse us and Bless us always according to our dedications to Him. Amen
This thread renews by desire for a single book by which I can say the daily office. I currently use a 1662 BCP which includes the 1922 DAILY lectionary. It’s pretty great in a lot of ways–I have a fondness for the 1922 lectionary, what with its’ embrace of the church year, without abandoning the idea of course reading or getting through the Bible in a year. That being said, 1662 gives very little variety beyond the daily psalter, and there’s no chance at getting to some of the more catholic intentions of Cranmer that were mentioned above.
I wonder if anyone would share what single books they have employed, or what direction you would point one who wanted to find such a book.
Hi T Viola,
That is an issue currently… The English Office has the great catholic additions, but has neither a lectionary nor (obviously) the readings. I have received word from Brian M that Canterbury Press is releasing the Deposited 1928 BCP, which, as you’ll remember was the high-water mark of the Anglo-Catholic/Ritualist movement in England which was accepted by the Church of England, but which failed to be approved by *Parliment*. Apparently, this edition has not only the lectionary but also the readings themselves (I’m assuming from the AV…anybody know?) That’ll be the closest yet but will still lack the catholic material like psalm and gospel antiphons, hymns, etc.
I have heard that there may be something in the near future that will meet all of these needs, however, but it’s still in process. More on that anon as news becomes available.
Thank you for the response, Derek, that last book sounds intriguing and exciting.
Derek and T Viola, the forthcoming reprint of the deposited UK 1928 BCP will indeed include the 1922 lessons in full, in the King James translations.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=119111&event=WL&item_code=WW
Praise God, excellent!
Derek (and others): can you give your opinion as to what one might miss by using the the Deposited 1928 book?
Well, I quite like using the more traditional books (esp 1662 with English Office style additions).
The biggest problem that I find in using them is that I realize that I am, to a degree, indulging myself in “boutique spirituality”. That is, although I am using historically and theologically grounded materials, they are not the materials that fundamentally form and inform my national church. That is, in turning towards them, I am turning away from the canonical patterns that define who and what my church is; I no longer participate in “Common Prayer”. How exactly? Well, it means the readings I use are out of step. The collect patterns reflect a shape no longer used. Gospel antiphons reflect readings I no longer hear at Mass.
Much of the catholic supplemental material (I’m thinking especially of the gospel antiphons and some of the former V/R patterns) were intended to draw the Mass and Office into one another, syncing the cycles of our Christian experience. And, because of my academic focus on lectionaries and their interconnections, I am made painfully aware that this is precisely what these supplemental materials no longer do for me.
It’d be one thing entirely if I went to a parish that used the Anglican Missal, but I don’t—and won’t due to my wife’s position and the example provided to my girls.
As an advocate of Common Prayer, it’s exactly “common prayer” that I’d miss…
Derek states that by using an older BCP “the readings I use are out of step. The collect patterns reflect a shape no longer used. Gospel antiphons reflect readings I no longer hear at Mass.” These are fair points.
The only qualification I would make is that I know of a number of ECUSA parishes that use Rite I 1979 for Mass and the US 1928 BCP for public recitation of the Daily Office, including the Ascension and S. Agnes in Washington, D.C., so there is some precedence for the use of an older BCP for the Office. The use of the English 1922 lessons would certainly move one further from common prayer with ECUSA parishes, however.
My only rationalization for saying the Office from a different book and lectionary than my fellow ECUSAns is that I am still using the crucial parts of the Office along with Anglicans worldwide: the 30-day Psalter, a lectionary that covers much of Scripture in a year, daily repetition of the Te Deum, the Benedictus, the Magnificat, and the Nunc Dimittis, the Apostles Creed, and the essential PB holy day observances. Given the liberties taken with the Office by so many Episcopalians, I like to think that I am not so far “out of step” that my contribution to the prayers of the Church is negated, but again, I do respect Derek’s position on the matter.