Prayer Books/Devotion books???

[AngCath]

I just wanted to know your thoughts on the various prayers books and other books of devotion. Which book do you use in your personal devotions?

[AngCath]

oops! I forgot to mention which ones I use. I do use the '79 BCP in my private devotions, but I also use Saint Augustine's Prayer Book which fits in with my Anglo-Catholic leanings better at times.

[alban]

I use common worship daily prayer, and often back it up with a superb book called celebrating the saints.

[AngCath]

I just started daily readings from Celebrating the Seasons which is selections from early church to present.

[alban]

I just started daily readings from Celebrating the Seasons which is selections from early church to present.

I've bee looking at celebrating the seasons too, but can't afford it just yet. I believe they are similiar in style and purpose.

[AngCath]

yeah it is quite pricey, i was given a copy otherwise i would be out of luck

[Mysterium_Fidei]

The 79' BCP, mainly.

[svdbygrace]

The 79' BCP, mainly.

Me too... :liturgy:

[SeenAndUnseen]

Me too... :liturgy:


Me three. :D

[RedneckAnglican]

the "Lutheran Book of Prayer"...
Portals of Prayer...
the Rule of Benedict...
the Daily Office (BCP '79)...

[ContraMundum]

Anyone tried the Anglican Breviary?

Personally, I use the BCP, the Roman Breviary and a personal Lectio Divina time.

[AngCath]

I can't even find the Anglican Breviary anywhere

[ContraMundum]

I can't even find the Anglican Breviary anywhere

You can order it online. It has good reviews, from all the right sources too.

Google it and you'll dig it up.

[AngCath]

Thanks
:)

[benedictine]

I use the Liturgy of the Hours, and the book: The Habit of Holiness: Daily Prayer.

I would like to get a copy of the Anglican Breviary. I'm saving the money for that one. There are a couple people at my Anglo-Catholic Parish that are getting or currently posses the Anglican Breviary. We're opening a chapel in another part of our city near the University soon, so that might provide an oppertunity for public use.

[romaneagle13]

The '79 BCP and Sanctuary by David Jeremiah.

[bfoos]

Doesn't anyone use the 28 book anymore?

It is a real and a meaty book of prayer. I am saddened that so many have never known it. One of my former students started a weekly BCP (28) MP service on her Presbyterian campus and it now attracts around 20+ students every weekday.

Younger people are hungry for the real and the meaty. They want to know the truth and they want it unvarnished. I think we'll see more use of the 28 BCP, by God's Grace.

BF

[benedictine]

I use the '28 prayer book on Wednesday Evening for Evening Prayer!

[svdbygrace]

I sometimes use the 1928 BCP... but I prefere the 1979 as it has both Rite I (basically the 1928) and Rite II (1979) versions. I wish though, that the full prayers (for use in public worship) would have already been adapted in the book for private/family use.

[UberLutheran]

Gates of Prayer, which is used in Reform Jewish synagogues.

That has some of the most gorgeous, and most profound meditations of any book I've ever encountered. I've set a half dozen of the meditative poems from Gates of Prayer to music for my Lutheran congregation.

[AngCath]

I have not read Gates of Prayer, but I agree, some of the Jewish meditations and prayers are extremely good.

[bfoos]

I sometimes use the 1928 BCP... but I prefere the 1979 as it has both Rite I (basically the 1928) and Rite II (1979) versions. I wish though, that the full prayers (for use in public worship) would have already been adapted in the book for private/family use.

What exactly is the benefit of having Rite II in the book?

[AngCath]

the language makes the liturgy more accessible

[bfoos]

And the language dumbs down the liturgy. How far do we take it?

The '79 book has already lost so much of the guts and the beauty of the ancient liturgies. Why do you think the Roman service is so ugly? They put it into English in an age when English was ugly. The '79 does much the same, though of course with a great heritage behind it.

How much truth are we willing to lose for the sake of accessibility. Perhaps the Church ought to get back to one of its major vocations: teaching.

[AngCath]

oh i agree, their are many areas of the '79 that are a mess but the goal was a good one. we should continue to make the liturgy accessible, but we need to try to keep it faithful to tradition, and, ideally, make it inspiring and didactic

[bfoos]

This last century and at least the beginning of the current century would have to be the worse time in the history of the English language to attempt a modification of the BCP. Language doesn't even mean anything, if you listen to the Post-modernist.

Unfortunately, theology and doctrine were lost--or rather, gotten rid of in the '79. The motives were probably good by some, and perhaps even evil, at the end of the day, by others.

Don't get me wrong, the '79 has some interesting things in it. It benefits from all the major liturgical finds and studies of the 20th cent. Unfortunately, many of those studies have been forced into a certain perspective that has since, of course, crept its way right into the Church via her liturgy.

lex orandi lex credendi. Or, as has been pointed out by many: lex credendi lex orandi i.e. we will change our rule of prayer to match our rule of belief.

[SirTimothy]

And the language dumbs down the liturgy. How far do we take it?

A long way. I dislike using the 1662 or the '28. Why? Because it's not the language that I speak naturally. Therefore I struggle to worship God, because I'm effectively speaking a somewhat foreign language to my tongue.

Timothy

[higgs2]

What exactly is the benefit of having Rite II in the book?
It's much easier to use the rite II liturgy when it's in a book that you can read.

[benedictine]

I grew up Baptist. I'd much rather have the '28 with some modifications. (such as the Easter Vigil and Compline)

[benedictine]

A long way. I dislike using the 1662 or the '28. Why? Because it's not the language that I speak naturally. Therefore I struggle to worship God, because I'm effectively speaking a somewhat foreign language to my tongue.

Timothy

And the language dumbs down the liturgy. How far do we take it?

The '79 book has already lost so much of the guts and the beauty of the ancient liturgies. Why do you think the Roman service is so ugly? They put it into English in an age when English was ugly. The '79 does much the same, though of course with a great heritage behind it.

How much truth are we willing to lose for the sake of accessibility. Perhaps the Church ought to get back to one of its major vocations: teaching.

Ok. But, here's a reason to use the traditional Elizabethan English: No one uses it as their vernacular dialect any more. That's the best reason to use it. It's tahe same reason that classcial Greek, ancient Slavonic, and an ancient dialect of Chinease are used in Greece, Russia, and China, respectively. No one uses them, and the meaning of the woprds can't be alterd through the normal means of linguistic evolution. And universaltiy. For example, the same rite would be used for the Eucharist in Japan in 1800 as in France in 1579 as in the United States in 1952.

Can you honestly say that the 1979 prayer Book is used in any other province? Up until the '28 prayer book, "Common Prayer" meant something. Now, it really doesn't. And, I'm dreading the 2012 Prayer Book.

Has anyone seen the New Zealand Prayer Book?

[bfoos]

Wonderful thoughts benedictine.

The modern liturgical revisions are, I'm afraid, rooted in modernity and pop-cultural idioms--perhaps the overwhelming issue is the self.

I want it this way, I will understand it better, I will gain more from it, I feel more comfortable with it, etc.

I'd hate to see our modern architypical American person actually try to take on the discipline of historic monastic houses. It would be laughable, I'm afraid.

What happened to pursuing something through hard work and discipline? What happened to the joy of making the climb, accomplishing real goals. Why can't we understand our relationship to Christ in those terms anymore? Instead of working for a hard won understanding of the Scriptures and the rule of prayer, a spiritual journey through the good and the bad, we want our pop-Christian pill so we can pop it and be all that we were meant to be in Jesus--at least in our infantile minds.

The life lived before the face of God is more full of mystery than anything, and that demands our humility, our submission and our disciplined life of prayer, work and study.

The traditional common prayer is worth it. We just miss too much otherwise.

[SirTimothy]

Ok. But, here's a reason to use the traditional Elizabethan English: No one uses it as their vernacular dialect any more.

That's an excellent reason not to. :) Dead languages are pointless to use for worshipping God. Because you don't understand what they mean in their fullness. Some of the things that you say might even mean RADICALLY different things in modern language to what they meant in the original.
And of course, the fact of the matter is that the 1549, 1552 and 1662 prayerbooks were in the Vernacular of the day has nothing at all to do with it... the Anglicans historically are the people who put the mass into the language of the common people, so everyone could know what they say when they're worshipping God. I like the idea, and totally support it. You want to be unanglican and use a dead language--for that's all old english is--go ahead. :)

Can you honestly say that the 1979 prayer Book is used in any other province? Up until the '28 prayer book, "Common Prayer" meant something. Now, it really doesn't. And, I'm dreading the 2012 Prayer Book.

Has anyone seen the New Zealand Prayer Book?

'79 was used in this diocese--I know, I've got a copy. If you want the new international vernacular one, why not try CW, though. Not seen the New Zealand one...

Timothy

[bfoos]

That's an excellent reason not to. :) Dead languages are pointless to use for worshipping God. Because you don't understand what they mean in their fullness. Some of the things that you say might even mean RADICALLY different things in modern language to what they meant in the original.
And of course, the fact of the matter is that the 1549, 1552 and 1662 prayerbooks were in the Vernacular of the day has nothing at all to do with it... the Anglicans historically are the people who put the mass into the language of the common people, so everyone could know what they say when they're worshipping God. I like the idea, and totally support it. You want to be unanglican and use a dead language--for that's all old english is--go ahead. :)

We need to learn to understand what language means in its fullness! The problem with contemporary English is that it means next to nothing, even in its fullness. The contemporary English of 21st cent. America cannot contain that which the language of the traditional prayerbooks contain.

By the way, the 49, 52 and 1662 BCP's were not in the vernacular of the day. Common folk spoke much differently than the language of the prayerbooks. The prayerbook language was the language of the court--appropriately, considering where one goes in worship. It was also probably a slightly older language because of that reason as well.

Also, consider, Elizabethan English is not dead. It is alive and well and many are conversant with it. It just takes some extra effort to actually read and understand Shakespeare. All of my Junior High students do it almost without thinking about it.

[Yahweh Nissi]

I have a BCP and use it in my personal devotions from time to time.

It is a truely incredible book, and whilst I agree with those who have pointed out that the old fashioned language is a barrier for those not used to it, as bfoos says, if you do understand it it contains much more meaning then many modern litergies. The confession in the Communion litergy really stresses the seriousness of sin, more so than many others, for example.

I also really love the literny, or General Suplication, for saying after morning prayer.

[Mary of Bethany]

When I was in the ACC, we used the '28 BCP and the Anglican Missal. I also used the St. Augustine prayer book for personal devotion. Now I use the Jordanville (Holy Trinity Seminary) Prayerbook and the St. Tikhon Prayerbook at home. We don't generally use service books during Divine Liturgy (except for newcomers who want to follow along).


Mary

[benedictine]

I have a BCP and use it in my personal devotions from time to time.

It is a truely incredible book, and whilst I agree with those who have pointed out that the old fashioned language is a barrier for those not used to it, as bfoos says, if you do understand it it contains much more meaning then many modern litergies. The confession in the Communion litergy really stresses the seriousness of sin, more so than many others, for example.

I also really love the literny, or General Suplication, for saying after morning prayer.

I can't stand the great Litany. I've honestly tried, but it just doesn't work for me.

[benedictine]

That's an excellent reason not to. :) Dead languages are pointless to use for worshipping God. Because you don't understand what they mean in their fullness. Some of the things that you say might even mean RADICALLY different things in modern language to what they meant in the original.
And of course, the fact of the matter is that the 1549, 1552 and 1662 prayerbooks were in the Vernacular of the day has nothing at all to do with it... the Anglicans historically are the people who put the mass into the language of the common people, so everyone could know what they say when they're worshipping God. I like the idea, and totally support it. You want to be unanglican and use a dead language--for that's all old english is--go ahead. :)



'79 was used in this diocese--I know, I've got a copy. If you want the new international vernacular one, why not try CW, though. Not seen the New Zealand one...

Timothy


Old English isn't dead, though it certainly isn't in use anymore. The 1662 is in Jacobean English, which came bewteen Middle and Victorian English. Thus, it is not a language, but a dialect.

[bfoos]

I can't stand the great Litany. I've honestly tried, but it just doesn't work for me.

I understand. Many great works of literature are not my favorites--well, that's an understatement for, "I don't like them."

As I tell my students, though, that says more of me than it does of the great works of literature. I'm not at a place where I can appreciate them.

I think the same is true for the litany--and I'm not trying to be offensive. The Litany is something that many have to get to know--a few encounters is not enough. I have a teacher at our school who came up to me after the first Monday in Lent and announced that she was just not pleased to have to say the litany.

I responded that it was providential that she would be saying or singing it everyday for the rest of Lent, for apparently, she needed it.

I suppose that was a little bit humorous and tongue in cheek, but at the same time, I believe it was true. We grow as we participate in the liturgy of the Church. Often, especially today, much of that growth is just in learning to appreciate and love and understand, etc., the liturgy itself.

She now does much better, though I think she is still "learning."

The litany, for me, is very much a more disciplined form of prayer even than the offices. I appreciate it for that and for the fact that it is so complete. There doesn't seem to be anything that we haven't prayed for when finished with the litany.

FWIW

BF

[higgs2]

I wonder, for those who say that not using Elizabethan English "dumbs down the liturgy": I think that insisting on Rite I or 1928 or the equivalent is exclusive. Someone who does not speak English well, is not well educated, is not literate, do they have no options? Would you have every church use Rite I and say "too bad" to those who cannot understand it? What about large groups of people who are excluded by this attitude?

[benedictine]

I do not say that it dumbs down the liturgy. I prefer the more reverent style of worship, in my OPINION. I am not saying that is fact.

[higgs2]

I do not say that it dumbs down the liturgy. I prefer the more reverent style of worship, in my OPINION. I am not saying that is fact.
I do appreciate that you are giving your opinion and not proclaiming that everyone else should worship in the same way that you do. Some Episcopalians would prefer that only Rite I be offered or in the BCP, and I think that attitude is exclusive. It's a bit "Anglo-centric" as well, don''t you think? I mean, my understanding is that in Africa the prayer books are in the local languages and dialects.

[svdbygrace]

I can't stand the great Litany. I've honestly tried, but it just doesn't work for me.

Benedictine can't stand the great Litany? :cry:

I love it, but can't find myselfing praying it that often, as it takes a very long time. I have yet to see it used in worship/devotion. Is it common practice to use the Litany in public worship? I like the 1928 version, as well as the 1979 version (I use both versions from time to time). :liturgy:

[john23237]

Is it common practice to use the Litany in public worship? I like the 1928 version, as well as the 1979 version (I use both versions from time to time). :liturgy:

We at St. Marks use it every first Sunday of Advent. Several other parishes in the area (Richmond, Va.) use it the first Sunday of Lent.