Fun BCP Discussion

[AngCath]

Here is a bit of seminary life I can bring to STR:
Recently a few of us were talking about the Book(s) of Common Prayer over time around the Communion and I finally asked the question, "of all the BCPs ever produced in any province, which do you think is best?" Being at a diverse American seminary the most frequent responses I got were:
1. 1979 USA
2. 1928 USA
3. 1549 England
4. New Zealand Prayer Book
-----
so to bring it to you all, which is your favorite/the best Book of Common Prayer (or supplemental text) ever produced?

[gtsecc]

The Anglican Service Book: A Traditional Language Adaptation of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer Together With the Psalter or Psalms of David & Additional Devotations



This is the 1979 BCP in such a Tongue as the people understandeth!

[longhair75]

The BCP I am familiar with is the 1979. It is the one used in our congregation. I have a copy I bought when I was considering conversion. I bought my wife a nicely made leather covered copy as a gift when we were Received.

I have read a few passages from a few other versions, but I do not have enough knowledge of the others to make an informed judgment

[SirTimothy]

The Alternative Service Book: 1980. No question.

[Colabomb]

1979 probably, but I have a soft spot in my heart for the 1928 US. Beautiful, and my first liturgy.

[ludovica]

I haven't a clue. I have a nice 1820 prayer book and also a WW1 era one and ones from the 1930s, 1950s. 1970s and a copy of the one we use now in Church as well. The 1820 is fun as it has prayers for the deliverance of King James from the gunpowder plot, the Restoration of Charless II, a service for the martyrdom of "the blessed King Charles I" etc and the hymns part comprises 2 settings of Veni Creator, Te Deum Laudamus, Hark the Herald Angels sing, one other carol I dont know, 2 for Easter, 2 settings of the Lords Prayer, 1 for Morning, 1 for the Sacrament and the Gloria.. and thats it! There is also "A Companion to the Altar" a treatise on sacramental preparation...
Unfortunately, you need a magnifier to read most of the book

[PadreEgan]

If i remember correctly, all of the 'liberal' Anglicans use the New Zealand book. I prefer the 28 for the language and prayers but the 79 for its organization.

[masuwerte]

1928, but that's probably because we used it when I was a child.

[SirTimothy]

1979 probably, but I have a soft spot in my heart for the 1928 US. Beautiful, and my first liturgy.
The 1928 is absolutely gorgeous. A little long-winded, but yeah. Lovely liturgy. The ASB is what I grew up with, and has a tremendous brightside over CW: You can actually follow the service in the official book without getting hopelessly lost.

Tim

[RedneckAnglican]

1928...

Is there any doubt?...

[ebia]

Favorite is 1662, but I do like Common Worship. I'm not a big fan of APBA (or even less of AAPB). We've still got permission to use CW, but I haven't figured out how to convert our new rector to use it.

[ebia]

The 1928 is absolutely gorgeous. A little long-winded, but yeah. Lovely liturgy. The ASB is what I grew up with, and has a tremendous brightside over CW: You can actually follow the service in the official book without getting hopelessly lost.

Tim
In fairness Common Worship isn't really designed with the expectation that you try. They were upfront at the start that the expectation is for parishes to reproduce the material they want in the form they want, and they did the right thing over copyright and free access of the (electronic) material to encourage that.

I much prefer CW over the ASB - and did right from the first Sunday we started using it - but I'd be hard pressed to say exactly why.

[SirTimothy]

For communion CW is pretty good over the ASB. But for Morning and Evening Prayer... ugh. I really dislike CW's EP or Service of the Word.

[Iosias]

1552 (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1552/BCP_1552.htm) :)

[ebia]

For communion CW is pretty good over the ASB. But for Morning and Evening Prayer... ugh. I really dislike CW's EP or Service of the Word.
Ok - that makes things clearer. I've never used CW's EP. Service of the Word isn't an actual service, but an outline so it is what you make it; it could be done very well, or shockingly badly.

[SirTimothy]

Ok - that makes things clearer. I've never used CW's EP. Service of the Word isn't an actual service, but an outline so it is what you make it; it could be done very well, or shockingly badly.
I have only ever seen the latter. :( (hence why we now do completely non-liturgical Evening Praise)

[ludovica]

I really dislike "Common Worship" personally

[Finella]

If i remember correctly, all of the 'liberal' Anglicans use the New Zealand book. I prefer the 28 for the language and prayers but the 79 for its organization.
So, am I liberal because I love the NZBCP?

DH and I got married using the NZ's marriage liturgy. Just gorgeous.

I was raised on 1979, so to me it feels like a comfy sofa -- even the Rite I liturgies (which aren't that different than 1928, as I understand it, correct?). I don't mind trying new language in a format I already know -- which the NZBCP does brilliantly. I also appreciate getting to know another culture's wording of prayers that over time have become familiar, and at times dangerously bland. I need my liturgy to be different for me sometimes so that I am forced to be present and fully aware.

[AngCath]

An Anglican Prayer Book, 1989 (South Africa) is a lovely Anglo-Catholic BCP.

[DeoJuvante]

I've only ever experienced the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and A Prayer Book for Australia. BCP is ok once in a while, but I would hate it if we used it every Sunday. APBA can be a bit banal, though, and I think it has too many options - it's not really common prayer any more. So, I guess I don't know which is best.

[AngCath]

BTW, I am co-founder of the Society for the Preservation of the 1892 Book of Common Prayer at Sewanee.
We're not being serious, so don't read too much into it. I think I'm the only one in the 'society' who even owns one! :)

[ebia]

I've only ever experienced the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and A Prayer Book for Australia. BCP is ok once in a while, but I would hate it if we used it every Sunday. APBA can be a bit banal, though, and I think it has too many options - it's not really common prayer any more. So, I guess I don't know which is best.
If you think APBA has too many options I take it you've never seen Common Worship. I agree about it being a bit banal though.

[SirTimothy]

If you think APBA has too many options I take it you've never seen Common Worship. I agree about it being a bit banal though.
Right. CW's Communion (particularly Prayer H) I love to bits, but the number of options is overkill.

[AngCath]

Right. CW's Communion (particularly Prayer H) I love to bits, but the number of options is overkill.
I concur, Common Worship is beautiful but overdid the options.

[ludovica]

I concur, Common Worship is beautiful but overdid the options. Personally I feel CW binned all the beauty and grandeur of the traditional liturgy of BCP . I think the words are actually ugly.. (the use of "You" rather than "thou" is just one example) I don't want to speak to my Lord in such a way..
Oh well, each to their own, but I personally feel that the words of BCP themselves have power, the power of centuries of prayer. CW has the feeling of a tale "retold", abridged, adapted, dumbed down and emasculated
When I think of the Communion of Saints, I like to think that I am communing with millions of Christians "not lost but gone before" To my mind CW lacks the authority to do that, and ends up sounding rather like a Junior school assembly

[karen freeinchristman]

I quite like Common Worship. :sorry:

[SirTimothy]

I quite like Common Worship. :sorry:
Me too. I just marginally prefer the ASB for MP and EP. The ASB had about the right number of options if you ask me (although I love some of the CW options: "This is His Story This is our song, Hosanna in the Highest" for example...)

I intensely dislike anything that is in ye olde language, personally. I never EVER use 'thee' and 'thou' in normal conversation, and it seems like I'm demeaning my relationship with God for me to do so with Him, I am suggesting that I need to polish myself up and act smart, whether in reality, I know that he has already done it all for me. :clap: :clap: I know some people love it, but for me, the idea that I have to address God in a certain way seems to smack of acting like a Pharisee, whether addressing God in an intimate, personal way (does 'Abba' from the Lord's prayer ring any bells?) seems to be the best way to relate from my perspective. That doesn't mean I don't use liturgy (I pray EP daily) just that I can't pray using traditional language.

[DeoJuvante]

I think 'thou' is appropriate when using the 1662 liturgy and 'you' is appropriate when using a modern liturgy. I would bet that most of the people who insist that 'thou' is somehow better do not really understand the difference nor know how to use it properly.

[ebia]

I quite like Common Worship. :sorry:
So do I - I hope I didn't imply otherwise.

[ludovica]

I think 'thou' is appropriate when using the 1662 liturgy and 'you' is appropriate when using a modern liturgy. I would bet that most of the people who insist that 'thou' is somehow better do not really understand the difference nor know how to use it properly. "Thou" is more intimate and also IMO more reverent. I totally understand the difference, and how to use it thanks!

[DeoJuvante]

"Thou" is more intimate and also IMO more reverent. I totally understand the difference, and how to use it thanks!
I would have hoped that my phrasing in general terms combined with the use of the word 'most' would have been sufficient to make it clear that the comment was not intended personally, but apparently it was not. No offence was intended.

Thou is definitely more intimate but it is not, in my opinion, more reverent at all. In fact, the reason it died out was probably because it became too impolite to use to address any person. Of course, it remained in use for God because liturgical language tends to be very conservative.

Anyway, I have no problem with continuing to use the older liturgies but I strongly believe that using words such as 'thou' in a modern liturgy is simply contrived.

[Iosias]

I strongly believe that using words such as 'thou' in a modern liturgy is simply contrived.

I beg to differ :hug:

[AngCath]

well since "contrive" means to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent and "contrived" means obviously planned or forced; artificial; strained I would say that writing liturgy in a language that is not customary to the people meets the requirements to be called "contrived"

[ludovica]

well since "contrive" means to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent and "contrived" means obviously planned or forced; artificial; strained I would say that writing liturgy in a language that is not customary to the people meets the requirements to be called "contrived"
But is IS customary to say Thee and Thou to God... even way back to the School Nativity Play and Sunday School. It is the Language of KJV BCP and Shakespeare all of which most people are at least a little familiar with IMO. Why not have a way of speaking that is Special for Our Lord?
I say "You" to traffic wardens, and dentists and parking attendants. It is prosaic to me, it is commonplace, it lacks "specialness"

[Colabomb]

well since "contrive" means to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent and "contrived" means obviously planned or forced; artificial; strained I would say that writing liturgy in a language that is not customary to the people meets the requirements to be called "contrived"

Saying God is Gut, rather than Good, is a tounge not understood by the people.

I can promise you that the VAST VAST majority of English Speakers understand the word Thou.

I don't believe it wrong to refer to God as "you". However in certain contexts it personally seems a bit silly. Mostly, I enjoy Rite 2, however I usually say the Lord's Prayer the Old Fasioned way ;)

Of course I grew up on the KJV, so I'm a bit biased :P.

[DeoJuvante]

If you want to speak to God in an archaic (and therefore special somehow?) way, why not use Latin?

[higgs2]

But is IS customary to say Thee and Thou to God... even way back to the School Nativity Play and Sunday School. It is the Language of KJV BCP and Shakespeare all of which most people are at least a little familiar with IMO. Why not have a way of speaking that is Special for Our Lord?
I say "You" to traffic wardens, and dentists and parking attendants. It is prosaic to me, it is commonplace, it lacks "specialness"

But it is not the language of Koine Greek, which from what I understand was very casual, not at all like 16th century English, or Latin. And was the original language of the NT.

We don't use Shakespearean English in our sunday school. :)

[higgs2]

I'm not familiar with many prayerbooks (getting back to the OP) but I love the US 1979 Rite II. I'm not very fond of the 1928 at all. My favorite Eucharistic prayers are Rite II prayer C, STAR WARS! :) :thumbsup:

[norbie]

May I share this Beautyful Australian Aboriginal Prayer of the Lord's Prayer, it's from the Aboriginal Tribe DHURGA here in NSW.

DHURGA LORD'S PRAYER:prayer:

Our Father in Heaven your name is holy.
You have come to our land.
We will hear your dream in our land,
The dream they hear in heaven.

Please give to us our food today:
let go our sins:
we will let go other's sins when they
do them to us.

Father, don't let us go down the track to sin.

You hold the land,
You hold the power.
You hold the light,
today and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Amen

I think it's a beautyful Prayer and it's from next weeks CURSILLO 3 Days in the Newcastle Diocese.
Norbie

[Iosias]

If you want to speak to God in an archaic (and therefore special somehow?) way, why not use Latin?

I have no objection to people using Latin, however the vast majority of congregations do not understand it. The same does no apply to "Thee" &c. :)

[Colabomb]

If you want to speak to God in an archaic (and therefore special somehow?) way, why not use Latin?

If you can show me that as many english speaking people understand latin as understand the word "thou" you may have a point.

Anyway, I already commented that You is perfectly acceptable. It's just not my personal preference in a liturgical setting.

[Colabomb]

I'm not familiar with many prayerbooks (getting back to the OP) but I love the US 1979 Rite II. I'm not very fond of the 1928 at all. My favorite Eucharistic prayers are Rite II prayer C, STAR WARS! :) :thumbsup:

Haha, I too love the Rite 2 liturgy. But I don't share your love of the star wars/trek prayer. Whenever I read it (we never use it in church) I can't help think of Spock in Liturgical Robes. :P

And I doubt the purpose of the liturgy is to picture the enterprise zipping through space to a corny, over the top scifi theme. :P

(on that note I've been buying some old star trek for my iPod. I am particularly fond of the corbamite maneuver.)

(not to be confused with the Picard Maneuver)

[AngCath]

To shift gears a little bit, since the OP is mine :)
A priest (not associated with the school) up here once said (and this is hyperbole), "The only authentic Eucharistic prayers are 1549 and 1552, everything since has been compromise."

comments?

[ebia]

What makes a Eucharistic Prayer "authentic"?

[higgs2]

What makes a Eucharistic Prayer "authentic"?

That's exactly what I wondered.

[Adammi]

May I share this Beautyful Australian Aboriginal Prayer of the Lord's Prayer, it's from the Aboriginal Tribe DHURGA here in NSW.

DHURGA LORD'S PRAYER:prayer:

Our Father in Heaven your name is holy.
You have come to our land.
We will hear your dream in our land,
The dream they hear in heaven.

Please give to us our food today:
let go our sins:
we will let go other's sins when they
do them to us.

Father, don't let us go down the track to sin.

You hold the land,
You hold the power.
You hold the light,
today and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Amen

I think it's a beautyful Prayer and it's from next weeks CURSILLO 3 Days in the Newcastle Diocese.
Norbie
That's is beautiful. Thanks for sharing. In The Secret Message of Jesus, Brian McLaren words "thy will be done" something along the lines of "may your dreams for creation come true".
I like translations that talk about God's dream for us.

[gtsecc]

What makes a Eucharistic Prayer "authentic"?
Whether or not we are saying it in 1,000 years.
Obviously, this means we won’t know for a while.
I do think we can make a guess that the Star Wars Mass isn’t going to have millennial converting power.

[ebia]

Whether or not we are saying it in 1,000 years.
Obviously, this means we won’t know for a while.
I do think we can make a guess that the Star Wars Mass isn’t going to have millennial converting power.

And why is a Eucharistic prayer used for 1000 years more authentic than one used once?

[gtsecc]

And why is a Eucharistic prayer used for 1000 years more authentic than one used once?
Well, survival is the fundamental way we understand that god reveals truth to us - truth survives, and heresy dies out. For example, the Arians died out and the orthodox continued on.
Star Wars Mass is about 30 years old, and used by an infinitesimal fraction of the Church.
The Basil and Chrysostom based Masses are essentially, over 1,500 years old, and used by virtually everyone who celebrates a Eucharist.

[gtsecc]

The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was not "the" liturgy in 400. It was brand new, and it had not been accepted by everyone. Over time it came to be accepted by the entire church - all the Bishops and all the laitey, and its truth revealed.

[ebia]

That leaves no possibility of a liturgy, or a God revealed truth, that is for a specific time and place.

Sure, heresies and mistakes die out (although some are remarkably resiliant - the names of the groups change, but most of the ancient heresies are alive and well somewhere) but something that is for a particular situation also would also disappear when that situation disappears, and there is nothing wrong in that.

So, to go back to your basic point: "survival is the fundamental way we understand that god reveals truth to us - truth survives". Survival may well be one way we understand God revealed truth, but to regard it as the fundamental way is far too limiting.