Review of AMiA: An Anglican Prayer Book (2008)

Virtueonline had this last year.  Robin Jordan won’t be happy until the 1662 BCP is reinstated.  I’m for anything that doesn’t have the dreaded “Baptismal covenant.”

I have a copy, and it’s a worthy volume.  While I am one of those pesky Evangelical Spirit-Filled Anglo-Catholics that takes issue with a few of the 39 articles, it’s not bad.  I am glad they kept the stronger Eucharistic aspects of the 1928.  If I had my druthers, I quite like the 1637 Scottish Non-Juror Book and the 1549 Communion Service.  Skip 1552, 1559, etc.  As long as the Ordinal is specific abut form and matter and intention in the consecration of the Bishop.  Don’t wanna go through the whole Apostolicae Curae vs. the Edwardine Ordinal stuff again. A little Sarum Use shenanigans might be fun, too!!! 

Ugh…keep the “Baptismal Covenant” and the Galactic Prayer C(Rite II) away from me!!!

And don’t forget, something which does not have that odious “peace passing!”  My ACNA church is using a slightly modified 1662 service during Lent.  Sure enough, you can worship faithfully without having to dodge people who pump your arm like a slot machine. 

Well, you don’t have to hug your pew mate, but it certainly does no harm to say “May the peace of the Lord be always with you.” “And also with you.”  I have more problem with people who yak in church before the service starts.  “The Lord is in His Holy Temple.  Let all the Earth keep silence before Him” applies here.

If my AMiA parish would stick to it ... I’d be happy!!!

That’s a discussion for another day!

Actually I was at an RC parish a few months back.  They did the peace at the start of the service.  My objection to the passing of the peace is how it breaks up the service with everyone milling around then you have to refocus for the Eucharist.

In my parish (PNCC) we have moved the sign of the peace from the middle of the Liturgy of the Eucharist to right after the Prayers of the People.  So far the congregation seems to have no quarrels with it, and this way the Blessed Sacrament is not ‘waiting’ on the altar for the mini-coffee hour to finish up.

I am sure that God doesn’t care where the Passing of the Peace is during the service.  The issues of whether or not it’s done in a meaningful fashion and whether or not it’s done at all is what are important.

I admit…I love people…I am a people person…a huggy guy.  But I have noticed over the years that I am increasingly disturbed by the “peace” when it becomes a gab-fest.  It breaks the flow and focus.

I’ve understood the Peace to be betw confession and presenting of offerings so that one can, if necessary, make peace w/ one’s neighbor bef presenting one’s gift at the altar, as a certain someone told us to do. 

When that’s its expressed and taught purpose, it shdn’t become the gab fest/mini-coffee hr that it often does become. 

Similarly, people need to be taught how to ask for prayer so prayers of the people w/ “open mike” requests don’t take over the service.  Medical diagnoses and full description of the sister-in-law’s brother’s wife’s personal dysfunction don’t have to be on full display.  Prayer requests shdn’t be like reading the local gossip column aloud!

and one of my pet peeves of people chitchatting while others are going forward for communion, worse than before the service.  At least at the beginning of the service, they’re only hindering my preparing myself for the service (snarl, snarl).  But during communion?!  Please DON’T lean over and tap me on the shoulder to me to ask how my dentist appt went while you’re in line for communion and I’m back in my pew! 

It all comes down to people needing to be taught what the service is all about, maybe what a sacrament is?

The “Peace” seems to be a sore subject, and I didn’t even start it!  I have accepted it, and I offer my hand and a sincere wish for the peace of the Lord to those near me, but I don’t do indiscriminate hugging and kissing and I don’t wander from my place.  And my first instinct is to respond, “And with thy spirit.”

On the actual subject, which was Prayer Books versions, anything which acquaints Anglicans on a regular basis with the traditional liturgy or something near it will remind everyone of where we came from and what we (we hope) have in common.  I know of a 1979 parish which uses Rite I once a month for that purpose.

Too bad we will never be able to have THE Anglican Prayer Book instead of AN Anglican Prayer Book.

[14] I agree.

I appreciate what this prayer book offers (note: the editors did not call this the BCP), and have been using a copy pretty regularly.

I read the Jordan critique when it came out and came away with the thought: “well, why didn’t he do something positive, such as volunteering to help the others out during its development?”

I don’t care for the book either.

To put the record straight, if I am partial to any particular historical Prayer Book, it might be the 1559 Book of Common Prayer, which was “the” Prayer Book of the Church of England for almost 100 years and was the first Prayer Book used in what is now Canada and the United States. It is substantially the 1552 Prayer Book with three notable changes. The reference to the Pope in the Litany was omitted. The 1549 Words of Administration was combined with the 1552 Words of Administration. The Declaration on Kneeling was also omitted. It underwent some minor revisions at the beginning of the reign of James I. Another historical Prayer Book to which I admit a degree of partiality is the 1926 Irish Prayer Book.
In the Solemn Declaration of Principles of the AMiA it is stated, “For Anglicans, this tradition of common prayer, which has been an integral part of our identity since the first Prayer Book of 1549, is most cogently summed up in the Book of Common Prayer issued in the Church of England in 1662. All subsequent editions of the Prayer Book derive from this Book and should be understood and interpreted in a manner consistent with it….” It is further stated, “The theology set forth in the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal shall be the theology to which alternative liturgical texts and forms will conform.” It is therefore quite reasonable to expect that a collection of alternative texts and forms issued or recommended by the AMiA would conform to these requirements. However, An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) does not. In the Cross+way article and in an earlier series of articles on Virtue Online and archived at Exploring An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) I draw attention to this fact. The latter is on the Internet at: http://exploringanglicanprayerbook.blogspot.com/

The AMiA set up its own standard. I did not set up that standard. When an organization fails to meet the standard that it has set for itself, it is quite reasonable to draw attention to the inconsistency between what organization has said it was going to do and what it is actually doing. The organization then has two choices. It can conform to the standard that it set for itself or it can change that standard and admit that it cannot live up to it. If it continues to ignore the standard while maintaining that the standard is its standard, then it is engaging in a form of deception. It may not be intentionally deceiving others but it is deceiving itself. Establishing a standard and conforming to it is an important safeguard. One of the reasons that TEC has drifted into apostasy and heresy is that it either did not establish standards in critical areas or it ignored the standards that it did establish.

For confessional evangelicals and charismatic evangelicals in the AMiA who desire traditional language services the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the 1926 Irish Prayer Book, the 1956 Free Church of England Prayer Book, the 1786 Proposed American Prayer Book, the 1552 Prayer Book, 1559 Prayer Book, and 1604 Prayer Books are options from which they can choose and which conform to a large extent to Biblical and Reformation theology of the Thirty Nine Articles, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the 1661 Ordinal, which the AMiA has adopted as its official standard of doctrine and worship. As far as contemporary language services their options include An Australian Prayer Book (1978), Prayer Book of the Church of England in South Africa (1990), An English Prayer Book (1994), A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), Common Worship (2000), and the Diocese of Sydney’s Supplemental Sunday Services (2001). It must noted that in a number of these service books, An Australian Prayer Book, A Prayer Book for Australia, and Common Worship, not all the services meet the AMiA requirement, “The theology set forth in the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal shall be the theology to which alternative liturgical texts and forms will conform.” For example, in A Prayer Book for Australia the First and Third Orders of Holy Communion conform to this requirement but the Second Order does not.

I have drafted three collections of services in modern English of my own. The first was A New American Prayer Book. I submitted copies of this collection to Bishop Chuck Murphy and Bishop John Rodgers. Only Bishop Rodgers responded to my email and agreed to examine the collection. I did not hear any further from Bishop Rodgers. An Anglican Prayer (2008) did incorporate a number of ideas from my collection, for example, a contemporary English version of the Thirty-Nine Articles, but its compilers could have thought of these ideas on their own. I had previously submitted to Bishop Murphy an assessment of the predecessor of An Anglican Prayer Book, Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, also known as the “Green Book,” and a number of proposals for the revision of that book. Bishop Murphy did not respond. His executive secretary referred me to Peter Toon. I also requested a CD-ROM of the “Green Book” but none was sent to me. My communications with Toon suggested that he really was not interested in hearing ideas and suggestions that did not conform with what he wanted to achieve in the revised version of the “Green Book.” He largely dismissed my assessment of that book. It was his response that to a large extent prompted my compilation of A New American Prayer Book. Later I would learn from a number of people who responded to my article series on An Anglican Prayer Book(2008) that they had had similiar experiences with Dr. Toon when they presented their own ideas and suggestions to him. 

The second collection was Alternative Forms of Service, and provides alternative services for Holy Communion and Baptism, reflecting the different theological affinity groups represented in the ACNA, and a Confirmation Service that has alternative prayers at those points in the service where these groups have different theologies of Confirmation. It seeks to do what An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) fails to do—be truly comprehensive and yet remain within the standards of doctrine and worship set forth in the Common Cause Theological Statement and the Declaration of Principles of the ACNA.

The ACNA has adopted as its standard of the Anglican worship tradition the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Prayer Books that preceded it-1549, 1552, 1559, and 1604. (It is questionable whether the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book can be regarded as a predecessor of the 1662 Prayer Book since it was never adopted by Convocation and Parliament and was imposed upon the Scots by Charles I. When the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book was first introduced at St. Gile’s Cathedral in Edinburgh, the Scots rioted. Jenny Giddings threw her stool at the head of the dean of the cathedral.) As far as the idea that the Eucharist is a sacrifice or through the Eucharist we participate in Christ’s sacrifice, 1549, 1552, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books firmly reject this notion. As far as the idea that Christ is present in the elements of the Holy Communion, the 1549, 1559, 1604, and 1662 do allow a muted moderate realism. Only the 1549 Canon has a well-developed epiclesis and an anamnesis of Christ’s might works. A number of ancient eucharistic prayers do not have an epiclesis and the medieval Roman canon in use in the English Church at the time of the Reformation also did not have an epiclesis. The late Percy Dearmer, an Anglo-Catholic liturologist, maintained that 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayers of Consecration have an epiclesis and an anamnesis. The epiclesis is muted, taking the primitive form of a petition to God, which is what “epiclesis” means in the Greek, “ calling upon God.” The anamnesis is confined to Christ’s death and passion. An “resource for Common Worship” adopted by the ACNA for use at provincial gatherings would have to be developed within these limitations if it is to conform with the standard of the Anglican worship tradition that the ACNA has adopted. In Alternative Forms of Service I seek to do that.

I contacted Common Cause, requesting the name and email address of a contact person on the Prayer Book and Common Worship Committee and providing a brief explanation of my work, but I recieved no response from Common Cause or the Prayer Book and Common Worship Committee.

The third collection, Alternative Services, I have submitted for the consideration of the Free Church of England - Evangelical Connection for use as an alternative to the 1956 Free Church of England Prayer Book. Its presiding bishop had expressed an interest in the development of alternative services in modern English for his denomination. It is a modern English translation of the 1956 Free Church of England Prayer Book with a number of alterations and additions, which include two alternative forms of morning and evening worship and an alternative order for Holy Communion with four alternative Prayers of Thanksgiving and Consecration.

The Restoration bishops who were responsible for the revision of the English Prayer Book that we call the 1662 Book of Common Prayer were all Laudian High Churchmen and the 1662 Prayer Book shows the influence of the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book, the so-called “Laudian liturgy,” as well as retains a number of Catholic elements from the 1559 Prayer Book. Both High Churchmen and Evangelicals used the 1662 Prayer Book in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The early Tractarians were strong supporters of the 1662 Prayer Book. They interpreted the 1662 Prayer Book in “a Catholic sense” and were opposed to any changes in that book. The Ritualists who followed them engaged in all kinds of liturgical experimentation, incorporating material into the Prayer Book services from the Roman sacramentary.

On the other hand, the 1928 Prayer Book is not a Prayer Book that both High Churchmen and Evangelicals have used. Evangelicalism had disappeared from the Protestant Episcopal Church by 1900. The two dominant schools of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church at the time of the adoption of the 1928 Prayer Book were Anglo-Catholicism and Broad Church Liberalism. The 1928 Prayer Book reflects the influence of these two schools of thought. The changes that it introduced in the American Prayer Book were far-reaching and even radical and presaged the changes of the 1979 Prayer Book. The adoption of the 1928 Prayer Book was not without controversy. Two major focuses of this controversy was the incorporation of prayers for the departed and the repositioning of the Prayer of Humble Access and the Lord’s Prayer. The adoption of the 1928 Prayer Book marked a period in the history of the then Protestant Episcopal Church when classical Anglicanism was under attack from both the Catholic and Liberal wings of that church. In 1925 the General Convention had adopted a resolution that would have removed the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion from the back of the American Prayer Book had it passed again at the 1928 General Convention. However, the movement to remove the Articles from the Prayer Book encountered a major obstacle in the form of the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church and the resolution was dropped. The 1928 Prayer Book is a partisan Prayer Book and consequently is hardly the Prayer Book suitable for use of a theologically diverse body like the ACNA or upon which to base contemporary English services.

I personally advocate the optional use of the “passing of the Peace,” and in the two collections of services that I have compiled, it is optional. I leave to the individual congregation whether they want to adopt this practice or continue it. The “passing of the Peace” is not only widely found in Anglican service books in use around the world but the practice is found in non-Anglican churches. For example, in a growing number of evangelical churches and Protestant mainline churches, the congregation is, at the beginning of the service, invited to greet their neighbors in the name of the Lord. The exchange of a simple greeting at this stage in the service is one way of making the service friendlier to guests and this explains its widespread popularity.

The Peace was in ancient times exchanged at the very beginning of the Eucharist. This is why most Anglican rites place the “passing of the Peace” immediately before the Offertory where it serves as a suitable conclusion to the Penitential Preparation and gives expression to the love and charity that we should feel toward our neighbors before receiving the sacrament of Holy Commnion. It provides an opportunity for estanged parties to tangibly demonstrate their reconiliation with each other. It is the exuberance of some congregations in “passing the Peace,” the kissing, hugging, and back-slapping, that puts off more reserved individuals. All that is required is a firm handclasp, one hand placed on top of the other, “the right hand of fellowship,”  and the words, ” Peace be with you.” A limp handshake, however, does not fully convey the sentiment of “Peace be with you.” In the Church of South Indian members of the congregation place their palms together and bow to their neighbors, a common Indian form of greeting. 

Rite I is a twentieth century composite of elements from the 1549 Prayer Book, the 1552 Prayer Book, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the 1928 American Prayer Book. It does not represent an actual historical Anglican rite.

The last time Anglicans had one Prayer Book was during the reign of Elizabeth I. It was the 1559 Prayer Book. As I have note above, it was “the” Prayer Book for almost 100 years. That ended when Charles I attempted to impose the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book upon the Scots. Charles would eventually lose his head and the Prayer Book would be abolished. With the Restoration a new Prayer Book would be adopted in 1662. It was a modest revision of the 1559 Prayer Book. The Restoration bishops were largely satisfied with the 1559 Prayer Book. In the opening decade of the eighteenth century the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book was revived in Scotland. In the closing decade of the same century the Protestant Episcopal Church adopted the 1789 Prayer Book. It was the first local adaptation of the 1662 Prayer Book and was followed by other local adaptations of the 1662 Prayer Book in other Anglican provinces. Here I must point out that it was preceded by what may also be considered as local adaptations of the 1662 Prayer Book, the translation of the 1662 Prayer Book into various native tongues and dialects, including the language of at least one American Indian tribe. The 1789 Prayer Book is the first local adaptation of the 1662 Prayer Book formally adopted by the governing body of a future Anglican province. A translation of the 1662 Prayer Book is a local adaptation because some native tongues and dialects do not have the equivalent of “thou” or other words and expressions in the 1662 Prayer Book.

The Anglican Communion and even the ACNA is so theologically diverse that we have moved beyond the possibility of one Prayer Book for all Anglicans. Some Anglicans have yet to face up to this reality.

Anglicanism has a number of schools of thought—Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, Evangelical, and liberal. Each believes that its views on a number of key theological issues is the true Anglican psoition. Each can persuasively show, at least to its satisfaction, that its views represent true Anglicanism and the views of the other schools of thought do not. A lot of the trouble in The Episcopal Church is related to one school of thought imposing its beliefs upon the entire church and prohibiting other schools of thought from putting into practice what they believe. Trying to impose a single Prayer Book on the AMiA or the ACNA would be doing the same thing. The AMiA and the ACNA have adopted worship and doctrinal standards for themselves and it is reasonable to expect that whatever Prayer Books are used in these church bodies meet the standards that they have adopted. I believe that we can anticipate future conflict in the ACNA over what those standards are, with different schools of thought vying with each other to be the one that interprets the standards to the rest. This is likely to happen because the ACNA in its provisional constitution and code of canons to be presented for ratification at the Inaugural Provincial Assembly in June does not make adequate allowances for the theological diversity in the ACNA and does not provide needed guarantees and safeguards that would prevent such conflicts and give every school of thought a place in the sun.

I understand that the Scots hated the 1637 Prayer Book…but I still like it…and I am a Scot on all sides.

As far as 1928 goes…I am okay with the Articles being in it, but I still disagree with at least a few of them.  And I don’t like the Gloria at the end of Holy Communion.  That seems to be a 1928 thing.  Even when my rector didn’t use The Prayer of Humble Access, I still said it quietly, with a few Sarum devotions.

I rather doubt that many of the usual posters here at SF will take the time to plough through Robin’s analysis, in full. Those who do, on the other hand, will learn much. Particularly, the co-relation between the American 1928 book, the proposed (but rejected) English 1928 book and An Anglican Prayerbook. Rather than just being a contemporary English version of the 1662 BCP it is something rather different, to be avoided if one wants to retain the doctrine and theology of the 1662. One thing that I’d be curious to know is, precisely how many of the parishes already part of ACNA are actually using or have ever used the original 1662 BCP? I don’t mean An Anglican Prayerbook, but the actual 1662. I’ll hazard a guess and say not more than half of a dozen. Which begs the question, how will a Province which has never used it aspire to use the 1662 BCP as its basis?

AnglicansAblaze, I tried to go to your link in #17 without success.  Since you have described numerous efforts on your part to participate in Prayer Book discussions, could you post a link to your work, and to who you are?  Ordinarily the anonymous nature of our identities here is okay with me; I don’t use my last name myself, for some good reasons.  But I’d be interested to know more details about your work.  Thanks.

Ooops.  Never mind.  I just looked at the top posting.  Sorry!

Cennydd et al:
When I was a Lay Reader I was in charge of the parish Saturday evening service (EP) and the late Sunday (MP) service.  This was in the mid-seventies when the (shudder) Red Book was coming into use, so I had experience with both books.  Before the beginning of each service I made a brief announcement to the effect that the Episcopal custom was no talking as long as the Altar Candles were lit.  The congregation abided by this request.  When the service began we had a devout and reverent atmosphere to worship in.  Since then, two or three generations have grown up in the Church with no idea of what the Episcopal Church is (was).
I have made modern English translations of MP and EP from the 1928 PB for personal and small group use.  In each, I inserted after the Creed, a form of the Peace as follows: M: “The peace of the Lord be always with you.” P:“and with your spirit.”  P: “Let us pray.”  followed by the Kyrie and Lord’s prayer etc.  It works very well and there is no “holy commotion” at the Peace. Everyone understands that we are about to pray and need to be “in love and charity with our neighbor.”  This form of worship is not used in church, but with informal prayer/study/discussion groups.
Dumb Sheep.

If I were calling the shots and I am not.  I would make the 1928 prayer book the “official” prayer book of the ACNA with the 1662 and the new AMiA book as approved non-standard.  Question - which one does the REC use as its official prayer book.  I would continue to permit the use of the 1979 book - but officially discourage its use as engendering controversy.  The foregoing would mean that a new Prayer Book would likely need to be agreed upon by the powers that be. Hopefully the AMiA would adopt the “New One” and thus discontinue the new AMiA book.  Then the ACNA could have the 1928 and the “New One” as official standard - strongly discourage use of the 1979 and permit the use of 1662 as non-standard but acceptable.

Not bad, dumb sheep….not bad at all!  Now, if we could find some way to keep occasional services such as Compline, I’d be happy….and I say that because I’m an Anglo Catholic, and I use it occasionally.  And I can do without the Baptismal Covenant.  BTW, do you remember the Green Book and the Zebra Book?  “Services for Trial Use?”  YECCH!

I just bought a copy of the Proposed 1928 CofE Prayerbook, complete with “Mattins and Evensong” readings(because I don’t like fumbling for readings in multiple books)...through Canterbury Press.  And for extra special fun I got the new St. Ambrose Prayer Book, a Western Rite Orthodox rework of the St. Augustine Prayer Book, of Anglo-Catholic fame…new from Lancelot Andrewes Press.  Good times!!!  Lancelot Andrewes is also coming out with a 1928 American BCP reworked for Western Orthodox use…due in a few months…will be interesting.

#26 Tx
How did you order that from Canterbury? I went on their website ECMCanterbury and couldn’t find it anywhere.

Thanks,

LAA

#24, The REC has its own prayerbook, which I think has been revised to bring it closer to the 1662. Previously they used a self-consciously evangelical version based on Bp White’s proposed book of 1785. Someone closer to the REC can fill in the details and correct if I’m mistaken.

#24 and #28

The Reformed Episcopal Church as a prayerbook which incorporates elements of both the 1662 and 1928 BCP’s.

For Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, it is basically 1928 with some prayers for the Queen and Royal Family (we have Canadian parishes).

For Holy Communion, we have two “forms.”  The first is basically the 1662 and the “alternate” is 1928 Word for word.

We also have the Committation (for Ash Wednesday), the Athenasian Creed, and more “1662 like” forms for Baptism and Confirmation.

Also, the ordinal uses “presbyter” rather than priest.

Now, having said all that, a good number of REC parishes use the 1928 BCP itself, some use the old REC (1934/1967) “evangelical/Presbyterian with a Prayerbook” Book and some even use (I think) portions from “The Australian prayer book for contemporary language.

The “lectionary” is based on the Australian one and the daily (and Sunday) lectionary never lists books from the Apocrypha.  (1928 does, and our parish, which uses 1928 also uses the 1928 Lectionary INCLUDING THE APOCRYPHA!!)

So, I hope that answers your question (GRIN).

#26, nevermind. I found it and ordered it. thanks for the tip!
LAA

LA Anglican…
You could probably get it through a seminary bookstore.  I happened to be at ETSS one day(Ugh…I know…out of sheer curiosity, as I was visiting Austin and passed by it)...they had a few copies in their bookstore…who knew!!!  Oh…but they had PLENTY of other crazy stuff there…ewww…this was their token traditional item…

Glad you found it…

[17] The 1786 Proposed American Prayer Book is not a very good reflection of classical Anglicanism.  It is true that Bp Cummins, founder of the REC advocated its use early in the formation of that denomination.  However, the fact remains that the book ditched the Nicene Creed, edited out “uncomfortable” portions of the Psalter, Latitudinarian revisions abound in the book—the Athanasian Creed is omitted, The Articles are whittled down to 20 (kind of hard to argue it conforms to the 39 Articles here!), the Psalter is reduced to 60 Psalms.  In short, there were good reasons why this “proposed” book was rejected.  Had Bp Cummins never endorsed it, perhaps it would have died and been given the proper burial it deserved.

The 1786 Prayer Book is substantially the 1662 Prayer Book with a number of additions, alterations, and omission. Its omission of the Nicene Creed was the main fault that the English bishops found with it. They, however, did not find fault with the changes in the Offices of Baptism and Confirmation. In the Protestant Episcopal Church its primary critics were Bishop Samuel Seabury and the High Church party who had deliberately boycotted the convention at which the 1786 Prayer Book was drafted. Seabury wanted the Protestant Episcopal Church to adopt an American version of the very High Church 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer Book. The 1789 Prayer Book, the first American Prayer Book, was a compromise. Seabury had his way in so far as a revised version of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration was substituted for the 1662 Prayer of Consecration.

The 1786 Prayer Book did use the entire text of Psalm 95 and the Benedictus in Morning Prayer. The 1789 abbreviated both canticles. It restored the Gloria in Excelsis to the morning office. In the Western Church the Gloria in Excelsis had been a part of the daily office from the fourth century to the twelth century. In the Eastern Church it is part of the daily office to this day. It introduced the Eastern practice of reciting the Gloria Patri after the whole group of psalms appointed for the day rather than after each psalm. Since the sixteenth century Anglicans had been calling for this change with each successive revision of the Prayer Book. One of its most unpopular features was the inclusion of the Litany in the Order for Morning Prayer, which made the service fairly long.

The 1874 Prayer Book, the first Prayer Book of the Reformed Episcopal Church, is largely a revision of the 1789 Prayer Book with some material from the 1786 Prayer Book. If the High Church party had been ameniable to the addition of alternative wording and forms in the Offices of Baptism and Confirmation in the 1789 Prayer Book Bishop George David Cummins would have never left the Protestant Episcopal Church. However, the High Church party proved intractible in its opposition to Evangelical efforts to revise the 1789 Prayer Book to make it more comprehensive and Cummins and an group of like-minded Evangelicals concluded that the only hope of a revised Prayer Book lay outside of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

Adopting the 1928 Prayer Book as the official Prayer Book of the ACNA would likely cause a similar split in the ACNA. Most churches using the 1928 Prayer Book have also shown themselves very ineffective in reaching the younger generations.

#34 I understand…it is unfortunate that MANY(not all) proponents of traditional language in Anglicanism etc don’t APPEAR to have much interest in the younger generation at all…which may or may not be true…but there is a strong case that that can be PERCEIVED…which is a shame, because, AS A GenXYer MYSELF, I PREFER traditional language, and believe many of my generation would as well…IF the traditionalists bothered to care and connect with them.  Too many times it’s all about people’s little fiefdoms…evangelism is messy…and “proper Anglicans” don’t do messy.  It’s not the liturgy’s fault…it’s us.  Look at the resurgence of Traditionalism in liturgy in the Roman Church right now…the YOUNG are the ones hungry for the traditions.  I would be fine with a wholesale ditching 1979 Rite II, for example, and some of the cheesiness factor of 1979 in general.  Lord willing my parish’s ways will change…they use a traditional 1928 and Missal service…but people are stuck in a rut in their paradigm…with a fear of evangelism and proper bridge-building…once again, not the liturgy’s fault.  Hopefully we in ACNA will not make ourselves just the Anti-TEC, but be about what we are FOR…reaching the next generation with the Gospel of Jesus.  Disassociation is fitting and proper for ACNA, but that can’t be where all energy is spent…that can only take us so far.  And I think a Traditional Liturgy would be valuable.  The young see right through the 70’s and 80’s cheesiness.

What do people think of ACNA having two new official prayerbooks???  Seriously.  Am I being Pollyanna???  One for High Church use in red binding and one for Low Church use in blue binding???  Some may argue that this just emphasizes our differences and divides us.  But I would say we already know our differences.  Why hide them with false comprehensiveness of one book???  Have the High Church Book in traditional and GOOD contemporary language designed by a high church commission and approved by high church bishops…and have the Low Church Book in traditional and GOOD contemporary language designed by a low church commission and approved by low church bishops.  The high could be a descendant of Sarum Use, 1549, 1637, 1764, 1928, and teeny bits of 1979…and proper rubrical wiggle room within reason.  The low could be descended from 1662, 1789, 1874, and teeny bits of 1979…and proper rubrical wiggle room within reason.  The Ordinal/Pontifical will be harder…but to avoid doubt about orders in the future, I think the closer we get to Sarum the better we all will be fare better with the old forms of form, matter, intention, thoroughness, and invocation of the Holy Spirit.  Let’s not have a repeat of the Edwardine vs. Sarum and another Apostolicae Curae vs. Saepus Officio shadow.  We need closer relations with Rome and Orthodoxy.  I’m not saying change and BE them…so don’t take what I say as that.  On orders and church order we must be united and above reproach.  Even Rome’s modern ordinal has holes.  Just some random thoughts.

Please, can’t we stop this?  Move on to something else!

TX Thurifer,

I am not personally opposed to the use of traditional language prayer book. Right now I am sojourning with a non-Anglican church that is primarily targeted at students on the campus of the local state university and young adults and their children in the community. (I would prefer to be involved in an Anglican church but theology and worship of the two options in my area are not a good match with my own beliefs and values.) The local Continuing Anglican church has no outreach to this ministry group. The vicar of the local Episcopal church is also chaplain to the Episcopal students and a campus minister but his ministry to the students is not one that is attracting large number of students. The Assembly of God has a sizable group at its weekly service; the Presbyterian Reformed fellowship has a more modest sized group. The church with which I am sojourning also has its services on campus and we average about 200 to 250 students and other young adults every Sunday during the school year. Our attendance drops during the summer.

What I have encountered in this ministry group is that they do not have a working acquaintance with many words in contemporary English, much less the Tudor-Jacobean English of the 1662 Prayer Book or the 1928 Prayer Book and the King James Bible. Tudor-Jacobean English is a barrier to them. Even the contermporary English of the English Standard Version Bible is a barrier to them. Their vocabulary is limited. I am including college graduates as well as high school graduates in this group. They do not know words that I regularly use as a part of my daily vocabulary. For example, I had to explain to one young man, a college graduate, what a briar was. He had never heard of the word. He is going to teach elementary school children!

I have so far met only one young woman who showed an interest in traditional language services and she considered herself unusual. Most of her peers she pointed to my attention are put off by traditional language services and many aspects of traditional liturgical worship. I believe that some of the young adults in her age echelon may be attracted to traditional liturgical worship but a large segment of them is not. From my observations in many areas of the United States a traditional language service is unworkable.

I think that your suggestion of two service books or a service book that has a Catholic rite for all services and an Evangelical rite for all services is a good one. I am convinced the days of one Prayer Book for all Anglicans is long past. Indeed, the idea of a golden age of the Prayer Book may be a myth. As for the content of the Ordinal, I suspect that it would have to be a compromise between Catholics and Evangelicals. Catholics and Evangelicans have quite different theologies of apostolic succession, ordination, and the sacraments. The compromise might consist of different Catholic and Evangelical rites for the ordination of deacons and presbyters and a common rite for the consecration of bishops. A lot of people do not realize that the Anglican Communion is a microcosm of the larger Church, except that in the Anglican Communion Catholics are a small group while in the larger Church they are the largest group. The largest group in the Anglican Communion are Evangelicals. One might say that the Anglican Communion is a microcosm of the larger Church.

Cennydd,
Aren’t you saying what our liberal friends are always saying? Can’t we stop this discussion and move on to something else? What we are discussing are important issues that need to be resolved. They cannot be ignored.

Thank you AnglicansAblaze.  I, too, have worked with college campus ministries in leadership.  I understand where you’re coming from.  I guess what I REALLY mean when we get down to it, is that we have to make the Liturgy accessible, yet NOT water it down or weaken its theology.  I believe contemporary liturgies can use simple language and still remain strong theologically.

Unfortunately the 1979 Book got silly in the Rite II and Baptismal Covenant and other parts…and these “Rite III” experiments as well.  Now this new 2012 TEC Book will be an utter travesty of Universalism.  I am not opposed to simple language…as long as it’s well written.  I was blessed with a penchant for vocabulary, as are much of my family(college grads or not)...and I learned even more when I was on my Canterbury Trail and learned the BCP…I learned so many new words from the Liturgy that have enriched my life.  Love “vouchsafe” and “deign”!!!    I digress. 

Meeting people where they are is great and should be done…but I hope that people can be taught and challenged to grow…receiving the deposit of faith of the past and not making everything “all about ME and NOW”.  I guess it’s a mistrust of 70’s and 80’s baby boomer tactics to keep feeding and drinking the milk when they need to graduate to meat, even in the area of what worship IS.  I have seen folksy, seekerish churches flagging because they are in their own time warp.  It’s a tricky balance…but with the grace of God, I believe it can be accomplished.  And yes, I agree that in the Anglican world in the US, ther is WAY TOO LITTLE attention given to college campus ministry.  Tragic, but repairable!!! 

And yes, the times for a single comprehensive Prayer Book for both orthodox wings of Anglicanism is OVER.  Why can’t we have two official Evangelical/Low and Anglo-Catholic/High Books or one with two Rites and stay friends, instead of imposing one hazy book that EVERYONE grumbles about?!!!

Where can I find the text of the service of Holy Communion in the AMiA book online?

I bought my copy of An Anglican Prayer Book through the US Prayer Book Society’s Online Store:  The Anglican Marketplace…
https://www.anglicanmarketplace.com/shop.php?select=1

An Anglican Prayer Book(AAPB)has several variants(like 1928 USA and 1962 Canada)in the Book, so there would be a lot of text to print online, if you could find it.  It’s worth buying.

Re:  Evangelical and Catholic rites.

As far as the Eucharist/Communion goes, my vote would be to build the core liturgy based around the 1662 BCP but to have various High Church options that can be added on, such as the extended “canon” and the complete Kyrie/Gloria/Sanctus/Benedictus/Agnus Dei which is particularly nice for choral settings.  I would also say that if people want to add various inaudible prayers or choral introits and graduals from the Anglican missal tradition, more power to them. 

Daily Offices should be pure 1662. 

A non-eucharistic liturgy of the word based on the ante-communion should be an option.

I have no problem with making available traditional and contemporary English translations, not to mention Spanish and whatever else is in demand.  However they should be different translations of the same litugy instead of entirely different rites as is the current practice. 

Above all, all the 1970’s Eucharistic prayers need to be scrapped.  It should be either 1662 for the Low Church or 1928 for the High Church.

Those are some worthy suggestions.

Among the problems with An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) from an Evangelic perspective is that its Communion Services, Office of Baptism, Catechism, and Office of Confirmation are Catholic in doctrine. All three Communion Services use the same ministry of the word which contains Catholic elements and the so-called “1662 English Order,” which is that section of the Communion Service from the Penitential Preparation on, contains Catholic elements that are not found in the 1662 Prayer Book. On this basis An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) must be classified as a Catholic Prayer Book. It may not be as Catholic as some Catholics would like but nonetheless it is Catholic. It is not a good example a Prayer Book with a Catholic rite and an Evangelical rite for these services. Such a Prayer Book would require separate Catechisms for Catholics and Evangelicals. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) has other flaws. The language of a number of prayers leaves much to be desired and a number of the canticles are unsuitable for singing or even recitation as far as that goes. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) at best has a very weak theology of missions. It also incorporates the incipient liberal theology of the 1928 Prayer Book.

Peter Toon has posted a number of the services on his Anglicans at Prayer web site.

Those that think that true Anglicanism necessitaties the complete and total purging of all allegedly “Catholic” elements, indeed anyone that thinks that “Catholic” is a bad thing, will not find a place for themselves in the emerging Anglican Church of North America, nor indeed would they have found a place for themselves in pretty much any Anglican church in the US post-1790’s or the Church of England post 1920’s.  I would encourage those looking for such a purely non-Catholic denomination to find one of the groups like the one that broke off from the the Free Church of England because the Free Church of England was too high church for them, or to simply cut to the chase and join the PCA.

Just to make it clear, I am not speaking on behalf of the ACNA or as an ACNA member (I’m not) but merely observing that uber-evangelicals in the ACNA will have to be able and willing to tolerate Anglo-Catholics in their midsts, just as uber-catholics must be able and willing to tolerate WO.

#46…we may, indeed, have to have two Books, with two Catechisms.  As for the Ordinal, if the Catholic elements are “too much”, then I have to think about the time long ago in my Canterbury Trail days that I asked a very evangelical priest friend some questions about Apostolic Succession…after an uncomfortable moment, he just said “Well, it’s just a good form of church government.”  If that is all, then yes, the PCA might be better for one.
#47…Anglo-Catholicism has permeated Anglicanism too much to try to “deconstruct” and isolate it.  The intention of the separation from Rome was NOT to be “Continental”...but that happened in 1552 to what was still strongly Catholic England, and we have been swinging back and forth like a pendulum ever since.  Many may be surprised at this, but there is a very healthy Catholic element of folks even in CANA.  As to WO, that may need to be very limited in licensure/canonical residence to certain jurisdictions like Pittsburgh.  Eventually…maybe Anglo-Catholics can be in canonical residence through +Bishop Iker and FW…Low Church Evangelicals through REC…and WO through +Bishop Duncan and Pittsburgh…with ability to take cures anywhere in ACNA, with permission of Vestry of that parish and license by its Bishop.

As you say, AndrewA, tolerance must work both ways.  If I, as an Anglo Catholic, can get along well with Evangelicals, why couldn’t they get along with me?

Andrew,
The Protestant Episcopal Church had a substantial Evangelical wing in the 1830s, 1840, and 1850s. During this period Evangelicals comprised about one half of the clergy and about a third of the churches. Bishop William White, the architect of the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church, was himself an Evangelical. So it is inaccurate to characterize the Protestant Episcopal Church as “High Church” or “Anglo-Catholic” after the 1790s. While the 1789 General Confession adopted the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration, it did so after revising its language and inserting the Prayer of Humble Access after the Sanctus as in the 1662 Prayer of Consecration.

What has been identified in response to my article is the need for a Prayer Book that both Catholics and Evangelicals can use. While a Catholic can use An Anglican Prayer Book, (2008) without compromising what he believes, that book has too many Catholic elements for a confessional/Reformed Evangelical like myself. The problem is not whether all Catholic elements will be purged from an ACNA “resource for Common Worship” but whether such a resource would have seperate Evangelical versions of the Prayer Book services that would enable Evangelicals like myself to use it.

Since the nineteenth century Anglo-Catholics have been trying to force Evangelicals out of the Anglican Church, claiming that they and not the Evangelicals are the true churchmen. However, Evangelicals form the largest group of Anglicans in the Anglican Communion and Anglo-Catholics are a minority group. A significant number of GAFCON primates are Evangelical. The Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of Africa that took three Anglo-Catholic breakaway Episcopal dioceses under its wing is Evangelical. It is rather presumptious to tell Evangelicals that they should join the Free Church England Evangelical Connexion or a Presbyterian church body. If there is no room for Evangelicals in the ACNA, then the GAFCON primates should withdraw their recognition of the ACNA. It would not be representative of global Anglicanism.

I am convinced that it is of the utmost importance that Anglicans with Evangelican or Anglo-Catholic leanings make every effort to focus on where they agree.  The principal beneficiary of Anglo-Catholic versus Evangelical arguments is Katherine Jefferts Schori.

Sorry—“Evangelical” (typo).

It is rather presumptious to tell Evangelicals that they should join the Free Church England Evangelical Connexion or a Presbyterian church body. If there is no room for Evangelicals in the ACNA, then the GAFCON primates should withdraw their recognition of the ACNA. It would not be representative of global Anglicanism.

For one thing, I am not an Anglo-Catholic in ACNA telling Evangelicals to leave ACNA. 

What I am is someone that has read up some on Anglican history and has followed the recent escapades of TEC recently and has some second and third hand knowledge of the ACNA.

The observation I am simply making is that Evangelicals that are unwilling to make accommodations for Anglo-Catholics will not find themselves happy in the ACNA.  You seem to think that ANY concession toward anything that might remotely be labeled High Church is intolerable.  You seem to think that any High Church or Anglo-Catholic elements being permitted in the liturgy, even if they are optional, is an attempt to force evangelicals out.  Yet you seem perfectly comfortable with forcing Anglo-Catholics out by not making allowances for their liturgical traditions, even those that date back to the first BCP and the Scottish Church would played major role and the founding of PECUSA.  I can only conclude that you want a purely Evangelical church in which the Anglo-Catholics are forced out.  Therefore, if that is the only type of church you are can in good conscious attend, then not I but your own conscious would mandate that you do not join ACNA. 

Fortunately for unity ACNA, you are not representative of the American evangelicals that have left TEC in the last decade and are likely to form the ACNA.  They have, for the most part, been perfectly willing to use liturgy that you clearly consider too Catholic.  Granted REC is a wild card, and I do expect that we will see parts of REC break off instead of join the ACNA.

Incidently, I grew up in a Baptist tradition that thinks even the Methodists are too High Church, so you must excuse me if I chuckle every time I hear Anglican “evangelicals” complain about the alleged Papism of things like putting the Prayer of Humble Access in the wrong place.

The number of Evangelicals and/or Charismatics in the AMiA (I can’t speak for the other Common Cause Partners) who would find the 1928 objectionable because it is “too catholic” are very, very few.  In fact, I have yet to meet one.  On the other hand, having attended a seminary of the REC, I know that many RE’s use the 1928 BCP with no difficulty, and their new BCP includes the Eucharistic Prayer from the 28 Book.  I think this issue is largely from the other side of the shining seas (Sydney and England) and not much of an issue here.

#54 This is true from what I have observed and studied…that the divide between churchmanship is much deeper in places like England and Sydney.  The phenomenon of Puritanglicans and “Italianate/Baroque” Anglo-Catholics in those places is much more common than here in the USA.  There are more definitive church “parties” overseas.  What we are seeing in the USA in ACNA is a reaction against what the majority Broad Churchmanship in TEC has become…Pseudo-Unitarianism.  What must replace it with ACNA is a mutual respect that does not seek to eradicate or dilute one another’s churchmanship communities.

I even had lunch with an AMiA priest the other day…and after saying that AMiA would never want me, that I’m too Anglo-Catholic…he said “Hogwash!”...maybe there is something to that…

TXThurifer wrote:

What must replace it with ACNA is a mutual respect that does not seek to eradicate or dilute one another’s churchmanship communities.

I agree absolutely.  We should recognize the things we are in unity about.  If we fight with each other, the only winner will be KJS.

Yes.  We must set in stone the things that we do agree upon that are UNALIENABLE ESSENTIALS…Nicene stuff.  Next we must recognize that there are differences we have that we don’t need to dilute and make into some hazy non-existent false comprehensiveness, by building into ACNA the ability for Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics to be mutually protected.  The last thing we need is some devil-may-care ubiquitous middle that just doesn’t care about anything.  At least we care in ACNA…let’s keep it that way.  We ought to consider something per #36 and #43 and #48…

(56)  TXThurifer, allow me to be another AMiA priest to say you are not too Anglo-Catholic for the Anglican Mission!  We are a diverse bunch in our liturgical practices.  Many of our parishes are in definitely Catholic in our theology and practice.  One of the clergy in our Network is highly involved in Forward in Faith.  Some of our parishes use incense, sanctus bells and traditional ceremonial.  While those practices are not the norm, they are certainly present, including in my own parish.  And our bishops embrace us for who we are, because we are united in our Great Commission mandate.

Praise God…that’s great to hear.  It reminds me of the diversity of CANA right now.  And conversely, look at FW, who has as it’s largest parish, a 1928 Classical Low Anglican Church in St. Andrew’s FW…the Mother Parish of the diocese.  I am glad we have this ability to value one another.

[60] Yes, it is cause for thanksgiving.  I have been blessed by Morning Prayer and Sermon at St. Andrew’s on more than one visit to the area.  Outstanding preaching.  Even though the style is different from my own parish in many ways, the fundamental unity and the common fundamental faith outweigh the ceremonial differences.

...not that I don’t also like to attend Solemn High Mass with the best of them…

Fr. Bob, thanks for the informaion on AMiA. I wish it was so in for all networks. I was point blank told when I went to talk to AMiA about our church joining that we were too Anglo-Catholic for the AMiA. Looking at the network around us, I don’t see any that you could call Anglo-Catholic. It’s ok becaue we found a home that excepts us as we are and thats a blessing.

ok..I know I should proof these things. I meant in looking at church in the multi- state area around Texas, I don’t see any Angl-Catholic churches. Also it’s accept.
sigh!

As far as I’m concerned, there is room for both Evangelicals and Anglo Catholics in the ACNA, so if anyone wants to argue with me about that, go ahead and try!  There’s been too much divisiveness lately, and it’s time to put a stop to it, because it does us no good….in fact, it hurts us….and Schori & Company just love that!

Four of the Common Cause Partners are Anglo-Catholic. They include Forward in Faith North America. The Ugandan Convocation and the Anglican Mission have a number of Anglo-Catholic clergy and congregations. The issue, as I see it, is not, whether Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Catholicism will have a place in the ACNA but whether Anglican Evangelicals and Anglican Evangelicalism will have a place. I am not talking about the charismatic variety of evangelicalism but confessional or Reformed Evangelicalism.

In the Episcopal Church the term “Low Church” has since the late nineteenth century described a style of worship and not a position on a number of key theological issues. Confessional or Reformed Anglican Evangelicalism had disappeared from that denomination by 1900. A church that uses the 1928 Prayer Book and has Morning Prayer and a sermon every Sunday may have a “Low Church” worship style, but it cannot be Evangelical in the confessional or Reformed sense. The two are incompatible. The doctrinal tone of the 1928 Prayer Book is Catholic.

This leads to a statement that Andrew made. He stated that he was willing to tolerate the kind of “Evangelical” who are willing to use a Prayer Book that is Catholic in tone. However, the willingness of these “Evangelicals” to use a Prayer Book that is Catholic in tone raises questions abot whether they are truly Evangelicals if you hold to the principle of lex orendi, lex credendi, or we pray what we believe. This principle recognizes that praying also shapes believing. Would a Catholic Anglican who was serious about his faith use a Prayer Book that clearly expressed doctrines that was at odds with what he himself believed? I doubt it. The nineteenth century Tractarians used the 1662 Prayer Book and were its strongest supporters because they could interpret it in “a Catholic sense,” to use the term that they used. The Ritualists who followed them were not satisfied with the 1662 Prayer Book because they wanted a liturgy closer to that of the nineteenth century Roman Catholic Church. They were unabashedly pro-Roman. This caused a split among English Anglo-Catholics - between those who wished to preserve the pre-Reformation English medieval tradition and those who wished to introduce post-Reformation Roman innovations into the English Church.

The most realistic option for the ACNA equivalent of the Common Cause Prayer Book and Common Worship task force is to produce two series of worship resources,one for Anglo-Catholics, the other for Evangelicals, that churches can use if they wish to do so. Otherwise, they may find themselves creating a situation like that in The Episcopal Church in the 1970s. These two series would include both traditional and contemporary language services and supplemental prayers for use with the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1928 Prayer Book.

I personally favor the Anglican Church of Australia’s model of church governance in which the dioceses and metropolitan sees forming that church retain a large degree of autonomy and may use the 1662 Prayer Book, worship resources that the ACA develops or those that they themselves develop. The ACA cannot impose the use a worship resource upon one of its dioceses or metropolitan sees. The diocese or metropolitan see must ascent to its use. The constitution of the ACA requires the ascent of the diocese or metropolitan see for a number of categories of legislation such as those affecting the faith and government of the church before that legislation is binding upon that diocese or metropolitan see. A diocese or metropolitan see may also withdraw its ascent to the legislation in which it is no longer binding upon that body.

The ACNA, however, has adopted a non-synodical form of church governance that concentrates most of the power in the provincial council, a body which in a synodical form of church governance would be accountable to the provincial assembly which would be the governing body. Under the terms of the ACNA provisional constitution the provincial council is not accountable to the provisional assembly. Indeed the latter has little power at all. In the ACNA’s non-synodical form of church governance one special interest group can come to dominate the provincial council and impose its agenda such as women’s ordination onthe ACNA. While the provisional constitution state that the dioceses, networks and clusters constituting the ACNA retain all residual powers not given to the various bodies of the ACNA, it gives the provincial council the authority to determine what the powers of the constituent dioceses, networks, and clusters are. This includes residual powers. In doing so it takes away much of the autonomy of the constituent dioceses, networks, and clusters, and makes the provincial council superior to these bodies and their bishops. It does in the ACNA through constitutional means what Schori and the Executive Council are seeking to do in TEC through extraconstitutional means.

A church that uses the 1928 Prayer Book and has Morning Prayer and a sermon every Sunday may have a “Low Church” worship style, but it cannot be Evangelical in the confessional or Reformed sense. The two are incompatible. The doctrinal tone of the 1928 Prayer Book is Catholic.

This is the core assumption that I would challenge.  To define “Evangelical” this narrowly, you probably do exclude nearly all the self-professed Evangelicals in the Common Cause.  Yet to deny that parishes such as Christ Church in Overland Park, or Christ Church Plano, or St. Andrew’s in Fort Worth, or the Reformed Episcopal parishes that use the 1928 Eucharistic Prayer are solidly Evangelical because they use the 20th Century American Prayer Books is, imho to narrow-down the definition of Evangelical in a way that we do not typically do here in the US.

Now I do support what many have said here, that there should be a service that strictly conforms to the 1662 available for use.  I think that makes a lot of sense, and I would like those Evangelicals who have issues with the American prayerbook tradition to be able to fully participate in the emerging Orthodox American Church.  I would use that service myself in a gathering if to do otherwise would bring offense to my brothers. But I do wonder—just how many parishes we are talking about here?

Bob,
The 1928 Prayer Book embodies unreformed Catholic theology that is inconsistant with the teaching of the Bible, the Reformation, and historical Anglican Evangelicalism. A self-identified “Evangelical” who uses the 1928 Prayer Book, especially its Communion Service, throws into doubt his identity as an Evangelical. Bishop George David Cummins and the Evangelical churchmen who founded the Reformed Episcopal Church would not regard him as an “Evangelical” nor would they regard the 1928 Prayer Book as a suitable Prayer Book for an Evangelical churchman or an Evangelical church. Indeed the 1928 Prayer Book goes further than the 1789 Prayer in its incorporation of the “germs”, to use the words of the REC founders, of Catholic theology that they found so objectionable in the 1789 Prayer Book.

The REC has drifted far from the Evangelical and Protestant principles of its founders and has adopted a revisionist view of the history of that denomination and from your statements a revisionist view of Anglican Evangelicalism. The Church Society, an Anglican Evangelical organization in the UK, the successor to the Church Association that opposed the Tractarian Movement in the Church of England in the nineteenth century, no longer classifies the REC as Reformed.

The Anglican Mission in Americas has a number of Anglican Evangelical pastors in its ranks that do not use the 1928 Prayer Book because they, like I, recognize that the theology that it expresses is at odds with the biblical, Reformation, and Anglican Evangelical doctrinal beliefs to which they hold and which they wish to impart to their congregations. They also do not use the 1979 Prayer Book since it takes the incipient liberal theology and unreformed Catholic doctrine of the 1928 Prayer Book a step further. As you fail to note in your earlier comments, there are both clergy and laity in the REC who object to the use of the 1928 Prayer Book in that denomination because it is a contradiction of the REC Declaration of Principles and the Evangelical and Protestant Principles of the REC founders.

participate in the emerging Orthodox American Church.

While I am sure every one here knows exactly what you are talking about, I would suggest that we should refer to the Anglican Church in North American only by its correct title or the abbreviation of ACNA.  There is already a group that calls itself the Orthodox American Church.  It split of from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.  There is also, I might add, a group calling itself the Anglican Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Anglican Church.

Q:  Are we going to resolve centuries-old disagreements between Catholics and Reformed Evangelicals? 
A:  No.
Q:  Who wins when orthodox Anglicans fight with each other?
A:  Katherine Jefferts Schori.

“Who wins when orthodox Anglicans fight with each other?”  Katharine Jefferts Schori…..and you are so right, Scott!  She must be rubbing her hands with glee and laughing out loud….and that’s exactly why I say we need to stop this infernal squabbling!

AnglicansAblaze…

Then, I have a serious question…question(s) that have been on my mind a long time.  And this is not facetious or meant to prod.  As one that grew up rather ultra-protestant(you would have been considered “Catholic” by me back then), I have been on the opposite viewpoint and have empathy on some level…so I am not attacking…even though I am now a “three-stream” Anglo-Catholic and would differ with you now. 

1) Just WHY would a Reformed Confessional Evangelical, in the description and definition you describe, want to be a part of ACNA or the Anglican Communion in its current and likely future form of government? Why would a Reformed Confessional Evangelical desire to be in a system that employs bishops as its mode of government and ultimate earthly spiritual authority in ministry?  This will not change…bishops in Apostolic Succession will be retained.  Why would a Reformed Confessional Evangelical have bishops?  Wouldn’t presbyteries or synods make more sense for a Reformed Confessional Evangelical???  What does the episcopate serve for the RCE person???  What is the point?

TX Thuringer,
Why should Evangelicals, who form the largest group of Anglicans, have preserved the principles of the English Reformation, are successors to the English Reformers, and are largely responsible for the expansion of the Anglican Church in the global South and elsewhere abandon the Anglican Communion to two minority groups—the Anglo-Catholics and the liberals, and leave them in a position to redefine what Anglicanism is? The ACNA will never represent global Anglicanism without a wing that maintains a witness to the Protestant and Reformed character of classical Anglicanism. It may as well as drop “Anglican” from its name and seek reapproachment with Rome like the Traditional Anglican Communion. It was largely the Evangelicals that came to the rescue of conversatives in The Episcopal Church and established safe havens for them in North America. Archbishop Gomez and the Anglo-Catholic Province of the West Indies would have left them twisting in the wind. And you want to shove the Evangelicals out of the door. That’s gratitude for you.

Scott and Cennydd,

I have serious problems with the argument that conservatives must maintain a united front at all costs, even the cost of their theological integrity. Liberals in The Episcopal Church trot out a similar argument whenever conservatives take issue with their position on a number of key theological issues. Conservatives are invited to sacrifice truth for the sake of unity.  This type of argument is used to quash free and open discussion of key theological issues that divide Anglicans and Episcopalians and cannot be swept under the rug. What is presented as tolerance—indulgence of beliefs and practices differing or conflicting from one’s own—really amounts to the compromising of one’s own beliefs and practices. We see what has happened in The Episcopal Church when conservatives have bought into this argument. They have increasingly lost ground.

Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals have serious theological differences. If we are going to share a denomination, we must bring those differences into the open, talk about them, and work out ways of living together that do not involve compromising one’s own beliefs and practices.

A Prayer Book that contains a Catholic rite and an Evangelical rite for all the Prayer Book services is a workable solution to the question of what Prayer Book we should use. It acknowledges the theological differences.

Other solutions I have read in the comments in response to my article would require Evangelicals to use a Prayer Book that largely took a Catholic position on a number of key theological issues on the basis that some former Episcopalians identify themselves as “Evangelicals” but sit very loose to what have historically constituted the distinctives of classical Anglican Evangelicalism. More conserrvative Anglican Evangelicals both in and outside of North America would not regard these individuals as “Evangelicals” but as a type of Broad Churchman, who has been influenced to some degree by the garden variety of American evangelicalism. However, they do not stand in the historical Anglican Evangelical tradition.

This particular group of self-identified “Evangelicals” are more like what are called “Open Evangelicals” in the United Kingdom. They identify themselves as “Evangelicals,” but they act like Broad Churchmen. They support the ordination of women and evidence liberal attitudes towards gays in the church. They are the Evangelical equivalent of “Affirming Catholics.” Traditionalist Anglo-Catholics do not regard Affirming Catholics as Anglo-Catholics. Conservative Anglican Evangelicals have serious doubts about the evangelicalism of “Open Evangelicals.”

Whoa!!!! Take it down a notch there, cowboy. I agree with you on the two rites being available…and that we should not sweep things under the carpet…and that there should be a place for conservative Evangelicals and conservative Anglo-Catholics.  But my question was: why would Reformed Confessional Evangelicals have or need bishops?  I know why I do.  I am not thanklessly pushing anyone out…that is a false accusation.  I was asking a question…and I had to ask myself that question when I was at a very Reformed Confessional Evangelical Anglican parish…hence why I left for another place, so I would not be a source of visible difference.  BTW…“Anglican” is derived from Ecclesia Anglicana…English Church…a church that was Catholic/Orthodox(in both Celtic and Latin Rites) in order and practice for almost 1300 years…don’t throw me in with Rome just to make a point.  You avoided my question.

There’s a country gospel tune called “You Go to Your Church,” and which has this line:  “You go to your Church, and I’ll go to mine, but let’s walk along together.”  Sounds like a pretty good suggestion, doesn’t it? 

So why can’t we just do that, and stop this infernal squabbling?

Or is that too “countrified and fundamentalist” for some folks?

Cennydd…
There is nothing wrong with the song you mentioned.  And you are ultimately right.  But my concern on this thread of late has been how a simple recent question of mine has been avoided and how sometimes people go off half-cocked.  If we are to live together in ACNA, we have to be honest and not threatened when somone asks a question.  I want to know my companion’s position.  I am not trying to bait and trap, here.  Do we want to merely co-exist in ACNA or do we want to commune???  Bishops for me are necessary as successors of the Apostles…they carry authority, continuity, and the three-fold ministry.  Is the bishop limited to a governmental function in my friend’s view?  That is ALL I asked.  I want to know my companions.

I wouldn’t call my attempts at dialogue here, squabbling…

TXThuringer,
Conservative Evangelical Anglicans do not reject episcopacy. They do, however, reject the Catholic view of episcopacy and apostolic succession.

Since the nineteenth century Anglo-Catholics have been trying to push Evangelicals out of the Anglican Church, saying that they belong with the Presbyterians. Being Reformed and being Presbyterian, however, is not synonymous. The North American Puritans were Reformed in their theology but they were Congregationalists in their polity. They were not seperatists. They advocated a Congregationalist polity for the Church of England. During the Commonwealth the Presbyterians sought to impose a Presbyterian polity on the English Church but were unsuccessful.

Conservative Anglican Evangelicals regard episcopacy not as a divine institution but as an ancient and desirable form of church polity. They also recognize other forms of church polity as agreeable with Scripture. This was the position of the English Reformers. Only when the Presbyterians began to claim that a presbyterian polity was the only divinely instituted church polity, do you begin to hear Episcopalians in the Church of England making the counter claim that episcopacy was the divinely-instituted polity. Even then the Church of England continued to recognize the Reformed churches on the Continent as true churches even though they did not have an episcopal polity.

Classical Anglicanism and the Evangelical tradition in Anglicanism view apostolic succestion in terms of succession of doctrine. Bishop John Jewel in his Apology rejects the Catholic view of apostolic succession—what he calls “succession of place.” He argues that the English Church is apostolic not because it has preserved a particular succession of bishops but the teaching of the apostles.

The English Church goes back only to Saxon times. The Celtic Church maintained a seperate existence from the English Church for several centuries and did not fully merge with the English Church until the eleventh century. In the sixteenth century the Ecclesia Anglicana underwent a Reformation. Anglo-Catholics would like to ignore the Reformation and claim what we call “Anglicanism” goes back in the mists of early English church history. But classical Anglicanism dates from the Reformation and is Protestant and Reformed in doctrine and practice. What preceded the Reformation is unreformed Catholicism. Anglo-Catholics attempt to identify “Anglicanism” with the latter. Peter Toon and others refer to Anglicanism as Reformed Catholicism but the older description of Anglicanism as as a peculiarly English conservative form of Protestantism is more accurate.

What passes for Anglo-Catholicism in the Anglican Communion owes more to nineteenth century Roman Catholic Church and the Ritualists’ fascination with Romanism than it does the pre-Reformation English Catholicism. The Ritualists introduced numerous innovations in doctrine and practice from the nineteenth century Roman Catholc Church that had never been a part of pre-Reformation English Catholicism but had been adopted by the Church of Rome subsequent to the Reformation. They argued that the English Church would have gone in the same direction as the Continental Church had the English Reformation not occurred.

Anglicans Ablaze wrote:

I have serious problems with the argument that conservatives must maintain a united front at all costs, even the cost of their theological integrity. Liberals in The Episcopal Church trot out a similar argument whenever conservatives take issue with their position on a number of key theological issues.

I certainly didn’t say that.  Furthermore, the differences between the orthodox Anglo-Catholics and orthodox Evanglicals who will form ACNA are not comparable to the differences between revisionists and orthodox in TEC.  The experience of TEC demonstrates that orthodox Christians will have difficulty coexisting in one church with leaders who reject orthodox Christianity.  The Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals who will form ACNA, however, are all orthodox Christians.  People in ACNA who have different sacramental theologies will have to coexist in ACNA, and there is no reason why they should not be able to do so.  The Provisional Constitution of ACNA provides that:

We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.

This appears to be a good faith effort to accommodate both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals.  You suggest that:

A Prayer Book that contains a Catholic rite and an Evangelical rite for all the Prayer Book services is a workable solution to the question of what Prayer Book we should use. It acknowledges the theological differences.

The Provisional ACNA Constitution appears clearly to permit the use of different prayer books that satisfy the proposed standard.  Your suggestion of having one prayer book with two alternative services seems unnecessary. 

What is not helpful are statements like the following (of yours):

If there is no room for Evangelicals in the ACNA, then the GAFCON primates should withdraw their recognition of the ACNA.

I see no basis for this statement.  Statements like this are what I mean by “fighting” that helps no one but KJS. 

For ACNA to work, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will have to offer each other understanding and mutual support.  We are all orthodox Christians, and that is what matters above all.  We will hang together, or we will hang separately.  The choice is ours to make.

A Prayer Book that contains a Catholic rite and an Evangelical rite for all the Prayer Book services is a workable solution to the question of what Prayer Book we should use. It acknowledges the theological differences.

If that is in fact what you are supporting, then I completly fail to see the basis to your original objective and completly fail to understand you defensive and hyperbolic reaction to the other commenters here who you entirely unjustly accuse of trying to throw evangelicals out, given the fact that many of these same commenters have previously endorsed the idea of having both evangelical and high church options.

Classical Anglicanism and the Evangelical tradition in Anglicanism view apostolic succestion in terms of succession of doctrine.

I certainly agree that orders without doctrine don’t account for much.  I wonder, however, at whether one can presume to say that the massive disjunction in doctrine caused by the Reformation can allow for any claim of continuity in the succession of doctrine.  But that is a discussion for another day.

Oh…given the choice between Pre-Reformation English Catholicism and 19th Century Roman Catholicism…I’ll take the former(Ritualists could be too Italianate and Baroque for me)...Rome didn’t bring Apostolic Succession to England…it was there WAYYY before St. Augustine of Canterbury and later the Synod at Whitby…England always maintained an individual identity in Use and practice…always different than the Continent…but it was very much Catholic England until the State overstepped…abuses could have been corrected without so much destruction and usurpation of ecclesiastical authority…

So, in short, AnglicansAblaze, I was correct…many Reformed Confessional Evangelicals desire the episcopate for the handing down of the Guardianship of the Deposit of our Faith and as a good way to govern…but not necessarily in a sacramental literal succession sense or context.  The last part is where the two orthodox groups in Anglicanism might part understandings.  Thank you for the honesty.  If I believed that, then I would probably be fine with lay presidency policies etc like Sydney, as I did growing up in very evangelical protestantism as a kid thru my 20’s.

TXThirifer,
I"m not yet Anglican (and may never be), but as a Fundamentalist Baptist (what it says on my ‘Union Card’), let me say that one of the things that draws me to the Anglican Church is the married male episcopate.  Not that it is necessary for the Gospel to be effectively preached and taught, but rather that it is the ‘better’ way to do so. 

Baptism doesn’t ‘REQUIRE’ a priest, but it is better if one do it.  Marriage doesn’t either, but it is better if one do it.  (So far I think we agree) To my mind, the Lord’s Supper doesn’t either, but it is better if a priest do it.  (You likely disagree, but….)

As one who sees it as ‘better’ I’m in practice able to completely support the same restrictions and usage as one who sees it as required.  Our difference would make no never mind in the day-to-day operation of the Church, nor of Communion.  We’d not see eye-to-eye on Sydney’s innovation (I see it as Christian, and believe the Lord is present in a mystical sense even if a layman leads the service, but not Anglican, rather than non-effective), but we both would like to see such actions not take place in an ‘Anglican’ Church.

Something not ‘necessary’ (like Apostolic succession by the laying on of hands from bishops) can still be held in great value, protected and nourished.  If I become Anglican it won’t be because I fear for my salvation (Christ does work through Baptist Preachers too!), it will be because I wish to be part of what I see as closest to what God has designed, the best way, the way described in the 39 articles and BCP 1662.

Bo…I, too, part ways with the RC on the issue of barring clerics from marriage, with exceptions to that rule as rare.  On the other hand, I would say celibacy is valuable and poopooed by protestants, as a rule.  There are many celibate Anglican clerics in a healthy state of celibacy.  But I would say it is often the appropriate and intended norm for clerics to marry.  I am warm to Orthodoxy and Rome, but the marriage rule I take issue with…especially as one in process for Holy Orders.  The important thing is for all clergy to have proper accountability support systems.

TXThurifier,
I think we can walk together, or destinations are near enough and we have so far to go.

Celibacy is from what I have seen an exceptionally rare gift, and a rare work of the faithful.  By this I mean I have known none who were ‘gifted to celibacy’, and few who were able by prayer, scripture, godly council and friends, and shear dedication to Christ “make it so” (as those of us who aren’t gifted to monogamy must do while married).

I think the ‘married, older, having reared his children’ is the better Bishop, the single-man may be the better theologian…..But I digress.

“We are a diverse bunch in our liturgical practices.”

Indeed so. One of the interesting things about Anglicanism is that from one Prayer Book (whether it’s 1662, 1928, 1979 or something else) there can be so much diversity in “doing church.”

An old college friend who recently attended services at a certain Anglican parish in Virginia reports:
1. Clergy were vested in black cassock, surplice, stole, and pectoral cross for a Holy Communion service.
2. They used the BCP 1979.
3. It began with the Rite I Penitential Order, with the priest using Rite I versicles and the congregation doing Rite II responses.
4. The sermon was long and rambling, albeit orthodox.
5. They used the Rite II Form I prayers in a Rite I communion service.
6. There were 3 wine-filled chalices on the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer, 2 quite distant from the corporal.
7. Not a soul in the congregation spoke to him after the service, except the 2 priests with whom he shook hands.

And…he went to the next building to use the restroom…and there was a contemporary service with an extremely loud Praise Band.

Yikes! Talk about liturgical diversity! Since I’m still in TEC, I’ll reserve comment, but my friend (who is not Anglo-Catholic) sure won’t go back there.

Prime reason the ‘mixing of styles’ or the lack of warmth?

The sermon was long and rambling, albeit orthodox.

You mean it was longer then 15 minutes and did more the just reflect a bit on one of the readings in some vague warm and fuzzy way? 

Sorry, but you haven’t experienced rambling until you’ve sat through a 45 minute sermon by a good old fashion country preacher and walked out of the service learning as much about his the preacher’s dog as you have about the preacher’s God.

Then again, Jesus Himself wasn’t exactly known for his short sermons.  While the recorded parts may not not be all that long, apparently he would spend hours upon hours preaching and teaching, and I’m sure lots of people were wondering why he kept going on about shepherds and vineyards.

And Paul, preaching till they went to sleep as they sat in windows….(At least he went down and raised him up again….)

#89 You’d a cussed too if you fell out of the window…

(old pun)

Hey, how about we just swap liturgy stories instead of getting into another fight about prayer books.  I won’t give any parish names, but I’m sure enough people can guess from my descriptions.  My liturgical experiences in Epsicopalian/Anglican churches.

1)  A parish in the Diocese of Pittsburg that I visisted a few years back from the baptism of my cousin’s daughter.  They used the most free-form options available from Rite II.  Music was a praise band.  Recorded “naturescape” noises were played during the collects.  Everything was projected on overheads. As near as I can remember, the rector did the whole service wearing a polo shirt, to include “The Lord’s Supper” and the Baptism.  Needless to say my Greek Orthodox sister-in-law came away from the service quite bemused.

2)  A certain cathedral.  I’m not going to say which one, but it is in Washington   I’ve been to evensongs and the main Eucharist.  Rite I.  Ceremonial was what I would call high church but not ultra-catholic (they didn’t chant the whole service and they didn’t celebrate facing east, for example).  Impeccable choir of men-and-boys and a breath taking building.  However, the less said about the sermons the better.

3)  A TEC Anglo-Catholic parish.  I’ve been to High Mass and Evensong and Benediction.  Mass used the “Anglican Service Book” which is basically all the Catholic options from Rite I and II put in traditional language plus a few leftoevers from the Anglican Missal, though no “last gospel”.  Eastward facing, “smells and bells”, full vestments, Walsingham shrine, introits and graduals, Marian Antiphon and collect during Evensong, etc. 

4)  Another parish I’ve visited a few years back.  I’m not going to name it but lets just say that I keep meaning to go back again just so I can say I’ve been to an Ugandan cathedral.  The early service was a half-way formal Rite I with albs and bells but not really all that high church.  The middle service was a “hands in the air like you don’t care” contemporary service.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m fine with contemporary worship, in its place.  I’m fine with robes, in their place.  But there is something just odd about seeing a priest wearing an alb waving his or her hands back in forth in the air. 

5)  A CANA parish I’ve visited.  The service was Rite II with what I think they call a blended style, though there was no hands going back and forth in the the air.  Clergy wore albs and sloles.  The music was okay, but the setting they were using for the Gloria, Sanctus etc could have been better, to put it politely. 

6)  Another CANA (I think) parish.  The 8:00 was Rite I with regular hymns.  The priest wore cassock, surplice and stole.  He celebrated on the east side facing toward the congregation.  I caught the tail end of the 9:00 service.  This was a Rite II Morning Prayer with traditional music.  For 11:00 I had a choice between Rite II Eucharist and another Morning Prayer service.  Since I’ve already had Communion for the day, I went to the Morning Prayer.  The music was all praise band Contempory Christian Music.  The liturgy can best be described as “Liturgy?  What’s that?”  The clergy were wearing grey suits with collars.  They had a guest speaker instead of a regular sermon.

7)  A parish of the Anglican Catholic Church.  The 9:00 service was strict 1928 BCP.  The 11:00 service was strict Anglican Missal, to include the complete set of prayers at the foot of the altar at the beging of the service, the asperges, and the last gospel.  However, I must admit that the plainer building and amatuer though enthusiatic choir made the over all effect a bit less than Parish 3. 

So where am I going in all this?  No where, really.  Just rambling for the sake of rambling.  However, I’m forced to make some general observations, I will say:

A)  Parish 1, 4, 5, and 6 were the only parishes with a significent number of people under the age of 18 that were not choirboys who most likely were not members of the parish.  As a matter of fact, I would say they were the only parishes with a signifigent number of people under the age of 30.  Parish 6 passed all the others in total attendence of people of all ages, except for Cathederal 2, which shouldn’t really count because most of the people there were probalby tourists that didn’t know any better. 
B)  Parish 6 is the only parish I’ve ever seen in which the officient at Communion wore the traditional Anglican surplice instead of street clothes or something that the Ritualists stole from the Romans in the late 19th century.  However, I have never, ever, seen some one celebrate on the north  side of the table, and I’ve been thinking about asking our friend from Sydney to send me pictures to proove that it can in fact be done that way. 
C) If I could design my own parish, the three options for morning service would be
a.  High Mass in the style of Parish 7, using Cathedral 2’s choir of men-and-boys.
b.  Communion using 1662 BCP, wearing cassock and surplice and celbrating on the north side of the table.
c. A non-eucharistic “liturgy, what’s that?” service in the style of Parish 6.

Could you add a fourth,

Morning Prayer, 1662, Cassock, Surplice, followed by Litany and Communion 1662, Cassock, Surplice, North Side and Cathedral 2’s Choir (with all the ‘where there are Quires’ parts done ‘right’)?

When you get that put together, can you make sure its accessible to tourists?

Thanks!

Bo, I suppose if you want to show up early you can catch the 1662 Morning Prayer and Litany “pre-show” and then go to your choice of 1662 Communion or Anglo-Catholic Mass.  However, I would make these services before sunday school and have the Eucharistic services after sunday school.  I wouldn’t dream of trying to do Morning Prayer, Litany and Communion as a single continuous service.  Talk about needing a bathroom break!  Even many Orthordox come in somewhere towards the end of the litany instead of doing Orthos, Great Litany and Divine Liturgy all in one streatch every week.

The choir is going to be at the Mass, because 1662 BCP is weak musically for the Communion, while the “High Church” services give you Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Gradual, Offertory Anthem, Sanctus and Benedictus, Angus Dei and Communion Anthem.  Now, I suppose I could make the choir do the Morning Prayer AND Mass, but considering they have to come back in the evening for Evensong I’m not sure I want to wear the poor young choristers out in the morning. 

Really, I have all this figured out.  I just need someone to pay for it all…

I got the idea that he would not go back as a result of the “total worship experience.” I’d guess that all of the listed things bothered him in some way, but he’s a bit particular. The fact is that the church was full of people, so they must be doing something right!

As for the sermon, I don’t mind long ones if they have content. (I too have attended services at a certain TEC cathedral in Washington DC, and learned long ago to tune the preacher out.)

The variations described by #91 are indeed interesting.

Andrew,
I think that you might be touchy if you were repeatedly told that confessional Anglicans - those with an Evangelical - Reformed theology - do not belong in the Anglican Church as has been my experience on other web sites. Since the nineteenth century a segment of the Anglo-Catholic church party, school of thought, or whatever you may wish to call it, has sought to push Evangelicals out of the Anglican Church, arguing that they were not true Churchmen like themselves. That segment is well-represented on the Internet today. They often begin with a question like the one TXThuringer asked.

Well, let me make is clear that I think that those with a Evangelical-Reformed theology do belong in Anglicanism and I readily admit that they best represent historic Anglicanism starting with with the first reformation through at least the mid 19th century, and that the majority of Anglicans in the world are to one degree or another Evangelical.

In 2005 Peter Toon wrote an article, “How to Grow a Traditional Church,” in which he advocated worshiping simply and engaging in mission joyfully. The article is on the Internet at: http://www.pbsusa.org/Articles/GrowTrad.htm Sadly few churches that use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer to my knowledge paid much attention to the article. If they had, they might be attracting more people. Among Toon’s recommendations was sticking to the Prayer Book services “without additions from other books (e.g. Missals), using good music, and minimal ceremonial and ritual. Toon was not advocating a Low Church style of worship but the “noble simplicity” that has historically characterized Anglican worship at its best. Toon also recommended the creative use of traditional music as well as the development and use of dignified modern settings of the psalms and canticles. In my own experience a large number of churches using the 1928 Prayer Book not only clutter the services with a lot of unnecessary additions but they also do an abysmal job of how they use music in the liturgy. A introit is a choral piece. If a psalm is desired to open the Communion Service, and a church does not have a choir, the congregation could sing a metrical psalm. A metrical psalm sung well and with enthusiasm would be a decided improvement over the priest reciting the introit. The use of metrical psalms have a long tradition in Anglican worship. The rubrics of the 1928 Prayer Book permit the singing of a hymn or anthem between the Epistle and the Gospel. Instead of taking advantage of this opportunity too many churches sing the children’s hymn, “Thy Gospel Jesus We Believe,” Sunday after Sunday, as if they were in the 1950s and not the twenty-first century.  West gallery music has experienced a revival in recent years. A number of the metrical psalm settings would make simple anthems that a small group of singers could sing between the Epistle and Gospel, accompanied by instrumental music. Many excellent hymns were not included in the Hymnal 1940 and a number of excellent hymns have been written since its publication. These hymns could be introduced to the congregation as simple anthems. Even some of the better Scripture songs would also make simple anthems and enrich a congregation’s repertoire. The rubrics of the 1928 Prayer Book also permit the singing of a hymn before the distribution of Communion. But too many churches invariably sing the Agnus Dei to the same setting Sunday after Sunday. They do the same thing with the Gloria in Excelsis, using the same setting Sunday after Sunday, even though the Hymnal 1940 contains other settings of the Gloria in Excelsis and the rubrics permit the substitution of other hymns of praise in place of that canticle. The west gallery music collections include metrical settings of the Prayer Book canticles, including the Gloria in Excelsis, as well as the psalms. A congregation could easily learn one of these settings or one of the more recent metrical settings of the Gloria in Excelsis. The conclusion of the service is also dragged out with additional prayers and devotions after the Blessing and the closing hymn. If a concluding prayer is desired, a more appropriate place for it would be immediately before the Blessing as in the 1926 Irish Prayer Book and the 1929 Prayer Book. With the closing hymn, the Mass is ended. It is time for the congregation to depart.

93,
I want a shot at a good sung full morning service, maybe with the choir form 5 or 7?

That is the 1929 South African Prayer Book.

In the Episcopal parish of my youth we had Holy Communion twice a month and Morning Prayer on the other Sundays. The congregation sang the canticles as well as the hymns. I do not recollect if they joined in the psalms or whether the choir sang the psalms. Morning Prayer was the service that I regularly attended. I was apt to skip church on Communion Sundays. The service was long and tedious. We did a lot of kneeling. Since I was not confirmed, all I received at the distribution of the Communion was the priest’s blessing, a poor substitute for the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. On the other hand, Morning Prayer was much more participative. When the other youngsters left for Sunday school, I stayed for the sermon. I never saw the inside of a Sunday school classroom except when I was asked to teach Sunday school in high school. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer did away with Morning Prayer as a regular service on Sunday morning.

Very few of the young adults whom I meet through the ministry of the church with which I am sojourning would be attracted to a service of Holy Communion or Morning Prayer. They would be more likely attracted to one of the newer alternative forms of morning and evening worship like the Service of Praise, Prayer, and Proclamation in the Anglican Church of Australia’s A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) or the Diocese of Sydney’s Supplemental Sunday Services. These alternative forms, like Service of the Word in Common Worship (2005) and the Church of Ireland’s The Book of Common Prayer (2005), follow the basic pattern of Morning Prayer but omit a number of traditional elements. Eucharistic services also do not make sense when most of the congregation is not baptized (unless you subscribe to “open communion,” which I do not).

Give me Rite I from the 1979 book as my first choice.  Second choice is the 1928 BCP.  1662 unsullied with “contemporary” language is third choice.  Alas, my parish is using the “Anglican Prayer Book.”  It’s ghastly.  No beauty at all.

#100
If you’re all that Reformed, it’s no wonder you skipped Holy communion. After all, it’s just words, a memorial, right?

I feel a few points should be noted here.

I appreciate much of what Robin Jordan states—but I must note a few issues. First, from my observations his theology is essentially that of the Westminister Confession (minus, of course, the view that Presbyterian polity is Divinely Ordained). This is fine—but I have some concern that he might be implying that his essentially Westminister Confession theology is the only true, historical, or traditional Anglican position (this is simply not the case). Secondly, it should be noted that the position of many of the Evangelicals in the Global South which Robin seemingly places within his narrowed definition of “Evangelical” (and to be clear—I am speaking here of the “Evangelicals” of the Global South and not the large but less numerous “Anglo-Catholic” population of the Global South) do not hold anything like his theology on a number of issues.  In fact, many of them have a high or even what he might call “Anglo-Catholic” view of such things as Apostolic Succession.

It should be noted further that among what he describes (either here or elsewhere) as “Anglo-Catholic” positions (for example, some of the higher views regarding the real presence)—which he alleges to be contrary to historic Anglicanism and considers unacceptable to any true “Evangelical” Anglican—are actually acceptable traditional Anglican positions.

Finally—going to the issue of the doctrine of the Historic Episcopate itself which has been raised in the this thread. There have historically been two views within the Church on its origin—the position that it is divinely ordained and the position that it was a later, useful development of the Church (Jerome was a notable advocate of this position).  And possibly reflecting the breadth of positions in the early church we see that the Historic Church never apparently “unchurched” the Church of Alexandria, despite their lack for a time of (at least proper) maintainance of the Historic Episcopate.  (For a period of time Alexandria had a new bishop ordained by presbyters whenever the previous bishop died).  Those within the Anglican Church have historically held a variety of opinions which reflect this breadth of positions in the early church.  For these reasons I believe the historic Anglican Church was wise in those earlier days to not simply “unchurch” the continental churches which did not maintain the historic episcopate (and I believe this is especially important in this post-Reformation era of the Church).

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

And it’s TXThurifer…not “TXThuringer”...big difference…

If you’re all that Reformed, it’s no wonder you skipped Holy communion. After all, it’s just words, a memorial, right?

Evan, I can’t give yellow cards here but that was wrong of you.  I intentionally tried to make this conversation a less confrontational that is had been getting for a moment by inviting people to simply share stories about their liturgical experiences.  For you to respond to Robert’s comment with in an accusative manner regarding something he did way back when he was a kid is not constructive.  Furthermore, while Robert can speak for himself, I don’t think he would regard Communion as a mere memorial.  That isn’t Reformed Anglican, that’s anabaptist.  The English reformers definatly saw Communion as a means of grace, even if they went out of there way to remove ideas that it was a sacrifice offered by the priest or the bread and wine had their substance wholely replaced by the Body and Blood of Christ (and therefore for worthy of adoration).

Andrew (#105)
You’re right.  My remark was uncalled for.  While I do think Robert misrepresents Anglicanism, or at least has a very peculiar take on what it means to be Anglican, my comment was unnecessarily confrontational and dismissive. I apologize to you and Robert and anyone else to whom it gave offense.

Maybe not the right thread, but I came across this video of the Great Litany.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaQ6xMre3S0

Smallish parish it appears, but it looks as if they do it well….

Maybe someone could start a thread of ‘examples’ of the range of services that Orthodox Anglicans offer to our God….

TXThurifer,
My sincerest apologies. I guess I would not want to be confused with a smoked sausage. I must wonder, however, whether thurifers do not come to resemble a thuringer through swinging a thurible service after service, enveloped in a cloud of incense smoke.

I shall assign myself a suitable penance.

For those who have been calling me “Robert,” my name is actually “Robin” like Robin in Robin Hood and Robin Goodfellow. It is derived from the Anglo-Saxon, “hrothbheort,” or “bright fame.”

William,
Me thinks that you are presuming too much in regards to my own theology. You also sound as if you have been exposed to relativistic and revisionist views of Church history and the like. One gentleman comes to mind who argues that a number of the English Reformers were Catholic and not Reformed. He supports his claim by including the Catholic Reaction of the Caroline High Churchmen in the English Reformation and treating the Caroline High Churchmen as English Reformers. Of course, he does so to justify his own Catholic theology as being representative of the English Reformers.

Evan,
Bare memorialism?! There are at least three Reformed views of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
1. Receptionism—Christ is present to the “heart” of the believer, the believer’s inner most being, and there the believer feeds on Christ. The means by which the believer feeds on Christ is faith.
3. Dynamic virtualism—Eating the bread and drinking the wine involves a spiritual transaction in which the Holy Spirit conveys to the believer the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice. In this sense the bread and wine might be described as having the “virtue” of Christ’s body and blood. However, their “virtue” is not objectively attached to the bread and wine. They do not acquire supernatural power in some way. Supernatural power is not infused into the substance of the bread and wine or anything like that. Rather receiving the bread and wine in the natural realm involves a transaction in the spiritual realm.
3. John Calvin’s view—When the believer eats the bread and drinks the wine, he is lifted spiritually into heaven where Christ sits at the right hand of the Father and there he feeds upon Christ.

In none of these views is Christ’s presence tied to the bread and wine. He is not present in or with the bread and wine. The bread and wine are just ordinary bread and wine. The only change they undergo is sacramental. They become signs and tokens of Christ’s body and blood. Grace is conveyed but it is through the action of eating and drinking in remembrance of Chist’s death and passion. The Lord’s Supper is not a bare memorial. Christ is present and his presence is real. It is not imagined. However, his presence is spiritual.

Robin,
How do you deconstruct Christ’s own words, “This is my body.”?  Plain enough to me, to Luther, and to the majority of Christians today.
The Caroline Devines, God bless ‘em, were attempting to undo some of the worst excesses of the earlier reformers who were busily throwing the baby out with the bath water in their zeal against Rome.

Hello Robin,

I apologize if I have at all misread your theological affiliations. I believe, though, that you are mistaken in assuming that I am leaning on “relativistic” or “revisionistic” views of Church history (you seem to be referring to the English Reformation in particular). When I refer to historical or traditional positions within Anglicanism which differ from your own positions—I am certainly not excluding the Divines of the Edwardian and Elizabethan eras. (I have read a great deal of the original writings of the Edwardian and Elizabethean divines—so it’s an area that I have more than a passing familiarity with).

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

Sorry—that should be “Elizabethan divines”

John 6:48-63 is a big help on that question.
Remember also that when first He instituted the supper, He was still flesh and blood.

As He meant it, thus I take it.
(Which means I’ve not yet puzzled it all out myself. )

I’m not in the ‘meaty bread and bloody wine’ camp, nor do I think the supper is ‘mere memorial’, the death sentence for unworthily partaking rules out the latter, just as John 6 (and the conditions of institution) rules out the former.

Unfortunately, some of my last post (post 110) seems to have an unnecessarily “puffed up” tone to it. I apologize for this.

Blessings in Christ (from an unworthy sinner),
William Scott

Evan,
Deconstruct?! Jesus used a lot of figurative language in his teaching. He referred to himself as a gate, or door in some Bible translations, as bread, a vine, and so on. In Matthew’s account of the Last Supper we read:

“And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for manyfor the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’”

In Mark’s account we read:
“And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God’.”

In both accounts, Jesus after speaking of the cup of wine as his “blood of the covenant,” goes on to refer to it as “the fruit of the vine,” ordinary wine.

In Luke’s account of the Last Supper Jesus is recorded as saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

In First Corinthians Paul refers to the “cup of blessing,” that is to say, the wine, as a “participation” in the blood of Christ. He refers to the bread as a “participation” in the body of Christ. He does not refer to the wine as Christ’s blood or the bread as Christ’s body.

In recounting the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Paul quotes Jesus as saying “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

The overwhelming evidence from the Bible is that Jesus was using figurative language when he referred to the wine as his blood and the bread as his body.

It strikes me that you are just looking for an argument. This ground has been well covered both by Catholic and Evangelical Bible scholars and theologians.

Robin,

i’m rather surprised at your your citations as they all support my position, not yours.  As you say, the ground has been covered by both Evangelical and Catholic writers.  I think Luther had by far the best understanding in consubstantiation.  It is a holy mystery.  We’ll just have to disagree.

Evan,
We’ll know at the resurrection who is rightly interpreting the passages that I cited. Personally I do not see how you can read consubstantiation out of them albeit I can see how you might read that theory into them. As for Luther, I am an Anglican, not a Lutheran.

Certainly additional insight can be gained by understanding the nature of Passover and the cups taken and the symbolism and anamnesis occuring there.  I recommend CHRIST IN THE PASSOVER by Ceil and Moishe Rosen (available at jewsforjesus.org).  Since Passover and Maundy Thursday fall together this year it provides abundant material for beginning at the source and considering from there to here, don’t you think?

HeritageAnglican—“As for Luther, I am an Anglican, not a Lutheran.” Even from the Edwardian and Elizabethan era, Anglicanism does not simply equal Swiss Reformed on this matter. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to discuss the point further at the moment—hopefully I can later.

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

William,
I am well aware of that there are individuals in both periods of English Church history who held other viewpoints of the sacraments beside the Reformed but this does not negate the fact that prevailing viewpoint of the benchmark theologians of these periods was Reformed. An example of those who held other viewpoints were the Recusants in the Elizabethan period. They continued to hold to the Catholic doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation. However, the Prayer Book and the Articles of Religion of the Elizabethan Church was Reformed in their theology, as was the Catechism authorized by Convocation. Reformed Catechisms were used in the universities. John Bullinger’s Catechism continued to be used even after the adoption of Nowell’s. New clergy and clergy seeking a preaching license were not only required to read Bullinger’s Decades but were also required to make notes and were examined on their contents. Benchmark theologians like Jewel corresponded with Bullinger and other continental Reformers.

From what I have read in your comments on other sites is that you argue that there was no prevailing theology during these periods. In my experience, those who make this claim are seeking to rationalize greater theological diversity in the present and a place for their own theology. Among the first to take this approach were the nineteenth century Tractarians. They sought to claim John Jewel and the Caroline divines as their spiritual forerunners. But to do this they had to ignore much of what Jewel had written and his connections with Peter Vermigli and other continental Reformers and they had also had to ignore the Caroline divines’ anti-Romanism.

Hello Robin—I’m afraid you have misunderstood my comments on other sites (or, perhaps I have not always been clear) if you have come away with the impression that I argue that there was no prevailing theology during the Edwardian and Elizabethan periods. As you are aware from my previous posts I am not a Tractarian (or, even an “Anglo-Catholic”—although this is such a loosely used word I don’t know if it matters)—and I’ve seen the problem of revisionistic history being used by both sides in the 19th century debates between Tractarians and Evangelicals. 

I look forward to responding to your points on the Lord’s Supper as soon as I get the time—but unfortunately this is a longer and more involved discussion and I have other responsibilities calling me at the moment.

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

Sorry (as always) for the sloppy writing

#119…wow…we’ll just all have to agree to disagree here on history.  Each of us have a view on what was imposed by ecclesiastical and temporal governments…what was given and taken away by governments…what the mind of the people was at various times and in various places through these last 475+ years.  But no doubt, there will have to be at least two rites used liturgically in ACNA…one with a low sacramental view…and one with a high sacramental view…false comprehensiveness won’t work…

What’s interesting to me is that this thread has been removed from the main page…for a while now…yet it remains pretty active.  That indicates to me that this will be an issue that MUST be dealt with by ACNA truthfully and with understanding and charity…and soon…healthy honesty can’t been swept under the rug.

Hello again Robin,

I would like to note couple of issues from your post here (and others I read which you have written).

First, there is no argument that a more “Reformed” view of the real presence was the most popular position among the divines of the Edwardian and Elizabethan era. The error though is in stating that it was the only acceptable position during this period.

(As an aside to other readers—the “Reformed” position on the real presence is not as “un-Catholic” as some reading this thread might think—and I recently saw a good demonstration of this point in some excellent “Anglo-Catholic” discussions regarding the “Catholicity” of a strong Reformed position on the Sacrament).

Perhaps the most prominent English divine among those who did not hold a “Reformed” position on the real presence was Guest. Guest was marked out as a chief defender of the English Reformation against the Roman Catholics in the Edwardian years and was elevated to the position of Bishop when Elizabeth came to the throne. He was one of the primary overseers in the revising of the BCP* and a primary author of Article 28 (which was revised from the original version of Cranmer’s in the 42 Articles).

*Note-such alterations as the reinsertion of “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” in the distribution of the Sacrament and the omission of the Black Rubric in the 1559 BCP (because of the apparent concern that it might seem to deny even a spiritual presence in the Sacramental elements) were no accident. (Of course, the Black Rubric was clarified and reinserted in the 1662 BCP by Bishops who believed in the spiritual presence of Christ in the elements). 

Another error in is in stating that the section on the Sacraments in the BCP Catechism of 1604 was simply that of Nowell. Bishop Overall (who, as I assume you are aware, almost certainly believed in the spiritual presence in the Sacramental elements) was the author of the BCP Catechism. While following very closely the form and many of the words of Nowell’s Small Catechism, Bishop Overall made significant alterations—rendering it a distinct Catechism from Nowell’s Small Catechism (as well as distinct from Nowell’s Middle and Large Catechism). Clearly the section of the BCP Catechism on the Sacraments does not exclude the “non-Reformed” understanding of the real presence which its author, Bishop Overall, held.

[Note—One example of the distinction between the BCP Catechism and Nowell’s Catechism can be seen in the first statement regarding the numbering of the Sacraments.

The Question in both Catechisms is essentially:
“HOW many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?”
 
The BCP Catechism says:
Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Nowell’s Small Cathechism (in Latin) says:
Answer. Two: Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

And Nowell’s Middle and Large Catechism are even more distinct from the BCP Catechism on this Question and Answer]

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

p.s. Interestingly, Bishop Guest and Bishop Overall—although believing in an objective spiritual presence in the Sacramental elements did not hold “consubstantiation” (unlike Bishop Guest’s contemporary—Bishop Cheney—who was unique among the English Bishops in stating his complete agreement with Luther on the understanding of the real presence).

Please see following post.

Typo:
“...(and your other posts which I have read).”

Bishop Guest (who was a primary author of Article 28 and a leading reviser of the Book of Common Prayer/BCP) states regarding the word “only” (or, “onely”) in the part of Article 28 which he had written in addition to Cranmer’s original in the 42 Articles:
“I told him plainelye that this word onely in ye foresaied Article did not exclude ye presence of Christis Body from the Sacrament, but onely ye grossenes and sensiblenes in ye receavinge thereof: For I saied vnto him though he tooke Christis Bodye in his hand, receaved it with his mouthe, and that corporally naturally reallye substantially and carnally as ye doctors doo write, yet did he not for all that see it, feale it, smelle it, nor taste it.”

Now, Bishop Guest initially objected to the later inclusion (almost 10 years later) in the 39 Articles of St. Augustine’s teaching on the wicked not feeding on Christ in the Sacrament (in the newly added Article 29)–because of the concern that the Article denied that Christ’s “spiritual, heavenly” presence is in the Consecrated Elements even when they are given to the wicked–but within a few days he withdrew his initial objection.

[It should be noted that Guest announced his problem with Article 29 in a letter where he discussed issues he had with other portions of the 39 Articles. He thought that some of the Articles could use some editing to better avoid confusion on a few points, but again—the initial concerns he had with Article 29 and the alterations which he preferred for a few of the other Articles were not such as to prevent from confirming them).]

Of course, Article 29 does not deny the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Rather, it affirms with St. Augustine and other Fathers that regardless of whether the Sacramental presence of Christ may be said to come in judgment with the Sacrament into the wicked or not, yet His Sacramental presence is not truly feed upon, that is, in the soul/heart or “inwardly”–as St. Augustine says, on the authority of Christ’s own Words.

From St. Augustine’s Tractate 26 on the Gospel of John:
<quote>“He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Matthew 5:8</quote>
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

And St. Augustine states further in Tractate 26 (and the BCP’s words “…feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving” seem to have likely been derived from the following statements of St. Augustine).
<quote>“This, then, is the bread that comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth.)).

…Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle says, “Eats and drinks judgment to himself.” 1 Corinthians 11:29</quote>
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

It has been speculated that Article 29 may have been altered from its initial form to better alleviate the concerns of the prominent Bishop Guest–given that Bishop Guest seems to quote in his initial objection a particular phrase which is not present in the final, official form (which is also the form that we have at this time) of the 29th Article that he affirmed shortly thereafter.

As for Cranmer it was the notable 9th century witness of the Monk/Priest Rathumnus, who was a prominent theologian of the medieval English Church (and apparently–in particular–the teaching of the Church Fathers which Rathumnus brought forward), that was foundational in his later understanding of Holy Communion (now one might validly question whether Cranmer always applied the Church Fathers accurately on the Eucharist–but he made it clear to the end of his life that his intention was to teach no other doctrine than the Church Fathers themselves had taught (explicitly submitting himself to the testimonty of the Church Fathers on the Eucharist to the end of his life), and that the Church Fathers–drawn to his attention most notably by Rathrumnus–were foundational in coming to his later views on the Eucharist).

Rathumnus’ excellent exposition on the Sacrament can be read here (though a number of Anglicans interpreted him in a more “receptionist” or “virtualist” sense, in my opinion his views accord better with the presence of Christ being in the Consecrated Elements (after a “heavenly or spiritual manner”) held by a number of prominent Anglican Divines):
http://books.google.com/books?id=we8CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=bertram+“concerning+the+body+and+blood”#PPA1,M1

Cranmer counted the presence of Christ in relation to the bread and wine to be equivalent to the presence of Christ in relation to the waters of Baptism—i.e. Christ “undoubtedly” (as the 1552/1559 BCP states) washes us in Baptism with His Blood without His Blood needing to be present “objectively” in the water and likewise He feeds us with His Flesh and Blood in Communion without His Flesh and Blood needing to be present “objectively” in the bread and wine.

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

p.s. A few more details about Bishop Guest—he is considered to have held the place of the ill Archbishop Parker as the chief revisor of the BCP. He was also a leading preacher in the Queen Elizabeth’s court and later went on to be Bishop of Salisbury after the death of Bishop John Jewel (this was after the 39 Articles in their final form in 1571 had been affirmed in Convocation by Bishop Guest and others).

Typo in initial portion of post:
“Bishop Guest (who was a primary author of Article 28 and a leading reviser of the Book of Common Prayer/BCP) states regarding the word “only” (or, “onely”) in Article 28 (the portion of Article 28 with the word “only” was the portion which Guest had added to Cranmer’s original in the 42 Articles):”

Note—post #126 (except for the “p.s.” and a couple of other parts) is for the most part a previously written post which I thought might be a helpful addition to the discussion (this is the reason it restates so many things stated in the previous post). 

I thought it might be helpful to add a couple more thoughts regarding Article 29. Article 29 clearly sets a standard against a purely mechanistic view of the partaking in Christ in the Lord’s Supper. More specifically though it sets a standard against a common tendancy of Roman Catholics and Lutherans to so conflate the outward feeding on the Sacrament and the true inward feeding of the soul on the inward grace of the Sacrament [namely, the Body and Blood of Christ] that the teaching of the Scriptures can be greatly obscured [namely, that the true feeding on Christ spoken of in John 6 occurs when partaking of the Sacrament only in those worthy recepients who have a living faith]. Consequently, the corresponding fact tends to be obscured (among many Roman Catholics and Lutherans) that it is ultimately the spiritual mouth of the soul (that is, a living faith as Christ states in John 6) and not the physical mouth that we truly receive and feed upon Christ in the Sacrament—as the Scriptures and St. Augustine make clear.

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

Now for a record number—6 posts in a row (and I apologize in advance for the large amount of repetition in these posts).

There are many other points which can be added to post #128 regarding Article 29. I want to briefly summarize my last post by noting again that Article 29 is valuable in setting a clear standard of marking the fundamental Sacramental distinction between the outward and inward part of the Sacrament (the outward being received equally by all, and the inward—according to Christ’s own Words in John 6—being received truly by the worthy recepient alone)—in contrast with the Roman Catholics and Lutherans with whom this Sacramental distinction between the outward and inward parts in the Lord’s Supper tended to be obscured. 

Blessings in Christ,
William Scott

p.s. Correction of one typo I noticed in post #128:
“Consequently, the corresponding fact tends to be obscured (among many Roman Catholics and Lutherans) that it is ultimately *through* the spiritual mouth of the soul (that is, a living faith as Christ states in John 6) and not the physical mouth that we truly receive and feed upon Christ in the Sacrament—as the Scriptures and St. Augustine make clear.”

has anyone read or heard anything about the Anglican Province of America Prayer Book that is for sale on their website?  Is this just the 28 prayer book?  thanks.

The website says it is the 1928 BCP.

The Roman Church does not have a formulary for the distribution of communion, but the Anglican Churches do (not sure about TEC).

In the 1549 Prayer Book Cranmer provides a formulary by the words “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” as the elements are distributed to each individual.

The Lutherans on the continent complained to Cranmer that this implied transubstantiation, so in the 1552 Book the formulary was expanded to “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.  Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving” and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.  Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee and be thankful.”

Quite a mouthful for every communicant to have said to him, but it does make a theological point, and most priests I know recite it as they go down the line, or at least say the latter part as they return to the altar.

Anyway, as John Donne wrote (often attributed to HRH ELizabeth I);

“T’was Christ the Word that spake it
He took the bread and brake it
And what the word did make it
That I believe and take it.

Evan,

In the 1552 Book of Common Prayer the words of distribution were as follows:

Ҧ And when he delyvereth the bread, he shall saye.

  Take and eate this, in remembraunce that Christ dyed for thee, and feede on him in thy hearte by faythe, with thankesgeving.

And the Minister that delyvereth the cup, shal saye,

Drinke this in remembraunce that Christ’s bloude was shed for thee, and be thankefull.”

The 1552 Communion Service can be found on the Internet at: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1552/Communion_1552.htm

The 1549 Words of Distribution and the 1552 Words of Distribution were combined in the 1559 Prayer Book. It may have been a political decision on the part of Elizabeth I as much as a theological one. She was seeking an alliance with the Lutheran German princes. By then Archbishop Cranmer had been dead for a number of years, burned at the stake for his views on the Holy Communion.

He had it right in 1549.

Anglicancatholicpriest,

My comment was directed to you. My apology to Evan.

William,

Bishop Guest may have held those views but on what grounds do you assert that they were “accepted.” He is just an example of one individual who did not share the prevailing views.

Even
As both Bucer (Reformed)and Gardiner (Catholic) drew to Cranmer’s attention, the 1549 Prayer Book was open to an unreformed Catholic interpretation. Gardiner stated he was quite happy to use the book since it taught the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The 1549 Prayer Book was only a transitional service book. However, it has done a lot of mischief in ensuing years. Those introducing elements of the pre-Reformation Medieval service books have falsely claimed precedence for these usages in the 1549 Prayer Book. This was the case in the 1928 revision of the American Prayer Book and the proposed 1928 revision of the English Prayer book. With these usages was introduced unreformed Catholic doctrine into these books, the one going hand in hand with the other.

The standard prayer book of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is, as far as I know, specified by our Provisional Constitution as the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

#137
True, but they have a committee working on their own new prayer book to use at Province level events and to be commended to the Province for wider use.  They also permit any subordinate jurisdictions to use whatever prayer book they are currently using (and presumably, any they would like to adopt).  Pretty chaotic for “common” prayer.  I hope they don’t screw up the prayer book they’re working on.  The Anglican Prayer Book in contemporary language that the Prayer Book Society came up with is ghastly.  Much better to go back to 1928, the last and best in the line of classic BCPs and one apecific to the US.

Make that, “specific”.

I’m enjoying the 1662.  I’d like to see that retain as a ‘valid prayer book’ by everyone, so that even if another is used for ‘daily service’, one could request the 1662 for events and feel no disconnect when using it at home….

Anglicans Ablaze wrote:
“Elizabeth I as much as a theological one. She was seeking an alliance with the Lutheran German princes. By then Archbishop Cranmer had been dead for a number of years, burned at the stake for his views on the Holy Communion.”

Actually Cranmer outlived Elizabeth I and was excuted during the reign of Queen Mary.  Mary had no interests in the Lutherans’ friendship under any conditions, she was married to the King of Spain.

Actually now I am confused.
Mary Did have Cranmer executed, but of course Elizabeth had not come to the throne yet.

Mary was undoing the work of Edward.

I think people are confused.  Mary I(1553-58)...did have Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley executed by burning.  Mary undid the work of Edward VI and some of Henry VIII(she never quite got to Pre-1534, but went further than typical Henrician Catholicism in the restoration)...Edward VI(1547-1553)...had taken what Henry VIII did(Henrician Catholicism) and ran with it(under strong influence of his Regency council and Lord Protector)undoing much more than Henry VIII would have ever allowed…becoming more Continental Protestant.  Then Elizabeth I(1558-1603)undid most of what Mary I restored.  It’s been hazy ever since.

AnglicansAblaze wrote:

“The 1549 Words of Distribution and the 1552 Words of Distribution were combined in the 1559 Prayer Book. It may have been a political decision on the part of Elizabeth I as much as a theological one.’

and the same may be said of the Articles of Religion which were a part of the Elizabethan Settlement, an effort to keep both Puritan Calvinists and catholics in the same church.

Being the father of three teenagers, I appreciate those times when I can say ‘I told you so’. In my posting #20, I said that I thought few would take the time to do the study that Robin has on this subject. Several things occur to me. Why is it, that in discussing “An Anglican Prayerbook”, we don’t hear anything from the people who actually put it together? The Anglo-Catholics and other ex-patriot TEC folks are continuing to use whatever they used before, very few have turned to using “An Anglican Prayerbook”. In the one hundred and twenty-plus posts since my original question of how many churches in ACiNA have ever used the 1662 BCP, in its original form, I’ve had naught a reply. I’ve lived in the South long enough to be able to say ‘this dog won’t hunt’. ACiNA becomes as inviting as an ecclesiastical FEMA trailer.

In its original form it contains prayers for the Sovereign, which wouldn’t play out well in most places ‘round here.

The smallish Anglican church I meet with has used the Great Litany from the 1662, and I use it (with the prayers for the Sovereign!) for my personal Morning and Evening Prayer. 

We also used it for an open air Christmas Eve service.

Bo,
The Prayers for the Sovereign may be omitted or one could resort to one of the various volumes of Collects to add a suitable one to take its place.

I have no trouble praying for Her Majesty,  I just add the one for the President as well.

RMBruton wrote:

“The Anglo-Catholics and other ex-patriot TEC folks are continuing to use whatever they used before, very few have turned to using “An Anglican Prayerbook.”

There is a review of the new “Anglican Prayerbook” in the current issue of “The Trinitarian”, official newspaper of the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church.)

Also the Anglican Parishes Association (a subsidiary of the ACC) prints the 1928 BCP in a pew edition, as well as the American and English editions of the Anglican Missals in both pew and altar size, “Anglican Breviary” “Priests Manual” “English Gradual” and other liturgical aids for Anglicans.

#71 wrote “Why would a Reformed Confessional Evangelical have bishops?  Wouldn’t presbyteries or synods make more sense for a Reformed Confessional Evangelical???  What does the episcopate serve for the RCE person???  What is the point?”

“Presbyter? Why presbyter is but priest writ large.”
John Milton

Quoted by Oliver Cromwell to the Scots who urged him to adopt a Presbyterian polity for the Church in England.

#79 wrote:

“The English Church goes back only to Saxon times. The Celtic Church maintained a seperate existence from the English Church for several centuries and did not fully merge with the English Church until the eleventh century.”

The Celtic Church precedes the Saxons and the coming of Augustine.

Check out the Synod Of Whitby around a.D. 662 for the beginning of a formal relationship between Rome and the Celtic Church.  England was a dual primacy with Archbishops at Canterbury (the pope’s man) and York (Celtic Church rep.)

This deal held until the coming of the Conqueror in 1066, when all save one native bishop was replaced by imported Frankish clergy. 

Think of St. Hilda of Whitby, St. Wilfrid of York, St. Columba (Christ is my Druid!).

Dear Anglicansablaze,

I like evangelicals and even consider myself to be evangelical.  I regret any tension between any stripe of faithful Anglican, especially in the face of the current demonic assault on the Church of England and her daughter Churches.

If you really represent the “majority” of Anglicans then I would be interested to know how you react to the following declaration. 

If you reject all or part of it, could you tolerate being in communion with those who do accept it?

We believe in the One, Holy, Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved, and that most holy name is Jesus, Lord of heaven and earth. We believe that only through Him is the full revelation of God given to man and that we have the awesome responsibility to preach the Good News of salvation to all nations and tongues.

We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the authentic record of God’s revelation to man, a revelation that is valid for all men and all time. In the Bible we have God’s revelation of Himself, His saving activity, and His moral demands. We believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

We believe the Catholic Faith as set forth in the three recognized Creeds of Christendom: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and that known as the Creed of St. Athanasius. We receive and believe them in the sense they have had always in the Catholic Church.

We believe in the holy Tradition of the Church as set forth by the ancient catholic bishops and doctors, and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.

We hold dear the seven Sacraments of Grace, namely, the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Penance, and Unction of the Sick. We believe them to be objective signs of Christ’s continued presence and saving activity among us. We believe in the holy sacrifice of the Mass and that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Holy Eucharist.

We believe in God’s gift of the apostolic ministry to His Church, asserting the necessity of a bishop in apostolic succession (or a priest ordained by such) as the celebrant of the Eucharist. Furthermore, we hold that the Holy Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons consist exclusively of men in accordance with Christ’s will and institution.

We believe in the sanctity of human life; that life begins at the moment of conception; and that the willful taking of that life in the womb by abortion to be a grave sin (Title XV, Canon I, 1.01of the Canons of the AnglicanCatholic Church).

We believe in the family, in the God-given sacramental bond in marriage between one man and one woman. We profess that sexual activity is to be practiced only within the bonds of Holy Matrimony.

We believe that man is very far gone from original righteousness, is in rebellion against God’s authority, and is liable to His righteous judgment. We believe that all people, individually and collectively, are responsible to their Creator for their acts, motives, thoughts, and words, since we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.

We believe it is the duty of the Church and her members to bear witness to Christian morality, to follow it in their lives, and to reject the false standards of the world.

Lastly, the Anglican Catholic Church acknowledges that rule of faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins: Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all, for that is truly and properly Catholic. The Bishops of this Church are committed to seeing that the Faith of Christ is kept entire as it was given to this Church. Any assertion to the contrary has no basis in fact. We call upon all the communicants of this church to believe without reservation that deposit of Faith that has been given to the Anglican Catholic Church and earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

This short statement of the ACC’s beliefs was written in February, 1998, by the Most Reverend M. Dean Stephens, late Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Anglican Catholic Church.

© 1998, The Anglican Catholic Church. All Rights Reserved.

We believe in the holy Tradition of the Church as set forth by the ancient catholic bishops and doctors, and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.

We hold dear the seven Sacraments of Grace, namely, the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Penance, and Unction of the Sick. We believe them to be objective signs of Christ’s continued presence and saving activity among us. We believe in the holy sacrifice of the Mass and that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Holy Eucharist.

We believe in God’s gift of the apostolic ministry to His Church, asserting the necessity of a bishop in apostolic succession (or a priest ordained by such) as the celebrant of the Eucharist. Furthermore, we hold that the Holy Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons consist exclusively of men in accordance with Christ’s will and institution.

The preceding sections of the ACC Statement of Beliefs are where you are going to find historical disagreemnt between Catholic Anglicans and Evangelical Anglicans. Evangelicals give much greater weight to Scripture than to “holy Tradition,” insisting that tradition must be subjected to Scripture and not the other way around. In all matters of faith and practice Scripture is the ultimate, final, and supreme authority. Evangelicals vary in their opinions of the Patristic writers. With the Articles of Religion Evangelicals have historically recognized only two sacraments—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They have rejected the doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation. In their theology they have not tied Christ’s Body and Blood as closely to the eucharistic elements as have Catholics. Evangelicals have also historically not recognized episcopacy as a divine right or of the essence of the Church. Rather episcopacy is an ancient and desirable form of church polity. Evangelicals have historically emphasized succession of doctrine over “succession of place.” The claim that a bishop stands in an unbroken line of succession all the way back to the apostles is meaningless if the bishop does not teach what the apostles taught as recorded in the Scriptures. Evangelicals have historically believed that God has given men headship over women and that the Scriptures prohibit women from instructing men, especially their husbands, in the principles of the faith.

Do I believe that despite their theological difference Catholics and Evangelicals can peacefully coexist in the same province? If we look at the historical record, I would say the prospects of such a coexistence are not good. It is like two room-mates sharing an apartment. Unless there are strict rules and these rules are strictly adhered to, one room-mate is going to violate the “space” of the other, seek to change the rules to make them more favorable to themselves, and the like. This is one of the reasons why I advocate the replacement of the ACNA provisional constitution with an alternative constitution based upon that of the Anglican Church of Australia. I believe that Catholics and Evangelicals would have a better chance of peaceful coexistence and even communion in some areas under the terms of the alternative constitution than the provisional constitution. The alternative constitution, which was submitted to the ACNA Governance Committee, is on the Internet with an introduction explaining its features and a commentary on two sections needing further revision at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/01/proposed-constitution-of-anglican.html
I am posting a series of articles on the ACNA provisional constitution on my web log Anglicans Ablaze.

The first in the series is “Bigger Is Better. Or Is It?” on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/big-is-better-or-is-it.html

Comment from a Baptist thinking of joining with the Anglicans…. I’ll not take offense if the post is dropped as inappropriate here.

We believe in the holy sacrifice of the Mass and that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Holy Eucharist.

I don’t believe in the sacrifice of the Mass.
Not sure what ‘truly and really’ mean to the authors, but I’m not of the meaty bread persuasion. 

We believe in God’s gift of the apostolic ministry to His Church, asserting the necessity of a bishop in apostolic succession (or a priest ordained by such) as the celebrant of the Eucharist. Furthermore, we hold that the Holy Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons consist exclusively of men in accordance with Christ’s will and institution.

I don’t hold to the necessity, of ordination for communion (though it is most assuredly desired!), which probably correlates to the not holding the mass to be a sacrifice.

I’m not sure at all that the office deacon isn’t available to women-folk.

That all said, if they preach Christ and Him Crucified, I’d be able to take communion with them (though not always from them, if they intend that I think the bread has become meat….).

Moving from ‘able to share communion’ to ‘being under one province, bishop, and prayer-book’ is, as you’ve indicated, going to be a very hard row to hoe….

“In 1977 an international congress of nearly 2,000 Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people met in St. Louis, Missouri, to take the actions necessary to establish an orthodox jurisdiction in which traditional Anglicanism would be maintained, by returning to the fullness of the Faith of the undivided CATHOLIC CHURCH. Acting according to the principles determined by the seven great Ecumenical Councils of the ancient Church and adopting initially the name “Anglican Church of North America”, they placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the retired bishop of Springfield, Illinois, the Right Reverend Albert Chambers.”

Deja vu, all over again.

It certainly is, #155, and as an observer and not a participant, it looks more like an umbrella organization than a church.  The WO people think that WO is more important than a unified Christian witness (Why?  I still do not know after all these years.)  Their constitution will guarantee the right of women priests, but their decision to have only male bishops is placed in the canons where it can be easily changed some day.  If they all remain true to their beliefs and priorties, then they are in a state of impaired communion with each other from the beginning, since their ministries are not interchangeable.  Thank God for the Continuing Church, now 32 years old.

If we get WO in the form of bishops, I am SOOOOOO gone!!!  I am not sure what I’ll do if we have “womenpriests” actually ordained in CANA…we have had a “womandeacon” newly ordained already…and some “womenpriests” from TEC have been grandfathered in…we have a supposed moratorium on more women being “ordained” to the priesthood in most of ACNA.  if they pull a stunt, it’s Southern Cone or FW for me…or swim a river…WO in ACNA should absolutely be limited to one jurisdiction alone for licensing and ordinations…The Diocese of Pittsburgh.

If they don’t provide a WO free zone, I’ll be back/stay in the Baptists - what good is the historic episcopate if it isn’t in keeping with how so many of us read the Text?

(deaconess I can accept, but not a female Priest nor Bishop)

I wish that the ACNA would re-adopt the ancient practice of making lay-deaconesses the order for women, as the Reformed Episcopal Church had done in recent years. I believe THAT would be the way to go.

That an lots of places of service that don’t required ordination, where those who aren’t ‘ready’, ‘qualified’, or willing to be a member of the ‘ordained clergy’ can still use their talents and gifts for God’s Glory…

When the Angles ministered to Our Lord in the Desert and the Night before his Trial, they were most certainly ministers and they were most certainly not in authority over him.

We tread ground not covered by Text when we try to make all offices of ministry fit into the office of the ‘elders’.

Thank God for the Continuing Church, now 32 years old.

How very odd that you should complain about a lack of unity and then favorably comment on the continuing churches.  While I certainly respect ACC, APCK and UECNA, my understanding is that it is only in the last few years that they have declared full communion with each other.  I still don’t understand why they haven’t reunited.  All three are St Louis churches, use the same prayer book, have the same standards for an all-male ministry, etc.  They have far more in common in faith, discipline and worship then the constituent parts of the emerging ACNA.  I will rejoice if/when they form a single, united St Louis Affirmation church as was the original intent, and would be thrilled if they could also get APA and the parts of TAC that don’t want to become Roman to sign on.  However, until, God willing, such a blessed event occurs, the ancient parable about glass houses and throwing stones comes to mind.

#161, I could not possibly agree with you more.  I have faith and hope that what you stated above will eventually happen.  I know that it will be in God’s time, and maybe not in our time.  As for myself, I am still in the same part of the Continuing Church that was in back in 1977.  My original parish, having changed affiliations about three times, still remains one of the most successful parishes in the entire movement.  I pray for ACNA’s success devoutly, but that doesn’t change the fact that WO is the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent.  The WO folks are not orthodox, regardless of what indviduals may think, and they will be ACNA’s death knell if they do not admit their error and give it up.

#152
I would certainly sign your declaration.  There’s nothing in it I don’t subscribe to wholeheartedly.

Checking back on this thread I realize that I need to make a (now extremely belated) response to Robin Jordan’s comment in post #135:
“Bishop Guest may have held those views but on what grounds do you assert that they were “accepted.” He is just an example of one individual who did not share the prevailing views.”

For starters, Guest’s views were openly “accepted” by the Queen herself—who shared his view (the Queen even had Bishop Guest preach in her court specifically on the truth of the objective presence of Christ in the Sacrament) and very intentionally sought for the realist view to be firmly and clearly comprehended (and thus “accepted”) within the theological bounds of the Elizabethan Settlement. And as the Queen desired, the “realist” position was firmly comprehended within the Anglican Formularies themselves through the pointed alterations of the BCP and the Articles (which alterations were made largely under the leadership and direction of Bishop Guest in particular).

Blessings in Christ.
William Scott