Just another tale of unilateral revision and chaos.

Nah, its just a generous pastoral response.

At this point, with all the craziness being permitted in the Anglican Communion, I can’t see the “Anglican-Orthodox dialog” moving forward, so why drop the filioque clause? Are the Orthodox going to give the nod to W.O.?

Nope.

Not to mention +VGR, +Glasspool, et. al.  That dialogue is effectively dead… and to change the Creed in this way is to most emphatically dump any pretense at dialogue with the RCs. 

My sermon yesterday included warning about the danger of Communion without Baptism/receiving in an unworthy manner.  At coffee hour, I had some very respectful and intelligent folks talking about possible reasons that CWOB might be OK.  It was a good conversation, but afterwards I found myself thinking, “What’s the point? In TEc, anybody can do what they want.”  I’m not really a teacher, because the church doesn’t back up anything it stood by as essential when I was ordained.

I find it helpful to direct congregants to various parts of the prayerbook at times during services to point out various things using historical documents or the XXXIX Articles, or St Athanasius Creed or various prayers and thanksgivings et al.  If congregants can appreciate and use the prayerbook for more than just a service guide it seems to strengthen their sense of tradition and “Anglicanness.”

” . . . and there was a strange change in the incarnation statement.”

This could be a simple as using the older translation: “And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary”

Or the 1988 ELLC version: “was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”. The CoE’s Common Worship uses this and I’ve been to an (formerly) AMiA church that uses this.

Or, perhaps even the new Roman translation: “and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary”.

Shoot I am so old I can remember when everyone over the age of 12 had their own BCP. Granted Bulletins are nice and many parishes use them but then why bother with BCP at all.  As to the filioque and the statement about the incarnation….  We still say them.

Tim+ It does indeed seem that any one in TEc can do anything you want unless you are traditional Anglican. Then no good deed goes unpunished….. as the old adage says.

#4 Don C - my friend is a long time Episcopalian, familiar with Rites I & II, and also raised RC and kind of a liturgy nut who keeps up with their stuff.  So a “strange change” for him would have to really alter the content, not just the phrasing.

Thanks, Tim+. I’m now curious as to what they used.

FWIW, the Anglican Service Book (all trad language ‘79) has the Filioque in parentheses.

Tim+,

Are your or your friend familiar with the Enriching Our Worship series?  They contain re-written versions of the Creed that includes dropping the Filioque.  I’m going to see if I can find an EOW creed and post it here.

“For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy
Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.”

from Enriching Our Worship.  Is this what your friend saw?

I have an email in to him - I’m hoping he has the bulletin and can send it.

It will be interesting to see what the changes are that Timothy’s+ friend thought were so odd. Truthfully I never understood this penchant for change in liturgies.

m+ EOW, if I understand it correctly, is authorized for some kind of use… trial use?  What’s the status of it?

It makes a bit of difference if that’s in place, yet we still have the same incoherence that goes into SSUs. The BCP says one thing, and we come up with “authorized” versions that are in conflict with it.

Just crazy.

I’d like to point something out- both Tim and I are Episcopal priests.  Neither of us has a clear understanding of what the Enriching Our Worship series is authorized for. 

Experience across several Diocese has shown me that EOW is authorized for different things in different places.  In some places the materials are treated as an equal and fully valid alternative to the BCP.  In other places they’re forbidden.  While in yet other places they’re treated as sources for non-Sunday alternate worship. 

I am only familiar with the EOW Eucharistic material.  It is flat out revisionist.  Removes the title Lord and masculine references for God. (God be with you, etc…) Edits the Nicene Creed.  If memory serves it includes canticles that use the feminine singular for God (I could be wrong on this one.)

Like Tim+ said, crazy.

So lets see you, m+, and Tim+,  are both Episcopal priests yet neither of you is for sure what this EOW series is or how it is to be used? Yep, Tim+ agreed- it is crazy. TEc at its best (or worst depending on your point of view).  Stomach turning as well.

That’s correct, SC blu cat lady.  The sheer volume of stuff churned out by GenCon and it’s various scaly heads and tentacles is impossible to follow.  The “national church” is all about serving various activist groups rather than supporting a coherent missionary church.  So all kinds of things get produced, stated, declared, ad nauseum.  Not even clergy have any idea of all the stuff “the Episcopal Church stands for” until some activist throws a resolution nobody every heard of in our faces to close an argument at a diocesan convention.

Let us say it again (or chant it together?) - CRAZY.

Does EOW have a preface or foreword explaining its origin, or an imprimatur from the Custodian of the Book of Common Prayer?

Perhaps it’s beyond time to disband the Standing Liturgical Commission.

#16. yes, it has an extensive preface written by ++Griswold.  It affirms that only a bishop can authorize use of material from EOW.  That said, Griswold does not directly state what the EOW is intended to be: is it a potential revision of the BCP?  Is it solely supplemental material? Find a copy, read the preface, and decide for yourself.

Correction: EOW #1 contains a page and a half long preface by ++Griswold, a five page introduction by Phoebe Pettingell on behalf of the SCLM, and a four page explanation of the “use of supplemental liturgical materials.”  So ten and a half pages to explain what the material is and how it is used.

Back on topic- truth is, the material Tim’s friend encountered could have come from anywhere. Literally.  The NZ BCP, EOW, countless other liturgical sources, or a local home brewed liturgy.

Hmmm….my parish in St. Louis gave up on the BCP for services years ago and use extended bulletins almost exclusively.  While services are entirely “by the Book” (Rite 1), they do tend to play with the minutae.  I recently realized that they had reinserted “and there is no health in us” back into the Confession.  While, I would not be surprised if our Rector dropped the Filioque, it was still part of the service two weeks ago.  But then, there are still a small handful of TEC parishes left around town.

Here’s a creed to choke on:

We believe in God, Creator of the world; and in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of creation. We believe in the Holy Spirit, through whom we acknowledge God’s gifts, and we repent of our sin in misusing these gifts to idolatrous ends.

We affirm the natural world as God’s handiwork and dedicate ourselves to its preservation, enhancement, and faithful use by humankind.

We joyfully receive for ourselves and others the blessings of community, sexuality, marriage, and the family.

We commit ourselves to the rights of men, women, children, youth, young adults, the aging, and people with disabilities; to improvement of the quality of life; and to the rights and dignity of all persons.

We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.

We dedicate ourselves to peace throughout the world, to the rule of justice and law among nations, and to individual freedom for all people of the world.

We believe in the present and final triumph of God’s Word in human affairs and gladly accept our commission to manifest the life of the gospel in the world. Amen.

(It is recommended that this statement of Social Principles be continually available to United Methodist Christians and that it be emphasized regularly in every congregation. It is further recommended that “Our Social Creed” be frequently used in Sunday worship.)

When I was a UMC member I did a version of the +VGR “crossed fingers” affirmation.  I recited the 1928 BCP Nicene Creed just loud enough for those around me to hear.  I was going to do my version of the black power fist salute and turn my back to the minister while saying it, but my sife said if I did that she would never go to church with me again.

Oops - finger check in last post; “sife” should be “wife.”

#15. Timothy Fountain wrote:

Let us say it again (or chant it together?) - CRAZY.

And what Anglican chant tune would you like to use, Timothy+? LOL!

“FWIW, the Anglican Service Book (all trad language ‘79)”

“trad ‘79 language???”

Ok, I’ll grant if you take out Rite 2, most of the prayers, the entire catechism and almost everything elsein the ‘79, and leave yourself with the various Rite 1 liturgies, you have a reasonable facsimile of traditional language and theology.  But why bother,  when you could just use the ‘28 and get the real thing?

tjmcmahon, I could have phrased that better. The ASB is the ‘79 prayer book translated, if you will, into traditional language. It was published by Good Shepherd, Rosemont, in the nineties.

Yup, if you just used the ‘28 you could say the traditional “for us men and for our salvation.”  But that would be sexist, or speciesist, or something.

My ACNA parish uses the 1928 BCP, but in service sheet form which allows our rector to make changes here and there, which of course should never be allowed.  I think many parishes use service sheets for the same reason.  It allows the rector to monkey with the liturgy and keeps the parishioners who don’t use the BCP unaware of the changes.  We only have enough actual BCPs for 2 or 3 per row, and it was a hard fight to get those, paid for by donations.  Alas, only a handful of us use our BCPs during the services, though my wife and I use ours for daily morning prayer at home and I was delighted to get an email from my son this week that he and his wife have started using his for daily morning and evening prayer.  To substitute service sheets for actual BCPs, while admittedly convenient, is to deprive our parishioners of an unsurpassed devotional vehicle.  There is so much more in the BCP than one finds in the Sunday morning worship service.

Unfortunately, in ACNA, the whole Prayer Book situation is utterly chaotic and likely to remain so.  They are working on producing their own BCP which will be in “contemporary” (for the moment) language.  At least they stated that one of the reasons they were not going to produce a traditional language version was that parishes that preferred traditional language were already using the 1928 BCP.  I’m making the assumption that that means we can continue to do so, even when the new ACNA BCP is approved.

Fr. Timothy,

“and there was a strange change in the incarnation statement. “

If its not too much trouble, if you could ask your friend about this and get some clarification, it might make it more clear as to what this particular parish is up to.

My friend did not bring home last week’s bulletin, but intends to get one this coming Sunday.  Hopefully we will get a better insight into what is being offered there.

Timothy+. Will definitely be interesting to know what was in the service bulletin- EOW or other changes.

“...afterwards I found myself thinking, “What’s the point? In TEc, anybody can do what they want.”  I’m not really a teacher, because the church doesn’t back up anything it stood by as essential when I was ordained.

A very profound observation, Fr. Fountain.  I struggle with this greatly especially raised as an Anglo-Catholic finding that much of what I was taught by priests whom I respected has been swept away.