I am used to using the 1960's Canadian edition. I am pretty happy with anything that isn't the new liturgies.
The parish I currently attend uses 1979 Rite I, and I really like it. I've been to one that used the 1928, and it was excellent too. I like the older language and the formal, reverent feel!
Thanks for the feedback. Indeed I too love the reverential feel of the old BCP, I wonder why it strikes us so? What would move somebody to change it??
Well, I think there were a few reasons for the new liturgies. People thought that they were getting closer to "authentic" early Christian worship (though we know now that in many cases their ideas were wrong). One can ask in relation to this why they felt their Christianity was inauthentic, and one answer might be the ravages of higher criticism, the enlightenment, and it's fundamentalist back-lash. People hoped the new liturgies would re-energize the Church and aid in real ecumenism - they actually thought we could see real Christian reunion in the near future. And in many cases there was in fact an idea that they could change theology by changing the liturgy.
What have been some of your experiences with the modern alterations? I know Catholics have guitar masses, and bongo drums... :shock:
I've been to one parish where they removed the confession of sin from the liturgy because "nobody is a sinner," and they immediately replaced any songs to/about our Lord with songs to/about ourselves. I left and went to another which had a "Harry Potter" liturgy; thankfully, this was some one-time event for VBS or something. Just a little bit shocking to a first-time visitor. I have no problem with Harry Potter, but seeing the choir director dressed as Bellatrix was...er...not something I'd necessarily do if I were pastoring a church. But in more normal settings, I've found that the modern liturgies tend to be accompanied by praise bands, and the older ones are often used in more established churches with choirs. I have no idea if this is the norm, because I'm judging from a sample size that's pretty small. The newer liturgies can be done with excellence as long as one's goal isn't to separate from the past. I almost wonder if the newer ones sometimes get hijacked by people who want to innovate, giving them a reputation that is perhaps undeserved. My first Anglican parish used 1979 Rite II, and I really liked how formal it was when compared to the Protestant churches of my past. Perhaps it's all in the implementation and the spirit behind why we worship in the way we do.
The Canadian Church put the new liturgies into a separate book, the BAS. The go rather further in some ways than some other places, compared to the new American BCP for instance. I've been to a service that is 25 min including three or four hymns, and I mean the main Sunday service. It allows us to leave out the confession, the creed, and a number of other things. I think the worst service I ever went to was where the youth group was put in charge of organizing the service. There was a visiting choir, so they decided to use music for their theme. The replaced the psalms, the lessons and gospel with secular readings on music. And they wrote their own "creed" using lines strung together from different pop songs. It was pretty bad.
For a Sung Eucharist of and Even Song I don't think you beat the 1662 BCP, the language lends itself to good old fashion church music, but for spoken services we use the 'Prayer Book for Australia', and read from the NRSV of the Bible.
Just got back from a BCP 1662 Mass at All Saints next door to where I work. Great service I just love the language...