Why not the 1662?

I am curious if anyone here (especially those of us in the U.S. or Canada) use the 1662 BCP (for the Daily Offices, for devotional purposes, etc.)?

If so, how does its use compare with what is the standard approved text in your jurisdiction? Is it jarring at all (i.e., traditional vs. contemporary language, different Collects/Gospels, etc.)?

If not, what would be the problem with “winding back the clock”, so to speak, and eliminating the option-itis that took hold pretty much everywhere in the latter half of the XXth century? Why continue the process of revision (i.e., using the American 1928 or 1979 as a baseline for proposed revisions), rather than simply returning to the original?

 

I have a pocket 1662, well used. It is just the right size to slip into the back pocket of the old US Navy coveralls (probably the new flame retardant ones too but I didn't get those before I discharged). It accompanied me to sea each time I went. The daily offices are familiar if a bit more spartan and there are the prayers for the royal family.

The rubrics always allowed room for some other suitable canticle or Psalm in place of the ones offered in the printed text. I'm fond of Magna Et Mirabilia and the First Song of Isaiah.

Calling the 1662 the original is an exercise in mental gymnastics.

 

Well, not really. Obviously, I was referring to the 1662 as the “original” in the same way that one might refer to the first manuscript of the Gospel of Luke as the “original”, even though the Gospel itself states that it was based upon prior accounts. We all know what the history of the BCP was prior to 1662; there’s no need to quibble over mere words. The point is, if revision is undesirable, why not just go back to what worked before? Why reinvent the wheel? It’s not intended as a trick question or as an argument-starter. I use the 1662 myself. I want to know if others on this forum, this side of the pond, do so as well, and what their experience has been, if their parish uses something different (which seems virtually certain).

Also, thank you for your service to our country.

 

It’s the original from the standpoint of modernity. The year of its publication is a giveaway. Sure there were preceding versions but we’re talking about the version that for the most centuries has formed countless generations of people, and piously led to heaven innumerable souls. It is our version of the Roman church’s Tridentine missal, where they obviously had preceding versions, but the final one settled in the 1580s went on to inform and inspire centuries and countless generations of devotion. Same for our 1662, this book, along with the Scriptures, has proven to be enough to shape, raise up, and solidify for the heavenly pilgrimage, countless souls (and far better than the Roman missal, to boot).

To answer the OP, I have a few different 1662s in my house. For some of the smaller everyday prayers I still reach for the 1928, but in my main devotion, for the daily Psalms reading and all that, I reach for my trusty 1662.

I haven’t yet gotten the shiny new international edition of the 1662, but from what I understand it allows for more prayers than just the British royal family. If that’s the case, then the 1662 is set to absolutely explode worldwide.

I wholly agree. There is no reason for the whole Church not to use the 1662 again. The American 1928 revision was influenced by certain ideologies stemming from the Liturgical Movement, not altogether helpful although not overtly destructive either (deifying the epiclesis, etc). The 1979 US, and Common Worship (UK) were likewise products of deep ideological alteration. These weren’t organic developments that sought to preserve the 1662, in the way that the 1662 itself is a pious integration of the medieval Sarum missal, the 1549 Cologne liturgy, etc.

 

I am not actually the biggest fan of the 1662 Communion Service. I prefer the 1928 or even the Anglican Standard Text from the 2019

 

That is interesting. Could you elaborate further?

 

The prayer of consecration is much shorter. The exhortation is to be read every time communion is taken. Those are my general reasons. It is a great prayer book and can be used anywhere. This is just a personal preference.

 

I'm the wrong side of the Atlantic to be answering this question but I think it's quite a valid one for us, too. I think you'd struggle to find a church here that uses and sticks to the 1662. I'm a great fan of it; if for no other reason than you cannot find All-Age Worship or Messy Church in it!

 

What do they use over there?

 

Grrrr! I knew someone would make me say it! They use Common Worship (CW) or it seems to me sometimes their own novelties. But, I think CW allows for the latter with all its many options.

 

CAn it be common with all the variables?

 

I think not.

 

As our Articles of Faith admit, it is not necessary that rites and customs be everywhere the same. I think it's perfectly fine that the American communion rite has developed its own variation from the 1662 ever since civil independence came to be. This isn't a blank slate for endless tinkering, of course, but our late-16th century Anglican Divines saw the legitimacy of the Prayer Book tradition in its similarity to the ancient rites of various churches, not in it being identical.

Yes, the 1662 Book held sway for centuries in England and her dominions, but in Scotland it was never so, and America for nearly a century and a half. As the various provinces of the global communion became autonomous, it was only fitting that they, too, identified themselves with distinct Books, though the family resemblance should still be visible. The main downside here, I think, is that the 20th century tinkering had a big impact on how several other provinces did or did not create their own Prayer Books.

By way of personal preference I, like Mr. Wallace, am fond of the American rite over against the 1662's rite. It's slightly rearranged, slightly expanded, and I would argue its 2019 form is in contemporary language that is both consonant with the old ear and dignified to the new. Could aspects of it be more conformed to the old Prayer Book patterns? Absolutely, especially the Communion lectionary - that is what I see as the greatest loss still enshrined in the modern Prayer Books.

More to the point of the O.P., the Daily Office specifically is a lovely point of contact where the 1662 Book shines the brightest. Even in the USA, the tradition of choral evensong has continued to draw from 1662 alongside our own books, and I think that awareness (however rare today) is precious.

It is my practice (and I would commend this to other priests if I had the opportunity) to hold one or two traditional-language not-novus-ordo worship services per year as the primary Sunday service, so people will always have a glimpse of perspective. And maybe, just maybe, develop a revival of the more traditional forms hiding away in the modern texts.

 

The thing is, we have to interpret that line in harmony with the actual behavior and practice of the Church of England, which literally forbade, upon the pain of imprisonment, the use of any liturgy other than the Book of Common Prayer.

So the words "not necessary" should be understood as, that a specific liturgy is not a part of Revelation, or of the essence of the Church. And both of these are true. But can a liturgy be "necessary" from the standpoint of being better than other options, and even being absolutely and universally mandated by a particular Church across her entire jurisdiction? Yes of course, as history shows. So it "is necessary" in that case. The Anglican canons are precise and technical, rather than broad sweeping statements of rhetoric.

Now, I'm not even arguing that a single rite should be mandated worldwide, and that the 1662 BCP should be it. But what I am arguing is that the permission for variety does not automatically answer the questions of quality. Even those who prefer more recent BCPSs will have to admit 1662's advantage in quality, of not suffering from modernity in any way. Thus if you want the pure vintage traditional Anglicanism, there is simply nothing better than the 1662 BCP, with a sung liturgy.

 

It was no improvement when the age of the Tridentine missal gave way to the age of Trident missiles....

 

I really think the ACNA should pick a rite and just go with it. Just one. I would be happy with the 1662, 1928, or the Anglican Standard Text. All are good and solid. We need one common Communion rite across the jurisdiction and oh we need to get rid of C4SO and WO fast

 

What is C4SO? And why should it be got rid of?

 

I was thinking ACNA did exactly that when they designated the 2019 BCP as the edition to be used throughout ACNA. Or was it just certain dioceses that did this? Now I'm not sure...

 

It is a diocese in the ACNA. They are like Episcopal light. They are by far the most liberal of the bunch and seem to be the ones causing problems from time to time. No offence to you as an Episcopalian but I just find them to be way to liberal.

 

None taken. If it makes you feel any better, I've never heard of them.