1662 is the Standard for ACNA

Discussion in 'Liturgy, and Book of Common Prayer' started by Magistos, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. Liturgyworks

    Liturgyworks Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    538
    Likes Received:
    254
    Country:
    US
    Religion:
    Orthodox Christian
    I think it is also extremely important to ensure there is no set of options which leads to a “Lowest Common Denominator”, like Eucharistic Prayer B in the 1979 BCP or Eucharistic Prayer 2 in the Novus Ordo Missae. The rubrics must be strict and severe, with omissions and abbreviations seldom permitted and explicit rubrics prohibiting women being ordained as priests or bishops or ministering the Eucharist (this is not a traditional function of the Deaconess), rubrics against Lay Eucharistic Ministers, rubrics against homosexual marriage and the ordination of clergy who are not in a heterosexual monogamous marriage* or celibate, or who have killed anyone after baptism** (this ancient staple of canon law would have prevented the ordination of Bishop Bruno in Los Angeles), rubrics forbidding celebration versus populum except in churches where the altar is positioned so as to render either ad orientem or north-side service according to the Anglican tradition impossible, and rubrics prohibiting CCM, praise and worship, praise band music, and so forth.

    At the same time the rubrics must be equally supportive of traditional Low Church, High Church and Anglo Catholic practices. I think, in addition to good rubrics, including a set of modules which would feature Ritual Notes, the Directorum Anglicanorum, the Parson’s Handbook, and a new latitudinarian manner for people of each level of churchmanship, with practical instructions and guidance on the service of the Eucharist, would be ideal.

    Also, for the module containing the enhanced divine office, I think this should be configured to start with Evensong, followed by Compline, Nocturns, Mattins, Prime, Terce, the Litany, the Synaxis (Ante-Communion or the Liturgy of the Word, which when served without the Eucharist is called a “Typika Service” in Eastern Orthodoxy or the rather unappetizing “Missa Sicca” in the Roman Rite), Midday Prayer, and the Ninth Hour, with rubrics on how to group Evensong, Compline, Mattins and Prime as a Saturday evening Vigil service in the Russian tradition (which has been extremely successful). This layout reflects the fact that the liturgical day traditionally begins with Vespers.



    Regarding the dangers of the Lowest Common Denominator, this article on the Roman Catholic New Liturgical Movement blog explains how the Novus Ordo Missae fell into that trap: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/09/resisting-lowest-common-denominator.html#.XZORDMplCf0

    Now ostensibly the 1979 BCP is vastly superior to the Novus Ordo; it featured Rite I in traditional language, which parishes could use without fear of persecution, and what is more, after the devastating schism had subsided, I am told there are some Episcopalian churches in Virginia and elsewhere, in ECUSA, which manage to get away with using the 1928 BCP despite this not being officially allowed. Actually it would at this point be supreme hypocrisy for the Episcopal Church to disallow the 1928 BCP while allowing, for example, St. Gregory of Nyssa. But the 1979 BCP still has a Lowest Common Denominator trap in the form of Rite II, which tends to be shorter than Rite I, and more specifically, Eucharistic Prayer B, the most widespread. My friend Fr. Steven was one of a handful who served Eucharistic Prayer C in the autumn until Christmas, Eucharistic Prayer B in Lent, and Eucharistic Prayer A at other times (he shunned Eucharistic Prayer D because of the fixed preface). But like in the RCC, where the prevailing tendency is to use the shortest possible service, which is Eucharistic Prayer 2, the statistics I’ve seen on 1979 BCP usage indicate overuse of Eucharistic Prayer B and other abbreviations allowed in the rubrics.

    Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

    This has some people convinced that any choice or variability in the liturgy is bad, but the experience of the Orthodox churches indicates this is not the case, rather, the choices need to be evenly weighted as in the Oriental Orthodox tradition or else the variability must be controlled by Propers, or a combination thereof (for example, the Syriac Orthodox church mandates, by a rubric, the use of their most important anaphora, the Divine Liturgy of St. James, on certain occasions, but at all other times, the priests are free to select the anaphora and the Husoyo, or sequence of collects and bidding prayers, they desire, and of the 14 anaphoras on Syriac Orthodox Resources, 12 are of the same length (one, that of Mar Bar Salibi, is very slightly shorter, and the other, that of St. James, is slightly longer).
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2019
  2. Brigid

    Brigid Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    143
    Likes Received:
    68
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    AngloCatholic
    I really like what you've suggested here and I also am very much in agreement with the article on the LCD! That's been my experience.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.

Share This Page