If we look inside most of the new prayer books (e.g., 1979 ECUSA, 2000 C of E, 1985 Canada) we find that there are both "contemporary language" and "traditional language" rites!
Thus the question arises: Is using one or another of these "traditional language" rites any different from using the similar or related service in the classic BCP?
A. Let us first consider the Rite I for Holy Communion in the 1979 ECUSA prayer book.
1.The language used in Rite I of 1979 is much the same as that in the BCP (1928) but not identical.
2.The structure of the Service in Rite I is very definitely not the same as that in the BCP for Rite 1 is made to conform to the structure of Rite II, the "contemporary language" Rite.
3.The doctrinal content of Rite I is modified from that of the BCP through the change of structure, through a different Eucharistic Lectionary, through the presence of an alternative Prayer of Consecration, through innovations in the naming and addressing of God, the Holy Trinity, through the use of the required Collects, by the way that confession of sins is presented and understood, and by other significant verbal changes to significant Prayers.
4.The doctrinal content of Rite I is also affected because the Psalter to be used is the inclusive language Psalter of the 1979 prayer book. Thus the well beloved Psalter of the BCP cannot be used (unless one breaks the rubrics) and the Christological emphasis (Christ praying the Psalms in his Body) is lost.
5.The doctrinal content of Rite I is also affected because it is to be understand according to the doctrine in the Catechism in the 1979 prayer book and this doctrine at odds with the Catechism in the BCP.
Thus while users of Rite I may have the best of intentions of having a Service that is really and truly the classic Anglican service this is impossible, strictly speaking.
Happily the opening Acclamation with its questionable grammar & content is optional in Rite 1 (not in Rite II) but the structure of the whole Rite is not and neither is the association of questionable ideas/doctrines.
If the desire is only for "traditional language" (and not full traditional style and content) then one can only have 95 percent of this (the 5% from the Psalter is modern). Yet traditional language in and of itself is no guarantee of doctrinal orthodoxy. Using Rite I, one has to be especially aware of possible pitfalls through association of ideas in order to remain doctrinally sound!
B. Let us now consider the new C of E prayer book, Common Worship. Here there is much greater supply of traditional language for there is provided (a) traditional language forms of modern Rites, and (b) the BCP service itself [with a few minor modifications] according to its own structure, not made to conform to the structure of the modern Rites as in the USA book.
Even so the Service of Holy Communion is not identical with that in the BCP because (a) the BCP Collects and Eucharistic Lectionary are missing to be replaced by those of the Common Worship scheme; and (b) the association of ideas and doctrines produced by a book of many options provides a strange context for the BCP Rite.
Therefore, those who want to keep the classic BCP in total use do so out of a strategy of thinking that this Prayer Book, with the Bible, is a unified whole. It represents the provision of a total means of public and private worship, daily prayer, celebrating of the Church Year, public and family spirituality & piety and provision for all the major events in life and of death and so on.
In other words, it is not just this or that service, this or that collect, this or that rubric, but the whole as an expression of the godly life for family and for parish that is cherished. Thus while a Rite I service from the 1979 book, and the BCP-type Rite from the 2000 book are not to be despised, yet they are not the same as the classic Service within the BCP. So the latter is to be preferred and should be kept available to Anglicans everywhere as part of the whole package that is the BCP.
The classic BCP in any of its major editions contains not merely traditional language but a certain style, doctrine and ethos within that traditional language of public worship & common prayer. It is the whole that is precious and it is the whole that must be preserved for posterity.
Rendering the services of the BCP into "contemporary language" if done faithfully can be a blessing to people entering the Anglican Way or Canterbury trail; but, it is difficult in a modern rendering to preserve the emphases contained within the much used and loved traditional language of prayer. Contemporary language is so unstable and is always open to reflecting the latest ideologies from popular culture.
The Prayer Book Societies of the Anglican Communion of Churches seek to keep in print and available the whole Book of Common Prayer, and they also seek to help people understand and use the same in public worship and at home. The American Society is ready to send its magazine to any who wish to receive it -- 1 800 PBS 1928 or on the website.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
No comments:
Post a Comment