Enquiries in a Letter from a Priest

Dear Peter,

It would help me if you were to illustrate the substantive difference between Rite I, prayer I and 1928. I am ignorant, without context. Most Episcopalians who have remained with ECUSA feel that Rite I is similar enough to 1928 as to be acceptable.

Do you have any carefully prepared contemporary language versions of 1928? I could and would use it right now.

J.

In response:

The differences between 1928 BCP (or 1892 or 1789 or 1662) and Rite I of the 79 Book of Varied Services are in brief as follows (but see in detail NEITHER ORTHODOXY NOR A FORMULARY, by Tarsitano & Toon, 2004, from www.anglicanmarketplace.com ) Here are ten points, as a starter, but the more closely one examines the more differences one sees. Further the style is very different as any celebrant who has used the classic and then turns to Rite 1 knows in his soul.

1. The shape or structure of Rite 1 is based on that of Rite 2 and is very different from that of the classic BCP Service of Holy Communion. That is, it is made to allow for the walk about and greetings in the center called the Peace.
2. To use Rite 1 fully you have to mix with it material from the inclusive language Psalter in YOU language, and so there is a mixing of two very different forms of addressing God. This in principle is bad liturgy and policy for the THOU language has its own logic and sacred history of usage (see NEITHER ARCHAIC NOR OBSOLETE by Tarsitano & Toon , from www.anglicanmarketplace.com
3. The Lectionary in use with the Rite I is very different from the Eucharistic Lectionary printed in the classic BCP. The latter is very ancient, from the 4th century or so.
4. The Collects for Rite 1 are not identical with those for BCP 1928, and some of them are contrary to the style of 1928.
5. The Church Year for Rite 1 is different from that of BCP 1928 (Notice Sundays after Trinity, Sundays after Easter in BCP and note the usage in Rite 1 – Pentecost and then Sundays of Easter)
6. The BCP is based on the 40 plus 10 days for Easter to Whit-Sunday (Pentecost) whereas Rite 1 is committed to the so called “great fifty days,” where Easter is 50 days and there is a diminution of the importance of Ascension Day and of preparation for Whit, thereafter. When do you extinguish your Easter Candle – with 1928 Ascension Day, or with Rite 1 Pentecost Day?
7. Rite 1 is tied to a theology & doctrines are very different from those of the BCP 1662, 1928.
8. The opening Acclamation of Rite 1 and 2 is a definite attempt to lower or change the doctrine of the Trinity and this dumbing down is seen in the Catechism and elsewhere. (See my book on The Seven Ecumenical Councils)
9. Rite 1 offers two Consecration Prayers and so breaks the rule of Common Prayer as that is seen in the classic BCP.
10. Most of the Prayers in Rite 1 which are taken from 1928 have been edited to reduce their doctrines; and only by putting the two in parallel can this be seen to be a doctrinal revisionism.

In short, when a majority in the House of Bishops insisted in 1975 or so that there be a traditional language service incorporated in the new “Book of Alternative Services”, the Liturgical Commission provided Rite 1 edited to fit their current view of the right shape of the Liturgy, and making it in such a way as requiring use of other parts of this Prayer Book to do it fully. So it can never be done or used in the true spirit of the classic worship of the Anglican Way for it is always a compromise. Thus sensitive and informed souls have resisted the use of Rite 1 and used 1928 or 1662 in their integrity.

Modern Language BCP?

The Prayer Book Society released in August 2005 a book of parallel texts – that is the BCP1928 text on the left and a contemporary language equivalency on the right. This is called WORSHIPPING THE LORD IN THE ANGLICAN WAY and is at www.anglicanmarketplace.com It is not a complete BCP.

As yet there is no complete version of the whole of 1662 or Canadian1960 or USA 1928 in so-called contemporary English. This is surely a job for The Network assisted perhaps by the Prayer Book Societies, for there if there is to be a return to orthodoxy then the 1979 book has to be repudiated as a genuine BCP, for it is really and truly, only and merely, a book of varied services and does not belong to the genuine family of editions of the BCP. Thus 1979 is not a genuine Formulary of the Anglican Way.

Various attempts have been made in Britain, Australia and the USA to make a genuinely contemporary language equivalent of this and that service in the classic BCP. Yet nowhere has the job been yet done wholly and fully and competently. Again the Network or a large church or a group of churches is the group to sponsor in the USA.

What could unite American Anglicans/Episcopalians – at least in the short term – would be the use of the One BCP, available either in its classic edition or in a carefully prepared contemporary equivalent version. This would bring unity of Rite, shape of liturgy, doctrine and ethos. For, as long as 1979 dominates then biblical orthodoxy and genuine renewal will always be at least an arm’s length away, for 1979 is the production of a church (as we now see) well on its way to apostasy ( so likewise the BAS, 1985, of Canada, which is based on the 1979 of the USA).

I hope this all helps to stimulate your thoughts and prayers,

Peter Toon (Sept 18th, 2005)