Is Rite One in the 1979 prayer Book a Rite with integrity?

In the ECUSA Prayer Book there is a Rite One (traditional language) for both the Daily Office and for the Holy Eucharist. Also there is a Rite One form of the Burial Office.

Does this Rite possess internal consistency? Should it be used by the faithful?

Let us first recall that this type of Rite is based upon, but is not exactly the same as, the services in The Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1928), which Book belongs to the family of editions of the one basic Prayer Book of the Anglican Way. Generally speaking the texts taken over from the BCP1928 for Rite One were edited and restructured so as to fit into the basic philosophy of worship adopted by the ECUSA Liturgical Commission in the late 1960s. The latter may be termed both ecumenical and liberal Catholic, for it received much from the interest in liturgy in the ecumenical movement of the 1960s/1970s and also from post Vatican II Roman Catholic progressive scholars and sources.

In Morning Prayer the changes from the 1928 text include at the beginning, the addition of opening sentences, a new exhortation to confession of sin and worship, an edited form of the General Confession, and a new Absolution. Then there are not a few other changes in the rest of the service, which would take too much space to detail here. Further, the Psalter that is provided addresses God as “You” and is inclusive in style, and so it does not at all fit with the traditional wording and texts of this service. In the matter of the reading of the Bible, it is possible to use the KJV, RV. ASV and RSV, but churches often only have the NRSV, which is an inclusivist translation and addresses God as “You”.

In the Eucharist, the text of the 1928 BCP has been adapted to fit into the “shape of the liturgy” of the Rite II texts, which means the addition of the so-called passing of the Peace, the Breaking of the Bread with added words after the Prayer of Consecration and Lord’s Prayer, and the transfer of the Gloria from the conclusion to the beginning of the Service. Further, the traditional Collect, Epistle and Gospel (liturgically the most ancient part of the Service in the classic BCP] no longer are provided for the Christian Year, since the Lectionary used is the same as that for Rite Two. And also an alternative prayer of Consecration is provided that is more in conformity with the doctrine within the Rite Two alternatives. The version of the Bible used is often that printed on the inserts for each Sunday used by Episcopal Churches and this is usually the NRSV. Finally, various prayers from the 1928 BCP are edited in order to remove from them unacceptable words/doctrine.

The Rite One Service for the Burial of the Dead is a much expanded form of the 1928BCP Service and shares the same basic structure as Rite Two (for details see M.J. Hatchett, Commentary on the American Prayer Book, NYC, 1980, pp.477ff.)

Returning to Morning Prayer, we may observe that it is possible, and indeed was planned, that the whole of this service, including Psalm and Bible Readings, in its Rite Two form, can be offered to the Father through the Son and with the Spirit in so-called contemporary English, addressing God and man as “you.” So one can say that there is logic here, as there is in the doctrine that confession of sins, if it is to be done, is to be done at the beginning to get it over with (as it were) before the celebration of praise and thanksgiving begins. [In contrast, for the historic texts of the BCP the confession of sin is the praise of God and so is an essential part of worship wherein God is praised as the Judge and Holy One, as well as the Merciful One!]

In the Rite One form of Morning Prayer, it is difficult to see any logic of language because it is impossible within the provisions of the 1979 Book to do this Office in whole in traditional English and with consistent doctrine. The Psalter is not provided in traditional form and to find the traditional form one has also to have the 1928 BCP available. Further, if there is the desire to fit a Baptism into a Service of Morning Prayer, then there is no way of doing this in traditional language for the Baptismal Service (by the design of the Liturgical Commission) is only in Rite Two form and with a distinctively modern doctrine built into it.

Turning now to the Eucharist, we may also observe that it is possible and was indeed planned that the Rite Two form of this service, including Psalter and Bible Readings, would be all in contemporary language. Further, in the 1982 Hymnal there are plenty of hymns addressing God as “You” to be chosen – although some traditional language ones, often edited a little, are also available (and if chosen disturb the logic of language of the service).

Rite One can never be satisfactory as a whole for to do the service in full means moving from the logic of language involved in the use of “Thou” to that involved in “You” (see further for details of this logic, Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete by Toon and Tarsitano from www.anglicanmarketplace.com). Further, the Psalter of the 1979 Prayer Book hardly lends itself to a Christological use of the Psalter (because of its inclusivism) and the use of the NRSV or similar modern versions make traditional worship difficult, if not impossible.

What to do!

The present major crisis within the ECUSA and Anglicanism in general surely allows Episcopalians in the ECUSA and AMiA who want integrity and wholesomeness in their worship of God to abandon Rite One altogether (after all the Liturgical Commission did not want this provision but made it under pressure from the Presiding Bishop and to satisfy traditionalists, who were often generous donors). Then they can go in the direction of Rite Two and be contemporary in language and doctrine; or, better, they can return to the major source of Rite One, the historic and classic Book of Common Prayer, using this with its Psalter and along with the KJV, ASV or RSV so as to have a consistency of style and doctrine in the facing of Almighty God in worship. When they do this may they be so purified in heart that they will worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness!

Another alternative, that I have suggested, is to make available the text of the classic Services in the historic Book of Common Prayer in a carefully presented contemporary form of English, so as to preserve the doctrine and style of the authentic Anglican Way or those who believe that the right way today is to address the Lord as “You.”

Peter Toon October 23, 2005