ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Favorite Version of the Prayer Book
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ส.ค. 2024
- This video is an updated version of a blog post from last year: leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2...
For more about the Saint Aelfric Customary: saint-aelfric-customary.org/
For more about some of the Prayer Books mentioned here:
* 1662 saint-aelfric-customary.org/2...
* 1928 saint-aelfric-customary.org/2...
* 1979 saint-aelfric-customary.org/2...
* "Common Worship" saint-aelfric-customary.org/2...
* and more! saint-aelfric-customary.org/b...
The 2019 Prayer Book can be downloaded or purchased here: bcp2019.anglicanchurch.net/
Topic Index of the video:
00:00 Introduction & Background
07:20 General Principle: purist, not fundamentalist
09:07 My favorite is...
10:10 Six things I like about it
15:08 Five shortcomings
17:16 Conclusion & Shout-out
Wonderful talk thank you for this. As an Anglican who was going to become Catholic I realized I had never studied my own religion. I realize that Anglicanism has everything that I love. Being raised High Anglican without ever understanding the faith, I am enjoying the journey home!
I am an Indonesian Roman Catholic. I have been practicing daily office for 2 months. There are very few Anglicans in Indonesia and the Indonesian translation of BCP 1662 is only circulated among them. At first I used Daily Prayer App (1662) but after that I translated BCP 1979 into Indonesian for myself. At first I used the original 1979 lectionary, but after several weeks I changed to the 2019 lectionary and I like it because it contains more bible readings and is easier to use. Anglican prayers are very similiar with Roman Catholics thus the daily office feels like a version of Roman Breviary, very prayerful. No issues with bible or psalter English versions because I use Indonesian bible for psalms, lessons, translating suffrages, canticles, etc.
The 1979 BCP has the 1928 Communion service almost intact. The eucharistic prayer of 1559 is a mishmash of catholic and protestant stuff - emphasis on receiving without the oblation of the old mass. The 1928 prayer book prayer of consecration comes from the Scottish Episcopal Church and restores the balance. It is doctrinally a mix of Roman, Orthodox and Calvinism (as in that they bread and wine may BE for us rather than BECOME the body and blood of Christ(.
Oh my. I had forgotten how important this video has been in my life. It prompted me to buy the 2019 book, and one thing led to another, and I moved to Bellingham to become part of an ACNA congregation. Today Nathaniel Kidd and I were talking about the benefits and some not so perfect parts of the Book, and I mentioned that I had watched your video doing the same thing, so, I thought I would rewatch it. I particularly agree with you about the three-year lectionary. There is a wholeness and a sanctity in a year that gets lost, imho, in the complications of a three-year cycle. I don't find the position of the epiclesis in the 'renewed ancient text' heretical as you do. Indeed, it seems quite orthodox, iftnot Lutheran,, and at least keeps the 'be for us' rather than 'become'. (Odd, innit, that the new Roman Missal doesn't have so explicit an epiclesis.) So, thank you again for the video and all the work you do.
The new international 1662 common prayer. Excellent 👍
Having studied at Sewanee, I was rather horrified by the mean-spiritedness of the 1979 folks. (My favouite book is the Lancelott Andrewes Press BCP.) Since watching this video I have bought the 2019 Book, and I find it quite delightful for the mst part. It's a little inconvenient that one has to rearrange so much of the Eucharistic material. It is also a beautiful bit of typography.
@@memlagu and with thy spirit
right now my favorite is the 1928 and the 2019 is a close second. I attend a TEC so as a small token of solidarity, I do the Daily Devotions For Individuals and Families from the 1979 BCP, but for full Office I pray 1928.
I completely agree re: the psalms; it's a good translation that does justice to those found in the 1662 prayer book...in fact whilst I don't use the ACNA prayer book for the daily office, usually; I do recite the psalms as provided within it.
Totally agree with the notion of returning to the one year Eucharistic lectionary and with following a daily office lectionary that simultaneously follows the ecclesiastical year and is read mostly continuously. The daily office lectionary from the ordinariates in the RCC combined with a one year Eucharistic lectionary would truly allow for the full mystery of Christ to be experienced throughout the year in more harmonious and natural manner. And, yes, the New Coverdale translation is exceptional
I agree. In my opinion, an overlooked aspect of Cranmer's genius in drafting the BOCP was his judicious use of the Sarum Rite's Sunday lectionary and collects. He essentially implied, "We are still the Church of England, in all of her distinctiveness and Catholicity, but also reformed to the teachings of the Bible." While that might mean the Old Testament isn't being read on Sundays, his thought process was to give the people a time to hear it in the Daily Office and let the yearly repetition of it outside of Communion inform the understanding of the people during communion.
Granted, most people in modern society live lives too busy or too far away to attend the Office in a church every single day, but we shouldn't overlook the fact the Church gave the laity, on a silver platter, a method to read the entire bible in a year and pray with the entire country/Anglican communion while also maintaining the rhythm the English Church has held since the middle ages for the Mass/Communion service. A restoration or at least allowance for the One-year lectionary (and perhaps moving the Psalm reading from its position between the OT and Epistle to an Introit at the start of the service, per the 1549 BCP) would do good, or at least not do any harm, for the ACNA.
I am quite happy with our 1962 Canadian B.C.P., whidh has a nice way for things to fall out in a Prayerbook. Since I reverted to my childhood Lutheranism, I suspose it does not matter so much to me now. I would, though, like to make a plug for the traditional Scottish B.C.P., in a line of Prayerbooks that much inclufluenced the prayerbooks of the U. S. of A. and of the 1962 Canadian B.C.P. As well, the still new B.C.P. of the Reformed Episcopal Church is very fine indeed and is the easiest and most convenient Prayerbook to use of all traditional B.C.P.s.
I agree! The 2019 is waaaaaay underappreciated.
2019 is the only one I know since being Anglican for 8 years. 😊
I have noticed that American Books of Common Prayer have always been pretty wonky. What's our deal? Lol
New Zealand. They put the Eucharist in the middle. And red edges. Having the eucharist in the beginning is a wonky trick of a balance act. And it did what the American church is just getting on board with two decades late. The ELC did a half baked effort.
I really like the 2019 BCP - I think it's what the 79 BCP should have been. My only complaint is the "renewed" language. It has a NKJV feel to it - not that there's anything wrong with that. But I would have preferred a contemporary and orthodox rendering of the traditional language, rather than have the traditional text with updated words and phrases.
Viva 1928 Prayer Book. Pax Christi.
Yep
1662
New Zealand ✨✨✨✨
10:11 Do you mean 1929 Scottish Book of Common Prayer or 2019 BCP? I'm confused. However, I really enjoyed this video! Keep up the good work!!!! GOD BLESS!!!!!!!
Oh yes, "twenty-nine" was supposed to be "twenty-nineteen", good catch.
@@Slarty947 That clears it up perfectly. Thank you!. Please continue to make videos like this for they teach us and help spread the Gospel. I appreciate greatly the time and effort that you obviously put into each of them.
In discussing the position of the epiclesis in the Renewed Ancient Text, you have hit on a major difference between Western and Eastern conceptions of when the consecration occurs. (I know you go into more depth in the Saint Aelfric Customary.) I do have to say, as someone who comes from an Orthodox background, it was a bit jarring to me to hear that some might consider the Eastern positioning of the epiclesis "blasphemous."
Yes, that certainly is a detail which both sides can react pretty strongly to.
The Church of England's proposed 1928 Book of Common Prayer includes the epiclesis after the consecration of the elements. This holds with my Eucharistic theology which I call corporeal receptionism. The Bread and Wine are consecrated after the Words of Institution and should be treated with care and reverence (but not venerated). When the Elements become the Body and Blood of our Lord in the liturgy is a sacred mystery only that we can be 100% sure that upon receiving the Bread and Wine from the priest we are truly receiving the real, corporeal Body and Blood of Christ. There is no transubstantiation at certain words or abstract receiving by faith there is only the Body and Blood of our Lord which is as objectively flesh and blood as our human flesh on our bodies and blood that runs in our veins.
The 1928 American has the Eastern position. I was surprised that went away with 2019, but I guess it’s the Canadian influence. Where is it in the ‘79?
@@smccarthymi The 1979 Book of Common Prayer places the epiclesis in the Eastern position after the Words of Institution.
Yes. And the after consecration prayers in the Tridentine Mass would be blasphemous by the Reverends comment. Constantly crossing and begging God to make holy and acceptable. And like 15 crosses.
Can you elaborate on why you don't like the 3-year lectionary, and find it "modernist"? I'm confused about that.
I put some thoughts in writing on this a couple years ago: leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/my-top-3-reasons-to-ditch-the-rcl/ - and at the end of that article is a link to the letter I wrote to the committee at the time.
To answer the specific question of modernist influence, though, it has been argued by many opponents of the RCL (and relatives) that it is founded too much on the "Q document" theory of the origin of the Gospels by giving privilege to the synoptics and treating John as a seasonal or occasional filler.
My primary issue with it nowadays though is that it tries to do two things at the same time (liturgical use of time and bible coverage) instead of just doing one thing well like the historic Communion lectionary.
In most of the ancient Eastern Rites pertaining to hoth the Catholic and Orthodox traditions the Epiclesis occurs after the Words of Consecration the rationale being that from an Eastern perspective the whole Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer is mystically and mysteriously consecratory. The East tends to view reality, historically and spiritually speaking, as cyclical while the West prefers a more linear approach. It is thanks to Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent that the Words of Consecration were officially designated as the precise moment when the miracle of Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurs. Ironically, the Roman Canon which goes back to at least the sixth century in the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great lacks an Epiclesis that is to say, a prayer beseeching the Holy Spirit to sanctity and transform the elements of bread and wine. Therefore, I would hardly consider the placement of the Epiclesis after the Words of Consecration "blasphemous."
The Puritans didn't get rid of 1559 or 1504. parliament made up of several radical factions did it.
"Clergy person"?
Come on man! Priestesses are unbiblical and anti traditional and represent a surrender to modernism
@Dale Griffith - Hello. I heard that also and cringed. Seems the youngster in the video has not read 1st Timothy 3: 1-13 and Titus 1: 5-14. Bishop, Elder, Deacon. All MEN jobs.
I would like to say I could never be an Anglican because of the how ambiguous Anglican theology is (I can’t stand how you have some Anglicans believe one thing and others believe another particularly in regards to the blessed sacrament)
but the BCP (1662) is my go to prayer book for the daily office but I use the 2019 for the psalter….
If I lived in the USA I would consider checking out a ANA church though.
P.s. there is no such thing as a female priest…there are priests and then there are women playing sacrilegious dress-up.
This guy doesn't know that the Epiclesis in the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox prayers is always AFTER THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION as the whole prayer not just W of I consecrates. In fact the transformation begins at the Preparation. There is no magic moment in Orthodoxy. The celebrant consecrates and asks God to send the Holy Spirit upon them to make them the food of immorality, the bread that comes from heaven!! Blasphemous? duh!! Prayer D of the American BCP has the epiclesis before the consecration. The Words of Institution in some Anglican and Lutheran traditions is a warrant to do the memorial which becomes what it signifies by the power of the Holy Spirit.
You're far from insane ;-)
A "clergy person" Lollll
after making fun of people he says "no offense" No offense, dude, I have had enough of you.
Who are you replying to?
No offense, you guys should have joined the Continuing Anglican Church instead of messing around with the ACNA and their women priest nonsense. Yes I prefer the invocation before the consecration, but having it after is not blasphemous, as my understanding is that how the Orthodox have it. The collect, epistle, and gospel should be all printed out in the book like in the 1928, one year lectionary, one prayer of Consecration. You guys should just use the 1928 with Elizabethan English and nix the modern English nonsense. The 1928 is saturated with scripture the 1979 and the 2019 are saturated with tables and charts. Just my humble opinion as a permanent deacon ordained in 1991.
You are correct, but my theory has always been that for those that didn't leave after 1976 (or their descendants) could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong for staying in TEC. So they had to form something new, and that lead to the 2nd ACNA and their love affair with dual integrities.
@Mark Kirkland - Good post/comment. If someone / some group will ordain women, then they will fall for anything and compromise. No sense setting up a new group if the new group is going to do what the old apostate group is doing.
I often use my grandma's 1928 B.O.C.P. and sometimes my 1559 Elizabethan and the 1662. The Cranmer language is superb. 1st Timothy 3: 1-17 and Titus 1: 5-14. Plain as black ink on white paper. Bishops, Elders, Deacons. All of them are men jobs.
"liturgical stuff'? This guy isn't very educated in this topic, it seems.
He is an Anglican priest, was a seminarian, involved in acna 2019 bcp project. He knows what he was talking about. Please respect that.
@@hoosinhan There is NO such thing as a "Priest" office in the New Testament. No need for "priests" since The Lord Jesus shed His blood for us on the Cross on Golgotha. In the New Testament there are 3 offices: Bishop. Elder, Deacon. There were "Priests" in the O.T. in the Tribe of Levi. The "Reformed Episcopal Church" founded by Bishop Cummings in the 1800's got rid of the "Priest' and "Father" words and went with scriptural words instead for Ordained men. BTW - The guy in the video did say some odd, sloppy stuff. No need to get upset with poster Thomas Hakala for pointing out the truth.
@@gusloader123 the new testament priest are called elder in nt letters. Furthermore, the apostles cleanse themselves before Jesus washes their feet, much like Aaron and his sons several centuries before, in preparation of priesthood. Peter understand this as a preparation of priesthood. John 13:6-10. Exodus 29:4-9
@@hoosinhan Your R.C. / E.O. tendencies are showing in your reply. Pastors / Elders of a local congregation are NOT "Priests". There is NO more need for a human "Priest" because we as Christian believers can go straight to the Throne of Our Father which art in Heaven with our prayers, requests, burdens when we pray in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Saviour. Christ was the final sacrifice. That is why He was called "The Lamb of God".
The Reformation-era Lutherans and the Reformed/Presbyterian churches tossed that "Priest" title & job in the bucket along with selling of indulgences and kissing the Popes hand. Sadly, the Anglicans/ Episcopalians did not.
The smaller groups (such as the Waldensians and other small groups of real Christians) for centuries did not use the title of "Priest" for the "Elder" of their congregation. those small (often hidden and met in secret) congregations had memorized the 4 Gospels and Epistles and would recite them each Lord's Day.
Most Italians and basic English folks were illiterate, so they had no idea what the New Testament actually said. Only a few folks could read. Most people spent their lives working, never attending schools. The E.O. & R.C. thrived because many folks could not afford a handwritten copy of the scriptures, and few could have read it even if they could afford one. The invention of the printing press buy Guttenberg changed things immensely.
The idea of NO Priests / and "Don't call me Father" was a big part of the formation of the "Reformed Episcopal Church" in the 1870's by Bishop Cummings. I wish they would have grown larger.
@@gusloader123 in your opinions, why Cummings REC dont grow larger? They even join with other breakaway Anglicans to create ACNA. And ACNA has priests. What do you think?