I thought the ACA was going to put out their own '28 BCP?

By that, I mean the title page. I know Anglican books in Athens, GA puts out the "ACC" title page and DEUSBOOKS in NC puts out the "APA" title page. Thought I'd read on the ACA site about it?

 

There are stirrings for possible revision in conjunction with jurisdictional relational improvements of the recent past and, hopefully, near future. Perhaps not of the book in full so much as the lectionary and calendar. A three year cycle is gaining some popularity among segments of the clergy and I have even heard of a few bishops approving such usage. There are also people who are willing to move forward into modern language: maybe an NKJV type of Prayer Book rather than the NIV like product that TEC turned out in 1979.

 

NKJV is about as far as I'd like to see it go though. Sorry, I am in love with old English. So long as the '28 BCP doesn't call God a "she", I will be fine.

 

I hope they leave things as they are...I have seen so much division and animosity created by changing prayerbooks and bible versions. I can't tell you how many times I've quoted the kjv, literally THE bible translation of the English speaking world for 400 years, and the good christian I was talking to would have no idea what I was quoting from. Lex orandi, lex credendi as they say. So, imho when you change the words of our faith and worship, you change our faith and worship. If I were the devil and wanted to frustrate the power of the Gospel being preached in the world I could think of no better way than to constantly fill the world with new, niche, and boutique bible translations and liturgies for every denomination, party, and stripe of christian, thereby making effective and unified communication impossible.

I recognise that language is a fluid thing, but any change to the formularies of our faith, if done at all, must be done sparingly, cautiously, and never with the idea that we need to cater to postmodern sensitivities. Otherwise you end up with FatherMother God and the like. Remember that just the act of making a change creates the precedent that changing things is necessary, even beneficial, and emboldens those with an agenda of making bigger and bigger changes later on. Being an episcopalian, I've seen where this road leads and it's not one on which you want to travel. So if it ain't broke don't fix it. I would also recommend you take note of CS Lewis on liturgical reforms: http://www.pseudepigraph.us/2014/05/05/c-s-lewis-on-liturgiology/

To me, all this smacks of clerical ego, of leaving one's mark, of taking the faith we have inherited from our fathers and thinking it needs tweaking and improving, and, in a crescendo of hubris, thinking that he/she is just priest/priestess to do it. As for me, I prefer sticking to the old paths, to the faith of our fathers, expressed in the words of our fathers.

Faith of our fathers! Holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death!

 

I love my copy of the Douay-Rheims version. It is very beautiful and poetically devout language

 

I've read it. I love how Jerome twisted Genesis 3:15 when the original Hebrew does not say "She" but says "They". Hmm... http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm

Not picking a fight just pointing it out. Blessings!

 

I have always thought it was very awkward. The Knox Bible is the really beautiful exclusively RC version.

 

Can't beat the 1662 BCP and the King James Bible.

 

I know!

 

It is my understanding that TEC is looking into a revision of the 79 BCP and the 82 Hymnal. I can only imagine how that is gonna go.

 

That is correct. They hope to have trial liturgies for consideration at the next General Convention. The hymnal is more complicated. My hypotheses: a creedal recitation will become optional; gender inclusive language at all points; yet more communion rites for every flavor of churchmanship; a queer marriage rite (obviously); and possibly a more contemporary Psalter.

ACNA is also preparing to release a Prayer Book. The trials have been available and in use for about two years now (at least for the major services: Holy Communion, Morning and Evening Prayer, Baptism, and Marriage). I have reviewed most of the texts and perhaps I will start another thread on my thoughts. My initial takeaway is that they have retained the dizzying variety of the '79. For example: there are three eucharistic rites and all are contemporary language. The hymnal is more of a sticky issue with ACNA because they have some affinity dioceses that simply are not going to use it unless it is essentially a compilation of K-Love's Top-40. And I get the general impression from all of this liturgical reform that the REC is being left out of the conversation.

 

I can see the REC severing ties with the ACNA entirely and sooner than later. I quit posting at Virtue Online mainly because it's nothing but an ACNA point of view for the most part. No offense to any ACNA'ers on this board.

 

I wish they'd hold off on that. Firstly, I just received a Prayerbook and Hymnal in one from my baptismal sponsor as a gift (which I love!) that I'd like to get a lot of use out of. Secondly, I'd rather the up and coming generation, my generation, be able to revise the prayer book without getting hassled for it being too early, instead of the aging theological liberals and feel-good revisionists that made the '79 getting another shot at doing who knows what.

 

I wish you and your generation the best.

 

Thank you.

 

The Latin Mass which I attend has remained unchanged for centuries

 

Change isn't necessarily a bad thing. For Anglicans, Article 34 makes pretty clear that inessential things can be changed to suit the needs of any particular culture or such. The problem is changing the underlying theological and traditional substance behind the liturgy. I am not an expert at all, as one can assume, but the '79 prayer book doesn't seem to eliminate essential things but waters them down so as to be concerning. A return to ancient form of liturgy (not the Tridentine, obviously) would remedy the problem, but would really be overkill and destroy the organic progression that makes the liturgy effective.

 

Part of the reason why that is possible is that Latin is a dead language. For those of use whose primary experience of liturgy is in the vulgar tongue, we must acknowledge that wee bee not fayth like unto the manner of fpeach as becommeth the taime of our moft fovereign Lord the King Henry VIII.

This is a really important point you make, and perhaps the real challenge for us as Anglicans is that we are political and everyone wants to drtag the church somewhere, or so it seems.

 

A long history of Erastianism may have that effect. Christianity is simply too universal and comprehensive to fit into the box of any particular facet of life, politics or otherwise. As a person of strong left sympathies, I see the PECUSA's dilemma as a divine trial of keeping my priorities in order...

 

I've been thinking more about prayer book revision as I have worked on the Easter Vigil service this week. What prompted this was looking at both available American texts: that of the TEC '79 and the ACNA trial. It proved to be an instance where ACNA essentially copy-pasted the TEC text, with only a couple of minor revisions to the Collects (to appease the Charismatics most likely). And that approach didn't bother me.

In liturgical revision, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. We should remember that we are striving for 'common' prayer - that is a form of prayer that can be shared across generations, geographical areas, and churchmanship preferences. So, as much as I love the East, I don't think it is helpful to take, say, the liturgy of St. Basil and put an Anglican gloss on it. Nor am I favorable to having endless rites. If I were going to make a revision of Holy Communion, I would go back to the 1662, update the syntax and vocabulary of the text to conform with current grammatical usage, plug in an epiclesis, and be done with it. I bet I could do it in three hours rather than three years.