The 1979 Book of Common Prayer (USA)

There seems to be a lot of interest in prayer book comparisons and debating on what is good or not so good about certain prayer books, like the divisive 1979 BCP. So, I started this thread to discuss that prayer book and to address our concerns and what we think would make it better.

Here is a link from the Conciliar Anglican in which he defends (yet still critical) the 1979 BCP. What is interesting about this article is that Father Jonathan is a classical 39 Articles Anglican. No too many classical Anglicans are fond of the 1979 BCP and prefer the 1928 or even the 1662 BCP instead. Hopefully you all will find the article as interesting as I did and I hope to learn more about people's opinions/criticism/praises about this prayer book.

http://conciliaranglican.com/2011/04/22/in-defense-of-the-1979-book-of-common-prayer/

 

I used the 1979 BCP for many years and I grew to like the free-flowing language in rite two. However, as I now begin to use both the 1662 and 1928 BCP versions, I am beginning to prefer both over the 1979 BCP version.

Content aside (a very big aside!), I find myself leaning toward the 1662 because of the quality of typesetting, paper, binding, and printing from Cambridge; but toward the 1928 because of its frequent use in conservative parishes.

The new ACNA church I attend does not use a printed BCP, but puts the liturgy text in the weekly service program. In the back of the service program, there is a brief statement that the text used comes from the 1662 version. However, when I do some comparisons at home, I find text from all three versions of the BCP (1662, 1928, 1979) in the service program!!!

I think the reason they continue to print the liturgy in the service program, is "they" cannot agree upon which BCP version to use. This is very discomforting because we are getting away from one version--I guess we are creating a new version in our service program.

I have thought of voicing prayer for resolution on this matter during the service. But which prayer should come first? Our new parish has so many needs.

• Bibles in the pews (which version?)
• BCPs in the pews (which version?)
• Hymnals in the pews (which version?)
• Salary for a Priest (how much?)
• Remodeling of the second-hand non-Anglican church building (???)

...Scottish Monk

 

Sean,
I really appreciate the link to Fr. Jonathan's article. He puts things into perspective regarding the 1979 BCP.

I had posted the following on your other thread, but it is best discussed here:

It was interesting to find a claim that there is a connection between the Consecration of Gene Robinson and the use of the 1979 BCP. I'm not sure what I think of this claim, but I find it worth reading and worth considering.

The Prayer Book Society, USA: The Connection between the Consecration of Gene Robinson & the Use of the 1979 Prayer Book in the Episcopal Church

"Therefore the constant use of the pirated name of the 1979 Prayer Book and its commitment to the innovative, enlightened view of moral agency and human freedom made a major contribution week by week and year by year to setting the context wherein the Episcopal Church, which created the 1979 Book, went on to consecrate Gene Robinson. Of this man, Dr Turner writes: "Here is a unique individual, who is a self with a particular history, and a person who has a right to express his preferences and put his talents to work in the world he inhabits. To deny him that right on the basis of sexual preference is to deny him his personal identity." Of course, the ECUSA did not deny that right and Robinson is very comfortable with the 1979 Book."

I noticed that Fr. Jonathan said, "The fact that the reigning revisionists within The Episcopal Church have used the Baptismal Covenant for cover does not mean that it was designed for such a purpose."

That is very good to hear. We use the 1979 BCP in our Parish, and I certainly had not noticed anything to confirm the connection between the revisionist agenda and this particular prayer book. But then, I'm just a lowly Anglican with so much to learn.

[I've quoted Fr. Jonathan a number of times on the forums. I'm a fan. I have been surprised to find that I share many of his beliefs; even though as you said, he is a "classical 39 Articles Anglican."]

Sean, what is your opinion of the 1979 BCP? Do you see it as deliberately serving the revisionist agenda in any way?

Anna

 

The first difference I see between 1979 and our classical standard, the 1662, is characteristic 20th century optionality.

1979 is so chocked-full of options that it's difficult to know what the intention was. 1662 has one rite for morning prayer, one rite for evening, one rite for the litany, and one rite for communion. 1979 has three different possibilities for evening prayer alone (rite 1, rite 2, order of worship for the evening), and within the orders there are often rubrics like "may be said", or "can be added".

Though the words "Common Prayer" indicate praying in a specific group of people, they can also mean "prayers common to the whole church" - but with the 1979, it is impossible to say which Parish might be using whatever set of rubrics they choose to employ. It's hardly "Common" prayer anymore if there's an infinite variety, is it?

 

I don't mind the 1979 BCP. I think some of the changes made are pretty good, such as Prayer II in Rite I or the modern Eucharistic rites. I'd been using the 1928 BCP for so long that I have trouble with some of the odd changes they made to the Daily Offices, so I tend to have knee-jerk traditionalism in relation to the Offices but I use the 1979 BCP whenever I read MP in church. I tend to recite the 1928 portions of the liturgy that 1979 left out by memory, such as the suffrages or the part of the Te Deum they recast as "suffrages B".

 

Since the Great Litany is the only service in 1979 that has just one set form, it is the easiest to compare to the 1662.
I make 1662 the standard because it was the longest-serving prayer book of the Church, and is the mother of them all.

Red words are present in 1662 and not present in 1979.
Blue words are not present in 1662 and are present in 1979.

The responses are unchanged in 1979, excepting the first four.

1662 BCP considered with reference to the 1979 BCP

1. O God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth: Have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
2. O God the Son, Redeemer of the world: Have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
3. O God the Holy (Ghost) Spirit, (Proceeding from the Father and the Son) Sanctifier of the faithful: Have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
4. O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God: Have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

5. Remember not, Lord Christ, our offences, nor the offences of our forefathers; neither (take thou vengeance of our sins) reward us according to our sins: Spare us, good Lord, spare thy people, whom thou hast redeemed with thy most precious blood, and (be not angry with us for ever) by thy mercy preserve us for ever:
6. From all evil and (mischief) wickedness; from sin; from the crafts and assaults of the devil; from thy wrath, and from everlasting damnation:
7. From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and (all uncharitableness) from all want of charity:
8. (From fornication, and all other deadly sin) From all inordinate and sinful affections; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil:

[1979 reverses the order of Petitions 9 & 10 and creates a new petition using words merged from them]

1662
9. From lightning and tempest; from earthquake, fire, and flood; from plague, pestilence, and famine; from battle and murder, and from sudden death:
10. From all sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion; from all false doctrine, heresy, and schism; from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word and Commandment:
1979
9. From all false doctrine, heresy, and schism; from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word and commandment:
10. From lightning and tempest; from earthquake, fire, and flood; from plague, pestilence, and famine:
11. From all oppression, conspiracy, and rebellion; from violence, battle, and murder; and from dying suddenly and unprepared,

[Back to the 1662 numbering]

11. By the mystery of thy holy Incarnation; by thy holy Nativity (and Circumcision) and submission to the Law; by thy Baptism, Fasting, and Temptation,

[Petitions 12-14 are unchanged in 1979]
[Petitions 15-18 are removed in 1979, as they deal with the Royal Family of the United Kingdom]
[Petition 19 is unchanged in 1979]
[Petitions 20 & 21 are removed in 1979, as they deal with the civil government of the United Kingdom]
[Petition 22 ("bless and keep all thy people") is unchanged in 1979]
[Petition 23 is moved down in 1979 and replaced by:]

23. That it may please thee to send forth laborers into thy harvest, and to draw all mankind into thy kingdom:

[1979 changes the order of Petitions 24 ("give us an heart to love and (dread) fear thee"), 25 ("give to all thy people increase of grace (to hear meekly thy Word) to hear and receive thy Word"), and 26]

[Petition 27 ("strengthen such as do stand") is moved quite far down the list in 1979]
[1979 adds a petition for the President of the United States of America at this point]

The content of the new 1979 petitions necessitate a change in order of the remaining 1662 petitions. Listing them all would be superfluous.

CONCLUSION of the GREAT LITANY, 1662

Son of God: we beseech thee to hear us
O Lamb of God : that takest away the sins of the world: (Grant us thy peace) Have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God : that takest away the sins of the world: (Have mercy upon us) Have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God : that takest away the sins of the world: Grant us thy peace.
O Christ, hear us
Lord, have mercy upon us OR Kyrie eleison.
Christ, have mercy upon us OR Christe eleison.
Lord, have mercy upon us OR Kyrie eleison.

1662 rubric
Then shall the Priest, and the people with him, say the Lord's Prayer.

OUR FATHER
Priest: O Lord, deal not with us according to our sins.
People: Neither reward us according to our iniquities.
Priest: "O GOD, merciful Father, that despisest not the sighing of a contrite heart..."
SUPPLICATIONS
Priest: "O GOD, we have heard with our ears, and our fathers have declared unto us..."
Verses & Responses

1979 rubric
When the Litany is sung or said immediately before the Eucharist, the Litany concludes here [at the Kyrie eleison], and the Eucharist begins with the Salutation and the Collect of the Day.

On all other occasions, the Officiant and People say together:
OUR FATHER

[1979 order of supplications reversed]
[1979 makes the SUPPLICATION optional by these words:]

For use in the Litany in place of the Versicle and Collect which follows the Lord’s Prayer; or at the end of Morning or Evening Prayer; or as a separate devotion; especially in times of war, or of national anxiety, or of disaster.

1979 rubric
The Officiant may add other Prayers, and end the Litany, saying:

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore: Amen.

 

I forgot the Litany. They really tinkered with that one. I guess they figured that no one was using it anyway. In general, 1979 removes "miserable offenders" the rationale is that it's meaning has changed. I wish they would have come up with an alternative rather than deleting it. If you read the Commentary on the American Prayer Book, this will explain many of the changes made in 1979.

 

Isn't it interesting that they figured a commentary was necessary?

Then again, there's a 1722 book called A Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer, by Charles Wheatly, in which he comments on and defends the nature of the BCP. I doubt he had anything to do with its composition, though!

An addition to the Litany that I forgot to mention; it's the penultimate petition of 1979 before the conclusion:

Priest: That it may please thee to grant to all the faithful departed eternal life and peace:
People: We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

I think we can agree that this petition is utterly foreign to the spirit of the 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1662 editions

 

Well, they tend to drastically alter liturgy and that upsets people so they've issued commentaries on the last two prayer books (1928 and 1979 -- the 1928 was just as radical in its day!). I actually don't mind the 1979, even with its odd tinkering they did. I'd rather they left the Rite I services as much like 1928 as possible. I tend to do a hodgepodge sort of liturgy at home anyway. I use 1979 for most parts of it but I can't stand the Psalter or Litany in that book so I switch over the 1928 for them (the first one is completely rubrical, the 1979 allows any bits in contemporary language to be altered to traditional. The use of the Litany from 1928 isn't really allowed but oh well).

 

Hackney Hub...

Again, I find myself in debt to your posts <<although I sometimes speak out against them>>.

First, I was all up in the air because the new ACNA church I attend uses multiple versions of the BCP in the liturgy printed in the service program. And you come along and admit you do something of the same sort in the personal liturgy you do in your own home. Now, I really do feel better as I prepare myself for the morning's worship service. Thank you.

I also want to thank you for mentioning Marion J. Hatchett's Commentary on the American Prayer Book. Several years ago when I first began to use the 1979 BCP, I purchased <<and read>> Hatchett's Commentary. It was a chore, all 688 pages--almost as long as the 1979 BCP--but the Commentary has been quite helpful in many respects. I recommend the purchase to anyone using the 1979 BCP.

...Scottish Monk

 

I would careful about praying that we change from the 1979 BCP in the US. If there is to be a change, I would suspect that the new US BCP would not suit you any more than the current one,

 

Good advice.

...Scottish Monk

 

I watch services from St Patricks Cathedral (Anglican) Ireland, every Sunday morning. The liturgy seems so comfortable. All I have known is the 1979 BCP. What would be used in Ireland? It seems so beautiful compared to what I would hear in a ECUSA.

 

That would be the 2004 Book of Common Prayer of the Church of Ireland, it's available on their website. I agree, it's quite a good Prayer Book.

 

Great discussion so far! I'm with mark1 in the idea that we should stick with the 1979 BCP, rather than create a new one. It is tough to imagine what a new "BCP" would look like with the current regime.

With all its changes and faults, I must say that I don't mind the '79 BCP either. To me, the biggest fault is that it gives so much freedom that it runs really close to being a book of "uncommon" prayer. What I mean is, in many cases, two parishes' services could be quite different. There are just so many sub-variations within the individual rites that the idea of having "common prayer and worship" becomes quite difficult. As one of the blog readers pointed out, it almost feels like a collection of alternate rites and liturgies.

 

Lots of great comments on this thread.

Anna

 

Are there any thoughts on the New Zealand BCP (1997)?

...Scottish Monk

 

Scottish Monk, I do not believe there are any 1997 editions of the New Zealand BCP online for any of us to compare, because the copyright is presumably held by the Anglican Church of that country. Regardless of the reason, it is not available. Get some Kiwis in here to comment!

 

http://ireland.anglican.org/worship/

Thanks, I found this. Like I said I only know the 1979 BCP. With the other Anglican Churches in the USA, using different Prayer Books or a mixed portions, who would really have a say in a new BCP?

 

I'm not quite sure I get the question but ACNA has a very liberal prayer book policy right now. Basically anything that was used prior to the foundation of ACNA in its constituent parties is now authorized, until the new Prayer Book comes out, so you have a wide range of material in ACNA such as the 1928, 1979, Common Worship, REC 2003, An Anglican Prayer Book, etc. ACNA has a task force working on the new liturgy but I'm not sure how that process is going.