Common Worship

Why was the Book of Common Worship introduced and what kind of Anglican churches tend to use it? I'm in England so our standard is still technically 1662 BCP, but this has differed depending on the church and attendance numbers. I don't see the need for a revision of the liturgy though, so what is the BCW offering?

 

I am assuming you read nothing but Shakespeare, Elizabethan novels the BCP and the KJV, to ask a question like that. A taste in language a bit 'highbrow' though for most folks today. Are you a member of The Prayer Book Society?

The BCP language sounds poetically, soothingly comforting and very thou / thee / yea and foresoothy, (especially the psalter, which is even older than the BCP, and which I like more than even the KJV), but not that many poeople today ever use it to communicate or understand meaning with any more, except as audiences at Romeo and Juliet or The Merchant of Venice et. al. Getting wound up about Common Worship is Much ado about Nothing, in my opinion.

We simply have to accept that we are living at nearly the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth the SECOND, not the middle of the reign of Queen Elizabeth the FIRST, and we now nearly all speak a different language with different dictionary definitions to the words in it.

Oh, I haven't answered you question though, have I, "what is the BCW offering?"

Clarity of meaning to most of the congregation? Could that be it?

It may well be though that that beneficial 'offering' may be offset by its unfortunately 'mundane' language, but that is the fault of modern English not so much the fault of its usage in Common Worship. It is I admit ambiguously appropriately named, when compared to the Book of Common Prayer, due to the meaning shift in the word 'Common' over the last 400 years.
.

 

Yes, I understood the language changes but as far as I am aware the BCP has had language updates too, so I was assuming the BCW is offering something else. I never found the BCP language hard to understand, but then as most folks I grew up reading the KJV and so on. Some words here and there can confuse, but otherwise I find it understandable. That said, I've always been very good at language so it may be this way for me but for others.

Also, yes, I admit I'm a stickler for Mediaeval and sometimes Early Modern poetry and literature. I'm a history buff and anything after 1890 is hard to get me to read

 

Can you cite one? The current Book of Common Prayer dates from 1662 when King Charles II was on the throne. The language it was written in was far closer to Tudor Elizabethan English than Windsor Elizabethan English.

I presume you're aware we haven't jumped from the Book of Common Prayer to Common Worship. From 1966 onwards we have had Alternative Services Series 1, 2 and 3. Then in 1980 came the Alternative Service Book 1980. Common Worship came into being in 2000 so that's been around for over two decades now.

 

Yes, I'm aware of this. I thought the BCP editions from the 20th century, at least US ones (and these things tend to pass easily between the US and UK now) had updated language such as 'living' instead of 'quick', for example, in the Nicaean Creed. The books seem to have kept various Jacobean words, but updated it as well. They have been conservative with the second person singular, but if 'thou' and 'thy/thine' are confusing folks I'm not sure what to say? The BCW doesn't seem to have been well-received, it's not well-heard of where I am, and the BCP is far more well-known. My Catholic BF and I recently went to Evensong at St.Paul's, bearing in mind he'd never been to an Anglican service in his life, and he found the BCP 1662 totally understandable. This is someone who's not grown up with the KJV or BCP, so I'm still confused.

 

The Church of England failed to pass their 1928 proposed BCP through Parliament, as it was felt by Protestant MPs to be dragging the established church Romeward.
As such, liturgical revision couldn't be a replacement to the BCP, it could only be in the authorisation of others.
This means that the Alternative Services and the Alternative Services Book were free to use forms of liturgy not matching the BCP layout.
The Alternative Services Book was thoroughly opposed by the Prayer Book Society, not just on grounds of the majesty of the 1662 but that the modern rites were less penitential than Cranmer's liturgies.
The Prayer Book Society has successfully overseen a BCP revival in many parishes across England, and in the past few years it seems that the 1662 BCP has shared some of the fortune of the Tridentine Mass as people turned increasingly traditional in liturgical sensibilities during COVID.
Common Worship is generally not as poorly regarded by BCP supporters as the Alternative Service Book, and it's important to note that some material authorised for CoE use in the Common Worship series derives from the 1928 BCP that was failed to be authorised.

My position is that when traditional language brings majesty, use it, when it brings confusion, don't.
However, I don't think there should be two completely different forms of liturgy, rather the same liturgy should be used, either in contemporary or traditional English, as one sees with the ACNA BCP 2019 (not to endorse that particular edition of the BCP).

 

There are no BCP editions from the 20th century in England. You may consider the prayer book propsed in 1928 to be one but it retains the traditional Prayer Book language.

Obviously, there is nothing to prevent me or you here in England from getting hold of a Book of Common Prayer from another Anglican church. However, you must remember it is not an official liturgical book in the Church of England.

The abbreviation BCW is not really appropriate. It is my understanding it is called Common Worship (CW) and not the Book of Common Worship. I struggle to accept CW is not known where you are. It may be your parish uses the BCP for all services, some do. However, CW is widely used in the C of E.

When you say St Paul's I have to assume you mean St Paul's Cathedral in London; otherwise, you need to be more specific. It doesn't surprise me that St Paul's Cathedral celebrates Evensong according to the BCP. I believe all, if not the vast majority, of C of E cathedrals do. St Paul's Cathedral seems to celebrate a lot of services using CW. For example, the 8 am Eucharist on Sundays is the only Eucahrist for which they use the BCP. All others are, I assume, CW. It does not say so but if it specifically points out the Sunday 8 am Eucharistt in BCP the remainder must be CW, the sole remaining option.

 

There is nothing novel in this. It is only where the state has got involved and passed laws that there has been attempts to enforce one form of liturgy.

 

I realise that, but I think that it was correct for the English state to do so in the Reformation.
The problem was that the liturgy remained foreign for non-English speakers, particularly the Cornish.
Given that I have already said that I approve of having traditional and modern English editions, you'll probably not be surprised to hear that I support translation of the liturgy into the languages necessary to cover the nation.

 

Yes, but all the liturgies to which I refer were in English.

I do not think the C of E liturgy would've posed a big problem for the Cornish. The Cornish language went extinct in the 18th century.

 

I assure you that the imposition of the BCP on the Cornish DID cause problems, I've just been studying it at university.
The imposition of an English liturgy more foreign to the Cornish than the Latin Mass preceding it was a major factor in sparking the Prayer Book Rebellion.

 

I do not accept that because it makes no sense. Cornish, English and Latin are all in different language groups. Therefore, it is not rational to say English is more challenging than Latin.

How many people spoke Cornish between the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer and the language going extinct? If it went extinct the numbers who spoke it must have been falling. As Cornwall is a county of England I'm sure many people in Cornwall could understand spoken English.

The majority of them, like the rest of the English, would have been illiterate. They would not have been able to read the Book of Common Prayer in English or the Breviary in Latin. I am sure they would have been far more familiar with English than Latin.

 

It is not that English was more challenging than Latin, simply that, over the years they had gotten used to hearing Latin read in their churches, so, even though they did not know what the words meant, they would still know in which part of the service they were. This was no longer the case when the service books switched to English, which was deeply antagonising and made difficult the transition to Protestantism.

I recognise that this all sounds really rather odd in the aftermath of the extinction of the Cornish language, but I assure you that this is just one of the weird quirks of English Reformational history.

 

I do recall reading that the Cornish were annoyed at the publication of the Authorised Version as they couldn't read it (still, as they also couldn't understand Latin either), but I can't find a source for that anymore.

 

As I recall it, the Cornish had more problems with liturgy in English as they could not understand it.

 

They probably couldn't read Cornish either. People forget most of the population was illiterate then.

 

I simply do not accept this. Cornish was extinct by the end of the eighteenth century. A language does not become extinct overnight. It must have been dying for some time. That means the majority didn't speak it. Cornwall isn't some remote, isolated place. It's part of England. I'm sure many Cornish could speak English. I suspect they were as much interested in money as most. That would have meant trade with places outside Cornwall. That entails being able to communicate.

I suspect claims that people couldn't understand English is more a political claim than a factual one.

If the Cornish had wanted the Bible and Book of Common Prayer in Cornish they should have had it translated. Only they could have done it. These things cost. The Church was not going to pay for it to be translated for a very small number of people.

 

It would more likely have been an issue of the usually literate person, a priest or such, reading from it and the congregation not understanding; but I digress; I can't source this anymore.

 

Given that the BCP was imposed only around half a century since the 1st and 2nd Cornish rebellions, one must keep in mind that Cornwall's place in England was itself a matter of dispute.

 

"West Cornwall was inhabited by a population of Celtic descent, which was mostly Cornish speaking; the western part of East Cornwall was inhabited by a population of Celtic descent, which had largely abandoned the Cornish tongue in favor of English; and the eastern part of East Cornwall was inhabited by a population of Anglo-Saxon descent, which was entirely English speaking."
- Mark Stoyle The dissidence of despair: rebellion and identity in early modern Cornwall

"and so we the Cornyshe men (whereof certen of us understande no Englysh) utterly refuse thys newe Englysh"
- Article 8 of the Demands of the Western Rebels of 1549