I notice many traditionalists in America use and promote the BCP 1928 (as do I), which is indeed a beautiful and solid testimony of traditional Anglican liturgy. However, it is more "Catholic" than most other versions and is a departure from the 1662 version (though a closer relative of Cranmer's 1549 version). Why not instead push farther back and use the BCP 1789. It's the longest lasting prayer book in the US, in use from the birth of the US till just short of the birth of the 20th Century. It is a faithful revsion of the BCP 1662 and therefore more closely alligned with the international Anglican community. And it does not smack of the kind of Anglo-catholicism that marginalized the low-church movement. In fact, I wonder if the editorial license used to revise the BCP in 1928 may have unwittingly led to the era of liturgical chaos we see today where many national churches have abandoned the old 1662 liturgy for something else, something individual and unique. While many of these revisions and departures may be small or if large, may be comfortable from use over time, they run counter to the purposes for which the BCP was established in the first place, which it describes in its own words: "And whereas heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm; some following Salisbury Use, some Hereford Use, and some the Use of Bangor, some of York, some of Lincoln; now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have but one Use." ("Concering the Service of the Church") We are a people united in our worship, and it can be postulated that disunity and innovations in worship allow for disunity and innovations in the faith to creep into the church. What say you? Whay should traditionalists prefer 1928 over 1789? Certainly the Articles recognize that diversity in worship is allowed, I don't know if that means it's prudent.
Anglo-Catholics seem to have more for the 1928 BCP than the 1789. Being more of an 'evangelical' Laudian, high-church-protestant, I would prefer 1789 BCP were I American. Maybe the dropping of older prayer books is just one of those "we've gotten past that" modern snobberies.
I consider myself an "'evangelical' Laudian, high-church-protestant" too, which is why I asked the question. I am a fan of the 1928 version over the 1979 version, but if given my druthers, I'd go with the 1789 version any day...I've just never even heard of a group tinkering with the idea here in the US
At the least, here's most of it online to whet the appetite http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1789/1790/index.htm Probably there are copies floating around on Amazon and E-bay. I haven't seen any though, since there would be no need to print them after the 1892 American revision, and even less reason after the 1928 revision, and 1979. The fact that three newer BCPs have come out means that 1789-1892 is going to be quite rare.
The 1789 had some strange features, like the absence of the Magnificat and Nunc from Evensong and a very shortened version of the Benedictus at Morning Prayer.
Fair point, Hackney. Do you consider these shortcomings to be something that makes it less desirable as a text than say the BCP 1928(which also departs frow the 1662 in a number of ways)?