Some may be aware that Abp. Haverland is the presiding bishop of the Anglican Catholic Church. On his personal blog he critiqued the 1979 American BCP. In recent months he has made several analyses of various prayer books in the Anglican world, which may be of interest to our members. https://anglicancatholicliturgyandt...4RX9mE45zRDPU_FtlbdjCQ1FF0qisHkj2UN741EUeOWvI
No disrespect intended toward the archbishop, but I found the critique to be rather weak overall. To summarize, his critiques were: The 1979 version of the "birthday" prayer implies that Prayer Book's "proscription" and "positive rejection" of "biblical, apostolic" teaching about abstaining from the world; The 1979 Prayer Book "radically softens the Prayer Book tradition's tone of penitence", though "it does, of course, of course, contain confessions and recognition of sin"; The abandonment of the ancient lectionary was damaging to piety and moved traditional devotion out of sync with traditional Western practice; The word choices of the 1979 Prayer Book are "not only not memorable, but also often have phrases that are frankly flatfooted or stupid"; It was "intended to be temporary" and the result of a mindset inclined toward "constant tinkering". 1 is a dramatic overstatement of the case. It is far more likely that the phrase was omitted because no American uses the word "unspotted" like that anymore. The phraseology was archaic so it was removed. The words weren't the words of St. James; they were the words of an English translation of St. James. 2 is incoherent. It also amounts to an "it doesn't go far enough"-style objection. Well, neither does the 1662, by a long shot, compared to some Eastern Orthodox liturgies for Lent, for instance. It's all about what standard one is adhering to. The 1662 is by no means the most penitential liturgy ever produced, and was itself a revision of a revision of a revision of far older, far more penitential liturgies. Were the attitudes in those liturgies "proscribed" as well because the Prayer Book system revised and reorganized them? Furthermore, the 1979 Prayer Book itself rules out the possibility of "implied proscription by omission" by its inclusion of the Preface from the 1789 Prayer Book, which stated: 3 I more or less agree with, but the move toward the RCL happened at a time when there was a lot more ecumenical optimism not only toward Rome but also toward a number of non-Anglican Protestant Churches as well. Part of being conservative about anything includes the belief that institutions and practices evolved the way they did because those developments were natural and preferable to the alternative(s) they displaced. The traditional lectionary itself didn't fall ready-made from the sky; it evolved over time, and there is nothing preventing the RCL from itself evolving over time toward something more like the traditional system it replaced, if indeed that is the most natural way to do liturgy. 4 is mere opinion. Eucharistic Prayer B in the 1979 Prayer Book contains some quite beautiful language that resonates with me very much: The phrase "that heavenly country" is a very nice echo of the KJV rendering of Hebrews 11:16: Note that the word "country" does not occur in the Greek; the use of that particular word was the contribution of the KJV translators, which the 1979 translators chose to include here, and which was not in the 1662 Service of Communion. 5 is partially true but also trivial. Every liturgy is meant to be enacted within a particular linguistic community and none of them are expected to last forever. The Archbishop quoted C.S. Lewis' Letters to Malcolm (ch. 1) in conclusion, to further buttress his case against "liturgical revisionism". The problem with this is that Lewis' liturgical conservativism had reference to the actions of the liturgy, not the words: Lewis also said a few lines later: I don't know anyone who would say the 1979 Prayer Book is perfect. It demonstrably is not, and there are many reasons to love the 1662. But it's a stretch to assume that someone with Lewis' sensibilities would have looked approvingly upon those who saw the Episcopal Church's adoption of the 1979 Prayer Book as a legitimate occasion for schism. There are much, much worse things to have to "make the best of" than the 1979 Prayer Book. It is a fine and profitable rule of prayer for those who endeavor to use it faithfully and obediently.