What is the difference between the different BCPs?

Hi! I'm new to the faith. I have read a few articles online and some claim that one year of the BCP is better than the other. Why do some prefer the 1928 BCP as opposed to the 1979 BCP?

 

1928 BCP is a classically Anglican prayer book, in the Scots tradition. It reflects more closely orthodox Anglicanism and traditional theology. It can be called more protestant, or more reformed, though it still is very much catholic.

The 1979 BCP was a revolutionary prayer book which modified the structure of the prayer book to reflect a much more Roman or Ritualistic style. It, in many places, promotes theology which is less than orthodox, but not necessarily heretical (heterodox).

 

I would object to the classification of the 1928 BCP as 'Reformed'. Much ink and blood has been spilt over such terms being applied every which way in recent times...

Look we have to understand that part of the reason why the Anglican world was in crisis over the last 100 years is because incorrect terms have been used and accepted and rent our beautiful Church into multiple camps or pieces. I mean sure if you're Dom Gregory Dix then the 1928 is 'Reformed' but to him nothing less than a Missal would be seen as Catholic, and since he was a founding force behind the (correctly labeled) revolutionary 1979 BCP (which I'd say is heterodox, or at least non-Anglican), Dix and any of his ilk are likewise revolutionaries and non-Anglicans, whatever their nominal Church classification may be...

Terms like 'Reformed' and 'Catholic' when used in the Anglican context carry an altogether different meaning than they do in the rest of Christendom. We should either go through the effort of clarifying that fact, or using those terms much more carefully.

In basic terms, to answer the OP, the 1928 is a standard, proper, classical 1928 Prayer Book. It is reformed catholic, and evangelical, and with ritual; it is everything properly and authentically Christian, in the noble tradition of Anglican Prayer Books over the Centuries...

The 1979 is a revolutionary Prayer Book similar to the 1969 Novus Ordo from the Roman Church; issued by subversive revolutionaries in order to detonate the Church from within. And this we have seen is precisely what happened to the Episcopal Church from the 1970s to the present day

 

Couldn't have put it better. Apologies if my wording was a bit liberal, I was attempting to not let my Continuing bias show through.

 

OK. I get that you don't like the 1979 book, replicated in all sorts of ways one way or another in just about every jurisdiction within Anglicanism including Common Worship, APBA, AAPB, NZPB ...... I am however not convinced that these were revolutionary prayer books, so much as a genuine and honest attempt to clarify the liturgy and align it more closely with ancient texts such as the Canon of Hippolytus. This move was common across a number of denominations in Western Christendom.

Yes, there are areas where I believe that the liturgies fall short, and I am sure that they need more work. However I do feel it is a bit unfair to suggest that they were issued by subversive revolutionaries in order to detonate the Church from within. There is of course the liturgy and then there is the way it is presented, and that may be some of the problem as well.

The woes of ECUSA and indeed much of the Communion in the West are not, in my view, so much about the liturgy, as they are about the response of the Church to significant social shifts brought about by a range of factors, including and not limited to the changes in western attitudes to sex, sexuality and family life, the changing role of work, the rise of entertainment as an industry, technology, and simply the rate of change in itself, amongst others. I feel that the liturgy is simply a reflection of a range of other issues, rather than a cause as such.

The question confronting the Church in the west is how do we be Church in a post-christian society?

Part of that answer must surely be to retain our identity and integrity, and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yet also we are called to speak the eternal truth in a way that will enable people in our wider society to encounter the true light which is coming into the world. This balance between the preservation of the sacred deposit of faith, and the inordinate lust for relevance in some way must not be reduced to an either or, for somehow we must have both truth and relevance.

 

I going to approach this question from a much more practical standpoint. For the average person in the pew, the primary differences they might pick up on are the location of certain parts of the service. Most notoriously, the Gloria in Excelsis has migrated to different places in the service over various editions of the Prayer Book. Is Humble Access said by the celebrant on behalf of the communicants (as the '28 rubrics call for) or, as local custom has often allowed, by all intending to receive the communion? Most of the changes in the Prayer Book have been on this order and deletions of a word or phrase, or adjustments to the lectionary.

What the 1979 represented was a move away from 'common prayer' by the multiplication of rites. This effectively served, over time, to divide congregations into sub-groups of worshipers based on their preference for Rite I or Rite II. Then, the music controversies of the last 30 years took their toll, so that in some congregations one may find three services: Rite I (nearly always the earliest service) with or without music, Rite II with music (this is usually the choir service if the congregation has one) and Rite II or a local use liturgy with 'Contemporary' music.

Then there is the Anglican Missal, which has its following. This was an attempt to move the Prayer Book back to the Roman Missal while retaining those particular prayers and devotions that were especially loved from the older BCPs, and throwing in some eccentric elements like a closing Last Gospel and Angelus, which are no longer even common to the Roman rite.

 

We have the last gospel every Sunday and its most edifying

 

I read the 1928, and it seems pretty clear to me.. there are many who adhere to the 1928 still, and there is absolutely nothing that impedes a high expression of their worship of God. This tells us that the 1979 was at the very least unnecessary..

That's an understatement! The entire Anglican theology of sin, grace, damnation, and salvation has been replaced by a warm gooey 'you're alright' pantheism. Just one eyewitness of someone who has seen the transition:
https://protestantfaceofanglicanism...s-cartoon-depicts-archbishop-randall-davidson

"In the case of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA, the 1979 Prayer Book, which supplanted the 1928 American Prayer Book, succeeded, almost overnight, in changing the theology, the regular worship, and the entire “feel” of the Church. (I was there, before, during, and after!) Gone was Original Sin"

I mean it's pretty much a matter of record. Dom Gregory Dix was a subversive revolutionary, and he sought to eradicate everything Cranmerian from the Prayer Book. Without Cranmer we are not Anglicans!

On the contrary, the liturgy is the highest expression of the Church in prayer, and through liturgy and through the Church does sanctification flow into the world. Destroy the liturgy, destroy the Church, destroy the world.

Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.

You can't destroy the lex orandi and still expect the lex credendi to remain. And if you want to see the lex credendi return into your midst, then you first must restore the lex orandi.. These iron and terrifying laws govern the world, my friend..

By bringing back the classical Anglican liturgy which deals with the Four Last Things and is harsh and horrible and beautiful and holy and transcendent!

 

Dear @anglican74 I am sorry I may have gone off a little louder than I intended.

I have had little experience with 1928. I grew up on 1662, and then in Papua New Guinea a localised rite in simpler English that I really enjoyed, and indeed for some of the time I worshipped in the local languages where essentially shape and form gave meaning to the rite, and I knew what was happening and was meaningfully involved nod by language but by action. We had a number of experimental rites in Australia before AAPB, which I think was a little earlier than 1979 usa. As a rite AAPB was serviceable, functional, however one was aware that something of the transcendent was falling out of favour. Our more recent rite APBA has accentuated that trend, somewhat. Australia is marked by the reality that the money and the power in many senses lies in the Diocese of Sydney which marches to a different tune sometimes making Zwingli look quite catholic. The result seems to be an odd accommodation where various dioceses have either a Diocesan Rite, or a plethora of Parish Rites. A complication of this has been that for some reason the copyright in the new Prayer Book (APBA) is vested in a company not the Anglican Church. This is less of a problem in Sydney where for numbers the Sunday Service may well be a non liturgical mix of study groups, singing, prayers, and whatever else goes into the mix. Of late there has been a bit of a move back to liturgical worship.

I personally doubt that the language of 1928 or 1662 is reasonable if we expect to engage the contemporary world.

I am not convinced that Dix was such a great sinner, and indeed I have learned a great deal from him. Much of contemporary rites have been highly influenced by the shape and form of the Vatican II rites. For the most part my view of contemporary Catholic (r) liturgy is that much of it is learning how to do the mass in the vernacular. To some extent they lost mystery to gain accessibility. Clearly there is a need for both. This is the problem of Anglicans who think that the grass is greener on the other side of the hill. We do need to treasure what is Anglican. An we need to engage in the business of being guardians of the sacred deposit of faith, and genuinely engaged in mission.

I know there are numbers who think that the TEC is on a highway to hell in a handbag, and I would certainly be prepared to question if they have the balance right (or Australia for that matter) and I am reminded of the words of Thomas Arnold on the eve of the Oxford Movement The Church of England as it is today, no human power can save.

The Lord be with you

 

I don't understand how the transcendant can fall out of favour with a Christian. Many believe that Vat2 decision to have the Mass in the vernacular has protestantised the Mass

 

Neither do I. It has to do with how much we are in control, and how much we are prepared to be immersed in mystery. Awe is one of the great casualties of contemporary worship. We give up on Immortal Invisible and in it's place we find Morning has broken. The westward position does add to our appreciation of God in our midst, the immanence of God, and I do not rubbish the validity of this, however I know we have lost something of the wonder of God who is beyond reaching.

Let all mortal flesh keep silence, and with fear and trembling stand,
ponder nothing earthly minded, for with blessing in his hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth, our full homage to demand.​