Friday, June 10, 2011

Book of Common Prayer (2011): A Review


By Robin G. Jordan

The Book of Common Prayer (2011) was prepared by the Rev. Keith Acker of the Society of the Holy Cross (see note) for the Rt. Rev. Richard Boyce, Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of the West of the Reformed Episcopal Church. The BCP 2011 is intended “for trial use by the REC and the Anglican Church in North America for liturgical review.” A disclaimer on the copyright page states, “The trial version has not been authorized, at present, for general use except as permitted by the ordinary of each diocese.” The book is hardbound, 370 pages; published by Lava Rock Media, San Diego, California; and printed in China. The words “Common Prayer 2011” is printed on the spine, in imitation of the 1928 BCP.

An examination of the BCP 2011 reveals that the book is strongly Anglo-Catholic in its doctrine. This is immediately evident from the Table of Contents. Among its contents are sections entitled “On the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation,” “Sacrament of Confession,” and “Sacrament of Marriage.”

The lectionary for the Daily Offices is “organized for reading the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament over one year.” Most Prayer Books, historic and more recent, contain only limited selections from the Apocrypha. A number of Prayer Books have no selections from the Apocrypha at all.

The Feasts of Saint Mary Magdalene and the Feast of the Holy Cross, which are not found in the historic Prayer Books, has been added to the fixed Holy Days.

The Daily Offices are modeled after the Daily Offices in the 1979 BCP and are missing elements found in the 1662 BCP and the 1928 BCP. The notes describe the Holy Communion as being “the primary worship of Christians as the corporate people of God” and the Daily Offices as being for private devotions.

A noticeable feature of the Order for the Administration of Holy Communion, which is titled "Holy Communion," is the offering of the bread and wine at the Offertory and after the Words of Institution in the Prayer of Consecration, a feature of the pre-Reformation Medieval service books (and not the 1549 BCP) associated with the doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of Transubstantiation. The Lord’s Prayer follows the Prayer of Consecration and the Fraction follows the Lord’s Prayer as in the 1979 BCP. The Prayer of Humble Access and the Agnus Dei precede the Communion. These liturgical elements were removed from this position in the 1552 BCP because they were suggestive of a change in the substance of the elements and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Before the distribution of the Communion the Priest, with the Deacon, holds up the elements and says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, a liturgical element which is taken from the American Missal, and is associated with the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic practice of adoring the consecrated elements.

The rubrics in the section titled “Communion of the Sick” enjoin the practice of reservation of the sacrament and the carrying of the reserved sacrament to the sick. The rubrics stating that it is not necessary for a sick person to receive the bread in his mouth but only to believe that Christ died for his sins to be a partaker of Christ has been omitted.

The BCP 2011 makes provision for the anointing of the sick with blessed oil as well as the laying on of hands. The first practice is associated with the Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of Extreme Unction, which the Thirty-Nine Articles rejects as a corrupt following of the apostles. The BCP 2011 also makes provision for the Absolution of the Dead, another Roman Catholic practice.

The rubrics state that Burial Service is intended to be used with Holy Communion, in others word, the service is to be a Requiem Mass. The service includes prayers for the dead. Two pages from the Marriage Service—pages 135 and 136 are inserted into the Burial Service between pages 152 and 153.

The Ordinal contains a section titled “On Apostolic Order” that expresses an Anglo-Catholic view of apostolic succession and ordination, describing bishops as icons of Christ the High Priest, priests as extensions of the bishop’s priestly ministry, and deacons as icons of Christ the Servant (a view which is not found in the Scriptures nor may it be proved from the Scriptures). The Ordinal reverses the order of the ordination services of the 1661 Ordinal, placing the consecration of a bishop first. To the rite for the consecration of a bishop it adds the giving of a pastoral staff to the bishop, which was dropped from the Anglican Ordinal in the sixteenth century along with the giving of a pectoral cross, ring, and miter, and the anointing of the head of the bishop. The BCP 2011 permits the giving of these episcopal insignia and the anointing of the new bishop’s head. To the rite for the ordination of a priest it adds the giving of a chalice and paten. It permits the vesting of the new priest in maniple, stole, and chasuble, and the anointing of the new priest’s hands. All these practices were also dropped from the Anglican Ordinal in the sixteenth century. The BCP 2011 permits the vesting of a new deacon in dalmatic, maniple, and stole after his ordination, another practice that was dropped from the Anglican Ordinal in the sixteenth century. The reintroduction of these practices is decidedly a retrograde movement away from the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies and authentic historic Anglicanism.

The BCP 2011 contains two new Offices of Instruction that in their teachings depart from the Catechism of the 1662 BCP. These two Offices of Instruction teach a variation of the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice (p. 355) and identify five other sacraments beside Baptism and the Lord’s Supper—Confirmation, Marriage, Unction, Confession, and Holy Orders. In other words, they teach the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic sacramental system. They describe priests as mediators between the congregation and God. “He is to make visible Jesus Christ the High Priest, making intercessions and offerings on our behalf.” This is the Roman Catholic view of the role of a presbyter—that of a sacrificing priest. The giving of “the cup with the bread” to the new priest after his ordination supports this conclusion.

The different sections of the BCP 2011 crowd each other. The explanatory notes could have been better organized. In a number of places it is difficult to tell if what is printed is a part of the service or explanatory notes.

A number of errors and omissions were made when the book was printed. This includes the positioning of the Collect for Purity after the Acclamation at the beginning of the order for Holy Communion rather than before the direction to stand. The errata that accompanies the book states that the Collect for Purity is intended to be a private prayer of preparation for the priest and not a part of the service. In other more recent service books the rubrics permit the congregation to join the priest in this prayer.

Two requisites of good liturgy are sound doctrine and the eloquent use of language. The BCP 2011, like a number of more recent service books, fails to successfully combine these requisites. The doctrine of the BCP 2011 is not only defective from the standpoint of the historic Anglican formularies and authentic historic Anglicanism but also its use of language is inferior to a number of other more recent service books that I have examined. The language of the BCP 2011 is flat and awkward. It does not flow easily from the tongue when read and lacks other qualities of good liturgical English.

The BCP 2011 is poorly bound and is not likely to stand up well to repeated use. The pages pull up from the stitching when turned and are likely to come loose with not much use.

The doctrine of the BCP 2011 is the antithesis of the principles of the founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church. The BCP 2011 is even further removed from the 1662 BCP than the 1928 BCP and 1979 BCP and even closer to the pre-Reformation Medieval service books and to the Roman Catholic Novo Ordo. Its adoption by the REC would represent a complete repudiation of its founders’ principles. If the ACNA adopts the BCP 2011 or even authorizes the book for widespread trial use, it will be further evidence that the ACNA has fallen away from the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies and authentic historic Anglicanism and is disingenuous in its affirmation of the tenets of Anglican orthodoxy identified in the Jerusalem Declaration. Archbishop Duncan’s anointing of the head of Bishop Foley Beech with blessed oil at his consecration points to liturgical elements from this book being already in use in the ACNA.

In future articles I plan to examine the changes that the compiler of the BCP 2011 has made in a number of texts from the historic prayer books and to look at other characteristics of this service book.

Note: A number of secret or semi-secret societies associated with Ritualism and the Ritualist movement were organized in the nineteenth century. Among the principal of these societies was the Society of the Holy Cross. The following description of the Society of the Holy Cross comes from A Protestant Dictionary, published in 1904.

This Society was founded in the year 1855. For the first eight years of its existence its statutes and rules existed only in MS. Admission to the Society is granted to bishops, priests, and deacons, and to bona fide candidates for Holy Orders only. No ordinary layman is admitted, and no women. Only those thoroughly devoted to the Romeward Movement are admitted into its ranks. The objects of the Society of the Holy Cross (commonly known among the brethren as the “S.S.C.”), as stated in its Secret statutes, are “to maintain and extend the Catholic faith and discipline, and to form a special bond of union between Catholic priests;” “carrying on and aiding mission work at home and abroad;” “circulating tracts and other publications;” “holding Synods and Chapters for prayer and conference” The “publications” issued by the Society to the public do not appear (with one or two exceptions) under its own name, but under that of “A Committee of Clergy.”

Those wishing to learn more about the Society of the Holy Cross and similar societies organized in the nineteenth century should consult the articles “Ristualistic manuals” and “Ritualistic secret societies” in A Protestant Dictionary.

The Society of the Holy Cross was responsible for issuing a number of Ritualistic manuals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Their main purpose was to bring back what the Church of England rejected at the Reformation, and to systematically teach nearly all the distinctive doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. These manuals were influential in the spread of Roman Catholic doctrines and practices both in the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA.

13 comments:

RMBruton said...

Thanks for this review. Buyers beware!

The Hackney Hub said...

We need an honest revision of the 1662 BCP, no tinkering! One that simply updates the language a bit while maintaining the beautiful prose and Reformed doctrine.

Chris Larimer said...

How would you have us follow the apostolic injunction of James 5:14? The prayer book of 1662 was highly defective in ignoring that evangelical and salutary mandate.

RMBruton said...

The Protestant Dictionary says that, Prior to the Reformation infants in arms were often confirmed, as is the practice in the Greek Church. This superstitious practice was wisely abolished by our reformers and has never been revived. In the Roman Pontifical, the consecrating bishop, after breathing over the jar of oil three times in the form of a cross, exorcises from all evil spirits the oil, and then, mixing balsam with the oil, says, "Be this mixture of liquors atonement to all that shall be anointed of the same, and the safeguard of salvation for ever and ever." What must be thought of a system which considers the Atonement of the death of Christ insufficient and the anointing with oil a "safeguard" for eternal salvation? Surely any such so-called Christianity must carry with it its own condemnation.

Chris Larimer said...

I didn't ask what some protty-rotty dictionary polemicized. I asked what we should do with the Biblical command to have the elders annoint with oil when someone is sick and pray for their recovery, as well as for the forgiveness of their sins?

James 5:14 - just read it in the same plain sense that you read the Articles (except for the Royal Supremacy stuff). Tell me if you think the 1662 makes room for that. If not, it has a glaring deficiency in the pastoral offices which must be remedied.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Chris,

Let's put James 5:14 in its context.

"Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. (James 5:13-18 KJV)

As can clearly seen, the whole passage, including James 5:14, is about the power of prayer. Remember what Article 20 says. "...it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Not only must James 5:14 be interpretered in the light of its context, but James 5:13-17 must also be interpreted in light of what is written elsewhere in the New Testament.

James 5:14 is not a Scriptural warrant for the Roman Catholic practice of blessing oil, the doctrine and practice of Extreme Unction, or the Roman Catholic claim that Unction is a sacrament.

Nowhere in Scripture do you find any support for the Roman Catholic practice of blessing inanimate objects. Jesus did not bless the bread and wine at the Last Supper. He gave thanks to God. In the Bible only people are blessed.

The oil to which James 5:14 refers is common olive oil. It is used for a number of purposes in the Bible. The practice of anointing an injured or sick person with oil was not confined to the Jews or to local church's elders, which would have during the time of James have consisted of the senior members of the church.The Samaritan poured it upon the wounds of the man beaten by robbers and left for dead.

The omission of a form for anointing the sick with oil from the 1662 BCP does not make that Prayer Book defective. It certainly does not make it highly defective. On the contrary, the doctrine of the 1662 BBCP is both consonant with Scripture and with the Thirty-Nine Articles which themselves are consonant with Scripture. The latter reject the so-called sacrament of Extreme Unction for what it is--"a corrupt following of the apostles."

The 1662 BCP is one of the historic Anglican formularies along with the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1661 Ordinal. These formularies form the long-recognized doctrinal standard of Anglicanism as the GAFCON Theological Resource Group acknowledges and affirms in the Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today.

A Prayer Book that is itself a repudiation of the historic Anglican formularies and authentic historic Anglicanism, as is the Book of Common Prayer (2011), is hardly an appropriate service book for an ecclesial body that claims to be Anglican and further claims to affirm the Jerusalem Declaration. A Prayer Book that translates into today's English the services of the 1662 BCP and adapted them locally to the culture, on the other hand, would be highly appropriate.

Chris Larimer said...

Annointing of the Sick is not to be confused with the Roman practice of unction in extremis. Even they admit that it is a corruption of apostolic practice. However, there is more warrant for that sacramental action than there is for confirmation as given in the 1662.

Dont confuse an argument for restoring scriptural practice with Romanizing.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Chris,

The lack of a form for anointing the sick is not sufficient reason to declare the 1662 BCP defective unless you regarding that practice as more than a New Testament practice and treat it as a sacramental rite, if not a sacrament. Extreme Unction is a development of Unction and both are Roman novelties. James 5:14 ascribes no healing power to anointing but to prayer and ultimately to God. God is not tied by human actions as if he was a jinn who must obey the commands of whoever rubs the lamp. He may graciously answer prayer with healing but he is not bound to do so. God heals whomever he chooses to heal. Anointing with oil and laying on of hands are simply gestures of concern and goodwill. The New Testament gives more weight to prayer, not to the gestures that accompany it. The form for the visitation of the sick in the 1662 BCP, while cumbersome by modern standards, makes provision for prayer. The English Reformers recognized that anointing with oil was an apostolic practice but they did not find any evidence in Scripture that it was an apostolic ordinance, much less a sacrament, as the Church of Rome asserted that it was. If you look at the wording of the entire passage, James is not speaking in the imperative: he is not giving a command. Rather he is offering good counsel and the point of that counsel is that fervent prayer is effectual.

The confirmation rite in the 1662 BCP is consistent with the Reformed view of confirmation, which is that confirmation is not a sacrament or even a sacramental rite, but a catechetical rite--a rite at which those professing faith in Christ and ratifying their baptismal vows receive the prayers of the church. This view of confirmation is supported by the Thirty-Nine Articles interpreted in their plain, natural, and intended sense; the Homilies; and Alexander Nowell's A Catechism. While the Caroline divine Jeremy Taylor used sacramental language in his discussion of confirmation, the Caroline divine James Ussher regarded confirmation as superfluous.

JimB said...

Hi Robin,

This "BCP" won't be on offer to us TEC sorts, so I do not have a dog in this fight. But(!) as an observer, some of the stuff that went into it seems to be over the top to this (proudly liberal) affirming catholic. I was struck in particular by the doctrinal comments on the position of the clergy and the vestments.

FWIW
jimB

George said...

I have to agree Robin in terms of the wording of using the word "Sacrament". Removing the old wording "Solemnization" from wedding section. And "order" from confirmation etc.. is concerning.

I respect the practice private confession, however, the General Confession is sufficient for everyone in all cases and the pronouncement of Absolution by the priest. And referring to it as a "Sacrament" equal to that of Baptism and Holy Communion makes penance seem required.

As I have expressed in other posts about the 5 minor sacraments/mysteries they are allowed states of life. This is why they are in the BCP, but they are NOT Sacraments of the Gospel as the 39 Articles states. The precedent in the BCP is not referring to them as just Sacraments. It lends itself to much confusion.

Good post Robin. And I read excerpt I do not like the phrasing. It seem very awkward.

dannyiselin said...

Encroaching Catholicism in the REC is one of the reasons why I, a TEC defector, am hesitant to sign on, since REC parishes are the only ACNA affiliates in my area. Nobody seems to be holding the Protestant line.

I saw an episcopal consecration ceremony on Anglican TV with ABP Bob Duncan as chief (pontifical!!!) consecrator in which he conflated BCP 79 with BCP 1928 ceremony and added Roman Catholic annointing of hands. (Wouldn't be surprised if ABP Bob had a rosary in his pocket.) ACNA?? Nah!! I'll follow Sydney Anglicans!!!!!

Craig said...

Thanks for the review. Prayer books are like churches: none are perfect. I think this one is a useful contribution.

Anglican Orthodox Church said...

Excellent and factual review. I noted the same observations in my own examination of this 'book'. The language of the Book of Common Prayer, as well as of the Holy bible itself, are under constant attack from those who would have us depart from that Straight and Narrow path prescribed by God.