By Robin G Jordan
This article is a follow-up article to my article, "The Anatomy of a Flawed Rite: The Holy Communion Service of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer."In this article I continue my examination of the components of the 1662 Communion Service. Among the characteristics that these components share is that they have been added, omitted, moved, and altered in revisions of The Book of Common Prayer since the first English Prayer Book of 1549. The rubrics governing their use have also been changed.
To a number of these components belongs the unenviable description of “liturgical clutter.” In the centuries preceding the Reformation the liturgy acquired so many extraneous elements that it barely resembled the simple affair that celebrations of the eucharist had been in the early Church. At the Reformation much of this clutter was stripped away only to be replaced by even worse clutter in later times. In some Anglican provinces one of the purposes of Prayer Book revision has been to reduce the clutter. In other Anglican provinces, notably the Anglican Church in North America, the purpose of Prayer Book revision has been to add to it.
It is my hope that this article will help my readers understand why these components have been changed since the authorization of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, particularly in more recent times. Some changes have brought the Communion Service more into conformity with the teaching of Scripture and the doctrinal and worship principles of the Articles of Religion or have made the Communion Service more suitable for use on twenty-first century mission field. Other changes have moved the Communion Service in the opposite direction.
When the Restoration bishops drafted the 1662 revision, they incorporated most of the old Prayer Book into the new one. They retained the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the Communion Service.
The recitation of the Pater Noster and the Collect for Purity were originally a part of the priest’s private devotions before the pre-Reformation Medieval Sarum Mass. In the Medieval times the Pater Noster and the Ave Maria were repeatedly recited at every opportunity much in the same manner as we might recite a magical formula. They were recited as a good work “to make men meet to receive grace” or as a form of penance to outwardly express one’s repentance for having done wrong. Their repetition was connected to the Medieval belief that one could earn merit with God through such acts as reciting the Rosary, fasting, and other ascetic practices. The Pater Noster at the beginning of the 1662 Communion Service and its predecessors is a survival of the practice.
The 1785 Proposed American Prayer Book omits the initial Lord’s Prayer and begins with the Collect for Purity. Since 1789 the rubrics of the American Prayer Book have permitted the omission of the initial Lord’s Prayer at the discretion of the minister. Like the 1785 Proposed American Prayer Book, the 1979 American Prayer Book omits the initial Lord’s Prayer.
Since the 1958 Lambeth Conference a growing number of revisions of the Prayer Book make the Collect for Purity optional. Their omission reduces the clutter in the entrance rite without affecting the doctrine of the service. Several revisions also permit the congregation to join in saying the Collect for Purity when it is used.
Liturologists are still scratching their heads over the exact purpose of the Ten Commandment at the beginning of the 1552 Communion Service. A fixed Old Testament lesson? In imitation of John Calvin’s order of worship at Strasbourg? In Calvin’s order the Ten Commandments are followed by a confession of sin. The first of a sequence of elements that leads up to the General Confession? A catechetical tool for “the advancement of godliness”? Cranmer’s essays, “Concerning the Service of the Church” and “Concerning Ceremonies, why some be abolished and some retained,” point to that conclusion. One of Cranmer’s goals was to transform Edward VI’s realm into a godly kingdom. These are some of the theories as to why Cranmer put the Ten Commandments at the service’s beginning. We may hold to one of the theories over the others, but we really do not know exactly why.
As well as retaining the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect for Purity, the Restoration bishops also retained the Ten Commandments in the 1662 revision. They made a change in the rubrics directing the minister to turn to the congregation when rehearsing the Ten Commandments.
Do we need to read the Ten Commandments at every Communion Service on Sunday and feast day? Since the late seventeenth century the conclusion has been “No.” There is considerable evidence that the drafters of the 1689 Proposed Prayer Book intended to replace the Ten Commandments with the Beatitudes. The 1718 Non-Juror Communion Office replaces the Ten Commandments with Our Blessed Lord’s Summary of the Law, also known as the Summary of the Law or the two Great Commandments. The 1734 Non-Juror Communion Office omits both the Ten Commandments and the Summary of the Law. The 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office permits the substitution of the Summary of the Law for the Ten Commandments. The 1789 American Prayer Book permits the recitation of the Summary of the Law in addition to the Ten Commandments. In 1883 the following rubric was added to the 1789 American Prayer Book.
The 1954 South African Communion Office contains the following rubric:
The 1962 Canadian Prayer Book also makes provision for the substitution of the Summary of the Law and Kyries.
The rubrics of Holy Communion Two of the 2004 Irish Prayer Book make the reading of the Ten Commandments optional but recommend their reading during Advent and Lent. They permit the substitution of the Beatitudes or the Summary of the Law for the Decalogue.
The rubrics of PBUSA and AMiA’s Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (2006) and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) require the minister to read aloud the Ten Commandments at least once a month.
The rubrics of The Lord’s Supper, Form 1, of Common Prayer: Resources for Gospel-Shaped Gatherings (2012) makes the reading of the Ten Commandments and the Summary of the Law optional.
As we can see from these examples, the trend over the past 350 odd years is to give the Ten Commandments a more circumscribed role in the Communion Service, even to omit the Decalogue completely. Among the rationales for reducing their role or omitting them is that they emphasize law over grace, cause the service to get off to a slow start, contribute to the lack of flexibility in the service, and give an unnecessarily penitential tone to the beginning of the service.
Cranmer’s placement of the Gloria in Excelsis after the Post-Communion Thanksgiving in the 1552 Communion Service may have been influenced by John Calvin’s Genevan Communion Service. It concludes with a metrical psalm. Cranmer’s placement of a hymn of praise at the end of the service may have also been influenced by the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper. Before Jesus and disciples went into the night, they sung a hymn, a hallel psalm, a psalm of praise. It is one of the unique features of the 1552 pattern of the Communion Service. In its revision of the Roman Mass, the Catholic Church has borrowed the practice, The revised rubrics direct that the communion should be followed by a profound silence and then a song of praise.
In its 1785 Proposed American Prayer Book the Protestant Episcopal Church introduced the option of singing a hymn or doxology in place of the Gloria in Excelsis. This option has been an integral part of the American Communion Service since that time and several other provinces of the Anglican Communion have adopted the practice. The practice has also influenced a number of Lutheran service books including Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006) and the Lutheran Service Book (2006). The practice has ancient precedence. The Kyries or a variable canticle of praise was sung at the beginning of the liturgy in the early centuries of the Western Church.
The parting blessing at the end of the 1662 Communion Service was originally not a part of the service itself. In the earliest celebrations of the eucharist the service concluded with the distribution of the elements of the people and the deacons taking the elements to anyone who was sick and unable to attend the celebration. If the bishop were present, he would bless each member of the congregation before he departed. When the congregation grew too large for a bishop to bless its members individually, bishops adopted the practice of extending their hands toward the congregation and blessing the entire congregation instead of laying his hands on each member and blessing them. By the late Middle Ages the blessing had become a fixed element of the Mass. In the absence of the bishop, the priest blessed the congregation. In Rite II of the 1979 revision of the American Prayer Book the blessing may be omitted. The rationale is that a blessing is unnecessary since the members of the congregation have received the greatest blessing of all in the sacrament of the Holy Communion.
Some Anglicans have initially resisted Prayer Book revision. For example, the nineteen century Tractarians in the Church of England were opposed to even the smallest change in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, a service book to most of which they were able to give a Catholic sense. The nineteenth century Ritualists in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States also opposed any changes to the 1789 American Prayer Book, which would have made that service book more comprehensive in its doctrine. Later the Anglo-Catholic movement, which emerged from these two movements would take a lead role in Prayer Book revision, producing a generation of service books that were congenial to its doctrinal and liturgical views.
In upcoming articles I will be examining how Anglicanism is a set of principles, rather than a set of practices, and how Low Church ritualism can impede the cause of the gospel as much as High Church, Anglo-Catholic, and Broad Church ritualism. I will also be looking at how a confession of faith can help protect sheep from wayward shepherds.
To a number of these components belongs the unenviable description of “liturgical clutter.” In the centuries preceding the Reformation the liturgy acquired so many extraneous elements that it barely resembled the simple affair that celebrations of the eucharist had been in the early Church. At the Reformation much of this clutter was stripped away only to be replaced by even worse clutter in later times. In some Anglican provinces one of the purposes of Prayer Book revision has been to reduce the clutter. In other Anglican provinces, notably the Anglican Church in North America, the purpose of Prayer Book revision has been to add to it.
It is my hope that this article will help my readers understand why these components have been changed since the authorization of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, particularly in more recent times. Some changes have brought the Communion Service more into conformity with the teaching of Scripture and the doctrinal and worship principles of the Articles of Religion or have made the Communion Service more suitable for use on twenty-first century mission field. Other changes have moved the Communion Service in the opposite direction.
When the Restoration bishops drafted the 1662 revision, they incorporated most of the old Prayer Book into the new one. They retained the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the Communion Service.
The recitation of the Pater Noster and the Collect for Purity were originally a part of the priest’s private devotions before the pre-Reformation Medieval Sarum Mass. In the Medieval times the Pater Noster and the Ave Maria were repeatedly recited at every opportunity much in the same manner as we might recite a magical formula. They were recited as a good work “to make men meet to receive grace” or as a form of penance to outwardly express one’s repentance for having done wrong. Their repetition was connected to the Medieval belief that one could earn merit with God through such acts as reciting the Rosary, fasting, and other ascetic practices. The Pater Noster at the beginning of the 1662 Communion Service and its predecessors is a survival of the practice.
The 1785 Proposed American Prayer Book omits the initial Lord’s Prayer and begins with the Collect for Purity. Since 1789 the rubrics of the American Prayer Book have permitted the omission of the initial Lord’s Prayer at the discretion of the minister. Like the 1785 Proposed American Prayer Book, the 1979 American Prayer Book omits the initial Lord’s Prayer.
Since the 1958 Lambeth Conference a growing number of revisions of the Prayer Book make the Collect for Purity optional. Their omission reduces the clutter in the entrance rite without affecting the doctrine of the service. Several revisions also permit the congregation to join in saying the Collect for Purity when it is used.
Liturologists are still scratching their heads over the exact purpose of the Ten Commandment at the beginning of the 1552 Communion Service. A fixed Old Testament lesson? In imitation of John Calvin’s order of worship at Strasbourg? In Calvin’s order the Ten Commandments are followed by a confession of sin. The first of a sequence of elements that leads up to the General Confession? A catechetical tool for “the advancement of godliness”? Cranmer’s essays, “Concerning the Service of the Church” and “Concerning Ceremonies, why some be abolished and some retained,” point to that conclusion. One of Cranmer’s goals was to transform Edward VI’s realm into a godly kingdom. These are some of the theories as to why Cranmer put the Ten Commandments at the service’s beginning. We may hold to one of the theories over the others, but we really do not know exactly why.
As well as retaining the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect for Purity, the Restoration bishops also retained the Ten Commandments in the 1662 revision. They made a change in the rubrics directing the minister to turn to the congregation when rehearsing the Ten Commandments.
Do we need to read the Ten Commandments at every Communion Service on Sunday and feast day? Since the late seventeenth century the conclusion has been “No.” There is considerable evidence that the drafters of the 1689 Proposed Prayer Book intended to replace the Ten Commandments with the Beatitudes. The 1718 Non-Juror Communion Office replaces the Ten Commandments with Our Blessed Lord’s Summary of the Law, also known as the Summary of the Law or the two Great Commandments. The 1734 Non-Juror Communion Office omits both the Ten Commandments and the Summary of the Law. The 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office permits the substitution of the Summary of the Law for the Ten Commandments. The 1789 American Prayer Book permits the recitation of the Summary of the Law in addition to the Ten Commandments. In 1883 the following rubric was added to the 1789 American Prayer Book.
When one or more celebration of the Holy Communion is had in a church in the same day, the saying of the Decalogue may be omitted at the earlier Service, provided, the whole Office be used on that day. Note, That whenever the Decalogue is omitted, the Summary of the Law shall be used, beginning, Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith.In 1889 it was replaced by the corresponding rubric in the 1892 American Prayer Book.
The Decalogue may be omitted, provided it be said once on each Sunday. But Note, That whenever it is omitted the Minister shall say the Summary of the Law, beginning, Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith.The rubrics of the 1918 Canadian Prayer Book also make provision for the substitution of the Summary of the Law for the Ten Commandments.
Or, he may rehearse instead of the Ten Commandments (which however shall be said at least once on Sunday, and on the great Festivals, when there is a Celebration of the holy Communion, and that always at the chief Service of the day), our Blessed Lord’s summary of the Law as followeth.So do the rubrics of the 1926 Irish Prayer Book.
Or, he may rehearse instead of the Ten Commandments (which, however, shall be said at least once on the Lord's Day, and on the great festivals, when there is a celebration of Holy Communion) our Blessed Lord's Summary of the Law, as followeth:In 1936 the following addition was made to the rubrics of the 1926 Irish Prayer Book.
… provided the responses by the people as hereinafter set forth after each of the Commandments other than the fourth and the tenth may be omitted, in which case the response after the fourth Commandment shall be: Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.The rubrics of the 1928 American Prayer Book also make provision for the substitution of the Summary of the Law for the Ten Commandments.
The Decalogue may be omitted, provided it be said at least one Sunday in each month. But NOTE, That when ever it is omitted, the Minister shall say the Summary of the Law, beginning, Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith.The 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book has a similar rubric in its Alternative Order of Communion.
The Decalogue may be omitted, provided that it be rehearsed at least once on a Sunday in each month: and when it is so omitted, then shall be said in place thereof our Lord’s Summary of the Law.The 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, while the Book was not authorized by Act of Parliament, was approved by Convocation. Its use was permitted by a number of bishops in their dioceses in defiance of Parliament. When the Common Worship service book was authorized in 2000, it included the rites and services from the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book with the exception of the Order of Confirmation.
The 1954 South African Communion Office contains the following rubric:
Provided that the Ten Commandments be rehearsed at least once on each Lord's Day in Advent and Lent, they may be omitted at other times. When they are so omitted, then shall follow:The rubrics go on to authorize the substitution of the Summary of the Law, followed by the Kyries or the Kyries by themselves for the Ten Commandments.
The 1962 Canadian Prayer Book also makes provision for the substitution of the Summary of the Law and Kyries.
Then shall the Priest, facing the people, rehearse the TEN COMMANDMENTS or else the Two Great Commandments of the Law. The Ten Commandments shall always be read at least once in each month on a Sunday at the chief Service of the day.The rubrics of The Holy Communion, First Order, of An Australian Prayer Book (1978) permit the reading of the Ten Commandments as continuous whole without responses except the one which follows the tenth commandment, the use of a shorter form of the Commandments, or the Two Great Commandments, or on weekdays the Kyries. The rubrics of The Holy Communion, Second Order, of the same Book permit, in addition to the foregoing options, with the Ten Commandments or the Two Great Commandments the Kyries or the Kyries by themselves and, or the Trisagion.
The rubrics of Holy Communion Two of the 2004 Irish Prayer Book make the reading of the Ten Commandments optional but recommend their reading during Advent and Lent. They permit the substitution of the Beatitudes or the Summary of the Law for the Decalogue.
The rubrics of PBUSA and AMiA’s Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (2006) and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) require the minister to read aloud the Ten Commandments at least once a month.
The rubrics of The Lord’s Supper, Form 1, of Common Prayer: Resources for Gospel-Shaped Gatherings (2012) makes the reading of the Ten Commandments and the Summary of the Law optional.
The minister may read a form of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17) or Jesus’ declaration of the Two Great Commandments (Matthew 22:37–40).The Lord’s Supper, Forms 2 through 4 in the same service book omit the Ten Commandments and the Summary of the Law altogether.
Hear the commandments which God gave his people Israel.
1. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery; you shall have no other gods besides me.
2. Do not make any idol for yourself; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
3. Do not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days shall you labour and do all you have to do, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.
5. Honour your father and your mother.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not give false testimony against your neighbour.
10. Do not covet anything that is your neighbour’s.
After each commandment, the people may say Lord, have mercy on us and incline our hearts to keep this law. After the last commandment, or after the commandments have been read together, the people may say Lord, have mercy on us, and write your commandments in our hearts by your Holy Spirit.
or
Jesus said: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength’. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Lord have mercy on us, and write your commandments in our hearts by your Holy Spirit
As we can see from these examples, the trend over the past 350 odd years is to give the Ten Commandments a more circumscribed role in the Communion Service, even to omit the Decalogue completely. Among the rationales for reducing their role or omitting them is that they emphasize law over grace, cause the service to get off to a slow start, contribute to the lack of flexibility in the service, and give an unnecessarily penitential tone to the beginning of the service.
The latter has led to some more recent revisions of The Book of Common Prayer incorporating the Ten Commandments into a penitential rite consisting of the Decalogue, invitation to confess, confession of sin, and declaration of forgiveness and recommending its use during Lent and on other penitential occasions. Depending upon the particular revision, this penitential rite may be used before the service or at the beginning of the service. It is an optional rite, and the minister has discretion to use it at other times beside those that are recommended or to not use it at all. Its optional use enables the worship planners to tailor the service to the particular circumstances of the local church—an important consideration on the North American mission field.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is not only the sovereign of the realm but also the supreme governor of the Church of England. She occupies the English throne for life unless she chooses to abdicate in favor of one of her heirs or the English monarchy is overthrown. When the 1662 Communion Service is used in the United States, the two collects for the Queen should ordinarily be omitted. Their use in a country where Queen Elizabeth II is not the head of a state is inappropriate.
The American Prayer Book has historically had no equivalent of these two collects in its Communion Service. It confines prayers for chiefs of state and heads of government to the General Intercessions. If a prayer for Queen Elizabeth II as a Christian monarch is desired, the appropriate place for such a prayer is in the General Intercessions.
An edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in contemporary English in which these two collects are omitted and other changes are made due to the political situation of the country in which is used is not a translation of that Book. It is technically a revision. Americans using what they believe is the 1662 Prayer Book adapted for use in the United States are not using the 1662 Book. They have embarked on the path of Prayer Book revision. They can be expected to make other changes in the Book to adapt it to local circumstances as have previous generation of Anglicans.
A prayer before the reading of the Scripture lections is one of the oldest components of the Communion Service, dating to the fourth century at least. This prayer was normally preceded by a greeting. Cranmer dropped the greeting because the form used in the Pre-Reformation late Medieval services, “The Lord be with you; and with thy spirit,” was associated with the belief that ordination conferred upon a priest the special gift to absolve sins, transmogrify or confect the bread and wine of the eucharist into the body and blood of Christ, and to infuse the water in the baptismal font with the power to wash away sin. The Restoration bishops to their credit followed Cranmer’s example and omitted the Salutation.
One of the shortcomings of the 1662 Communion Service is that the service has only two Scripture readings, one from the Epistles and occasionally the Old Testament and the other from the Gospels. This was not a shortcoming when the pattern of worship in Anglican churches was Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion or Ante-Communion on Sunday morning.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is not only the sovereign of the realm but also the supreme governor of the Church of England. She occupies the English throne for life unless she chooses to abdicate in favor of one of her heirs or the English monarchy is overthrown. When the 1662 Communion Service is used in the United States, the two collects for the Queen should ordinarily be omitted. Their use in a country where Queen Elizabeth II is not the head of a state is inappropriate.
The American Prayer Book has historically had no equivalent of these two collects in its Communion Service. It confines prayers for chiefs of state and heads of government to the General Intercessions. If a prayer for Queen Elizabeth II as a Christian monarch is desired, the appropriate place for such a prayer is in the General Intercessions.
An edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in contemporary English in which these two collects are omitted and other changes are made due to the political situation of the country in which is used is not a translation of that Book. It is technically a revision. Americans using what they believe is the 1662 Prayer Book adapted for use in the United States are not using the 1662 Book. They have embarked on the path of Prayer Book revision. They can be expected to make other changes in the Book to adapt it to local circumstances as have previous generation of Anglicans.
A prayer before the reading of the Scripture lections is one of the oldest components of the Communion Service, dating to the fourth century at least. This prayer was normally preceded by a greeting. Cranmer dropped the greeting because the form used in the Pre-Reformation late Medieval services, “The Lord be with you; and with thy spirit,” was associated with the belief that ordination conferred upon a priest the special gift to absolve sins, transmogrify or confect the bread and wine of the eucharist into the body and blood of Christ, and to infuse the water in the baptismal font with the power to wash away sin. The Restoration bishops to their credit followed Cranmer’s example and omitted the Salutation.
One of the shortcomings of the 1662 Communion Service is that the service has only two Scripture readings, one from the Epistles and occasionally the Old Testament and the other from the Gospels. This was not a shortcoming when the pattern of worship in Anglican churches was Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion or Ante-Communion on Sunday morning.
When Parliament authorized the separate uses of these rites and services in the nineteenth century, one of the consequences was congregations heard less Scripture on Sunday mornings. From 1958 Lambeth Conference on Prayer Book revision has sought to rectify this undesirable state of affairs by the addition of the reading of a lection from the Old Testament or the Acts of the Apostles and a psalm or a canticle to Holy Communion services. This addition was not an innovation but a recovery of a practice of the early Church, which had fallen into abeyance during the Middle Ages.
One of the criticisms of contemporary Christian worship in the United States is that services have very little Scripture in them. This lack of Scripture is contributing to the problem of Bible illiteracy in the United States. The only Scripture may be the text of the preacher’s sermon, This text may not be very long—just a snippet from the Bible. Abandoning the early church’s practice of three Scripture readings and a psalm or canticle and returning to the Medieval practice of only two readings contributes to this problem. It reduces the amount of Scripture to which churches adopting the 1662 Book of Common Prayer or the 1928 Book of Common Prayer are exposed.
Cranmer himself was concerned about the problem of Bible illiteracy which was endemic in the sixteenth century. His solution was the reciting of the Book of Psalms in a month and the reading of the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice at the services of Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the week, to which the curate was required to summon the congregation by the ringing of the church bell. This solution, however, would be prove impracticable. Only a few parishioners attended the weekday services. The most Scripture that parishioners heard was on Sundays when they could be fined if they did not attend Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion or Ante-Communion.
Cranmer also recognized the importance of the reading of Scripture in a language which the people understood so that they would understand what was read and profit from hearing it. Churches that are adopting the 1662 Prayer Book or the 1928 Prayer Book are also adopting the King James Bible whose language a large segment of the American population does not understand. This is motivated by what may be described as a retreat to the past in reaction to a changing world. Rather than reducing obstacles to hearing the gospel for the unchurched segments of the US population, churches that are retreating to the past are creating obstacles to hearing the gospel for these population segments. They are giving priority to their preferences over evangelistic engagement. They are making their own contribution to Bible illiteracy in the United States.
While the 1662 Book of Common Prayer may be a historic formulary of the Anglican Church, it does not follow that it is the best Prayer Book for use on the North American mission field. Jesus commissioned his disciples, including ourselves, to spread the gospel and make disciples, not to promote a particular service book or translation of the Bible. As recently as February 4, 2021 Lifeway Research drew attention to how churches are creating barriers to the gospel with their preferences and traditions.
A peculiarity of the 1662 Communion Service is the position of the Nicene Creed. In the English Church the Nicene Creed followed the sermon until Cranmer moved it to a position immediately following the second reading in the 1552 Communion Service. This is the position that it occupies in the 1662 Communion Service.
One explanation for this move is the shortage of licensed preachers qualified to instruct the English people in the reformed faith at the time. The Nicene Creed as a summary of the articles of the Christian faith served in lieu of a sermon. The repositioning of the Nicene Creed and the first Book of Homilies were a stopgap measure to address this shortage. Cranmer’s services are more didactic in character than devotional.
In “Concerning Ceremonies” Cranmer articulates this principle: "For we think it convenient that every Country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition…." In his services we see a broader application of this principle. He does not confine it to ceremonies.
Since 1958 Lambeth Conference Prayer Book revision has either restored the Nicene Creed to its original position as an affirmation of faith after the sermon or given the minister discretion to use the creed in the 1552 position or its original position. In its original position the creed does not create an unnecessary delay between the proclamation of the Word in the readings and its exposition in the sermon. The readings are fresh in the minds of the members of the congregation. It also reduces the temptation to sing a hymn before the sermon, which has become a practice in the United States.
When the creed is sung or said before the sermon or the creed and a hymn are used, or a hymn is used by itself, the likelihood of the congregation having forgotten the substance of the readings by the time of the sermon is high. People’s short-term, or working, memories do not retain anything for any length of time. The creed and the hymn or a hymn alone will act like the birds that followed the sower of the parable and gobbled up the seed before it had a chance to germinate and sprout.
The rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service require the reading of the notices and announcement before the sermon, adding to the length of delay between the proclamation of the Word and its exposition and increasing the likelihood that the congregation will have forgotten the substance of the readings by the time of the sermon. Post-1958 Lambeth Conference revisions of the Holy Communion services move the notices and announcements to elsewhere in the service where they will not delay the sermon and disrupt the flow of the service.
In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer moved the second Lord’s Prayer to a position after the distribution of the elements from the position that it occupied in the 1549 rite, between the canon and the distribution of the elements. His rationale was to eliminate any pre-Communion devotions that were suggestive of the real, substantive presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements or which delayed the distribution of the communion. In the 1552 rite communion immediately follows the prayer for the communicants. The Lord’s Prayer follows communion as a post-Communion devotion. This is the position it occupies in the 1559 and 1604 rites and the Restoration bishops retained it in this position in the 1662 rite.
As Evan Daniel and others have observed, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer immediately after the canon, or anaphora, dates to the earliest years of the Christian Church. Since the Usager Non-Juror liturgies of the eighteenth century the trend in Prayer Book revision has been restore the Lord’s Prayer to its original position. Several more recent Anglican service books permit the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer after the General Intercessions or before or after the distribution of communion. If it is used after the General Intercessions, it is omitted in the Communion Rite.
In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer took what had been the Prayer of Oblation in the 1549 Canon and transformed it into a Post-Communion Thanksgiving. This eliminated from the Prayer before the Communion any reference to any sacrifice which might be interpreted as teaching the Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Christ through the priest offers himself on the cross. The priest’s offering of the consecrated bread and wine is more than a reiteration or representation of Christ’s offering of himself. It is the actual offering. The priest becomes Christ and the bread and wine, Christ’s Body and Blood offered to the Father for the sins of the world.
One of the criticisms of contemporary Christian worship in the United States is that services have very little Scripture in them. This lack of Scripture is contributing to the problem of Bible illiteracy in the United States. The only Scripture may be the text of the preacher’s sermon, This text may not be very long—just a snippet from the Bible. Abandoning the early church’s practice of three Scripture readings and a psalm or canticle and returning to the Medieval practice of only two readings contributes to this problem. It reduces the amount of Scripture to which churches adopting the 1662 Book of Common Prayer or the 1928 Book of Common Prayer are exposed.
Cranmer himself was concerned about the problem of Bible illiteracy which was endemic in the sixteenth century. His solution was the reciting of the Book of Psalms in a month and the reading of the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice at the services of Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the week, to which the curate was required to summon the congregation by the ringing of the church bell. This solution, however, would be prove impracticable. Only a few parishioners attended the weekday services. The most Scripture that parishioners heard was on Sundays when they could be fined if they did not attend Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion or Ante-Communion.
Cranmer also recognized the importance of the reading of Scripture in a language which the people understood so that they would understand what was read and profit from hearing it. Churches that are adopting the 1662 Prayer Book or the 1928 Prayer Book are also adopting the King James Bible whose language a large segment of the American population does not understand. This is motivated by what may be described as a retreat to the past in reaction to a changing world. Rather than reducing obstacles to hearing the gospel for the unchurched segments of the US population, churches that are retreating to the past are creating obstacles to hearing the gospel for these population segments. They are giving priority to their preferences over evangelistic engagement. They are making their own contribution to Bible illiteracy in the United States.
While the 1662 Book of Common Prayer may be a historic formulary of the Anglican Church, it does not follow that it is the best Prayer Book for use on the North American mission field. Jesus commissioned his disciples, including ourselves, to spread the gospel and make disciples, not to promote a particular service book or translation of the Bible. As recently as February 4, 2021 Lifeway Research drew attention to how churches are creating barriers to the gospel with their preferences and traditions.
A peculiarity of the 1662 Communion Service is the position of the Nicene Creed. In the English Church the Nicene Creed followed the sermon until Cranmer moved it to a position immediately following the second reading in the 1552 Communion Service. This is the position that it occupies in the 1662 Communion Service.
One explanation for this move is the shortage of licensed preachers qualified to instruct the English people in the reformed faith at the time. The Nicene Creed as a summary of the articles of the Christian faith served in lieu of a sermon. The repositioning of the Nicene Creed and the first Book of Homilies were a stopgap measure to address this shortage. Cranmer’s services are more didactic in character than devotional.
In “Concerning Ceremonies” Cranmer articulates this principle: "For we think it convenient that every Country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition…." In his services we see a broader application of this principle. He does not confine it to ceremonies.
Since 1958 Lambeth Conference Prayer Book revision has either restored the Nicene Creed to its original position as an affirmation of faith after the sermon or given the minister discretion to use the creed in the 1552 position or its original position. In its original position the creed does not create an unnecessary delay between the proclamation of the Word in the readings and its exposition in the sermon. The readings are fresh in the minds of the members of the congregation. It also reduces the temptation to sing a hymn before the sermon, which has become a practice in the United States.
When the creed is sung or said before the sermon or the creed and a hymn are used, or a hymn is used by itself, the likelihood of the congregation having forgotten the substance of the readings by the time of the sermon is high. People’s short-term, or working, memories do not retain anything for any length of time. The creed and the hymn or a hymn alone will act like the birds that followed the sower of the parable and gobbled up the seed before it had a chance to germinate and sprout.
The rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service require the reading of the notices and announcement before the sermon, adding to the length of delay between the proclamation of the Word and its exposition and increasing the likelihood that the congregation will have forgotten the substance of the readings by the time of the sermon. Post-1958 Lambeth Conference revisions of the Holy Communion services move the notices and announcements to elsewhere in the service where they will not delay the sermon and disrupt the flow of the service.
In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer moved the second Lord’s Prayer to a position after the distribution of the elements from the position that it occupied in the 1549 rite, between the canon and the distribution of the elements. His rationale was to eliminate any pre-Communion devotions that were suggestive of the real, substantive presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements or which delayed the distribution of the communion. In the 1552 rite communion immediately follows the prayer for the communicants. The Lord’s Prayer follows communion as a post-Communion devotion. This is the position it occupies in the 1559 and 1604 rites and the Restoration bishops retained it in this position in the 1662 rite.
As Evan Daniel and others have observed, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer immediately after the canon, or anaphora, dates to the earliest years of the Christian Church. Since the Usager Non-Juror liturgies of the eighteenth century the trend in Prayer Book revision has been restore the Lord’s Prayer to its original position. Several more recent Anglican service books permit the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer after the General Intercessions or before or after the distribution of communion. If it is used after the General Intercessions, it is omitted in the Communion Rite.
In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer took what had been the Prayer of Oblation in the 1549 Canon and transformed it into a Post-Communion Thanksgiving. This eliminated from the Prayer before the Communion any reference to any sacrifice which might be interpreted as teaching the Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Christ through the priest offers himself on the cross. The priest’s offering of the consecrated bread and wine is more than a reiteration or representation of Christ’s offering of himself. It is the actual offering. The priest becomes Christ and the bread and wine, Christ’s Body and Blood offered to the Father for the sins of the world.
It also rules out the notion that we play a role in Christ’s sacrificial activity in any way. We do not plead Christ’s sacrifice, nor do we offer our own sacrifice to God with Christ’s.
The focus of the Communion Service is upon what Christ has done and not what we are doing. In the sharing of the Sacramental bread and wine we commemorate and proclaim what Christ has done. We also feed spiritually upon Christ by faith and with thanksgiving. We then respond to Christ’s offering of himself on the cross with the offering of praise and thanksgiving and the offering of ourselves.
In the 1637 Scottish Communion Service the Scottish bishops adopted a Canon modeled on the 1549 Canon. They combined the invocation of the Holy Spirit from the 1549 Canon with the petition for the communicants from the 1552 Prayer before the Communion. Immediately after the Words of Institution, they added a “memorial or prayer of oblation” consisting of an anamnesis of Christ’s passion, resurrection, and ascension and the 1549 prayer of oblation. The Scottish bishops started what would be come a trend in Prayer Book revision in some quarters of the Anglican Church—the modeling of all or part of a consecratory prayer for a Communion Service on the 1548 Canon. The Anglican Church in North America’s Anglican Standard Eucharistic Prayer is the latest example of such a prayer. It bears a strong resemblance to the 1637 Scottish Canon.
A counter trend in Prayer Book revision has been to retain the 1549 Prayer of Oblation as a Post-Communion Thanksgiving and to simplify the language of the prayer. The wordiness of the original version of the prayer and its archaic and unfamiliar language has a tendency to put off modern-day congregations. The simplified version of this prayer has also been combined with a simplified version of the second 1552 Post-Communion Thanksgiving.
In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer reworded the Post-Communion Thanksgiving prayer from the 1549 Communion Service so that it could not be interpreted as upholding the doctrine of transubstantiation or any other doctrine of the real, substantive presence of Christ’s body and blood in the eucharistic elements. The 1549 prayer had been open to this interpretation. This can be seen from a comparison of the wording of the two prayers. (I have modernized the spelling, using modern British spelling.) First the 1549 prayer—
In the eucharistic rites of The Book of Common Prayer (2019) the Anglican Church in North America’s Prayer Book and Liturgy Task Force adopt the language of the 1549 prayer in their modern-English version of this Post-Communion Thanksgiving prayer with its inference that Christ’s Body and Blood are in the elements. On the other the Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel in their contemporary language version of this Post-Communion Thanksgiving prayer drop the reference to holy mysteries, simplifying the prayer and rendering it more translatable into modern idiom.
In the 1637 Scottish Communion Service the Scottish bishops adopted a Canon modeled on the 1549 Canon. They combined the invocation of the Holy Spirit from the 1549 Canon with the petition for the communicants from the 1552 Prayer before the Communion. Immediately after the Words of Institution, they added a “memorial or prayer of oblation” consisting of an anamnesis of Christ’s passion, resurrection, and ascension and the 1549 prayer of oblation. The Scottish bishops started what would be come a trend in Prayer Book revision in some quarters of the Anglican Church—the modeling of all or part of a consecratory prayer for a Communion Service on the 1548 Canon. The Anglican Church in North America’s Anglican Standard Eucharistic Prayer is the latest example of such a prayer. It bears a strong resemblance to the 1637 Scottish Canon.
A counter trend in Prayer Book revision has been to retain the 1549 Prayer of Oblation as a Post-Communion Thanksgiving and to simplify the language of the prayer. The wordiness of the original version of the prayer and its archaic and unfamiliar language has a tendency to put off modern-day congregations. The simplified version of this prayer has also been combined with a simplified version of the second 1552 Post-Communion Thanksgiving.
In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer reworded the Post-Communion Thanksgiving prayer from the 1549 Communion Service so that it could not be interpreted as upholding the doctrine of transubstantiation or any other doctrine of the real, substantive presence of Christ’s body and blood in the eucharistic elements. The 1549 prayer had been open to this interpretation. This can be seen from a comparison of the wording of the two prayers. (I have modernized the spelling, using modern British spelling.) First the 1549 prayer—
Almighty and everliving (or everlasting, in some printings) God, we most heartly thank thee, for that thou hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, and hast assured us (duly receiving the same) of thy favour and goodness toward us....Next the 1552 prayer—
Almighty and everliving God, we most heartly thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, which have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness toward us….The phrase “…feed us in these holy mysteries…” in the 1549 prayer infers Christ ‘s body and blood are in the Sacramental bread and wine. The phrase “… to feed us, which have duly received these holy mysteries…” in the 1552 prayer avoids this inference. In the 1662 revision of The Book of Common Prayer the Restoration bishops retained the 1552 prayer.
In the eucharistic rites of The Book of Common Prayer (2019) the Anglican Church in North America’s Prayer Book and Liturgy Task Force adopt the language of the 1549 prayer in their modern-English version of this Post-Communion Thanksgiving prayer with its inference that Christ’s Body and Blood are in the elements. On the other the Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel in their contemporary language version of this Post-Communion Thanksgiving prayer drop the reference to holy mysteries, simplifying the prayer and rendering it more translatable into modern idiom.
Almighty and everliving God, thank you for feeding us with the spiritual food of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Thank you for assuring us of your goodness and love, that we are members of his body, and heirs, through hope, of your eternal kingdom. Keep us faithful to your Son, and strengthen us by your Spirit to do the good works you have prepared for us to do for your honour and praise. Amen.Like the 1552 prayer, this prayer does not infer that Christ’s Body and Blood are in the elements. It not only preserves the doctrine of the 1552 Communion Service but also conforms to the doctrine of the Articles of Religion. The ACNA’s 2019 version of the Post-Communion Thanksgiving, however, does not. It represents an unreformed Catholic view of Christ’s presence at the Lord’s Supper, one which localizes Christ’s presence in the Sacramental bread and wine and which has a long association with the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Cranmer’s placement of the Gloria in Excelsis after the Post-Communion Thanksgiving in the 1552 Communion Service may have been influenced by John Calvin’s Genevan Communion Service. It concludes with a metrical psalm. Cranmer’s placement of a hymn of praise at the end of the service may have also been influenced by the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper. Before Jesus and disciples went into the night, they sung a hymn, a hallel psalm, a psalm of praise. It is one of the unique features of the 1552 pattern of the Communion Service. In its revision of the Roman Mass, the Catholic Church has borrowed the practice, The revised rubrics direct that the communion should be followed by a profound silence and then a song of praise.
In its 1785 Proposed American Prayer Book the Protestant Episcopal Church introduced the option of singing a hymn or doxology in place of the Gloria in Excelsis. This option has been an integral part of the American Communion Service since that time and several other provinces of the Anglican Communion have adopted the practice. The practice has also influenced a number of Lutheran service books including Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006) and the Lutheran Service Book (2006). The practice has ancient precedence. The Kyries or a variable canticle of praise was sung at the beginning of the liturgy in the early centuries of the Western Church.
The parting blessing at the end of the 1662 Communion Service was originally not a part of the service itself. In the earliest celebrations of the eucharist the service concluded with the distribution of the elements of the people and the deacons taking the elements to anyone who was sick and unable to attend the celebration. If the bishop were present, he would bless each member of the congregation before he departed. When the congregation grew too large for a bishop to bless its members individually, bishops adopted the practice of extending their hands toward the congregation and blessing the entire congregation instead of laying his hands on each member and blessing them. By the late Middle Ages the blessing had become a fixed element of the Mass. In the absence of the bishop, the priest blessed the congregation. In Rite II of the 1979 revision of the American Prayer Book the blessing may be omitted. The rationale is that a blessing is unnecessary since the members of the congregation have received the greatest blessing of all in the sacrament of the Holy Communion.
Some Anglicans have initially resisted Prayer Book revision. For example, the nineteen century Tractarians in the Church of England were opposed to even the smallest change in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, a service book to most of which they were able to give a Catholic sense. The nineteenth century Ritualists in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States also opposed any changes to the 1789 American Prayer Book, which would have made that service book more comprehensive in its doctrine. Later the Anglo-Catholic movement, which emerged from these two movements would take a lead role in Prayer Book revision, producing a generation of service books that were congenial to its doctrinal and liturgical views.
Evangelical Anglicans in the United Kingdom and the United States have championed Prayer Book revision since the nineteenth century, recognizing the need to make The Book of Common Prayer in use in their province more Protestant and Reformed in its doctrine and liturgical practices. They have also recognized that what may have been an effective tool for mission and evangelism for an earlier generation may no longer such a tool for their own time.
Twenty-first century Anglicans who are committed to upholding the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the Articles of Religion and fulfilling the Great Commission in North America recognize the need for a service book that not only embodies the teaching of the Bible and principles of the Articles but also will facilitate their efforts to reach and engage the unchurched and to evangelize and disciple them. The historic Prayer Books such as the 1662 Prayer Book, the 1928 American Prayer Book, and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book are not the best tools for furthering the church’s mission in the United States and Canada in the twenty-first century. They have limited usefulness from missional perspective. They also contain objectionable doctrine and practices. The more recent service books in use in North America—the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, the 1985 Book of Alternative Services, and the 2019 Book of Common Prayer also suffer from similar problems. Except for its use of modern-day English, the 2019 Prayer Book is a throwback to the pre-Reformation late Middle Ages.
It is a mistake to make Prayer Book revision into a bogeyman which must be avoided at all costs. Prayer Book revision may have a downside but it also has an upside. It can give us the right tools for advancing the cause of the gospel in this century.
In upcoming articles I will be examining how Anglicanism is a set of principles, rather than a set of practices, and how Low Church ritualism can impede the cause of the gospel as much as High Church, Anglo-Catholic, and Broad Church ritualism. I will also be looking at how a confession of faith can help protect sheep from wayward shepherds.
No comments:
Post a Comment