This is great, but I regret he fell into the conventional language of "traditional" vs. "contemporary" for the Rite I and II descriptions. Rite I is NOT "traditional"; it's Elizabethan (sort of), and in some sense "original" (when we're talking about Anglican prayer books). This dialectic continues to create enormous confusion for regular church members, and when articulated this way, creates dilemmas for congregations actively discerning liturgical forms. The Episcopal Church is desperate to recover a deeper meaning for the word "Tradition" than the way we conventionally use it in our parochial conversations. Thanks!

Don't be fooled by the so-called Elizabethan language used in the 1979 prayer book's Rite I. It contains the same radical departure from the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” as does Rite II.

Episcopalians for Traditional Faith (www.etf1928.org) supports the use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer within the Episcopal Church. The revisions in the '79 book and in subsequent rites and “trial uses” actually change the faith, splitting our Church into two religions — one Christian, the other secular. For example, the 1979 revision imparts a human, but not divine, nature to Christ (compare the Creeds in the 1928 and 1979), emphasizes social reform over repentance and forgiveness (compare Baptism in the two BCPs), and weakens the marriage vows (again, compare).

The 1979 book was only the beginning. The Episcopal Church has created a monstrous industry, turning out “prayer book” after “prayer book” in a publishing frenzy that makes Stephen King look like a piker. Today we have the Book of Occasional Services, the Enriching Our Worship Series, Changes: Prayers and Services Honoring Rites of Passage, and, yes, even the Hip Hop Prayer Book. (!)

The 1928 BCP is far superior to both the 1979 book as well as these aforementioned cut-and-paste liturgies.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer is one book, complete in itself, containing the entire liturgy based on holy scripture, unlike the later radically-altered spin-offs. It’s orderly, constant, and excellent in message and language. It’s all right there. Let it be the standard for your worship.

Jay Akasie

Fr. Matthew,
Thank you for a good educational tool...but,one small or, perhaps, not quite so small point...Do we really "perform" the Holy Eucharist? That word has too many connotations that I don't find helpful in association with this life giving feast.
Give Jehosaphat a hug - greetings from Lydia, Butch and Hoover.
Blessings,
Fr. Carlton Kelley

Well...since we are perusing...my phrase was that Rt. II was "more contemporary," suggesting that Rt. I has some element of "contemporariness" at least. But you are right that the whole BCP is a work of tradition. And a legit definition of "perform" is "to carry out in a formal manner or according to prescribed ritual." It isn't full-fledged, but at least it is accurate. The curse of short-hand emerges. If I worried about all connotations, though, I doubt that Jehosephat would be allowed on camera! So please forgive me. Hopefully my previous piece, Eucharistia, displays some of the life-giving side of things...?
Pax Anglicana!

Gee, I thought using common language that ordinary people understand was our tradition for common prayer.
As far as language is concerned that would make Rite II the traditional liturgy and Rite I something best consigned to the Historical Documents section of the BCP.

Rite II tends to reflect the most ancient eucharistic liturgies of the church, again making it traditional. Rite I is more reflective of the concerns of the Reformation making it a period piece and maybe not so traditional after all.

But then "traditional" tends to mean "what I'm used to."

Jay, my brother:

I was baptized according to the provisions of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. I was confirmed according to the provisions of the 1928 BCP. I was ordained, first to the diaconate, and then to the priesthood, according to the provisions of the 1928 BCP. I remember, and still have on my bookshelf somewhere, the variety of supplementary books that we needed because the 1928 (and previous) Prayer Books did not meet all our pastoral and liturgical needs. (E.g., the original edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts, the SSJE Manual for Priests, to say nothing of a variety of 'illicit' missals in various degrees of use.) The fact is that in 1925 the General Convention was tired of prayer book revision and cut the process off (thus just missing out on the work done in the 1928 English Proposed Book and the 1929 Scottish Book). Everyone knew that the job wasn't finished and in retrospect it's a little surprising that the 1928 Book lasted as long as it did. (Well, there was the War, after all!) Very few parishes actually used the 1928 Book "straight." The initial Prayer Book Studies attracted much attention and interest in the 1950s. The 1967 "Liturgy of the Lord's Supper" was a good effort, but fortunately we moved on (for one thing, it proved that we really were ready to move into contemporary English language, without completely abandoning the Tudor-Stuart linguistic tradition). I remember the joy, even glee, with which I took my just-arrived-in-the-mail copy of the (1976) Proposed Book of Common Prayer to our diocesan clergy conference -- I think I was the first one there to have received a copy. We were delighted with it. Mostly, it was what we wanted and were hoping and praying for. It wasn't perfect, and it isn't perfect now, but it was a major improvement, and resulted in a much greater degree of fidelity to the official liturgy, at least for a generation.

Jay, my brother, get a life.

Hmmm, Jay... "The faith once for all delivered by the saints"? Something tells me that when Saint Jude wrote those words, he didn't have a copy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer sitting next to his copies of the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets and the Wisdom Books (since the Bible as we know it didn't exist yet). Christian worship has evolved and changed over time. Peter, Paul and their brother apostles would undoubtedly be more shocked by the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, vis-a-vis their worship practices, than you are by the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

As for "radical departures," they are often in the eye of the beholder. Many in Christendom would reckon that the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its predecessors contain radical departures. For instance, check out the version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in it: it's not the same exact creed issued by the Second Ecumenical Council, and sealed as unchangeable by the Third Ecumenical Council. Yes, "et filioque" is a radical departure that bucks the universal, conciliar consensus of the Church for some.

Frankly, there's much to admire in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and other liturgical scholarship coming out of the Episcopal Church. The centrality of the eucharist and its drawing on the ancient patrimony of the Christian East are two things that come to mind. Its articulation of the baptismal covenant is another. And I've found plenty about sin, repentance and forgiveness in its pages -- along with the very biblical, evangelical assertion that we are our "brother's keeper" (what you think of as "social theology") and frequently need to be reminded of that in our culture of rugged individualism, consumption and convenience -- in some fine, clear, accessible and lively English, to boot!

Gregory Orloff