Support the Café

Search our Site

The Ordering of Prayer: Arranging the Eucharistic Prayers of the Next Prayer Book

The Ordering of Prayer: Arranging the Eucharistic Prayers of the Next Prayer Book

by Joseph Farnes


In the conversations about the next prayer book for the Episcopal Church, much attention is being paid to diversifying our language of God and humanity and to retaining both unity and diversity in our common prayer. What is not being considered at this time is how the next prayer book will be arranged.


Spending time with the entirety of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer shows how challenging the text can be to use. While it does not have the overflowing multitude of options as the New Zealand Prayer Book or the Common Worship materials in the Church of England (try putting together a service using either of those materials without having to use massive quantities of paper to print a full bulletin!), we do have many options without a clear sequence and structure for using them. This has left us a significant problem; how many people in the pews, let alone seminarians, could pick up the book and put together a service based on exposure alone? How do we explain Rite I and Rite II (in both the Daily Offices and in the Eucharistic Prayers) to people in the pews and help them to navigate the services… or do we pretend one rite doesn’t exist at all? How do we as clergy and worship leaders make decisions around which prayers to use, and how would we communicate them to the congregation without overwhelming them?


The arrangement of the current prayer book has left us needing to use larger bulletins to make all the leaps through the text to help newcomers and longtime parishioners alike. Yes, there are rubrics on each page that would be helpful if they were actually read, but either out of our own anxiety for visitors or out of ignorance of our own prayer book, we create longer and larger bulletins. This defeats our ability to teach the prayer book and its theology by repetition.


There is the additional problem of priests and worship leaders crafting words for the congregation to say which they have not had a chance to consider beforehand. The fact that the General Convention, in consultation with parish experience, has established our prayer book by actually praying it together at least gives a voice to the people in the pews. As it is now, the priest disregarding the prayer book is getting to put their own theology in the words (and mouths) of the laity.


The Rite II Eucharistic Prayers provide a helpful example. The 1979 Prayer Book offers four different Eucharistic prayers in Rite II. In my exposure, Eucharistic Prayer A is the “standard” with Eucharistic Prayer B as the “Incarnation” prayer. Eucharistic Prayer C is the “Star Wars” prayer and is decidedly creation-focused (and, everyone should note, is far and away the most penitential of the four), and Eucharistic Prayer D is the lengthiest and is generally associated with the holiest of our holidays or with occasions of Christian unity. Plus, how many parishes go to Rite I during Lent because “thee” and “thou” language is surely more penitential with its old-timey language?


There is, however, nothing in the prayer book that specifies which Eucharistic Prayer is to go with which occasion or season. Previous prayer books put the emphasis of the season squarely in the preface; the rest of the Eucharistic prayer did not vary. Two of the 1979 Rite II Eucharistic Prayers have set prefaces, meaning they do not vary with the season at all. The other two vary enough in the text following the preface that the preface’s language gets lost. This leaves the decisions on the prayers to be made solely by clergy and worship leaders. How many of them have such disdain for Eucharistic Prayer C (let alone Enriching Our Worship) that it is never used? How many worry that Eucharistic Prayer D is too long and thus abandon it entirely? How many will avoid Rite I because it is too “penitential” instead of appreciating the beauty of its syntax as poetry?


However, returning to the single Eucharistic prayer with varying prefaces seems an unlikely and, honestly, unsatisfying decision for three reasons. First, because Biblical and theological literacy has been de-emphasized in our culture, the Eucharistic prayers have to do the heavy lifting of educating people (Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, after all). Second, we can have different emphases at different points in the church year, allowing us to pray the seasons better. Third, the frequency of Eucharist means that a text that was formerly used monthly is now used weekly in most places, so wise variation in our prayers can be a serious benefit.


We can use this variation wisely to our spiritual advantage!


My simple suggestion is this: what if the prefaces for seasons led to a specific Eucharistic Prayer that went with the larger cycle of the church year? Advent and Christmas, for example, being part of the “Incarnational cycle” of the church year, would have a more incarnational emphasis in the Eucharistic prayer with the theological variation between the two seasons lying in the preface. The “Paschal cycle” of Lent, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost would have its own Eucharistic Prayer, with the prefaces giving voice to the penitential, celebratory, and anticipatory elements of the various seasons. The “Ordinary cycle” of the seasons after Epiphany and Pentecost would have their own Eucharistic prayer emphasizing the power of God revealed and working throughout creation, with prefaces varying, perhaps keeping our current prayer book variation of which person of the Trinity is being particularly commemorated.


This would apply not just for the church year but also for saints’ days and for pastoral occasions. We could include a “Sanctoral” Eucharistic prayer to encourage the observance of saints’ days, which would have the added benefit of helping us to pray through a theology of sainthood that is more expansive than “inspirational figures and famous firsts” – we believe that the saints are part of a wider fellowship in whom the love, life, and light of Christ shine out even in death! An additional “pastoral occasions” Eucharistic prayer would put the whole range of human life into theological relief. Marriage, sickness, and death reveal how God’s love works in our lives and these occasions bring us back to reliance on God in the midst of our mortal lives.


Perhaps a chart is in order to help clarify an example of the arrangement:

Season / Feast Preface Eucharistic Prayer Cycle
Advent Advent Incarnation
Christmas Christmas Incarnation
Epiphany Epiphany Incarnation
Season after Epiphany Father / Son / Holy Spirit Ordinary
Lent Lent Paschal
Holy Week Holy Week Paschal
Easter Easter Paschal
Ascensiontide Ascension Paschal
Pentecost Pentecost Paschal
Trinity Sunday Trinity Ordinary
Season after Pentecost Father / Son / Holy Spirit Ordinary
Baptism Baptism Of the Season / Sanctoral
Feasts of Christ Epiphany / Holy Week Incarnation / Paschal
Saints’ Days Preface of Mary, Martyr, Missionary, Apostle, Season, etc Sanctoral
Pastoral Occasions Preface of Marriage, Illness, Burial, etc Pastoral


This arrangement would create five separate Eucharistic prayers: Incarnation, Paschal, Ordinary, Sanctoral, and Pastoral. This would make the theological focus of the different Eucharistic prayers explicitly clear and it would tie them to the liturgical year or pastoral occasion, with the prefaces giving a particular emphasis due to the season. Clergy and laypeople would not be left guessing based on half-remembered and half-correct assumptions passed around in the sacristy or the seminary. We would retain variations but make them easier to navigate, and we would avoid the problem of clergy and leaders avoiding or favoring certain prayers at the expense of others. Furthermore, this ties together the seasons of the church year more closely. Lent, Holy Week, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost are windows into the same Paschal mystery. Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany are facets of the beautiful mystery of the Incarnation. Marriage, healing, and death are linked to the power of Christ at work in our lives and deaths.


(Side note: Perhaps, too, it would be wise to keep parts of the institution narrative, anamnesis, oblation, epiclesis and doxology the same between the Eucharistic Prayers, so that the congregation can know the words and order by heart. By keeping certain elements the same, it highlights the differences in the preface and prayers, and it also clears up ritual confusion. As much as we theologically understand that the order of the elements of the entire Eucharistic Prayer have varied over the centuries, we would do well to keep them in a consistent place and stop pretending that people in the pews are able to follow all these particulars of liturgical theology. Help the people pray.)


Two objections to this approach would be that it would diminish the ability of the priest to make choices and that it would stifle variation and diversity.


To the first objection, I answer as a priest: I would rather make the book easier to use for people in the pews and have the Eucharistic prayer reflect the grand mystery of God instead of our liturgical prayers being overwhelmed by choices that end up being largely arbitrary. As it is now, with the exception of Eucharistic Prayer B being the more “incarnational” of the prayers, we change them up simply to avoid boredom. We could create endless Eucharistic prayers and we as human beings would grow bored of them all. Perhaps the wisdom of the Daily Office can help us to appreciate repetition: if we come to our daily round of worship looking only for excitement and novel inspiration, we will be disappointed; if we come to our daily prayers looking to pray and to encounter God, we will be delighted. If we worry that the Eucharist needs to be exciting, we will always be running after more exciting entertainment in our worship. If we rejoice that truly God is present with us, then we will not be disappointed in our hope.


To the second objection, I would say that we would do better to include diversity in our prayer from the get-go. We should also to recall that it is impossible to say everything that could possibly be said about God. Trying to fit every single possibility into our prayer results in stilted language. We want our prayers to be poetry, and poetry is, by nature, evocative. Poetry says a little, and that little says more than a multitude of words. If we find ourselves perceiving a need for a new Eucharistic prayer for a diocesan convention, pastoral need, or special celebration, then we can carefully build on the formula of the prayer book’s settings instead of creating everything from scratch to try to fit all our own personal theology into it. Let us have Scripture and theology crafted into poetry for us to pray together.


Our next Book of Common Prayer will be guiding the next generations in the worship of God. The prayers we create and use will be written on hearts and lives. People will be praying those words week after week, in the brightness of life and the twilight of death. As we prepare it, we would be wise to craft not just poetic prayers that evoke and invoke the holy, beautiful, powerful majesty of God and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but we would be wise also to structure the prayers to make them easy to know and to pray from the depths of our hearts.



The Rev. Joseph Farnes currently serves as rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Boise, ID. He loves questions of liturgy, spirituality, politics, and how to be fabulous in all things. He earned his MDiv from Seminary of the Southwest in Austin, TX, and his BA in Religion from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA. He previously served as assistant rector at St Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Pittsfield, MA.



Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simon Burris

I do not think that we should apply “themes” to eucharistic prayer. All the topics you mention–sacrality, unity, Lent–are derived from the central reality of Christ. I think we should encounter Christ with as few “overlays” as possible.

Jon White

Effectively, each of the eucharistic prayers already has a “theme” in that each one expresses one of the different classical theories of atonement. The atonement is the one great undefined doctrine of the church since no ecumenical council ever decided the issue. That they are expressed in the eucharistic prayers is key reason I think it important to use all of them.

Thomas Rightmyer

I appreciate Fr. Farnes effort to make some rational sense of the different Prayers of Consecration and Proper Prefaces. I was ordained in 1966 and served through the time of revision – from the “little green book” of 1967, the “Green Book” of 1970, the “zebra book” of 1973, and then the Proposed blue book of 1976 and the “new book” of 1979 and following. When I arrived in Asheboro, NC, in 1974 I found a pile of green books “used for 6 months because the bishop told us we had to” and then set aside. I helped that church work through the various trial uses for the next 6 years. In 2017-2019 I served in Newland, NC, a joint Lutheran Episcopal congregation, one of about 100 in the country. Many joint congregations use a form of service from both traditions; Newland alternated the BCP and Evangelical Lutheran Worship. The Lutherans have 10 different musical settings of the liturgy, many alternative prayers, and a number of eucharistic prayers including the Verba – the words of institution alone – sometimes chanted. The ELCA offers the use of the Apostles Creed on the green Sundays of Epiphany and Pentecost and Nicene Creed in Advent, Epipiany, Lent and Easter seasons. In the Episcopal Church Eucharistic Prayer A seems to be used on the green Sundays and Prayer B from Advent to Pentecost. I have never heard Prayer C used without the addition of the wives of the Patriarchs, and rarely heard D used. I have tried to use both the New Zealand and the Church of England new rites and find them too confusing to use from the book.
The Expansive Language liturgy authorized by the last General Convention works well, partly because it has only a few verbal changes. I would like to hear of its use in congregations and would also like to hear of other efforts to worship in “Language understanded of the people.” I’d also like to hear of the progress toward more contemporary versions of the Spanish, French, and Creole Prayer Books.

Bruce Cornely

Gee! Can’t the “whoevers” finding something else to do. They apparently have not learned that diversifcation and pandering only lead to watering down theology and the purpose of COMMON prayer. People no longer have to LEARN to be Episcopalians but are now given their own opportunity to make changes in a church and forms of worship which have lead and inspired people for centuries. It doesn’t take a PhD to change thee to you or to add their own prayers. New prayers are added in the vernacular of the moment which merely give worshipers more things to dislike and by which to be offended. There is no overall political correctness as people have their own unique ways to be offended. The church and especially our COMMON liturgy should be above this. If people don’t like the Episcopal church there are plenty of options. Sadly, the only option for me has been virtually eliminated, that being THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH WITH COMMON PRAYER. Fortunately, I still have my 1929 Book of Common Prayer for daily worship. If changes or clarifications are to be made, God will make them in accordance with my ability to understand. I don’t need a committee of bored clerics with lay antagonists to make these decisions for me.

Grant W Barber

First, priests are making up prayers? “Rite III”? Second, I can’t for the life of me figure out how this would simplify layout for ease and welcome of newer people. I think I need a flow chart, a clearer explanation, or I need to recognize my own dawning senility–all 3 have real possibility.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café