I have been reading Fr Martin Thornton’s work lately and I appreciate the good historical work you have done to help contextualize his positions on the Prayer Book “Regula.” What prayer book do you most frequently use?
I use the augmented 1662 the Office given in the Anglican Office Book. For Mass, when I’m not celebrating the Japanese rite, I use 1662 in the “interim order” (I.e. put the Gloria and Prayer of Oblation back in their proper 1549 place!). I’ve celebrated 1662 baptisms and weddings, and used its rite for the Visitation of the Sick, but as yet not taken a 1662 funeral.
I have mixed feelings about the venerable Prayer-Book, even though I hold great respect for it. I simply feel it eliminated too much — the Offices, which everywhere else were services offering praise to God, evening and morning, were converted into a vehicle principally designed for the reading of Scripture (without, unlike in the old ritual, interpretation from various Fathers). I've prayed both the 1662 ritual and the Benedictine Office in Anglo-Catholic translation, and the difference is stark; it's not so much a condensation or reformation as an entirely new liturgy with motifs from the old. (For the lay-person, this might not be too poor of an idea — Matins in the old ritual is truly titanic on Sundays!). On the other hand, it really does allow for one to interact with a large amount of Scripture and a reasonable number of Psalms daily... I just wish that it maintained more of the older ethos.
The Eucharistic service also concerns me, because it really does seem to imply a receptionist view. I understand many Anglo-Catholics have been creative in their understanding thereof (cf. Tract 95), but I still feel uncomfortable with the structure of the 1662; I think Dom Dix was right when he notes that this liturgy is the only one that truly embodies the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
I think the Prayer-Book is beautiful (I exclusively pray the Coverdale Psalter); it is just too Reformed for me! I've looked at the earlier revisions, and I'm certainly more amenable to the pre-Edwardian edition, but nevertheless.
Thank you for this helpful comment and clarification.
My feelings are likewise mixed about the office for holy communion in the 1662 book. I am uneasy offering it strictly as written, that is, without putting the prayer of oblation back in its place, before reception! I am not, however, convinced that it necessarily implies a receptionist doctrine of the sacrament, especially given the prayer of humble access and the rubric insisting on reverent consumption of remaining elements.
As for the Prayer Book office, it does indeed become a vehicle for the reading of scripture, but not at the expense of reading the entire psalter once per month. The seemingly ad hoc and rather limited use of the psalms in more modern offices always leaves me hungry for more. I agree with you too about the readings from the fathers and wider church tradition, there is nothing stopping anyone from adding such a reading after the third collect.
My loyalty is rather to the “Prayer Book tradition” than to any specific book. The principle of having a single book for Clergy and laity is important, not least to prevent the clergy from pulling the wall over the laity’s eyes. While I would personally favour some of the more Catholic-leaning prayer books of other provinces, such as the new ACNA book of 2019, the English Prayer Book is simply what we have in the Church of England, and until the church is in a sound enough state to revise it (I don’t think I would trust the present lot to touch it!), I see it as or inherited liturgy which, albeit with a little tweaking, it is helpful to maintain in a period of such great instability.
That’s broadly where I am. I’m certainly not a 1662 fundamentalist but I would still maintain that simply following the Prayer Book, for all its imperfections, gives a parish a more solid rule of prayer and Christian life than the pick and mix alternative of Common Worship.
It will not surprise you, my old friend, that I heartily agree with your objections to the stereotypes of pre-Reformation and Reformation spirituality. The idea of a vernacular Bible was not a clear ideological fault line: there are Anglo-Saxon translations of parts of the Gospels, the Lollards (of course) had pressed for an English Bible, and, although Tyndale was beyond the Pale, Coverdale owed him a debt in producing the Great Bible which Henry VIII was persuaded (without any great difficulty) to authorise in 1538/39, probably helped by a prominent portrayal of him on the cover. Equally, the decrees of Cardinal Pole's legatine synod at Westminster in 1555-56 included ordering an English translation of the New Testament to challenge Tyndale's and a vernacular catechism.
One other thing, of course, to which you allude, is that one of the causes of the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 was not just the theology of the new liturgy but its language, English: not only did many people in Cornwall still only speak Cornish (although a century of steep decline was about to begin), but its use of English was seen (correctly, of course!) as part of an English imperial project. This had really started in earnest with the Act in Restraint of Appeals 1532, drafted by Cromwell (who had been MP for Taunton in 1529, interestingly), and its famous preamble that "this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king".
Oh, you have simply touched on one of my specialist subjects (well, degree subjects). You’re quite right to mention Wales too: the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 were effects acts of union, or rather annexation (only repealed in 1993 and 1995!) and in part measures of Anglicisation of a country which was at that point still overwhelmingly Welsh-speaking. Although the Tudors sometimes played on their Welsh origins (Henry’s great-great-grandfather Maredudd ap Tudur had supported Owain Glyndŵr’s revolt against Henry IV and Henry V), Henry VIII was also aware that Wales was tantalisingly close to (Catholic, potentially rebellious) Ireland, and that his father’s successful campaign to seize the throne in 1485 had begun with a landing at Milford Haven. But then, as you will know, 16th century society prized conformity above almost anything else, so this project to make English law, language and religion uniform and universal was part of the zeitgeist.
Just so, which is why it so beggars my belief to hear people vaunt the Prayer Book as a triumph of diversity and liberation, when it was rather a means of uniformity and control. Whatever historically defines “Anglicanism,” admittedly an anachronism in the period we’re discussing, it is not freedom of choice!
I have been reading Fr Martin Thornton’s work lately and I appreciate the good historical work you have done to help contextualize his positions on the Prayer Book “Regula.” What prayer book do you most frequently use?
I use the augmented 1662 the Office given in the Anglican Office Book. For Mass, when I’m not celebrating the Japanese rite, I use 1662 in the “interim order” (I.e. put the Gloria and Prayer of Oblation back in their proper 1549 place!). I’ve celebrated 1662 baptisms and weddings, and used its rite for the Visitation of the Sick, but as yet not taken a 1662 funeral.
Wonderful! I also love the Offices in the AOB but I currently use the plain 1662. Magnificent liturgical practice!
I have mixed feelings about the venerable Prayer-Book, even though I hold great respect for it. I simply feel it eliminated too much — the Offices, which everywhere else were services offering praise to God, evening and morning, were converted into a vehicle principally designed for the reading of Scripture (without, unlike in the old ritual, interpretation from various Fathers). I've prayed both the 1662 ritual and the Benedictine Office in Anglo-Catholic translation, and the difference is stark; it's not so much a condensation or reformation as an entirely new liturgy with motifs from the old. (For the lay-person, this might not be too poor of an idea — Matins in the old ritual is truly titanic on Sundays!). On the other hand, it really does allow for one to interact with a large amount of Scripture and a reasonable number of Psalms daily... I just wish that it maintained more of the older ethos.
The Eucharistic service also concerns me, because it really does seem to imply a receptionist view. I understand many Anglo-Catholics have been creative in their understanding thereof (cf. Tract 95), but I still feel uncomfortable with the structure of the 1662; I think Dom Dix was right when he notes that this liturgy is the only one that truly embodies the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
I think the Prayer-Book is beautiful (I exclusively pray the Coverdale Psalter); it is just too Reformed for me! I've looked at the earlier revisions, and I'm certainly more amenable to the pre-Edwardian edition, but nevertheless.
Thank you for this helpful comment and clarification.
My feelings are likewise mixed about the office for holy communion in the 1662 book. I am uneasy offering it strictly as written, that is, without putting the prayer of oblation back in its place, before reception! I am not, however, convinced that it necessarily implies a receptionist doctrine of the sacrament, especially given the prayer of humble access and the rubric insisting on reverent consumption of remaining elements.
As for the Prayer Book office, it does indeed become a vehicle for the reading of scripture, but not at the expense of reading the entire psalter once per month. The seemingly ad hoc and rather limited use of the psalms in more modern offices always leaves me hungry for more. I agree with you too about the readings from the fathers and wider church tradition, there is nothing stopping anyone from adding such a reading after the third collect.
My loyalty is rather to the “Prayer Book tradition” than to any specific book. The principle of having a single book for Clergy and laity is important, not least to prevent the clergy from pulling the wall over the laity’s eyes. While I would personally favour some of the more Catholic-leaning prayer books of other provinces, such as the new ACNA book of 2019, the English Prayer Book is simply what we have in the Church of England, and until the church is in a sound enough state to revise it (I don’t think I would trust the present lot to touch it!), I see it as or inherited liturgy which, albeit with a little tweaking, it is helpful to maintain in a period of such great instability.
That’s broadly where I am. I’m certainly not a 1662 fundamentalist but I would still maintain that simply following the Prayer Book, for all its imperfections, gives a parish a more solid rule of prayer and Christian life than the pick and mix alternative of Common Worship.
It will not surprise you, my old friend, that I heartily agree with your objections to the stereotypes of pre-Reformation and Reformation spirituality. The idea of a vernacular Bible was not a clear ideological fault line: there are Anglo-Saxon translations of parts of the Gospels, the Lollards (of course) had pressed for an English Bible, and, although Tyndale was beyond the Pale, Coverdale owed him a debt in producing the Great Bible which Henry VIII was persuaded (without any great difficulty) to authorise in 1538/39, probably helped by a prominent portrayal of him on the cover. Equally, the decrees of Cardinal Pole's legatine synod at Westminster in 1555-56 included ordering an English translation of the New Testament to challenge Tyndale's and a vernacular catechism.
One other thing, of course, to which you allude, is that one of the causes of the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 was not just the theology of the new liturgy but its language, English: not only did many people in Cornwall still only speak Cornish (although a century of steep decline was about to begin), but its use of English was seen (correctly, of course!) as part of an English imperial project. This had really started in earnest with the Act in Restraint of Appeals 1532, drafted by Cromwell (who had been MP for Taunton in 1529, interestingly), and its famous preamble that "this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king".
Likewise the Welsh. You are far more learned in these historical matters than I, Eliot, so thank you for your insights.
Oh, you have simply touched on one of my specialist subjects (well, degree subjects). You’re quite right to mention Wales too: the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 were effects acts of union, or rather annexation (only repealed in 1993 and 1995!) and in part measures of Anglicisation of a country which was at that point still overwhelmingly Welsh-speaking. Although the Tudors sometimes played on their Welsh origins (Henry’s great-great-grandfather Maredudd ap Tudur had supported Owain Glyndŵr’s revolt against Henry IV and Henry V), Henry VIII was also aware that Wales was tantalisingly close to (Catholic, potentially rebellious) Ireland, and that his father’s successful campaign to seize the throne in 1485 had begun with a landing at Milford Haven. But then, as you will know, 16th century society prized conformity above almost anything else, so this project to make English law, language and religion uniform and universal was part of the zeitgeist.
Just so, which is why it so beggars my belief to hear people vaunt the Prayer Book as a triumph of diversity and liberation, when it was rather a means of uniformity and control. Whatever historically defines “Anglicanism,” admittedly an anachronism in the period we’re discussing, it is not freedom of choice!