“The Episcopal Church’s roots are deeply embedded in the Church of England,” said the Rev. Robin Biffle, rector of St. Mark’s. English settlers in North America used the 1662 Prayer Book before independence. “It is an interesting living artifact, too, because it’s still regularly used in England,” she said. “Anglican Churches from Aotearoa to Zimbabwe use books descended from this one.”
He, he – “living artifact”. Makes it sound like a liturgical coelacanth whereas, in fact, its just a normal part of many CofE parishes worship. In all the parishes I served, I think we used the BCP (1662) at least weekly.
I applaud this gesture to commemorate the 350th Anniversary of the 1662 BCP. Unlike most other Episcopalians and Continuing-Episcopalians the congregants will at least be able to say that they have been to at least one 1662 BCP service. The Anniversary is almost over and there has never been any mention of it by the Anglican Pretenders.
Driver8, it is virtually a liturgical coelacanth there are only the smallest number of churches in England which even offer any variant of any 1662 Service. Archbishop Cranmer, like Elvis, has indeed left the building; but never to return. I would rather that the hypocrites who pay lip-service to the 1662 BCP, and do not use it, would be honest and drop all reference to it, altogether.
driver8,
Thanks for the testimony. Is there any reliable way of knowing just how many churches in the CoE use the 1662 at all, or how often? On a wider scale, I would love to know how many Anglican provinces around the world actually use something very like the classic 1662 BCP, perhaps with some slight modernization of language (you know, sort of like the NKJV as a modest updating of the classic 1611 KJV).
As a member of the ACNA, which is committed to the Jerusalem Declaration by GAFCON that upholds the 1662 BCP as embodying classic Anglican principles of worship and doctrine but not necessarity as a standard for actual liturgical use, I must admit that I’ve been a little surprised that the FCA movement worldwide has seemed to make rather little use of the 350th anniversary as a way of promoting the continuing value of that classic book. But perhaps that only illustrates the old adage that a “classic” is a book that everyone wants to have the credit for having read and being familiar with, without in fact actually reading the book.
David Handy+
Churches claiming to “uphold the 1662” while not using at all make about as much sense as referring to Mohammedanism as a religion of peace. Genuine, routine use of the 1662 BCP in England and elsewhere is as dead as a door nail. However, you can be assured that were this 2028 there would be numerous celebrations of the American 1928 book. North America is the last place that there would be any support for using the 1662 BCP!
David,
A growing body of evidence does not not support your claim that the Anglican Church in North America is committed to The Jerusalem Declaration. This includes but is not limited to the ACNA governing documents, its “theological lens,” its ordinal, and the statements of various ACNA leaders. The GAFCON Theological Resource Group in Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today states, “The 1662 Prayer Book provides a standard by which other liturgies may be tested and measured…. The further removed a proposed liturgy may be from the 1662 Prayer Book, the important it is that it should be subject to widespread evaluation throughout the Communion.” Being Faithful is the official GAFCON/FCA commentary on The Jerusalem Declaration. It was produced to avoid conflicting interpretations of that document. There have also been a number of celebrations of the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Prayer Book in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. You may not have been paying attention.
All I can say is that wasn’t my experience. I served mostly in more rural dioceses but in every parish I served 1662 was used and to the best of my knowledge it was used regularly in all the neighbouring parishes. In my first parish the mid week communion was, I think, 1662 and we prayed 1662 evensong monthly and used 1662 for the 8 am communion. In my second parish we used 1662 for the weekly Sunday evensong and used 1662 once a month at the Sunday 8 am. In my third parish 1662 was used once a month for a Sunday evensong, every Sunday at the 8 am communion service and at a mid week communion service every week.
In think it’s fair to say that few parishes in my limited experience ever used 1662 for their main morning service. So though 1662 was regularly offered it was only experienced by a small proportion of the worshipping community.
Driver8,
You have a point, wherever 1662 services may have been offered from the mid-1960s they were attended by such a small number of mostly elderly people. The youngsters didn’t grow-up with it and they knew mostly Common Worship or something else. I knew of only two churches around London which served only 1662 Services. The rector of one of them retired this year and I don’t know whether his successor carried on. But it is all moot now. Be thankful you’re not stuck on this side of the Pond. There is absolutely nothing over here!
A monthly 1662 or 1928 which involved the whole congregation and not just the “early morning” people would be of immense benefit to all Anglican parishes. We should know what our roots are, and make sure our modern lives are connected to those roots. Sixteenth and seventeenth century English believers faced similar challenges when faced with pressures either to return to medieval practices or to discard much of tradition and follow some of the more radical reform groups.