Posted on 01/20/2007 6:37:22 PM PST by sionnsar
The AMiA has published trial-use prayerbook. Order it here here
To see the Eucharistic liturgy check out this PDF file
I looked at the .pdf communion service. This looks like a very good effort indeed. How wonderful it would be for all believing Anglicans to have, once again, truly Common Prayer.Posted by Katherine on 01-19-2007 at 08:50 AM [link]
Not to spoil the party, but I am just so tired of contemporary language prayer books. I wasn’t in the fray of 1979, but this won’t win the hearts and minds of those who fought that prayer book wars in ‘70s.
A bad decision no matter how many orders are being placed. If you want a 1662, buy one from Cambridge University Press.
Posted by henryleroi on 01-19-2007 at 09:04 AM [link]
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. The evangelical wing just can't quite read John 6:47 et seq. as it stands . . .
But that's o.k. . . . it just explains why the Anglo-Catholics are more comfortable with Rome than with the traditional/breakaway wing of the Anglicans.
We all lived happily under one roof only by ignoring our differences. This controversy has brought them all out into the open, and that - as they say - was that. I don't think all the king's horses and all the king's men can put the Anglican communion together again.
Upon reading the pdf, the redaction of the Eucharistic prayer to merely the Institution narrative (by omitting the text in brackets) struck me as being very 16th century Lutheran.
Interesting read. No Epiklesis that I could detect. Was there one in earlier versions?
I do know that the inclusion of an Epiklesis was one of the "usages" which John Wesley and the "holy club" of Oxford advocated; although, ironically, Fr. Wesley did not include that in his 1784 "Sunday Service" which he attempted to introduce among American Methodists.
During my time attending an AMiA church, I became convinced that the church was strongly influenced by a group of covert Presbyterians seeking to harvest discouraged Anglicans and Episcopalians (along with a large number of seekers) to a prayerbook form of presbyterianism. Clergy, to some degree, is recruited from the Westminster Theological Seminary and the Reformed Theological Seminary, both hotbeds of conservative Calvinism.
The link in the post above was to St John the Evangelist AMiA church, which in turn has a link to the Westminster Theological Seminary Bookstore...
http://www.wtsbooks.com/
"The link above takes you to Campus Bookstore of Westminster Theological Seminary - "Reformed Books - Low Prices""
Featured selection:
What Are Election and Predestination? (Basics of the Reformed Faith) (Paperback)
$3.50 $2.80 SALE
It is wonderful to see the growth of the AMiA, but it would be helpful to see more truth in advertising by including the term "Calvinist" or "Reformed" in their name. But as you point out, the current controversy has brought the differences within the Anglican communion out into the open.
That being said, the BCP excerpt in the .pdf looks promising!
I meant to include you on the post above. Your perspective would be helpful.
Both Cranmer and Hooker would be considered strong Calvinists in today's largely anti-Calvinist climate (both within and without the Church). The Evangelical wing of classical Anglicanism, is, and always has been quite reformed...not to mention the very Calvinist theology in the 39 Articles.
Presbyterian as a word refers primarily to polity...and no AMiA type that I know of is pushing for presbyterian polity, with its 3 offices (Ministers, Elders and Deacons), so just because they are reformed--clearly a strong (if not the strongest) part of foundational Anglicanism does not in any way make AMiA churches guilty of false advertising. If they have more in common with Cranmer, Hooker and the 39 Articles than you, well, just who is more Anglican?
The Book of Divine Worship, the edition of the BCP approved by Rome for Anglican-use Catholics, is far inferior to some of the Anglo-Catholic adaptations of the BCP, such as the St. Augustine's Prayer book or the Anglican Service Book.
It makes use 1 of the 1979 BCP, plus it apes the Novus Ordo's Eucharistic prayers. "for all" in the consecration instead of "for many." Not to mention the inclusive-language Psalter.
I didn't mean to be offensive...I simply get tired of Christians acting as if Calvinism were some sort of disease or heresy, alien from the heart of the Reformation...when in many ways, historically and theologically, it IS it's heart.
Another word for "Anglican" is after all, Reformed Catholic--and yes, the "Reformed" part includes Calvinism--even if not of the the extreme Puritan variety.
Ping for revisitation at a better hour...
There is mention fairly earlier on in the comments that followed the original. I'd be interested to hear your commentary, K.
If this was what had been offered in 1979, there would probably not have been too much fuss. Still, if a thing ain't broke, no reason to keep messin' with it till it is.
No offense taken, and my use of the term "presbyterian" was entirely figurative. Anglicanism has always had Calvinist streams, sometimes as the mainstream. In the AMiA, Calvinism appears to BE the mainstream, and, at least in my experience, Anglo-Catholicism is generally discouraged. As other jurisdictions move to fill the vacuum left by TEC, some of these jurisdictions have sought clarity by adopting a stronger alignment toward Calvinism on the one hand and a more sacramental Catholicism on the other. As Anglicans continue to look for new jurisdictions, overt truth in advertising in this regard will be helpful.
But if it's a choice between clunky English and good theology, I know which way I'm headed.
(and it looks like the infamous "for many" is about to change.)
I did notice that the Creed still uses the innovative filioque. That's a shame actually.
Finally, there is a comment which indicates that The Church is not of one mind about the epiklesis. I think this is entirely untrue though I have heard this argument from Protestants before. The position is based upon the apparent lack of an epiklesis in the Roman canon. It is fair to say that it is not so obvious in the Roman Canon as it is in the Orthodox Divine Liturgies, but it is indeed there. "And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless, + consecrate, + and approve + this our oblation, to perfect it and to render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for us the Body + and the Blood + of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord." The NO Mass makes the epiklesis much more obvious, but to say that the Roman Canon does not contain it would mean that there was a disagreement on a most fundamental theological point within The Church, namely, Who (or who) makes the consecration take place. The Church was always of one mind here, that it is God Who effects the change. Since the Reformation, some have argued that the Catholic Mass is "magic" because it appears that it is the priest, sua sponte, who effects the change (whence comes the phrase hocus pocus). This idea that the priest has "magical" powers is a particularly unfortunate error but understandable given the "vagueness" of the epiklesis in the Roman Canon and particularly so when one considers that the absolution formula for the Latin Church's sacrament of Confession says "Absolvo te". Interestingly, the ancient English Sarum Liturgy contains virtually the same epiklesis as the Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostomos: "Therefore we beseech Thee, O Lord, to send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice, that He may make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and this chalice the precious Blood of Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, changing Them by the Holy Spirit." Anyway, the absence of an epiklesis can lead to all sorts of theological confusion and bolster the traditional Protestant position that the Eucharist really is simply a memorial of the Last Supper and not truly the Body and Blood of Christ.
It is my understanding that AMiA congregations were strongly encouraged to use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but many AMiA clergy find it too Protestant. This liturgy is also Protestant, lacking a strong epiclesis. In other ways it is well done, such as returning to the response: "And with your spirit."
Also, instead of providing a contemporary version of the Nicece Creed, it would have been wiser to provide the traditional version without the filioque clause, which continues to divide the Church. This revision misses an opportunity to offer an olive branch to those for whom this is a profound matter.
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.