In my early years church life was always liturgically old-line ritualist Anglo-Catholic. I grew up in a Knott Missal parish - until Holy Cross came out with the American Missal (date?). And for two years I was liturgist for the Diocese of Fond du Lac (than which there was no whicher!).

My personal preference was always the Anglican Missal (actually a lot of it was the book’s appearance - the American Missal seemed “cheap” with its bare white pages, ugly font, and curved corners while the Anglican Missal was on elegant ivory paper with bordered pages, etc.) I used the Anglican Missal from ordination (1957) until the experimental developments of the BCP in the mid 70’s.

Just recently I was present (for the first time in over twenty years) at a Solemn High Missal Mass - lacking only the Last Gospel. And the fussiness of it took me wholly by surprise. I was amazingly struck with the non-participatory aspects of it — something I never noticed during the twenty years when I used it myself. It seemed “operatic”: a theatrical piece to be observed appreciatively from a relative distance, a “heavenly production” (replete with MC as stage manager).

And I was struck with what I can only call the “unnecessarity” of it. It was well and smoothly done, and when it was finished I even felt the inclination to applaud, but it seemed a bit like a good drag queen’s performance. Just a little “too much”, just a bit “over the top”, just a “frill too far”. And in a very real sense it seemed strangely like a diminishment of the Eucharist. There was so much “else” going on that what I can only call the “clarity” of the Eucharist got submerged.

This is all very subjective, I know, and it does not involve a scholarly study of the texts such as you wonderfully always provide, but it did gave me a rare “outsider’s” view and I was truly surprised at my reactions.

We unapologetically do Solemn Masses at the monastery (ridiculed for it by some) - all generally BCP-faithful - but they seem to flow, not flutter. No censing of the altar at the Introit (does anyone else know that that was originally a censing of all the walls of the whole building, not the altar?); Graduals and Sequences chanted by the whole Assembly not the choir, no Gospel-kissing by the Celebrant, no ranked censings of everyone individually, no torches and incense at the Words of Institution, only one elevation - at the end of the Great Thanksgiving, etc., etc.

Well, now, I realize that I have been reflecting not on the RITE, but on the ceremony, so this is probably a bit off-theme for this thread, but, what the heck….

(I know you’re writing on behalf of and for Episcopalians but what of ecumenism? Do you really want to Novus Ordo-fy the Orthodox?)

No, I don’t want to “Novus Ordo-fy” them–but neither do I want to be one.

…bad old mediæval versions of the rites

I find that most historical-looking liturgies and liturgists seem to fix themselves in a particular time and place and I sometimes wonder if their criteria for selecting them make sense. We’re *not* the Christian historical society. We don’t do stuff because it’s old, we do it because it proclaims the Gospel. Our liturgies are the way they are not because we like dress-up and pretty smells but because it is the natural kinetic expression of the gathered assembly’s theology. Or it should be.

And the last is the link that church people are the absolute worst at. If that is truly what we believe, we need to do a much better job of teaching both new-comers and cradle Christians what it is we believe and how those beliefs are expressed in the liturgy.

But you already knew that.

I’m more familiar with the Knott Missal so I appreciate the in-depth look… and understand your trying to work within the Episcopal system liturgically (using the 1979 book)… very consistent with that church historically (hence the American Missal, even more Prayer Booky than this).

It’s an interesting bit of speculation, entirely believable… priests in 1549 probably did a lot of Sarum Roman things out of habit in addition to reading from the new book out loud.

That said…

You knew we’d disagree on some things.

…florid and over-wrought. Liturgical action is piled on top of liturgical action, it lacks a clarity of line and is drenched in piety of a certain sort which is not mine. I find it a bit *too* POD (“pious and overly devotional” for the non-Anglo-Catholics) for my tastes.

What in particular? Remember that this comes from my impressions rather than a true in-depth study; a careful examination of all the collects and prayers might prove me wrong BUT–I find it too stuck in Scholastic categories and obsessive on the notion of the utter worthlessness of humanity.

Except for the Scholasticsm (which I don’t dislike) you could have been describing the Orthodox Liturgy.

(I know you’re writing on behalf of and for Episcopalians but what of ecumenism? Do you really want to Novus Ordo-fy the Orthodox?)

The Anglican Missal chooses the late medieval; the most recent liturgical renewal the fourth.

Which Pope Pius XII criticised in Mediator Dei back in 1947.

If one wants to really do ‘early church’ go for it - have altars facing east in westward-facing churches so the congregation have their backs to the priest during the Canon, have the sexes stand apart like the Orthodox, have public confession of sins to the bishop and years of canonical penance and going without Communion for sins we hardly give a second thought to…

What’s that? The bad old mediæval versions of the rites don’t sound so bad?

There is nothing that says we can’t use it in the ELCA. I too would be curious about a church plant that starts off using it. It could work, as it is more adaptable than the LBW, though the green book has its charm.

I am still trying to figure out why we ELCA’rs are getting the short end of the stick with article VII. Last time I checked, that allowed for local variation, but wasn’t carte blanche to do whatever the hell we wanted. Of course, it seems I am in a defintive minority with that one.

Funny thing is that I seriously consider becoming Anglican from time to time (no secret there) for the very reasons you list. But I go back to the fact that I would just be jumping from one ghetto to another.

I may formulate a little something about the Breviary. I like some parts, dislike others. It may be a couple of weeks though…I still have to get something together for the new blog carnival LC is putting on.

This is a great analysis. Thank you. I’m in the middle of looking at the Benedictine Breviary edited by Maxwell Johnson.

Your analyis of the 1549 BCP is correct. Since we in the U.S. have used a recension of Laud’s Book (Scottish 1637 based and expanded on 1549) until 1979, we’ve always tended a bit more toward the catholic, but you’re right to point out the diversity of the Tradition and how various bits of it best serves (or do not serve) the Gospel in a given context and are thus recycled accordingly.

I think that the floridness of the Missal you describe sounds in-line with Sarum and other usages of the pre-Reformation period in England actually. The 1549 BCP is a cut version in many instances and recommends a return to the solemnity and brevity of Benedictine/Roman practice.

Being somewhat florid myself, it sounds like I would appreciate this Missal as offering an alternative development. Given that texts are recycled in our tradition repeatedly, I do wonder about the view through Victorian eyes and what is kept, cut out, etc. I’ll have to take a look for myself.

On the other hand, like you, I do not use other books for my personal prayer (note, I refuse to call prayer at home or in the office private) at home/office because my personal prayer should be that of the Church in a given locale–in this case TEC (the context within which I’m becoming a person), and I’m very careful and sensitive to what has bound us as Anglicans (and which if we lose sight of, will be our undoing)–common prayer. We are a broad lot, and not all of us are as florid as I and I’m respectful of that. I may use these other works as supplements, however. And sometimes do. The Roman Breviary, or local monastic breviaries, like that of Mount Angel Abbey, for example, are occasionally good resources as well. Many of my gestures are influenced by those from Mount Angel.

A fine phrase that captures the spirit of my own work (I hope):
And I believe that our best creative work is done not when we strike out on our own into new territory but when we intelligently and sensitively recycle and adapt elements already within the Tradition.

Also, I think ++Cranmer’s balanced understanding of sin in the PoHA and 1549 Canon generally prevents the “pride of humility” of which you note in the Missal. That’s as dangerous as really believing oneself complete cr*p. Neither are humility, but flipsides of pride because both do not properly see one’s place in the world.

I do wonder about supplements and the extent to which they are used however when so many parishes do not even embody the BCP on a regular basis anymore. Supplements and creativity seem to have replaced the BCP, and I’m disturbed by this.