Exactly what I thought. Way to go showing support for the Abp of ACNA!!
It would be good to know some of the theological reasons. Would he be happy with 1662?
The Powers That Be in the Liturgy Task Force updated rubrics from the 2013-2017 Eucharistic Instructions, apparently, to the surprise of Anglo-Catholics–who because of being traditional might not have trialed the ACNA liturgies over their 1928/79/ASB/CW to the extent that charismatic, evangelical, and broad might have:
2013-2017 Text:
“If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the Communion, it may be reserved for future reception in a safe place set aside for that purpose. Apart from that which is to be reserved, the Priest or Deacon, and other communicants, shall reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread and Wine either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal.”
2018 Revised Text:
If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the Communion, it may be set aside in a safe place for future reception. Apart from that which is to be set aside, the Priest or Deacon, and other communicants, shall reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread, either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal. The Wine shall likewise be consumed or reverently poured upon untrodden ground.
2019 1st Printing Text:
If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the Communion, it may be set aside in a safe place for future reception. Apart from that which is to be set aside, the Priest or Deacon, and other communicants, reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread, either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal. The wine shall likewise be consumed or reverently poured in a place set aside for that purpose.
1st printing retains the the disputed portion; however, CoB changed the rubric for the second printing (@ 15:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYIv_cG0hn0
CoB stepped in over the Liturgy Task Force and resolved that the first edition of the BCP given out at the Provincial Assembly needs changing in the 2nd printing, revising the last sentence of the 2019 to “The consecrated wine shall likewise be consumed except as authorized and directed by the bishop.”
2019 Second Printing Text is slated to be:
If any consecrated Bread or Wine remains after the Communion, it may be set aside in a safe place for future reception. Apart from that which is to be set aside, the Priest or Deacon, and other communicants, reverently consume the remaining consecrated Bread, either after the Ministration of Communion or after the Dismissal. The consecrated wine shall likewise be consumed except as authorized and directed by the bishop.
Frankly, I will admit, I had not done a sufficient read through of the rubrics to have noted that particular error (and error it is, and in the theological/sacramental sense). I am left questioning the final wording as voted “The consecrated wine shall likewise be consumed except as authorized and directed by the bishop.” How will Anglo Catholic, or for that matter, any traditional Anglican, remain in communion with any bishop who authorizes something other than consuming the consecrated wine? This is not a “Catholic” v “Protestant”, “second order” issue, but a violation even of the rubrics of the 1662:
“if any remain of that which
was conſecrated, it
ſhall not be carried out of the Church, but the
Prieſt, and
ſuch other of the Communicants as he
ſhall then call unto him,
ſhall, immediately after the Bleſſing, reverently eat and drink the ſame. ”
Apparently, before being too concerned with TEC bishops going to Lambeth, we need to worry about ACNA bishops not willing to live within the rubrics of the 1662. Is this some artifact from the TEC 1789, or something wedged into some later prayer book that I just never noticed?
I know of priests in a few dual integrity (one integrity, really) dioceses that will pour and bury extra consecrated elements (untrodden ground=suburban planters/greenbelts of rented facilities), respectively, and trained others to do so… So the 2019BCP and 2018 revision implemented a rubric to allow current practice in those places. I’m not sure where this practice started, but I have personally seen it taught.
Bishop Duncan seems to be an advocate of this practice (see video) and it took Anglo-Catholic opposition to limit this.
Really, not much shocks me anymore, when discussing Anglican practice, but this frankly horrifies me. This is the very much worse than women’s ordination, or the “Reformed” misunderstanding of anamnesis. No longer sure what ACNA parishes I dare attend outside of Quincy- which is unfortunately 400 miles away. Fort Worth, I assume, but it is even farther.
I had a long reply about a possible reason, but it is either lost or awaiting moderation (prob b/c of including youtube links).
Short version: possibly the Eucharistic rubrics currently found in the non-revised 2019 BCP. The disposal of consecrated wine is frowned upon in the Catholic Anglican circles.
Long version in my other comment.
As an outsider, what BCPs did/do ACNA parishes use pre-new prayer book?
1979, 1928, and 1662 probably in that order. My guess is it will take many years for the new book to get any traction if for no other reason than cost, familiarity, and satisfaction with what is presently used at the parish level. Rumor is some churches make it up as they go with loose guidance from a prayerbook.
Also worth noting our REC brothers and sisters, who have their own prayerbook.
The REC book has the Communion service from the 1662 (Americanized) with the 1928 as an alternate.
What I really mean was there are reports some of the Anglican praise churches don’t include a service from any prayerbook. They might substitute their preference for the Gloria when it is season, etc. Space might be made for a longer sermon. I have seen the Decalogue omitted not because it was forgotten but because the first Sunday of the month was overlooked. Made up for it the next Sunday.
What is a praise church?
Definitely more than rumour. Two young ACNA parishes I know in the south both use liturgies only loosely connected to the Prayer book. Less liturgy than an average Presbyterian church. The pastors just sat down and took (and deleted) what they liked and didn’t, and use it over and over, projected onto a screen. No approval, that I know of, from any bishop. The congregations are more or less wholly ignorant of the Prayer Book.
Well, all ACNA parishes have a bishop- although with all the networks and overlapping jurisdictions, figuring out which bishop requires detective work. The HoB needs to get to work on its own members if they want any manner of liturgical or theological order.
Can you tell us what the site is, or give a hint?
Definitely more than rumor.
The ACNA has had a series of trial versions out for several years. Our diocese mandated their use.
Is the “Common Worship” the bishop refers to the Church of England’s Common Worship?
An internet search tells me that this is indeed “Common Worship” from the Church of England, from the year 2000. I don’t know enough about it to have any idea where it differs from the new ACNA book.
Quincy is, I believe, a “high church” diocese.
Common Worship has a collection of Eucharist variations that renders the word “common” rather nonsensical. There are 2 “orders” of liturgy, each with a modern and a traditional variant and each variant has 8 different Eucharistic Prayers (Prayer A, Prayer B….Prayer H). Which totals out to 32 different liturgical options- spanning from Calvinism through to something that is quite akin to Vatican II, while maintaining a similar structure and order within the variations.
I haven’t spoken to anyone from Quincy since this was posted the other day. My understanding is that some Anglo Catholic jurisdictions have adopted one or more of the more “catholic” liturgies in Common Worship because that book is authorized for use in many of the provinces/churches with a CoE heritage (not all necessarily in the Communion) and this has provided a way for them to share a degree of liturgical unity that they would not have if using “local” prayer books.
From Quincy’s website:
Beginning Advent, 2011,Common Worship (Church of England– Archbishop’s Council,2000) will be the preferred basis for liturgies in all congregations in the diocese.Any variation from the published version of this book must be approved by the bishop prior to their introduction into use.
Also, Quincy is not only high church, but Anglo-Catholic in theology.
“Quincy is, I believe, a “high church” diocese.
The bishop is a Benedictine monk…take it from there!
Quincy posts the CW liturgies on its website for downloading.
It is worth noting that Bishop Ackerman of Quincy served on the BCP2019 Task Force as vice-chair. And Bishop Morales’ Secretary, Bishop Abbot Luis Gonzalez, served on the Task Force as well, working on the Daily Offices.
Update: Bishop Morales himself served on the Editorial Team of the Task Force!
Three bishops from Quincy served on the Task Force.
[…] There are a few things I can say as of now: 1) common prayer remains dead in Anglicanism (the ACNA Diocese of Quincy, who former Bishop is on the ACNA Liturgy Task Force, will be using the the English Common Worship […]
[…] insouciant but the ACNA has not mandated the Book’s use in its own churches, and in fact one diocese has already banned it! On the other hand we have Robin Jordan, who thinks that the book (and indeed the whole drift of […]
One last comment while this thread is still open-
Before making a judgment on the actions of the Diocese of Quincy and Bishop Morales, please find a copy of the letter written by Dr. Robert Munday, who is the Chair of the Standing Committee of the diocese. (Yes, indeed the same Dr. Robert Munday who many of us remember as Dean of Nashotah House in the first decade of this century). He gives some details on the reasons that led to the decision to retain Common Worship as the standard liturgical text.
[…] 2019 Book of Common Prayer, I made mention that the Diocese of Quincy had banned its use (as had Anglican Ink.) There has been some push back to that, from VirtueOnline and Robin Jordan, that this is not […]
Wait – doesn’t every ACNA parish use the missal?! What is “The Book of Common Prayer?”
Wow! Team player!
Exactly what I thought. Way to go showing support for the Abp of ACNA!!
It would be good to know some of the theological reasons. Would he be happy with 1662?
The Powers That Be in the Liturgy Task Force updated rubrics from the 2013-2017 Eucharistic Instructions, apparently, to the surprise of Anglo-Catholics–who because of being traditional might not have trialed the ACNA liturgies over their 1928/79/ASB/CW to the extent that charismatic, evangelical, and broad might have:
2013-2017 Text:
2018 Revised Text:
2019 1st Printing Text:
Why does this matter to ACs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzs2RbnRQUI
1st printing retains the the disputed portion; however, CoB changed the rubric for the second printing (@ 15:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYIv_cG0hn0
CoB stepped in over the Liturgy Task Force and resolved that the first edition of the BCP given out at the Provincial Assembly needs changing in the 2nd printing, revising the last sentence of the 2019 to “The consecrated wine shall likewise be consumed except as authorized and directed by the bishop.”
2019 Second Printing Text is slated to be:
Frankly, I will admit, I had not done a sufficient read through of the rubrics to have noted that particular error (and error it is, and in the theological/sacramental sense). I am left questioning the final wording as voted “The consecrated wine shall likewise be consumed except as authorized and directed by the bishop.” How will Anglo Catholic, or for that matter, any traditional Anglican, remain in communion with any bishop who authorizes something other than consuming the consecrated wine? This is not a “Catholic” v “Protestant”, “second order” issue, but a violation even of the rubrics of the 1662:
“if any remain of that which
was conſecrated, it
ſhall not be carried out of the Church, but the
Prieſt, and
ſuch other of the Communicants as he
ſhall then call unto him,
ſhall, immediately after the Bleſſing, reverently eat and drink the ſame. ”
Apparently, before being too concerned with TEC bishops going to Lambeth, we need to worry about ACNA bishops not willing to live within the rubrics of the 1662. Is this some artifact from the TEC 1789, or something wedged into some later prayer book that I just never noticed?
I know of priests in a few dual integrity (one integrity, really) dioceses that will pour and bury extra consecrated elements (untrodden ground=suburban planters/greenbelts of rented facilities), respectively, and trained others to do so… So the 2019BCP and 2018 revision implemented a rubric to allow current practice in those places. I’m not sure where this practice started, but I have personally seen it taught.
Bishop Duncan seems to be an advocate of this practice (see video) and it took Anglo-Catholic opposition to limit this.
Really, not much shocks me anymore, when discussing Anglican practice, but this frankly horrifies me. This is the very much worse than women’s ordination, or the “Reformed” misunderstanding of anamnesis. No longer sure what ACNA parishes I dare attend outside of Quincy- which is unfortunately 400 miles away. Fort Worth, I assume, but it is even farther.
I had a long reply about a possible reason, but it is either lost or awaiting moderation (prob b/c of including youtube links).
Short version: possibly the Eucharistic rubrics currently found in the non-revised 2019 BCP. The disposal of consecrated wine is frowned upon in the Catholic Anglican circles.
Long version in my other comment.
As an outsider, what BCPs did/do ACNA parishes use pre-new prayer book?
1979, 1928, and 1662 probably in that order. My guess is it will take many years for the new book to get any traction if for no other reason than cost, familiarity, and satisfaction with what is presently used at the parish level. Rumor is some churches make it up as they go with loose guidance from a prayerbook.
Also worth noting our REC brothers and sisters, who have their own prayerbook.
The REC book has the Communion service from the 1662 (Americanized) with the 1928 as an alternate.
What I really mean was there are reports some of the Anglican praise churches don’t include a service from any prayerbook. They might substitute their preference for the Gloria when it is season, etc. Space might be made for a longer sermon. I have seen the Decalogue omitted not because it was forgotten but because the first Sunday of the month was overlooked. Made up for it the next Sunday.
What is a praise church?
Definitely more than rumour. Two young ACNA parishes I know in the south both use liturgies only loosely connected to the Prayer book. Less liturgy than an average Presbyterian church. The pastors just sat down and took (and deleted) what they liked and didn’t, and use it over and over, projected onto a screen. No approval, that I know of, from any bishop. The congregations are more or less wholly ignorant of the Prayer Book.
Well, all ACNA parishes have a bishop- although with all the networks and overlapping jurisdictions, figuring out which bishop requires detective work. The HoB needs to get to work on its own members if they want any manner of liturgical or theological order.
Can you tell us what the site is, or give a hint?
Definitely more than rumor.
The ACNA has had a series of trial versions out for several years. Our diocese mandated their use.
Is the “Common Worship” the bishop refers to the Church of England’s Common Worship?
An internet search tells me that this is indeed “Common Worship” from the Church of England, from the year 2000. I don’t know enough about it to have any idea where it differs from the new ACNA book.
Quincy is, I believe, a “high church” diocese.
Common Worship has a collection of Eucharist variations that renders the word “common” rather nonsensical. There are 2 “orders” of liturgy, each with a modern and a traditional variant and each variant has 8 different Eucharistic Prayers (Prayer A, Prayer B….Prayer H). Which totals out to 32 different liturgical options- spanning from Calvinism through to something that is quite akin to Vatican II, while maintaining a similar structure and order within the variations.
I haven’t spoken to anyone from Quincy since this was posted the other day. My understanding is that some Anglo Catholic jurisdictions have adopted one or more of the more “catholic” liturgies in Common Worship because that book is authorized for use in many of the provinces/churches with a CoE heritage (not all necessarily in the Communion) and this has provided a way for them to share a degree of liturgical unity that they would not have if using “local” prayer books.
From Quincy’s website:
Also, Quincy is not only high church, but Anglo-Catholic in theology.
“Quincy is, I believe, a “high church” diocese.
The bishop is a Benedictine monk…take it from there!
Quincy posts the CW liturgies on its website for downloading.
https://www.dioceseofquincy.org/category/liturgies/
[…] Read it all. print […]
It is worth noting that Bishop Ackerman of Quincy served on the BCP2019 Task Force as vice-chair. And Bishop Morales’ Secretary, Bishop Abbot Luis Gonzalez, served on the Task Force as well, working on the Daily Offices.
Update: Bishop Morales himself served on the Editorial Team of the Task Force!
Three bishops from Quincy served on the Task Force.
[…] There are a few things I can say as of now: 1) common prayer remains dead in Anglicanism (the ACNA Diocese of Quincy, who former Bishop is on the ACNA Liturgy Task Force, will be using the the English Common Worship […]
[…] insouciant but the ACNA has not mandated the Book’s use in its own churches, and in fact one diocese has already banned it! On the other hand we have Robin Jordan, who thinks that the book (and indeed the whole drift of […]
One last comment while this thread is still open-
Before making a judgment on the actions of the Diocese of Quincy and Bishop Morales, please find a copy of the letter written by Dr. Robert Munday, who is the Chair of the Standing Committee of the diocese. (Yes, indeed the same Dr. Robert Munday who many of us remember as Dean of Nashotah House in the first decade of this century). He gives some details on the reasons that led to the decision to retain Common Worship as the standard liturgical text.
TJ
https://virtueonline.org/diocese-quincy-issues-partial-restriction-use-acna-bcp-2019-updated
[…] 2019 Book of Common Prayer, I made mention that the Diocese of Quincy had banned its use (as had Anglican Ink.) There has been some push back to that, from VirtueOnline and Robin Jordan, that this is not […]
Wait – doesn’t every ACNA parish use the missal?! What is “The Book of Common Prayer?”
😉