Ministers, Be Prepared

Preach the Word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

2 Timothy 4:2 (NKJV)

St. Paul commended Timothy to always preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Timothy was discipled by his master to constantly and vigilantly be prepared to teach the Word of God regardless the season, the circumstance, and the adversity.

Read the rest at The North American Anglican.

Antecommunion: What, Why, and How?

The Saint Aelfric Customary

Something we’ve touched upon here before is the subject of the service of Antecommunion. I figured it’s about time we revisit that idea with a more direct address of its identity, purpose, and execution.

What is ‘Antecommunion’?

The prefix ante- means ‘before’, so the service of Antecommunion is the Service of Holy Communion before, or leading up to and excluding, the actual celebration of Communion.  Basically from the Introit to the Offertory, this is the non-sacramental part of the Communion liturgy.  The only difference is that this is done on purpose, and ends with a few different prayers, making this specifically the Service of Antecommunion rather than the Service of Holy Communion Except We Stopped Short Just Before The Important Bit.

Why would anyone do this?

Antecommunion is a uniquely Anglican practice; I’m not sure if any other tradition has ever had a liturgy on the books like this.  In…

View original post 534 more words

COMMON AUTHORITY IN THE MIDST OF UNCOMMON PRAYER

The advent of the ACNA 2019 Book of Common Prayer raises an important question: what authority does it have in comparison with the other historic Books of Common Prayer? After all, the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer varies from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer not merely in liturgical form but also in doctrine and rubrics. For example, the classic prayer book requirement that none be admitted to communion unless they are confirmed or “ready and desirous” of the same is omitted in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and the baptismal service shifts its focus from regeneration to initiation. Indeed the 2019 Book of Common Prayer also lacks this requirement, although it has restored confirmation to a rite that is required for Anglicans and not optional.

What then should an ACNA Anglican look to when trying to discern how to act when the 2019 ACNA BCP is silent? After all, the prior authorized prayer books (including the 1979) remain authorized for use in ACNA, so there is certainly conflict between the 1928, and 1979 BCP’s. What is an Anglican to do?

Read more here: http://northamanglican.com/common-authority-in-the-midst-of-uncommon-prayer/

Now available: another episode of the “Miserable Offenders” podcast on “Knowing God in the Liturgy” by Peter Toon

Prydain

From our friends at The North American Anglican, here is the latest episode of their podcast, Miserable Offenders.  In this episode, Deacon Andrew and Jesse pick up the reading and discussion of Peter Toon’s “Knowing God Through The Liturgy” which can be found at New Scriptorium (http://newscriptorium.com/toon-collection ). They note “As always, we digress and bring the insight of Toon into our present situation.”  As always this is worth listening to!

View original post

Moving to TNAA

It’s official, I’m moving the blog to The North American Anglican. Don’t worry, the old blog posts will remain here and I may have the occasional post here if it isn’t something that fits under the mission of The North American Anglican.

You up can find my first post at this link. Be sure to subscribe to new posts over at The North American Anglican so you don’t miss out.

Thank you for reading my posts over the years. I saved this WordPress domain in 2007 and finally started blogging in 2013. It is hard to believe it has been almost exactly six years since that first blog post. The journeying in a strange land continues and I hope to see you there as we keep walking towards the final rest.

Now available: the next episode of the “Miserable Offenders” podcast on “Knowing God in the Liturgy” by Peter Toon

Prydain

From our friends at The North American Anglican, here is the latest episode of their podcast, Miserable Offenders.  In this episode, Deacon Andrew and Jesse discuss the recent heated debates over the 2019 ACNA Book of Common Prayer and eventually turn back to the Toon text for answers.  If you have been following those debates, this is certainly worth hearing.

View original post

Rev. Jefferies Response Re: ACNA 2019 BCP & Prayer Book Society USA’s Updated 1662 BCP

Glad to see Rev. Jefferies respond and do so on the same outlet that has mainly hosted as the battlefield of opinion on the new ACNA 2019 BCP, The North American Anglican.

A few items worth noting:

Some priests and theologians might explain the prepositions in the sacramental rites as causative, some as promissory, but in either case, we can all pray the same prayers. This was the theological genius of 1662.

. . .

And, certainly, the 1662 has strengths that the 2019 does not have. Most definitely. In unity, simplicity, beauty, the 1662 easily beats 2019.

Agree on all counts, which is why I hate to see us lose common prayer with so many options and would have rather seen an updating of the 2003 REC BCP as the baseline instead of “Starting from what is known and nearly-ubiquitous (the 1979 structures etc) . . . .”

I agree that some things have been lost that were in the 1662, but I don’t think they are the core — which I would argue is theological — of the legacy of the 1662.

I would disagree here. Losing language like “miserable offenders” in the daily office confession is excising theological language while adding additional prayers for the faithful departed does reflect minimizing one aspect of Anglican theology (original sin) while emphasizing a theology of remembrance for the dead. Likewise, it is unfortunate that the classic, short prayer book catechism (the basic requirement for confirmation and admission to Holy Communion) is not retained while additional daily offices are included and the word “regeneration” is made optional.  Such losses do not render the ACNA 2019 BCP a deviation like the 1979, but I do lament not restoring what was loss in the 1979 BCP. This was a crucial opportunity to restore what American Anglicanism loss and while the end result is a solid step in the right direction, but not a full restoration.

This makes the Prayer Book Society – USA’s recent announcement in publishing a new edition of the 1662 BCP with minor alterations to make it more global in usage quite interesting. Additionally, the United Episcopal Church of North America recently voted at National Council to allow usage of the 1662 BCP and a deanery has been formed in CANA West that will solely use the 1662 BCP.  Although personally, I prefer retaining the American inheritance of our 1892/1928 BCP and adapting it to conform to the 1662 (Athanasian Creed restored, Luther’s Flood Prayer restored, etc.). Hence, I remain a broken record for the 2003 REC BCP and REC Modern Language BCP, which does this but could still have been improved upon slightly in the modern language aspect.

. . . the BCP 2019 is un-apologetically an inheritor of the 1979 BCP and the Liturgical Movement it participated in . . .

. . .

. . . in a world indelibly shaped by the Liturgical Movement, . . .

Which is quite a shame, considering the errors spurred by Dix and the resulting Liturgical Movement. (See pages 1-2 here for more.)

A point of clarification, before closing out, the letter states:

That it could be approved both by John Cosin AND Richard Baxter, even though these two men had very different theological convictions; Indeed, the 1662 is clearly what we might with hindsight call a via media between those who emphasized the reformed aspect of their reformed catholicity, and those who emphasized the catholic heritage within that same description.

However, Richard Baxter was a nonconformist in part due to the 1662 BCP being enforced in the Act of Uniformity (1662), so the 1662 BCP is not exactly the “via media” between Bishop Cosin and Baxter but I agree the 1662 prayer book is truly representative of “reformed catholicity.”

This is why I support the traditional language version that ACNA Liturgy Task Force member Jacob Hootman has drafted, namely due to the restoration of prayer book language previously disregarded, and not because it is in traditional language.  I continue to urge readers to write the ACNA Liturgy Task Force and show your support for this project. Perhaps the ACNA BCP will once again restore some of the loss language and we can catechize those raised on the 1979 BCP with the reformed catholicity our forefathers professed and passed onto us in the historic liturgies and in the Articles of Religion.