Posted on by Fr. Brench · 2 Comments

The Prayers of the People hit differently when relocated…

Lately I’ve been looking at different orders of service found in different Prayer Books and contemplating (with help from others) the significance of some of the different configurations that are out there. Some changes can be pretty subtle, like how the Prayer of Humble Access has hopped around a few times in the past 500 years. Other variations are a bit more substantial, though, and that’s where the Prayers of the People come into the discussion.

Over the centuries there are three places where they might be located: in the Eucharist Canon, in the Offertory, and in the Liturgy of the Word. Let’s check ’em out.

DISCLAIMER: The term “prayers of the people” is only a feature of modern Prayer Books, and in classical Prayer Book use it’s typically called the “prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church [and the world]”. Because they are textually equivalent, I’m just going to use the modern title throughout this article. We’ll explore why it makes sense in some cases more than others.

Location #1: Sacrificial Prayers

The 1549 Prayer Book looks like a real oddball in the collection of Anglican Prayer Books. As essentially the first draft, it contains a number of features that promptly vanished, and the location of the Prayers of the People is one of those things. There, the Sursum Corda (“lift up your hearts”) is relatively early in the liturgy, and right after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy Holy) the priest or deacon turns to the people and says “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church.” And after the familiar ending of that prayer, “Grant this, O Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake…” he continues immediately with the Prayers of Consecration. No other Prayer Book since has done this, making it feel a rather strange option.

What I recently rediscovered, however, is that this is largely how it worked before the Reformation. In a 1526 version of the Sarum Missal, the Sanctus was followed by a few prayers of intercession, akin to what Catholics today might call “mass intentions.” Indeed, the Sarum prayers were lengthened by Cranmer for the first Prayer Book, perhaps setting the stage for a need to move them elsewhere in the service. In any case, the location of the intercessions here, literally at the altar, spoken by the priest, ad orientem (that is, facing the altar, same as the people), makes the character of these prayers particularly sacrificial. These intercessions are part of the Church’s regular sacrifice of prayer as we fulfill our priestly function in praying for one another and the world around us.

Location #2: Offering Prayers

Prayer Book revision quickly shifted the prayers for the whole state away from the eucharistic canon and landed them in the Offertory, where they remained until the mid-20th century revisions kicked in. This diminishes the sacrificial emphasis of the prayers and moves them more into the realm of the people’s offering. Indeed, this prayer even mentioned “our alms and oblations”, explicitly uniting the offering of our money and ourselves with the offering of our prayers. Thus the intercessions became less of a priest’s intentions at the altar and more of the concerns of a congregation, even though the actual text remained the same. At this point “Prayers of the People” starts to make sense, even though the reader of the prayer was still the priest, and the congregation was still referred to as “they” instead of the modern “we.”

Location #3: The People’s Prayers

In the mid-20th century, in the wake of Rome’s second Vatican Council, a huge movement of liturgical revision and renewal was underway, and no tradition was left unscathed. This novus ordo (literally, new order) rearranged much of the liturgy, and for the Prayers of the People this mean that they were now prayed after the Creed instead of after the Offertory. What’s more, the default reader of these prayers became the Deacon, “or other person appointed”, which implies a layman, not the priest. This was matched with a change of wording from “they” the congregation, to “we” the congregation, such as found in the Anglican Standard Text of 2019. The intercessions were now truly the Prayers of the People in the most literal sense. Gone were the sacrificial undertones of our work of intercession, and even the liturgical offerings sense was dramatically decreased. Rather than a sacrifice or an offering, the intercessions now became a work – the work of the people.

Interestingly, “the work of the people” is one of the ways to render the word liturgy into English (though I would prefer “public work” to better capture its meaning). So in that sense, putting the Prayers of the People more into the hands and mouths of the congregation makes a lot of sense. Furthermore, there is another line of precedent for this: in (at least) English custom, there was a practice of “bidding the bedes” before a sermon, which was essentially calling upon the congregation to pray for various needs in the parish, the city, the region, the realm, or indeed the world. This practice existed in parallel with the “mass intentions” in the proper canon of the liturgy, resulting in two points of intercession in the worship service, one dominated by the people’s concerns, and the other dominated by the Church. Indeed, this practice survived beyond the Reformation, and even popped up explicitly in the 1928 Prayer Book (see its page 71 and 47).

If you survey the various forms of the Prayers of the People in the 1979 Prayer Book (and similar texts put out in other provinces since), you will find that most of them have call-and-response elements, giving increased voice to the congregation. Some of them (including 2019’s own Renewed Ancient Text) are even explicit biddings, not technically praying at all, but instead instructing the congregation what to pray (be it silently or aloud).

Why not both?

This migration of the Prayers of the People over the centuries has revealed that there are indeed multiple places in the Communion liturgy where intercessions can (and should) be profitably made. In proximity to the Scripture Lessons, Creed, and Sermon, the people’s prayers naturally arise as we all respond to God’s Word and bring our own various concerns to bear. In proximity to the Offertory, a set of intercessions make sense as the congregation offers united prayer to God as part of its collective work and service. And in proximity to the consecration of Holy Communion, the Church accomplishes a priestly service, bringing to God a sacrifice of prayer, as is our bounden duty and our joy.

Given the history of our English liturgical heritage, we know that we don’t have to choose just one spot and stick with it. We can have intercessory prayers in the modern location (after the Creed) as well as in the medieval location (after the Sanctus). We don’t have to pick one or the other, or the compromise middle location (after the Offertory). All three locations have historic precedence, devotional value, and liturgical sensibility.

One easy way to experiment with this, using a modern Prayer Book such as the 2019, is to use the call-and-response Prayers of the People from the Renewed Ancient Text in the modern location, emphasizing congregational input, and then having the celebrant read the Anglican Standard Text’s Prayers of the People straight through (without responses) either after the Offertory or after the Sanctus. This way we have both the homegrown spontaneous heartfelt congregational prayers and the scripturally rich, authorized, priestly prayers of intercession for the Church and for the world. Together, these complementary postures of prayer teach all of us more about the significance of prayer in the Christian life, and shape us to pray both formally and informally, generally and specifically, as individuals and as one body.

Posted on by Fr. Brench · 1 Comment

Earth to Earth, Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust

As I’ve been studying the development of the Prayer Book tradition, following the lines of what changes and what stays the same, I stumble on quite the fun little surprise every now and again. My latest observation is the famous “Committal Speech”, spoken by the priest as earth is being cast upon the casket. Here are six versions of it from eight different Prayer Books, with unique phrases or terms marked in bold.

1549 1559 & 1662 1789 & 1892 1928  19622019
Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother, here departed,Forasmuch as it has pleased Almighty God, in his wise Providence, to take out of this world the soul of our deceased brother,Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to receive unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed:Forasmuch as it has pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother, here departed,
I commend thy soul to God the Father Almighty,  Unto Almighty God we commend the soul of our brother departed, 
and thy body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust,we therefore commit his body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust,we therefore commit his Body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;and we commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;
in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ,in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ,looking for the general resurrection in the last Day, and the life of the World to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ;in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection unto eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ;in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ;in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ;
  at whose second coming in glorious Majesty to judge the Word, the Earth and the Sea shall give up their Dead;at whose coming in glorious majesty to judge the world, the earth and the sea shall give up their dead; 
who shall change our vile body, that it may be like to his glorious body,who shall change our vile body that it may be like to his glorious body,and the corruptible Bodies of those who sleep in him shall be changed, and made like unto his own glorious Body;and the corruptible bodies of those who sleep in him shall be changed, and made like unto his own glorious body;who shall change our mortal body, that it may be like unto his glorious body,who shall change our perishable body, that it may be like his own glorious body,
according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself.according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself.according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.according to the mighty working of his Spirit, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.

I wanted to explore those fiddly little differences in order now.

The first divergence is the challenging language of God “taking to himself” the soul of the departed. Without biblical and pastoral guidance, this phrase can make God sound a little bit capricious, paving the way for that awful and cruel saying “God needed another angel in heaven.” This misunderstanding has been addressed in two different ways. First there was the early American solution: it is in God’s “wise Providence” that he is pleased to take unto himself the departed soul. This denies an arbitrary and heartless picture of God, and assures us that there is a purpose behind his will. It’s also worth noting that appeals to divine providence was a common feature of early American discourse, both in the New England Puritan context as well as in the growing Deist heretical movement that colored much the country’s founding documents.

In 1962, the Canadian solution was to switch from speaking of God “taking” to God “receiving” the departed soul. Again, God is clearly innocent of any divine malpractice, though this language may fall afoul of the opposite problem: suggesting divine helplessness, or at least haplessness.

On the other hand, the 1549 and 1928 Prayer Books side-step that problem altogether by not using that phrase at all, and beginning the Committal Speech immediately with the commendation. In both of these cases, the soul is commended to God and the body is committed to the ground. It’s interesting to observe the slightly more sacerdotal approach in 1549, with the priest himself saying “I commend thy soul…” which gives way to the communal emphasis of “we” ever thereafter.

The next part of the Speech contrasts the mortal and the immortal states. The language of our “vile” body in England switches to “corruptible” in the USA, “mortal” in Canada, and “perishable” in the ACNA.

Finally, the ACNA’s 2019 Prayer Book adds one more prepositional phrase near the very end of the Committal Speech. Christ’s “mighty working” of subduing all things to himself is clarified to be accomplished through “his Spirit”, filling out a more overtly trinitarian theology of the inseparable operations of the three Persons of the one Godhead.

It’s in tracking little changes like these that really helps illustrate why there is no such as thing as any one “perfect” Prayer Book. There are always things that can be improved, and cultural context plays a large role in that. Some doctrines may need to be highlighted more carefully at certain times; various problems and misunderstandings and heresies plague the Church in different places and times; what one cultural setting may feel is too long a prayer another may find too short, and vice versa. And so it is both good and necessary to make these little edits from time to time, in order that the one faith is most clearly communicated in each generation. Thus this principle also rules out the opposite tendency: to make changes quickly on a whim, without weighing the pastoral and doctrinal gains and losses.

Posted on by Fr. Brench

What’s in a name (or title)?

The title page in books is not typically a source of great attention for the modern reader.  Their role in the modern book is little more than a formality, at best an ornamentation to showcase the fine art of typesetting.  But in years past, the title page was precisely that – a page for the full title of the works following, akin to the abstract of a research paper or the thesis of the essayist.  And it is in this old traditional vein that the Prayer Book’s title page functions today.

Our cultural preference for brevity and compact bundles of information has created a literary world full of acronyms, and the Prayer Book is very much bundled into this phenomenon.  “BCP” is the standard abbreviation for this book, though as with all acronyms it has its shortcomings.  For many curious observers from the outside of the Anglican tradition, BCP is often thought to stand for “book of common prayers”.  While this may seem like a small error, simply pertaining to grammar, the difference between common prayer and common prayers speaks to a fundamentally different understanding of liturgy and worship.  The term “common prayers” evokes an image of an anthology book – a resource containing a number of prayers that can or should be used regularly and widely.  For those not formed by the church’s historic liturgical tradition, this is closest understanding they have of what liturgy is: a collection of prayers that a church or individual uses in certain times and in certain ways.

“Common prayer”, however, denies the punctiliar or isolated view of the contents of the book, and takes it as a whole.  The Eucharist is not only the object of the sacrament, it is an entire worship service.  The Daily Office is not only a string of scriptures and prayers, it is a devotional whole.  Liturgical worship is not only a slavish pattern of how, when, and what to pray together, but a coherent lifestyle of worship, prayer, devotion, and ministry.  The goal of liturgy is not to orchestrate a monotonous chorus of voices speaking in unison, but to unite hearts and minds in the knowledge, love, and proclamation of the triune God (cf. Romans 15:5-6, Ephesians 4:1-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2, 1 Peter 3:8).

And yet, the Prayer Book is more than about unity through prayer.  The full title is far more expansive.  Consider the five parts in turn:

The Book of Common Prayer

This primarily refers to the Daily Office, historically Morning and Evening Prayer but also now to Midday Prayer, Compline, and Family Prayer.  The common prayer of the Church is her daily sacrifice of penitence, praise, and thanksgiving, which spiritually continues and fulfills the ancient daily sacrifices under the Old Covenant of Moses.  As the pious Hebrew in those ancient days united their times of prayer with the daily sacrifice in the Temple (cf. 1 Kings 18:36, Ezra 9:5, Psalm 5:3, 141:2, Daniel 9:21, Amos 4:4), so too does the Christian now join in spiritual union with the whole Church in the act of Common Prayer.

And Administration of the Sacraments

The Sacramental ministry of the Church is also Common Prayer in the sense that it is the prayer of the Church gathered, but it stands apart in that it is a priestly liturgy.  Just as only authorized priests could offer certain types of sacrifice at the Lord’s Altar under the Old Covenant, so too is the work of feeding and teaching the flock limited to those who are duly called and ordained for the task (cf. John 21:15-17, Titus 1:5-9, James 3:1, Article XXIII). 

With Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church

The language of Article XXV has been understood in different ways, namely that either (1) there are two Sacraments and five sacred rites which used to be called sacraments before the reformation, or (2) there are two Christ-given Sacraments and five Church-given Sacraments.  Whichever side of this debate one finds oneself upon will dictate where the line is drawn between “Sacraments” and “Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church.”  But in either way of grouping them, the Prayer Book contains liturgies for all of them.  The Thanksgiving for the Birth or Adoption of a Child is a sacred rite; the Consecration of a Place of Worship is a sacred rite; the anointing of the sick and the marriage ceremony are at least sacred rites, if not also sacramental.

According to the Use of the Anglican Church in North America

As Article XXIV asserts, “It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly [a]like; for at all times they have been divers[e], and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.”  This honest commitment to the historical reality that liturgy is changeable protects us against “Prayer Book Fundamentalism”, insisting upon extreme forms of uniformity that have never existed in the history of the Church.  This phrase in the book’s title identifies the part of the Church that uses this liturgy.  Thuse the Use of the Anglican Church in North America stands alongside the Use of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Use of the Church of England, the Use of Sarum, the Lutheran German Mass, the Tridentine Mass, the Gregorian Mass, the Liturgy of Saint James, and countless other variations of the One Church’s liturgy throughout the ages.

Together with the New Coverdale Psalter

Finally, the largest section of the book is actually simply Scripture, namely, the Book of Psalms.  Traditionally this line identifies them as “The Psalms of David,” though in this 2019 edition of the Prayer Book it was deemed appropriate to identify the new translation used for the Psalms.  The inclusion of the Psalms in the Prayer Book itself, rather than resorting to reading them from the Bible, is for several reasons.  First, they are specially notated in the Prayer Book, or pointed, for congregation recitation or chanting, which is not a feature of regular translations of the Bible.  Second, there are multiple translations of the Bible currently in use throughout the Church, which would cause difficulty when different groups come together.  Similarly, third, from an historic perspective the first Prayer Book did use a then-current Bible translation (The “Great Bible”) for its Psalter, and once it was established in common use it was better to retain that translation rather than replace it with the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishops’ Bible in 1568, or the King James Bible in 1611.  This leads, fourthly, to the present day, in which a modernization of liturgical language is desired.  Rather than creating an entirely new translation (as was the case in the American Book of 1979), it was deemed better to use the historic Prayer Book Psalter (originally translated by Miles Coverdale) as the basis for the present modernization.  This way our language of worship resonates more closely with the language of our forebears, and those who look back into the historic books will find familiar turns of phrase there.

Posted on by Fr. Brench

Encountering the Scriptures in Anglican Worship

One of the modern tag-lines used to describe the Book of Common Prayer is that it is “The Bible arranged for worship.” Much can and has been said about the sheer bulk of its pages being that of Scriptures, verbatim or referenced, most particularly the full Psalter. What I thought I’d describe today is the range of ways in which this descriptor is proven true. We Anglicans boast, quite rightly I daresay, that ours is the most biblical of liturgies the Church has ever had – let’s take a moment here to defend that claim and explore the major ways in which this is so.

In brief, the Scriptures are (1) heard spoken aloud, (2) they are preached, and (3) they are paraphrased or synthesized in prayer.

The Scriptures are heard spoken aloud.

There are three primary ways in which the Scriptures are encountered audibly in our worship: there are lessons, sentences, and prayers.

The LESSONS are distinct times of Bible-reading during a worship service. All churches that retain a liturgical tradition have Bible readings, though many in the “free church” tradition have sadly lost this crucial staple of worship, relegating the reading of a sermon text to within the sermon. Modern Anglican liturgies most typically have three lessons at Holy Communion: an Old Testament text, an Epistle text, and a Gospel text. The classical Prayer Book tradition typically had two: an Epistle and a Gospel. The Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer also have two: typically one Old Testament and one New Testament. Exceptions to these patterns exist, but at a typical worship service that is what you can expect. In almost every case, though, these lessons are introduced with a citation of which book of the Bible they come from, and frequently which chapter, and even verses.

Sometimes simply one SENTENCE of Scripture is read, and it may or may not be introduced with a citation. This may be an “opening sentence” at the start of Morning or Evening Prayer, an Offertory Sentence before the collection, a Communion Sentence right after everyone has received the consecrated bread and wine, or a sort of mini-lesson in Midday Prayer or Compline. These are moments of devotional impact, not typically to be expounded further or given additional context or explanation. These are simply moments that are ornamented with the Word of God for beauty, for gravity, and for meaning.

And, of course, there are many ways in which we experience the Scriptures as PRAYERS. When we hear part of a Psalm at the Communion service – be it a traditional introit or gradual, or a responsory psalm after the Old Testament Lesson – we are praying that text. In the Daily Offices, often multiple Psalms are prayed in full! These are readings, but not lessons; we don’t sit back and listen, but we sit up (or even stand) and make those words our own in prayer. There are many traditions of chanting or singing the Psalms, also emphasizing this posture of prayer rather than only listening. Besides the Psalms there are other psalm-like texts which are also prayed. These are usually called Canticles, and various forms of the liturgical tradition call for different specific examples. There are a few from Isaiah and Exodus, and a couple from Revelation, but the three most significant canticles are from the Gospel of Luke: the Song of Zechariah, the Song of Mary, and the Song of Simeon.

The Scriptures are preached.

This is hardly unique to the Anglican tradition; all Christian churches include preaching in some manner in their worship services. But something that is relatively unique to the Prayer Book tradition is its collection of “exhortations” found in various liturgies. The famous “Dearly beloved…” speech at the start of the marriage ceremony is perhaps the most well-known example, which references several parts of Scripture and sets out a summary of the biblical doctrine of marriage – it is basically a two-minute sermon! There are a handful of such exhortations in the Prayer Book: some calling people to participate in Holy Communion, some shorter ones calling people to confess their sins before God, some outlining the duties of a bishop, or priest, or deacon at a service of Ordination. These are brief moments in which the minister is speaking to the congregation and expounding the Scriptures on one topic or another, providing biblical teaching to help them participate in the worship that is to follow.

The Scriptures are paraphrased or synthesized in prayer.

Like the several Exhortations in the Prayer Book, our tradition also bears a great many prayers that bring together biblical material to celebrate or proclaim various truths from the Word of God.

One of the greatest examples of this is the wealth of COLLECTS in the Prayer Book. Although not unique to the Anglican tradition, our liturgies do emphasize the use of these stylized prayers more than most other churches do. A collect is made up of an address to God which usually identifies something about his character or works, a petition which we ask, and a purpose undergirding that petition, often tying it back to the relevant thing about God’s character or works. Many of these collects quote or paraphrase Scripture, and all of them reflect on some biblical truth.

Besides the collects, many other prayers in the Book of Common Prayer contain biblical quotes, references, paraphrases, and allusions that together express a coherent theology built upon the Bible. The Prayers of the People make reference to some New Testament teachings on how the church should pray, and draw from biblical language in so doing. The Communion prayers include the Words of Institution (the words of Christ at the Last Supper) amidst a host of other biblical references. Other prayers at baptism, marriage, funerals, for the penitent, for the sick, prayers of thanksgiving, also bring together biblical material.

This is a double benefit.

For evangelicals who grew up with a heavy emphasis on Bible Study, discovering the traditional liturgy can be a great joy as they find a truly endless stream of biblical material in the prayers of the Church. This is a part of my own story. And it works the other way, too: those who grow up hearing the Prayer Book liturgy but received less instruction in the Bible find great joy in discovering the language of the liturgy in the Scriptures. As a priest and pastor I have seen folks in both positions experiencing the same joy of connecting biblical familiarity and liturgical familiarity. It is a joy and passion of mine to help people connect those dots.

I call this a double benefit because, rightly used, the Bible and the Liturgy reinforce one another in the lives of the worshipers. As we read the Bible and learn its words and teachings, and as we participate in the liturgy and learn from its content as well, we find that they reinforce one another. When the Church’s worship (or liturgy) is truly biblical, then it can be celebrated and enjoyed with confidence and joy, knowing that knowledge and study of the Bible will confirm its value. It also reminds us that worship and prayer are not arbitrary, disconnected from theology and Bible study. Rather, the doctrine and discipline of the Church is intertwined, synthesized, a coherent and unified whole. There should not be any competition or strife between the two, they are ultimately one and the same: the proclamation of the God who makes us, loves us, redeems us.

Posted on by Fr. Brench

an All Hallows Eve liturgy

As most of my readership probably knows already, October 31st is the eve of All Saints’ Day, from which the name Halloween (or more old-school, Hallowe’en) derives. So, as this blog is inclined to explore, how might a church observe this night in anticipation of the great feast of All Saints?

Ask and ye shall receive! Provided here is a simple liturgy of Antecommunion – that is, the Communion service before (ante) the actual celebration of Holy Communion. You can just do a regular Communion service, for sure, but you may not be a priest, or you may be a priest with no congregation present. Why not just Evening Prayer, you might ask? Well, please, yes, say Evening Prayer too; that’s supposed to be said every day. This is something additional, extra, most appropriately said after Evening Prayer, and probably after the rounds of trick-or-treating are complete as well.

all-hallows-eveDownload

Three things distinguish it from a normal worship service.

First is the sequence of Old Testament lessons. This is like a light version of the Easter Vigil, wherein as many as twelve OT readings (with Psalms or canticles) are provided. Here we walk through the call of Abram followed by a number of stories of suffering, martyrdom, and perseverance. This is also an excellent opportunity for people to discover the close connection between Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 44 and Hebrews 11, the former being one of the lessons in the lectionary for All Saints’ Day.

The second distinction is the provision of additional prayers that reference the saints and the departed. As the Prayers of the People in our prayer book end with a petition which acknowledges them, these work either as a replacement for that line or as an extension to it.

Lastly, the ending dialogue is taken from the Prayers for a Vigil that the Prayer Book provides for when someone has died.

Because this is not a sacramental service, full vestments are not appropriate; the minister would only need a surplice and preaching scarf (tippet). But if Communion were to follow, purple/violet vestments would be appropriate, as this liturgy is largely a vigil preceding the feast rather than an early observation of the feast itself. October 31st should also be considered a fast day, as it is a day preceding a major holy day, though good luck telling your kids that as they collect candy!

Posted on by Fr. Brench

Praying for the Baptismal Candidates

The 1662 Prayer Book places a series of four short prayers follows at this point:

  1. That the old Adam in this Child may be so buried that the new man may be raised up in him.
  2. That all carnal or sinful affections may die and all things belonging to the Spirit may grow.
  3. That he may have power and strength to have victory over the devil, the world, and the flesh.
  4. That whoever is dedicated to God may also be ensued with heavenly virtues and be everlastingly rewarded.

The first of these four was altered in the American Church by 1928, and even further altered by 1962 in Canada.  The American 1979 Book, finally, replaced these with a litany of brief prayers, the format of which has been retained in the current Prayer Book, but the content is considerably improved.

Seven petitions now stand in the Litany for the Candidates, the first marked as optional as it applies specifically to infants and young children.  The third petition echoes the fourth of the traditional prayers, the fourth petition echoes the first and second traditional prayers, and the sixth and seventh petitions are also akin to the fourth traditional prayer.  The rest of the litany carries an emphasis on the candidates’ new life as members of the Body of Christ.

Where many traditional prayers emphasize the immediate or permanent effect of Holy Baptism, this litany focuses on the anticipated fruit of the Sacrament that the candidate(s) should develop over time.

That these children may come to confess their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
We beseech you to hear us, Good Lord.

First, when it is infants or young children being baptized, we pray that they would take up that good confession themselves.  This prayer is offered in line with the earlier exhortation to raise the children in the faith and bring them to the Bishop for Confirmation when they are ready.

That all these Candidates may continue in the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship,
in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers.

Second, we pray for the candidates to continue in the Church’s life of worship.  This is in opposition to the sad trend in some places where Baptism or Confirmation end up being treated like a graduation and the candidates soon fade away.

That they may walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which they have been called,
ever growing in faith and all heavenly virtues.

Third, an appeal for a life of Christian ethics and virtue is made.  Both child and adult need to continue to grow in faith and virtue, the reformation of life is always an ongoing process.

That they may persevere in resisting evil,
and, whenever they fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord.

Fourth, we pray specifically for the struggle against evil and for continual repentance.  Regular participation in the liturgy directs every worshiper to do this, but it is a spiritual discipline that ultimately must take place within the heart of each believer.

That they may proclaim by word and deed the Good News of God in Christ Jesus
to a lost and broken world.

Fifth, the mission of the Church comes to the fore as we pray that the candidate(s) will proclaim the Gospel through both word and deed.

That as living members of the Body of Christ,
they may grow up in every way into him who is the head.

Sixth, weaving together the first three petitions, the liturgy now directs us to pray for the candidates’ membership in the Body of Christ, quoting Ephesians 4:15.

That, looking to Jesus, they may run with endurance the race set before them,
and at the last receive the unfading crown of glory.

Lastly, referencing Hebrews 12:1, we pray for the eternal perseverance of the candidates in the “race” of faith.

It should be noted that the rubric, Other petitions may be added, allows for the congregation to offer their own prayers, or the minister to include the traditional prayers from the historic Prayer Books.

The Flood Prayer

When Martin Luther was revising the Roman liturgy for the German Protestant churches in the 1520’s he abbreviated the baptismal service twice, streamlining its attention upon the baptismal act and the grace of God therein.  But one thing he added to the liturgy is what came to known as the “Flood Prayer,” which carried over into the English Prayer Books in 1552.  By 1662 the prayer had taken a distinct, slightly shorter, form from Luther’s version.  The first American Prayer Book rendered it an either/or option with the Prayer for the Good Effect of Baptism that followed it in the 1662 liturgy, and by 1928 the Flood Prayer was gone entirely.  Its reappearance in the 2019 Prayer Book, albeit in a shortened form, is therefore a retrieval of prior tradition lost in North America.

This is a short version of a prayer known as the Flood Prayer.  Drawing from 1 Peter 3, it depicts the Flood in the days of Noah as an archetype foreshadowing this Sacrament of Regeneration wherein the sinful Adam is drowned.  (Additional references to the crossing of the Red Sea and the Baptism of Jesus are omitted in this version, though these images and types appear in other contexts within the Prayer Book.)  Baptism, this prayer further affirms, washes and sanctifies the candidates through the power of the Holy Spirit, and delivers them from death akin to how the Ark delivered Noah and his family from the Flood.  Indeed, the image of the Church as the Ark is enshrined in other terms: the primary section of a church interior where the people stand or sit is called the nave, derived from the Latin word navis – ship!  The prayer concludes, obliquely referencing Ephesians 3:17, with a desire for the eternal salvation of the candidate(s) as they “pass through the turbulent floods of this troublesome life”. The worshiper is thus reminded that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is not a novel concept in the New Testament, but an expression of the promise of God that has its echoes as far back as Noah’s generation.  Much less is Baptism a “work” done by man, but it is God himself who works, who saves us through this physical enactment of his ancient promise.

For more on the Flood Prayer, click here and read this!

Posted on by Fr. Brench · 1 Comment

More on the Prayer of Humble Access

The primary difference between our contemporary wording here and the traditional wording is the word “character”.  The classical Prayer Book word is “property” – it is a property of God that he has mercy. 

Our Prayer Book also puts this prayer in the mouths of the whole congregation.  This is a first in official North American Prayer Book tradition, though alternative liturgies had already leaned in this direction for years.  This is an appropriate change for our time because it gets everyone involved in some form of eucharistic piety.  In pre-modern times, preparation for receiving Holy Communion was a noteworthy process both for Protestants and Papists alike.  Now that Communion is received weekly by the majority of liturgical Christians, it is easy to take it for granted, and many have lost a sense of preparation and piety for the Sacrament.  This prayer is a helpful, powerful, and beautiful treasure to that end.

The Prayer of Humble Access is also something of a “wandering prayer” in the history of the Prayer Books.  The first Prayer Book placed it immediately between the Words of Comfort and the Ministration of Communion to the people, making it an acknowledge of our unworthiness to receive the Sacrament even in a state of grace.  In the Prayer Books of 1552 an after, the Prayer of Humble Access is said immediately between the Sanctus and the Prayer of Consecration, making it a final preparatory prayer before approaching the Altar Table, and dissociating it from the penitential overtones that may have been associated with it in 1549.  Finally, the American Prayer Book of 1928 moved this prayer once again, to be read after the Consecration and Lord’s Prayer, immediately before the Ministration of Communion.  That is essentially where it is placed in the present volume too, the only visual difference being that where the 1928 book says a hymn may be sung, ours prints the Agnus Dei as an anthem that may be sung or said after this prayer and before the Ministration.  So, functionally, 2019 and 1928 are doing the same thing with the Prayer of Humble Access: making it (as in 1549) a final devotion before reception of the Sacrament.

From an ecumenical standpoint, it should be noted that the Roman Rite has a different (shorter, less elegant) sort of prayer of humble access.  Its wording has changed over time, but one form reads thus:

Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof; but speak the word only, and my soul shall be healed.

This prayer draws from the words of the faithful centurion whose servant was healed by Jesus’ word, rather than actual visit and contact (Matthew 8:8, Luke 7:6).  And it communicates the same basic premise: we are unworthy of God’s presence (regardless of how recently absolution has been pronounced) and approach him only by his grace.

This is one of the most beloved prayers among traditional Anglicans, yet unfamiliar to many who were formed according to modern liturgies such as that in the American Prayer Book of 1979.  Its inclusion here is part of the restoration of properly Anglican devotion and doctrine, though the rubric concedes it to be optional, should a more brief liturgy be desired.

The language of this prayer also took some consideration as it was adopted back into the 2019 Prayer Book.  The phrase “whose character is always to have mercy” is an update from the original term “whose property”.  This is a better update than a previous draft in Texts for Common Prayer which rendered it “who always delights in showing mercy.”  In that draft, mercy is God’s delight, but the original (and now still official) text identifies mercy as a property of God’s very nature or character.  It is the same as how we speak of God’s love – God is not simply loving, rather, God is love.  God does not just delight in showing mercy, God’s character is to have mercy.  Reflection on this should bring the worshiper great comfort and joy.

Apart from that phrase, further challenges may face the modern worshiper who is not yet accustomed to this prayer.  One of these is the strong realist language: “Grant us so to eat the flesh of your dear Son… and to drink his blood.”  It must be remembered, though, that just as there are different theological interpretations of our Lord’s Words of Institution and of his Bread of Life Discourse, so too will this prayer take on different tones according to one’s theology.   A Lutheran can see this as an affirmation of the Real Presence – Christ’s human and divine natures actually present in the bread and wine.  A Calvinist an see this as an affirmation of the Real Spiritual Presence – Christ’s body and blood actually communicated to us sacramentally as we receive the bread and wine.  So there is no problem with this prayer from either end of the churchmanship spectrum.  Its survival through all the pre-modern Prayer Books should be evidence enough of this.

Another question that might also be raised concerns the “effects” of the Body and Blood of Christ.  A simplistic reading of this prayer might indicate that Christ’s body cleanses our bodies, and his blood cleanses our souls.  But that is not the intention of this prayer – the historic belief has always been that Christ’s body and blood go together, just as with any other real creature.  It is like speaking about the Father creating, the Son redeeming, and the Spirit sanctifying – all three Persons of the Trinity actually do all three of those things; there is simply a convenient prominence of different Persons with different roles, but never an actual division between them.  Similarly, this prayer affirms, poetically, that the body and blood of Christ together sanctify our entire being – body and soul. A third misunderstanding and mistreatment of this prayer concerns its penitential tone.  Some argue that this prayer is extraneous in light of the confession and absolution already offered in the liturgy.  Such a claim is to miss the point of this prayer.  This is not a confession of sin, this is an acknowledgement of unworthiness.  Even with sin absolved the worshiper is still an unworthy participant at the Lord’s Table.  Even with the grace of divine forgiveness upon us, “blessed are they who are invited to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:9).  Furthermore, some of the language in the prayer – “that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us” – is echoed in the 8th paragraph of the prayer of consecration, plus the language of unworthiness is echoed in the 9th paragraph of the same.  So this prayer is integrally connected to the rest of the communion liturgy.  As the 1549 Prayer Book amply demonstrated by placing this prayer after the Absolution and Words of Comfort, it is not excessively penitential to express our unworthiness before the Lord.

Posted on by Fr. Brench

The Fraction & its Anthems

The Fraction, or breaking of the bread, is permitted to take place either at the Words of Institution or after the Consecration and Lord’s Prayer.  While the Reformed tradition, with most classical Prayer Books, has preferred the breaking of the bread at the Words of Christ, the summary in the biblical narrative commends a later fraction: taking bread, blessing it, breaking it, and then giving it (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19).  Thus the Fraction is permitted to take place after the Prayer of Consecration and the Lord’s Prayer, as is the case with the Roman Rite and the 1549 Prayer Book.

In the former case, the breaking of the bread during the Words emphasizes the narrative of the Last Supper, and points the worshiper toward that ancient Passover celebration in which the New Covenant was brokered.  In the latter, the breaking of the bread as its own ceremonial moment in the liturgy emphasizes the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, to which this entire liturgy directs us.  It is best when the celebrant chooses one pattern or the other, rather than snapping the bread during the Words of Institution and then actually breaking it at this point in the liturgy.

The Fraction Anthem, too, is drawn from the 1549 liturgy, which reads “Christ our Paschal lamb is offered up for us, once for all, when he bare our sins on his body upon the cross, for he is the very lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world: wherefore let us keep a joyful and holy feast with the Lord.”  This anthem, drawing largely from 1 Corinthians 5:7 and John 1:29, is parsed out into two options.  The first option, using the present tense, highlights the role of Holy Communion in communicating the Sacrifice of Christ to us.  The second option uses the past tense, rendering a version of the 1549 text in accord with how 1 Corinthians 5:7 is translated today.

The two versions of the anthem also represent slightly different emphases on the eucharistic sacrifice, often in line with high- and low-church perspectives.  The first declares the timeless nature of Christ’s sacrifice by using the present tense – this holy feast makes present to us now the atoning death of Christ.  The second uses the past tense to point us back in time, emphasizing the historicity of Christ’s sacrifice.  The worshiping community may benefit from using both of these anthems, perhaps appointing the former during seasons of joy and the latter during seasons of penitence.

Posted on by Fr. Brench

The Lord’s Prayer at the Holy Communion

As the name implies, this prayer was authored by our Lord Jesus Christ.  The doxology “For thine is the kingdom…” is found in certain manuscripts but is largely understood to be a liturgical addition to the original prayer.  Exactly as with the Daily Office, the classical Prayer Book tradition appoints the Lord’s Prayer twice in the Communion service: once at the beginning (said by the priest alone), and again toward the end (said by all).  Which iterations of the Lord’s Prayer includes or excludes the doxology has varied from one Prayer Book to another, resulting in its near-universal inclusion in the present volume, for sake of simplicity and familiarity.

The English Prayer Book of 1549, with the Scottish and American Prayer Books, placed the Lord’s Prayer immediately after the Oblations, soon before the reception of the Sacrament.  The English Books thereafter, and of most other provinces, appoint the Lord’s Prayer immediately after the ministration and reception of the Sacrament.

The celebrant announces the Lord’s Prayer as one “we are bold to pray.”  This is not an historical commentary, referring to the people praying in their own tongue against medieval Roman malpractice, but a spiritual commentary: although we are unworthy sinners, boldly we approach the throne of grace, by faith (cf. Hebrews 4:16).

The Lord’s Prayer, being composed, taught, and commended by Jesus himself, is an integral component of any liturgy; no official service of the Church omits it.  Its specific placement at this point, however, does have significance.  The Prayers of Consecration have been completed, the holy food is on the holy table, and God’s family is gathered.  The first (and classically, only) thing the congregation says aloud in this holy moment is the prayer that their Lord taught them.  And, in the context of Holy Communion, many lines of this prayer take on particular meanings and tones.  God “in heaven” doesn’t feel quite so distant for a moment.  That his will be done “on earth as it is in heaven” is actually about to take place in our hands, mouths, bodies, and souls, momentarily.  “Our daily bread” is already before us in Word and Sacrament.  The promise of forgiveness and call to forgive others has already been addressed in the liturgy.  The lofty ideals and hopes of this Prayer are, in this glorious moment, nearer than they normally seem.

Posted on by Fr. Brench · 1 Comment

Consecrationism, Receptionism, and the Epiclesis

There are long-standing debates, especially within the classical Protestant churches, over the “when” and “how” of the consecration of the bread and wine.  On one side there is consecrationism, championed by Martin Luther and his early followers.  This view asserts that the Words of Institution, being the very words of Christ, are the moment in the liturgy when the bread and wine are properly consecrated to be the Body and Blood of Christ.  In competition with this rose a view called receptionism, championed by 17th-century Lutheran scholastics and John Calvin’s Reformed tradition, which asserts that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ only in the reception, or even only the faithful reception, of the communicants.  The Articles of Religion and the Prayer Book were written early enough that both views are encompassed within our prayers, thus allowing the debate to survive within the Anglican Church throughout these five centuries.

Differences both practical and devotional result from these competing views.  A consecrationist will consider the Words of Institution the most central, necessary, and holy part of the eucharistic canon, where a receptionist will emphasize prayers that speak of the worshipers’ faith and participation in Christ.  Furthermore, the consecrationist will consider bread and wine left over from the liturgy still consecrated and holy, where the receptionist will consider them ordinary bread and wine.  Most Prayer Books have included rubrics mandating the consumption of leftover bread and wine immediately after the liturgy, thus appeasing (though not directly affirming) the consecrationist view.

In the course of the 20th century, through increased contact with Eastern and Early Church liturgies, the epiclesis rose in prominence, especially among pentecostal or charismatic-minded Anglicans who naturally emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit.  Although this emphasis was largely absent from Western Christianity beforehand, a variant of consecrationism has arisen which asserts that it is the epiclesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, that consecrates the bread and wine.  The impact of this theology is reflected in the Additional Directions of the 1979 and 2019 Prayer Books, in which an Epiclesis is included with the Words of Institution in the rubrics for consecrated additional bread and wine during the Ministration of Holy Communion.