Comments on: 1662 Book of Common Prayer

By: Douglass Potts

Douglass Potts — Sun, 02 May 2010 15:57:14 +0000

My immense gratitude goes to Lynda Howell for this wonderful work. Like so many others, I regard the Book of Common Prayer as the foundation of our democracy in an English speaking world of constitutional governance. Common Law, Common Prayer and Common Sense seem apt siblings.

I tried to download it to my I-Phone. I would willingly pay money to do so.

This is the reference body of knowledge for sound foundations. In its earlier form, it moulded Shakespeare. Isaac Newton’s scholium to the Principia drips with BCP concepts. Churchill held together whole nations by appealing from its strength and soundness of reason.

When the Book of Common Prayer is rediscovered by mass congregations, we will achieve the aim of making poverty history. Pope John Paul II was prescient when he granted papal endorsement of its liturgy. In that simple action, he validated the agony of Cranmer and bridged forever whatever gap existed between Anglo and Roman Catholicism.

Truly, the Book of Common Prayer is now universally recognised as Catholic liturgy. In his endorsement, he endorsed the English language. It falls as a heavy burden on each of us to restore this language to the pursuit of good works, not as some faux marxism or weberianism or any ism, but to the directions of the prophets and Christ put into the English language by Cranmer and the translators of the King James Bible and never, never, bettered.

Yours sincerely,

Douglass Potts

By: me

me — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:55:54 +0000

If there is, I don’t know it. Usually, when they modernise the language, they “modernise” the theology. Blessed Good Friday!

By: Michael Shaw

Michael Shaw — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:41:03 +0000

Dumb question on my part: Is there anywhere a 1662 BCP in modern English? Thanks!

By: Christopher Rees

Christopher Rees — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:51:57 +0000

Right, O.K very good point. We are all equal in God’s eyes. As for Rowan, He is a great Archbishop, but he is just in the wrone job at the wrone time.

By: me

me — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:00:59 +0000

Christopher, that’s because I took the photo myself (and have the rights to it) while on holiday in the UK in 1976. It was the best thing I had. Besides, in theory at least the See of York is equal to that of Canterbury, so I think a little “equal time” isn’t a bad thing. (I know that Canterbury is primus inter pares, but these days I’m sure your fellow Welshman Rowan Williams may have second thoughts about being in that hot seat…)

I could have used some of my Black Mountains shots for the cover, but people would have really been scratching their heads over that.

By: Christopher Rees

Christopher Rees — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:48:45 +0000

Hello. I hope I am not beening slliy but, why is York Minister on the cover. As for the book it self 1662 is great, but it is hard to understand. Which is why it has been scrip.(Like here in Wales, and the U.S) or had a alternative book to it. As for women, grow up, God made humankind in his image, Male and Female. GROW UP.

By: Eric Stampher

Eric Stampher — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:40:14 +0000

Hi. You’ve got a nice looking website here. As for the women in the church issue, I understood the Pauline statement regarding women speaking “in the assembly” to be about ex cathedra speech. We (the church, the bride, women) do not utter the Word. That’s a prerogative reserved by God (the pope, the bridegroom, men). The prayer book is our play script; the assembly meeting is our chance to enact the play. When women stand in THAT meeting to preach, the messes with our heads. We (the church, the bride) can produce doctrine?

By: Positive Infinity » Blog Archive » Episcopal Worship is Exclusive Worship

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:45:13 +0000

[...] Pages1662 Book of Common Prayer [...]

By: me

me — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:16:23 +0000

It’s interesting to note, Charlie, that the 1662 BCP has been a) posted on this site for five years and b) a perennially popular feature (it kicked up the traffic considerably when I first posted it.) But this observation of yours has not been made until now.

That having been said, I’d like to make some kind of response.

To the matter at hand: is this my serious argument re women in ministry? Yes and no. My rationale for this is described elsewhere on this site, and is in fact based on the full Gospel theology you jettisoned when you left the AOG. Having said that, her setting forth the BCP without proper male headship is, in reality, a violation of that headship principle, which is at the core of the objections of the “Protestant” side of Anglicanism and indeed of Protestant Christianity in general. To use her site is to turn a blind eye to this.

It’s interesting to note that, in the “sea fight in a fog” that has been the Anglican-Episcopal world this decade, women have found prominent voices on all sides of the debate. That’s in part due to the internet (I wish TEC conservatives had had it as a weapon in the 1960′s and 1970′s when this went down to start with, our current situation would be a lot different.) Those voices are, in reality, teaching positions, some of which carry more practical weight than many bishops (not difficult since TEC dioceses are, on average, rather small.)

By: Charlie J. Ray

Charlie J. Ray — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:38:30 +0000

I regularly use the 1662 BCP site by Linda Howell. However, the idea that this somehow means I should endorse women as theologians or ordained ministers is ridiculous. Women have always worked as typists and editors to assist. This does not mean she can be the husband of one wife.