Wonderful service. Very interesting to see a Prayer-book Communion more or less unaltered; I am desperate to attend such a service one day. Fr. Thomas’ explicatory narration of the service is also extremely helpful; thank you for it.
I have known of no suffering as has passed and thankfully it has all been judged in making our hearts ready for what is to come, fear no evil, for it has all been forgiven to us for I as your maker have planned all along for a joyous life for all of Earth and what belongs: take care of your relations from whom you cannot depart and may the house of the Lord be plentiful. Love 💘 John
I know not one who believe in me but I am always here praising my name and giving life as the Lord God the Father Almighty Christ and the holy ghost from now on; love 💘 ❤ John
The Book of Common Prayer is thee most beautiful treasure of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. I love it. There is a sense of dignity in the prayer book. It is open to every man and woman to read and pray it, as it is in beautiful English. The Roman Catholics who detest this prayer book never understand Thomas Cranmer's work, and probably never will, because they are still blind to their own Roman faith.
This would be considered aberrant for much of Anglican history, full of popish superstition. You’d be pilloried and/or thrown in prison in the past for doing this in England.
This is how Elizabeth I would have like to see the HC done in here kingdom, a Protestant Holy Communion that looks like a Mass, but it would have caused riots in the C of E in most places after the 1570s until 1900 because it looks Popish. Also the 1662 Rite used has a truncated Consecration Prayer.
In terms of language, the traditional English language use, no difference at all. However, in 1805 the vestments of the vicar would be very different. Wearing a chasuble would be a no no. That would look too Roman Catholic, so the vicar in 1805 would have worn a simple surplice with a stole when celebrating Holy Communion. Also, they wouldn't have used a wafer for communion, it would have been wheaten bread, as wafers were considered Roman Catholic. In 1805 celebrating the communion service with the vicar's back to the congregation was sometimes done, but more often the communion service would have been held facing the congregation. Other than these little bits, the rest would be the same.
The wafers were continuously used in certain places, although it was more common to use a leavened loaf. In the old Anglican liturgy, there was always a clear distinction between facing the people and turning to the Holy Table. The mordern Roman Catholic practices of standing behind the altar to face people were never Anglican, the common Anglican practice was with the priest standing at the north end of the altar (the Table was set at the east end of the church, covered with a carpet or frontal, and white linen). This positioning allowed people to observe the consecration process, while the priest continued to face God. (Leviticus 1:11 “And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord”）
The consecration prayer used lacks the text that would normally follow the words of institution. The reason? Cranmer wanted to make sure that the eucharist could not be sacrificial, i.e. and objective material sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, to God in union with Christ as it had been since the mid-2nd century AD. Reformers were rabid about this being taken out. Cranmer deleted sacrificial language from the prayer in the BCP of 1547. The text read, "...we do make and celebrate with these thy holy gifts the memorial thy Son hath willeth to make." Gone were words after 'gifts' such as "which we offer unto thee" (restored in the Scottish Rite of the Episcopal Church of Scotland in 1764 and adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in 1789." The restoration of these words brought the Anglican Churches which adopted the full canon much more fully in line with RC and Orthodox teachings and undid Cranmer. The Divine Service presented here is lovely and reverential but the Eucharistic Doctrine is reformation. Cranmer was following Luther and other reformers who rejected the sacrifice of the mass, not the mass but the sacrifide, i.e. we receive the gifts of God, and partake. However the tradition had been, we receive the gifts of God, offer them and ourselves in union with Christ to God and then partake. There is broad agreement that in thru and with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, our prayers, petitions, thanksgivings, sacrifices and offerings, our good works and lives are acceptable. Thus the issue of sacrifice in the eucharist is no longer a problem.
A word to all Roman Catholics who view this - Take a moment to sit, and watch this service, and tell me if this is not more beautiful and dignified than your current "Novus Ordo" Mass of Pope Paul VI? The happy clappy, folk music and utter stripping of dignity in the current modern Roman Catholic Mass is truly awful, surely you have it in your heart to see the dignity, reverence and respect we have for Holy Communion in this service?
A. You assume that all Anglican services are like the one in this video. This is not the case. Many Anglican services are baby boomer bands with poor homilies and social justice warrior agendas. They are even WORSE than the Novus Ordo since they profane the liturgy with female priests and gay marriage. B. You also assume that Novus Ordo masses are irreverent. Just look at the daily mass on EWTN. Quite reverently done. C. The Tridentine Mass (still celebrated in over 500 parishes in the US alone) surpasses even the best Anglican liturgy. If Anglicans had respect for Holy Eucharist, they would never have thrown out the Sarum Liturgy in the first place.
@@p1966kful Where did I say that this type of service was the norm in our church? I did not. I just stated that the beauty and dignity of the traditional Holy Communion liturgy according to the BCP outshines the "happy clappy" nonsense of all churches.
@@l21n18 Actually that attitude has diminished a lot since the early 1990s. You will very rarely ever hear the term "popish" used by any Church of England member. I believe from around the late 80s into the 90s, attitudes to Roman Catholics changed.
A very good model service. Though two things do nag me, what is the deacon wearing? Whatever it is, it's unseemly in how short it is. Second, I would have hoped to see a north-side of the table celebration rather than this ad orientem facing, so that the Eucharistic elements might be visible.
The celebration is assisted by a minister who is presumably a laywoman rather than a deacon, and thus suitably wearing not the deacon's dalmatic but a surplice (albeit in its shorter form, the cotta: one can disagree on matters of taste). The reason for the Eucharist being offered to God in the Eastwards position is of East being the direction of the rising sun (first seen on the first day of the week) and the Garden of Eden. We thus orientate our celebration of the Lord's Supper to the Father Who created heaven and earth, through the Son Whose Resurrection was manifest in a garden on the first dawn of the week. Hence why all our historic church buildings face to the east. The consecrated Elements would be visible to the People if the Priest followed Western Tradition and elevated Them at the Consecration.
Sorry not to have picked up and responded to this sooner. Yes, as Michael Vyse says in the previous comment, she's a laywoman, and she's wearing a cotta. As to the Eastward facing celebration, this is quite commonly practised among adherents of the BCP, and the video depicts ONE authentic way of conducting the celebration. We've tried to emphasise, however, that there are many possible variations in liturgical practice and, while it was not possible to depict them all, we are not seeking to be prescriptive. Many clergy will prefer to celebrate facing West, and some evangelicals celebrate from the North end.
I know what a cotta is, my comment reflected my incredulity and horror at such a thing being worn as part of an Anglican service. Even if one wishes to be very high (I myself am not a low churchman) I can see no justification for wearing the Roman cotta, which is a degeneration of the ancient surplice, in place of our own more dignified shape. It's nothing but aping Rome for its own sake. Even the exceedingly high and mildly Roman Percy Dreamer was appalled that any English churchman should wear this continental modification. It also seems totally against the spirit of a prayer book service. Secondly, regarding direction of celebration, given that these excellent videos repeat the Rubrics of the prayer book, it is quoting the rubric at the start of the Holy Communion service in the Prayerbook: "And the Priest standing at the north side of the Table shall say the Lord's Prayer...". From then on the rubrics refer to the priest both facing the table and the elements of the Eucharist being visible before the people: something only accomplished by north side or westward facing celebration. I don't dispute that one can have a BCP service with eastward celebration just as one can have a BCP service with many things different to the above. But as these videos are meant to give a model BCP service with all rubrics and practices followed and obeyed, then north side ought be shown.
The BCP rubrics refer to the north "side", not "end": the assumption therein made was of an altar set up in the midst of the nave, parallel to the north (or south?) wall. By contrast, the BCP also states that the Ornaments of the Church are to be those of the 1st year of the reign of Edward vi - i.e. 1548, when the mediaeval practices (including eastward celebration at an altar placed at and parallel to the east wall) were still normative. There is thus, as both Prudence Dailey and WhimsicalEloquence point out, that there is a variety of ways of celebrating according to the BCP. As an aside, I note that the Priest in this video is not breaking the Bread (the Fraction) during the Prayer of Consecration as required in the 1662 rubrics; what is not shown is at which point the Fraction takes place.
Might be some offertory prayers privately cited by the priest, according to high church custom. Those prayers may be said in low voice during offering bread and wine, mixing water and washing hands etc., and could be found in some high church service books, such as Anglican/English Missal.
@ShinobiNeon Christ in His sermon on the mount did speak of the good of offering up prayers humbly in secret, incontrast with how the Pharisees in His day made prayers expressly to be seen by others praying, in a sort of "plastic righteousness" I suppose. I get where you're coming from with these specifically though, since the Communion is a corporate service.
Wonderful service. Very interesting to see a Prayer-book Communion more or less unaltered; I am desperate to attend such a service one day. Fr. Thomas’ explicatory narration of the service is also extremely helpful; thank you for it.
I have known of no suffering as has passed and thankfully it has all been judged in making our hearts ready for what is to come, fear no evil, for it has all been forgiven to us for I as your maker have planned all along for a joyous life for all of Earth and what belongs: take care of your relations from whom you cannot depart and may the house of the Lord be plentiful. Love 💘 John
All done decently and in good order.
I know not one who believe in me but I am always here praising my name and giving life as the Lord God the Father Almighty Christ and the holy ghost from now on; love 💘 ❤ John
There is no God like me, fear not for the word I leave you for it is in the grace of the Lord that it has become the truth! Love 💘 John
I've watched this three times in the past week. This is so beautiful and reverent
The Book of Common Prayer is thee most beautiful treasure of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. I love it. There is a sense of dignity in the prayer book. It is open to every man and woman to read and pray it, as it is in beautiful English. The Roman Catholics who detest this prayer book never understand Thomas Cranmer's work, and probably never will, because they are still blind to their own Roman faith.
This would be considered aberrant for much of Anglican history, full of popish superstition. You’d be pilloried and/or thrown in prison in the past for doing this in England.
That’s rather uncharitable. I remember the Cornishmen saying in 1549 “it’s but a Christmas game “
Thank you, a very helpful and instructional video
I will be living amongst you all where grace will be found with love in peace! Love 💘 John
10:05 ASMR moment
This is how Elizabeth I would have like to see the HC done in here kingdom, a Protestant Holy Communion that looks like a Mass, but it would have caused riots in the C of E in most places after the 1570s until 1900 because it looks Popish. Also the 1662 Rite used has a truncated Consecration Prayer.
not until 1900 this movement of looking more catholic, was began in the late 19th century
@@lordjesuschristhavemercyon3251 first BCP was more “catholic”
Popish 🙄
Puritans were a mistake. PURITANS : MURRR MURRR we are illiterate and have no idea of Church History”
If anyone's following the comments: how different would a service held in the year 1805 be to this?
In terms of language, the traditional English language use, no difference at all. However, in 1805 the vestments of the vicar would be very different. Wearing a chasuble would be a no no. That would look too Roman Catholic, so the vicar in 1805 would have worn a simple surplice with a stole when celebrating Holy Communion. Also, they wouldn't have used a wafer for communion, it would have been wheaten bread, as wafers were considered Roman Catholic. In 1805 celebrating the communion service with the vicar's back to the congregation was sometimes done, but more often the communion service would have been held facing the congregation. Other than these little bits, the rest would be the same.
The wafers were continuously used in certain places, although it was more common to use a leavened loaf. In the old Anglican liturgy, there was always a clear distinction between facing the people and turning to the Holy Table. The mordern Roman Catholic practices of standing behind the altar to face people were never Anglican, the common Anglican practice was with the priest standing at the north end of the altar (the Table was set at the east end of the church, covered with a carpet or frontal, and white linen). This positioning allowed people to observe the consecration process, while the priest continued to face God. (Leviticus 1:11 “And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord”）
The BCP 1662 has an indicative absolution as well: I absolve you +in the Name...
Very well narrated, well presented, with some interesting points. A very good guide.
Nice service
The consecration prayer used lacks the text that would normally follow the words of institution. The reason? Cranmer wanted to make sure that the eucharist could not be sacrificial, i.e. and objective material sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, to God in union with Christ as it had been since the mid-2nd century AD. Reformers were rabid about this being taken out. Cranmer deleted sacrificial language from the prayer in the BCP of 1547. The text read, "...we do make and celebrate with these thy holy gifts the memorial thy Son hath willeth to make." Gone were words after 'gifts' such as "which we offer unto thee" (restored in the Scottish Rite of the Episcopal Church of Scotland in 1764 and adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in 1789." The restoration of these words brought the Anglican Churches which adopted the full canon much more fully in line with RC and Orthodox teachings and undid Cranmer. The Divine Service presented here is lovely and reverential but the Eucharistic Doctrine is reformation. Cranmer was following Luther and other reformers who rejected the sacrifice of the mass, not the mass but the sacrifide, i.e. we receive the gifts of God, and partake. However the tradition had been, we receive the gifts of God, offer them and ourselves in union with Christ to God and then partake. There is broad agreement that in thru and with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, our prayers, petitions, thanksgivings, sacrifices and offerings, our good works and lives are acceptable. Thus the issue of sacrifice in the eucharist is no longer a problem.
A word to all Roman Catholics who view this - Take a moment to sit, and watch this service, and tell me if this is not more beautiful and dignified than your current "Novus Ordo" Mass of Pope Paul VI? The happy clappy, folk music and utter stripping of dignity in the current modern Roman Catholic Mass is truly awful, surely you have it in your heart to see the dignity, reverence and respect we have for Holy Communion in this service?
A. You assume that all Anglican services are like the one in this video. This is not the case. Many Anglican services are baby boomer bands with poor homilies and social justice warrior agendas. They are even WORSE than the Novus Ordo since they profane the liturgy with female priests and gay marriage.
B. You also assume that Novus Ordo masses are irreverent. Just look at the daily mass on EWTN. Quite reverently done.
C. The Tridentine Mass (still celebrated in over 500 parishes in the US alone) surpasses even the best Anglican liturgy. If Anglicans had respect for Holy Eucharist, they would never have thrown out the Sarum Liturgy in the first place.
I don’t think you have any idea about a Catholic Mass. As for your “happy clappy” comment, look to your own denomination’s evangelical wing.
@@p1966kful Where did I say that this type of service was the norm in our church? I did not. I just stated that the beauty and dignity of the traditional Holy Communion liturgy according to the BCP outshines the "happy clappy" nonsense of all churches.
Your low church “fellow Anglicans” would consider this a popish abomination actually, now what kind of unity is that?
@@l21n18 Actually that attitude has diminished a lot since the early 1990s. You will very rarely ever hear the term "popish" used by any Church of England member. I believe from around the late 80s into the 90s, attitudes to Roman Catholics changed.
Give me the Sarum Use anytime
It's not Sarum.
Is that a High Church or rather a Low Church service?
High Church. (We videoed a Low Church one at a recent conference, which we hope to put up for comparison in due course.)
high church but not as high as they could have made it; without the music they could have used and no incense
A very good model service. Though two things do nag me, what is the
deacon wearing? Whatever it is, it's unseemly in how short it is.
Second, I would have hoped to see a north-side of the table celebration
rather than this ad orientem facing, so that the Eucharistic elements
might be visible.
The celebration is assisted by a minister who is presumably a laywoman rather than a deacon, and thus suitably wearing not the deacon's dalmatic but a surplice (albeit in its shorter form, the cotta: one can disagree on matters of taste).
The reason for the Eucharist being offered to God in the Eastwards position is of East being the direction of the rising sun (first seen on the first day of the week) and the Garden of Eden. We thus orientate our celebration of the Lord's Supper to the Father Who created heaven and earth, through the Son Whose Resurrection was manifest in a garden on the first dawn of the week. Hence why all our historic church buildings face to the east.
The consecrated Elements would be visible to the People if the Priest followed Western Tradition and elevated Them at the Consecration.
Sorry not to have picked up and responded to this sooner.
Yes, as Michael Vyse says in the previous comment, she's a laywoman, and she's wearing a cotta.
As to the Eastward facing celebration, this is quite commonly practised among adherents of the BCP, and the video depicts ONE authentic way of conducting the celebration. We've tried to emphasise, however, that there are many possible variations in liturgical practice and, while it was not possible to depict them all, we are not seeking to be prescriptive. Many clergy will prefer to celebrate facing West, and some evangelicals celebrate from the North end.
I know what a cotta is, my comment reflected my incredulity and horror at such a thing being worn as part of an Anglican service. Even if one wishes to be very high (I myself am not a low churchman) I can see no justification for wearing the Roman cotta, which is a degeneration of the ancient surplice, in place of our own more dignified shape. It's nothing but aping Rome for its own sake. Even the exceedingly high and mildly Roman Percy Dreamer was appalled that any English churchman should wear this continental modification. It also seems totally against the spirit of a prayer book service.
Secondly, regarding direction of celebration, given that these excellent videos repeat the Rubrics of the prayer book, it is quoting the rubric at the start of the Holy Communion service in the Prayerbook:
"And the Priest standing at the north side of the Table shall say the Lord's Prayer...". From then on the rubrics refer to the priest both facing the table and the elements of the Eucharist being visible before the people: something only accomplished by north side or westward facing celebration.
I don't dispute that one can have a BCP service with eastward celebration just as one can have a BCP service with many things different to the above. But as these videos are meant to give a model BCP service with all rubrics and practices followed and obeyed, then north side ought be shown.
A glorious and yet simple service; the best of the old "Prayer Book High", thank you
The BCP rubrics refer to the north "side", not "end": the assumption therein made was of an altar set up in the midst of the nave, parallel to the north (or south?) wall.
By contrast, the BCP also states that the Ornaments of the Church are to be those of the 1st year of the reign of Edward vi - i.e. 1548, when the mediaeval practices (including eastward celebration at an altar placed at and parallel to the east wall) were still normative.
There is thus, as both Prudence Dailey and WhimsicalEloquence point out, that there is a variety of ways of celebrating according to the BCP.
As an aside, I note that the Priest in this video is not breaking the Bread (the Fraction) during the Prayer of Consecration as required in the 1662 rubrics; what is not shown is at which point the Fraction takes place.
What are those whispered prayers at the offertory?
Might be some offertory prayers privately cited by the priest, according to high church custom. Those prayers may be said in low voice during offering bread and wine, mixing water and washing hands etc., and could be found in some high church service books, such as Anglican/English Missal.
@@bwilliamleo7872 the Suscipe Sancte Pater and Offerimus Tibi etc.?
@@bwilliamleo7872 Why do prayers need to be secret? Shouldn't they be openly spoken for all to hear?
@ShinobiNeon Christ in His sermon on the mount did speak of the good of offering up prayers humbly in secret, incontrast with how the Pharisees in His day made prayers expressly to be seen by others praying, in a sort of "plastic righteousness" I suppose. I get where you're coming from with these specifically though, since the Communion is a corporate service.
Translate this into Polish. . . . . . . with a Polish voice over
What is this abomination?
Pipe down papist - this video is not meant for you
You are blind to beauty and reverence and you betray God.
It's called a cosplay