I started praying as an atheist using the Anglican daily office. There are some amazing historical prayers and there are versions with a lectionary that has you read through almost all the Old Testament in a year, most of the New Testament three times, and the psalms twelve times. I ended up pursuing worship at an Eastern Orthodox parish once I was ready to bite the bullet and take the next step towards faith, but I would have felt even more lost without having already developed a daily practice of prayer thanks to Cramner's excellent Book of Common Prayer.
@@ConvincedCatholicism The inherent nihilism of the modern materialist worldview eventually made me seek some way to find a way to faith. I guess getting drunk all the time was not resolving my problems with meaning.
Well, I was one of those Anglicans that asked you to review the 1662 book of common prayer. Before I even start this, it's kind of funny that I'm now leaving for Rome. Edit: now that I am watching it, while it is the current book used in the CoE, there are customs observed outside of the book that make the current book obsolete in certain portions. The lectionary and calendar are the prime examples. Those inclusions may as well be historical. One may use that lectionary if one wishes, but in parish practice, the triannual lectionry is used. The anti-catholic sentiments in the 39 articles are also openly violated by many CoE churches ever since the influence of the oxford movement.
"Repugnant?" Well stated, good sir. Turnabout is fair play. At least they removed the description of the "detestable enormities" of the Bishop of Rome, found in the earliest prayer book! As I understand it, the 39 Articles are not technically part of the Book of Common Prayer, but are invariably appended to it. Nice (and fair) review.
I certainly tried to be fair. The prayer rule of Morning and Evening prayer are perfectly acceptable as I mentioned in the review. The prayerbook and the Church of England have been on a rollercoaster ride of theological opinion, place in Christendom (low, broad, and high church) and of ecumenism.
The issue with the 39 articles, from an Orthodox and a Catholic perspective is really, and can’t really sugar coat this, the visceral attacks on what we believe happens at the sacrament of the altar. It’s not just “oh we believe the bread and wine remain, no transformation of the elements.” From Constantinople or Moscow’s pov, we would be be like “fine, fair enough, whatever. You are wrong but whatever.” The issue is that extra step, that jab at the end. Claiming that “transubstantiation overthroweth the sacrament.” That’s what we find absolutely repugnant. To claim, without any sort of warrant, that the belief that God transforms the very matter that we offer into his own flesh and blood is evil. And to top it off, claim that the Eucharist can not be lifted up or carried about, or reserved. despite st. Augustine pointing out the liturgical practices of his day, as well the ancient practices of ante-nicene fathers who carried the Eucharist in processions to both the poor who could not attend church and the sick and dying.
I use the 1662 International Edition as I'm an American Anglican. Its a good edit of the 1662 BCP. When it comes to the edition used by the CofE, I use the Oxford 1662
@@ConvincedCatholicism It's pretty good overall. The only major differences is the collects for the Royal Family are relegated to optional, there's extra collects in the appendix section, one of Thomas Cranmer's Sermons is included, and it gives the 1962 CofE lectionary alongside the 1662 lectionary
The Episcopalians in the US publish a copy of the NRSV connected to the BCP. It is similar to how all of the scriptures in the LDS church are all bound into one book called a quad.
I started praying as an atheist using the Anglican daily office. There are some amazing historical prayers and there are versions with a lectionary that has you read through almost all the Old Testament in a year, most of the New Testament three times, and the psalms twelve times. I ended up pursuing worship at an Eastern Orthodox parish once I was ready to bite the bullet and take the next step towards faith, but I would have felt even more lost without having already developed a daily practice of prayer thanks to Cramner's excellent Book of Common Prayer.
Curious as to what made you pray as an atheist. Glad you are in the Church now! God bless!
@@ConvincedCatholicism The inherent nihilism of the modern materialist worldview eventually made me seek some way to find a way to faith. I guess getting drunk all the time was not resolving my problems with meaning.
Well, I was one of those Anglicans that asked you to review the 1662 book of common prayer.
Before I even start this, it's kind of funny that I'm now leaving for Rome.
Edit: now that I am watching it, while it is the current book used in the CoE, there are customs observed outside of the book that make the current book obsolete in certain portions. The lectionary and calendar are the prime examples. Those inclusions may as well be historical. One may use that lectionary if one wishes, but in parish practice, the triannual lectionry is used. The anti-catholic sentiments in the 39 articles are also openly violated by many CoE churches ever since the influence of the oxford movement.
It really is more of a historical piece at this point despite it technically being the current book
"Repugnant?" Well stated, good sir. Turnabout is fair play.
At least they removed the description of the "detestable enormities" of the Bishop of Rome, found in the earliest prayer book!
As I understand it, the 39 Articles are not technically part of the Book of Common Prayer, but are invariably appended to it.
Nice (and fair) review.
I certainly tried to be fair. The prayer rule of Morning and Evening prayer are perfectly acceptable as I mentioned in the review. The prayerbook and the Church of England have been on a rollercoaster ride of theological opinion, place in Christendom (low, broad, and high church) and of ecumenism.
The issue with the 39 articles, from an Orthodox and a Catholic perspective is really, and can’t really sugar coat this, the visceral attacks on what we believe happens at the sacrament of the altar. It’s not just “oh we believe the bread and wine remain, no transformation of the elements.” From Constantinople or Moscow’s pov, we would be be like “fine, fair enough, whatever. You are wrong but whatever.” The issue is that extra step, that jab at the end. Claiming that “transubstantiation overthroweth the sacrament.” That’s what we find absolutely repugnant. To claim, without any sort of warrant, that the belief that God transforms the very matter that we offer into his own flesh and blood is evil. And to top it off, claim that the Eucharist can not be lifted up or carried about, or reserved. despite st. Augustine pointing out the liturgical practices of his day, as well the ancient practices of ante-nicene fathers who carried the Eucharist in processions to both the poor who could not attend church and the sick and dying.
I use the 1662 International Edition as I'm an American Anglican. Its a good edit of the 1662 BCP. When it comes to the edition used by the CofE, I use the Oxford 1662
I have heard some interesting things about the IVP version
@@ConvincedCatholicism It's pretty good overall. The only major differences is the collects for the Royal Family are relegated to optional, there's extra collects in the appendix section, one of Thomas Cranmer's Sermons is included, and it gives the 1962 CofE lectionary alongside the 1662 lectionary
Bring back monsters of history!
Well well well. It seems you have found my other content.
Could you please do a review of the People's Anglican Missal from the Anglican Parish Association?
I could definitely take a look at that!
I will just correct you though. Catholic means universal what your referring to is the roman catholic church
The Episcopalians in the US publish a copy of the NRSV connected to the BCP. It is similar to how all of the scriptures in the LDS church are all bound into one book called a quad.
Yup! That doesn't seem to be incredibly popular for whatever reason
@@ConvincedCatholicism Their loss 😁