Padres:

Here is Bishop Fick's review of the AMIA prayer book.

Thank you +Fredrick for the article.

Charles+
"======================

First Impressions Of “An Anglican Prayer Book”
The published prayer book of the AMiA.

First, it is small, somewhat larger than the St
Augustine Prayer book, but smaller than the 1549, and
much, much smaller than the 1979, 1928 American pew
books. It’s diminutive size reminds me more closely of
the small personal sized 1979 books. 
Please note, this is a quick first look and apologies,
in advance, to anyone who is a faithful 1662 Anglican.
 

Secondly, it has the appearance of being somewhat
rushed to publication. The fonts are not bad, just not
nearly as nice as those of the 1979.  The paper is
nice and white. So far so good. However, the rubrics,
what there are of them, are neither italicized nor
printed in red. I found this a little off putting.
Additional criticisms of the publishing are awkward
page breaks, altogether too much hyphenation, and
something of a lack on consistency in page layout
design. Granted, one can see the budgetary restraints
here. 

The APB, as I have labeled it, is virtually a word for
word modern rendition of the 1662 BCP in virtually
every respect. In every way, it is a true “two
sacrament” book. Sure, there are rites for
confirmation, marriage and ordination and a 1662
styled “visitation of the sick”, but there is no
blessing of oil, no mention of private confession, no
charge to bring the baptized before a bishop for
confirmation. 

The catechism seems minimalist even by BCP standards.
No mention even of “sacramentals” or “lesser
sacraments”. I could be wrong, but I don’t even recall
the word “candle” being mentioned. Pretty low-church
stuff all the way around. I even noticed a curious
lack of a proper preface for Lent and many other feast
days.
The 1662 theme continues almost throughout. The Gloria
is a post communion canticle with no other option
presented. 

Surprisingly, the 1928 Eucharistic prayer is included,
providing the only option that considers an epiclesis.
There is never a sharing of the peace. The word
“altar” is not used, but “Holy Table” is. The word
“minister” is used, not “priest” in the rubrics of
Holy Communion. The Canadian form of a Eucharistic
prayer is also included. Don’t recall much if any
reference to scary things like the Blessed Virgin or
the saints generally.
If the goal was to have a separate book from TEC, then
that goal was met, I suppose. If the goal was to
closely follow the African (Rwandan) version of the
1662 used by their parent jurisdiction then again, the
goal was also likely met, although I do not have a
Rwandan BCP with which to compare. 

The REC’s own proposed contemporary text is similarly
based on the 1662 and  generally follows the same
theological and liturgical stream, strikingly similar,
frankly. Yet, the rhythm of the REC’s proposed text
flows better to my ears in most places, better
preserving iambic pentameter. I was very pleased to
see that AMiA followed the same convention as the REC
in adopting the “and with your spirit” response. Well
done. Dr. Peter Toon has long lobbied for this
adoption.

The ordination rite for deacons clearly allows for non
sex-specific instructions and prayers. Thus, the real
possibility for female deacons is rather assumed.

The absence of a bound-in Psalter (of any quality,
good or bad) is also interesting. The only historic
documents printed in the back are the Articles of
Religion.

The contemporary phrasing seems somewhat uneven to
someone such as myself, who prefers most things in
Rite I language. I see very little that strikes me as
an improvement over the contemporary language as found
in the 1979. I found the incessant offering of the
“side by side” Lord’s Prayer, in contemporary and
tradition, to be an intrusion. How hard did they wish
to push a new Lord’s Prayer? Basic elements of common
prayer get lost, it seems to me, in such editorial
decisions.

To be sure, there is an absence of blatant modernistic
thinking, but in keeping with the 1662 ideal, this is
a pointedly protestant book through and through. I do
not object to attempting contemporary language, not at
all. But I am not a huge fan of the 1662 regardless of
the idiom used. I am an Anglican Catholic. Grateful
for the one wee bit of Catholic tradition included,
(the 1928 Eucharistic Prayer) but sadly, that would
never be enough to satisfy my piety, but that is my
problem, isn’t it. 

The book is theologically solid, if one is an Anglican
of that tradition. There is nothing offensive to basic
Christianity. It stands solidly within the 1662
Anglican BCP tradition.
The complete lack of any traditional historic Anglican
idiom, dominating low-church philosophy, rather
dubious page layout decision, and clearly a rather
protestant idealism and there just isn’t much for me
to embrace here. Careful use of the 1979 BCP (gasp!)
would be a much better option for me personally.

+Frederick G. Fick
Missionary Society of St. John
March 28, 2008