tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post116991110229484006..comments2023-10-25T04:22:54.910-07:00Comments on An Anglican Priest: The Ruminations of a Canterbury Cap Catholic: Rev. Dr. Hasserthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-55059479867572782422007-03-17T08:55:00.000-07:002007-03-17T08:55:00.000-07:00To me the major weakness of Toon's translation is ...To me the major weakness of Toon's translation is his failure to include the rubrics and the prefaces. These indicate how the liturgy was to be done and how it was to be seen. Without them it seems merely an option at the discretion of the local minister and not "Common Prayer" at all.<BR/><BR/>Toon has complained that most of the modern translations of the Bible are not really translations at all but renderings to meet the biases of the intended reader, i.e., gender neutral, etc. His translation of 1662 seems to me much the same thing, intended to appeal to the prejudices of those in AMiA (and I accept the most of the criticism of the earlier poster) which to me means that they understand neither what was intended by the BCP or by classical prayer book Anglicans, Elizabeth I and after.<BR/><BR/>The great advantage of the classical prayer books is that we can know what they mean as the language from a theological standpoint is fairly fixed. But we can never be sure of what contemporary English will come to mean in ten years or even ten days.<BR/><BR/>I have friends who attended the last AMiA conference, but both complained to me (separately) about going. One is attached to a parish in exile which has placed itself under Archbishop Venebles while the other is more at home with the local REC parish. Personally I use the 1928 American book but enriched by material from the Scots and English books of '28 and '29. I am always concerned by the almost endless dumbing down of our present society - and especially in the Church.<BR/><BR/>Excellent posts.<BR/><BR/>LeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-81335053001820258212007-03-13T13:06:00.000-07:002007-03-13T13:06:00.000-07:00"should we not use the highest and best form of ou..."should we not use the highest and best form of our tongue that we have?"<BR/><BR/>Indeed. However, too much emphasis gets placed on the words rather than the heart of the one who prays them. The prose may be elegant but if the holiness of the heart is not equally so then it is little more than a gold ring in a pig's snout.<BR/><BR/>Those who aargue for "classic english" start sounding either like the "KJV only" folks or what those who objected to rendering the Scriptures or liturgy in English instead of Latin must have sounded like.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think that AMiA has taken a step in the "rite" direction (sorry, couldn't resiste the pun).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-87982079123543899572007-02-17T07:14:00.000-08:002007-02-17T07:14:00.000-08:00So we translate liturgy into the language of the p...So we translate liturgy into the language of the practioner. And we transform liturgy into the practices of the times. <B>We just successfully transformed God into Man!</B> Second time in the history of the world! But it's not right <B><I>this</I></B> time! It should be the other way around!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1170512377335860342007-02-03T06:19:00.000-08:002007-02-03T06:19:00.000-08:00Common Prayer is just that--common, public prayer....Common Prayer is just that--common, public prayer. This removes that element as there will be several options for parishes in the AMiA. Without the whole choir singing off the same hymn-sheet we have the confusion of Babel. Having said that, the current state of things in the AMiA is just that: no uniformity of liturgy or formulary. Will this fix the problem? I wot not. Those who cling to the traditional forms (1928 or 1662) are unlikely to find this an acceptable change. Those using the 1979 book will find its organisation which faithfully follows the extremely Protestant rendering of Cranmer's catholic book very odd even alienating regardless of the content. And as far as content goes it seems a step back in time to reduce the epiclesis to an optional element in the Prayer of Consecration. How are we to recognise the great continuity with the pre-Schism church by eliminating the Kyrie--the only Greek and thus explicitly Eastern parts of the Western Canon? <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately Dr. Toon seems to have emphasised his rather English Evangelical (in classic sense) bias--use of the 1662 structure and the peculiar rubrics born in the post-Commonwealth struggle--to the detriment of the more catholic elements in language and action found in the other canons and even in the language of the original 1662--the Prayer of Humble Access hardly seems such here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-1170013494586110012007-01-28T11:44:00.000-08:002007-01-28T11:44:00.000-08:00Peter Toon is a great proponent of the 1662 Prayer...Peter Toon is a great proponent of the 1662 Prayer Book. I'm not sure why a modern language variation of the 1928 wasn't provided as well. That being said, do you think he has rendered the service into modern language in a capable manner?<BR/><BR/>At the moment I don't want to get into a 1662 v 1928 BCP debate. (Within the REC, this was settled by including both services, very much like the 1928 English Book. . .perhaps they should have done likewise, but again, that's not my main concern). Rather, does this modern language variation give the person in the pew the content of the original 1662?Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.com