How many ways can we say Gloria Patri?

This semester, I've been doing sung morning and evening prayer on campus. One of the interesting challenges is that sometimes we sing from different hymnals or liturgies in a single service, and thus we sing two (or even three) different Gloria Patri. (Similar changes have been made in the Gloria in Excelsis, but that’s a topic for another time).

The Latin version is nearly 15 centuries old:

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto:
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.

New Advent says it was universal throughout christendom by the 17th century. For example, Shepherd (1950: 9) says about the Gloria Patri after the psalms:

Gloria Patri (see commentary, p. 8). The use of this doxology has been traditional in the Church from the earliest times, and is intended to give to the Psalms a Christian reference and intention. 

Blunt (1889: 186) dates it even earlier

Clement of Alexandria, who wrote before the end of the second century, refers to the use of this hymn under this form, …“giving glory to the one Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,” and a hymn of about the same date is printed by Dr. Bouth, in which there is an evident trace of the same custom :… “Praise we the Father and Son, and Holy Spirit of God." It is also referred to even earlier by Justin Martyr. 

The 14th and 15th century manuscripts of the Sarum Missal (Legg, 1916: 23) list this text as

chorus. Gloria patri et filio et spiritui sancto.
clerici. Et laus et honor potestas et imperium.
chorus. Sicut erat in principio et nuncet semper et in secula seculorum amen.

400 years of the Book of Common Prayer

In the Daily Office, Cranmer’s original 1549 Booke of Common Praier uses this translation:

Glory be to the father, and to the sonne, and to the holye ghost. As it was in the begynning, is now, and ever shal be, world without ende. Amen.

Except for spelling, we see that in the CoE prayer books through 1662, as well as the (unapproved) 1928 Book of Common Prayer. It’s also in the American prayer books from 1789 to 1928 as

Minister. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

And then came Vatican II.

Vatican II/ICET/ICEL

After Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church began a systematic translation of the liturgy into English (and other local languages). As Hatchett (1988: 132) notes in his summary of Anglican liturgy revisions since the 1950s

Various provinces have participated in ecumenical groups developing common translations of texts (International Consultation on English Texts, or its equivalent for other languages) and have adopted common lectionaries, based on either the post­ Vatican II Roman lectionary or that developed by the Joint Liturgical Group.

In the 1972 and 1975 proposed texts from the International Consultation on English Texts (published in Prayers We Have in Common), the Gloria Patri was rendered as

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as in the beginning, so now, and for ever. Amen.

However, this did not reflect what had already been used in the 1971 Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours:

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen.

This is, of course, also what ended up in the 1979 American prayer book.

Over the years, I was probably not the only one who was confused that both the Rite I (traditional) and Rite II (modern) liturgies have used the same GP. On the one hand, it made sense for simplifying the task of a priest celebrating both Rite I and Rite II in the same parish (a common issue in the 1980s and 1990s). However, it also meant that this part of Rite I is consistently different from the previous 400 years of English language liturgy — even though most of the rest of Rite I is intended to be similar to the historic liturgy.

One of the sources of confusion is that Rite I services can use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer Daily Office canticles (and psalms), as in Hymnal 1940 (and now the Book of Common Praise 2017) — as well as any earlier American, English (or other) resources. So in singing the Daily Office, it matters whether we copy a canticle from H40, BCP17, or the Rite I part of H82.

21st Century Corrections

The Roman Catholic church accounts for more than one third of American Christians. After its 2008 English language correction to its liturgy of the mass  — the Roman Missal (3rd ed.) implemented in 2011 — around 2010 the American Catholic bishops started a related update of its Liturgy of the Hours. However, this new liturgy has not been officially approved, and I was unable to identify its plans for the Gloria Patri.

However, more directly relevant for American Anglicans, the ACNA has released drafts of Texts for Common Prayer, the liturgy its is scheduled to approve in June 2019. In the liturgy of the Daily Office — Morning and Evening Prayer — the new Gloria Patri is rendered as

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

In other words, we are almost full circle. The Gloria Patri of 1549-1928 is back, with one change: consistent with late 20th century contemporary language, “Ghost” has been banished and replaced everywhere with “Spirit.” Under the circumstances, it seems like the most compatible revision of the historic liturgy.

With only about 100,000 members, the ACNA might seem lonely make its change on its own. However, it’s merely emulating the (gently modernized) language used by the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, with its two most recent liturgy books: Lutheran Worship (1982) and Lutheran Service Book (2006). While the LCMS is smaller than the more liberal ECLA, it is still larger than the Episcopal Church and ACNA combined.

Is this liturgical change by the ACNA the first step toward ecumenical cooperation with the most liturgically conservative of the largest Protestant denominations?

References

• Blunt, John Henry, The Annotated Book of Common Prayer, rev. ed., London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1889.
• Hatchett, Marion J., “Prayer Books,” in Stephen Sykes and John Booty, The Study of Anglicanism (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1988), 121-133.
• Legg, J. Wickham, ed. The Sarum Missal. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916.
• Prayers We Have in Common: Agreed Liturgical Texts Prepared by the International Consultation on English Texts, enlarged and revised ed., Philadelphia, Fortress, 1972.
• Prayers We Have in Common: Agreed Liturgical Texts Prepared by the International Consultation on English Texts, 2nd rev. ed., Philadelphia, Fortress, 1975.
• Shepherd, Massey Hamilton, Jr., The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950

Cultural universals in liturgical worship

The last three Sundays, I've worshipped in Spain, at home in California and Australia. The juxtaposition has given me additional insights into liturgical variations (and similarities) between cultures, and thus the degree to which churches should (or at least have) adapt their worship to the local culture.

When comparing two services, there are several possible variables: language, the order of service, what is said, the role of music and how those leading the service (and those in the pews) actually worship.

Language matters, but within the Western liturgical churches there is still a common heritage to the medieval Latin service. For example, both my wife and I have found strong affinity to service in Germany’s Roman Catholic church — we have a similar childhood and adult experience with high church Episcopalian (and now Anglican) worship, but I speak some German and she doesn’t. When I first visited Cologne cathedral in 1980, the service felt very familiar as the service followed what I'd known as a kid. My wife — who attended a small town mass with friends two years ago while I was traveling on business — says that the service she attended what quite recognizable from our childhood services.

But language isn’t everything. I've heard some claim that a Christian from the early church would recognize our 21st century services. That seems a bit much, but I certainly think an Italian from the early Middle Ages would recognize an Anglo-Catholic service more than an Englishman from Elizabethan England would recognize a nondenom praise band service.

This morning in Spain, despite not speaking the language, I recognized the order of lessons (Isaiah, Romans, Matthew) that would have been used at a US Catholic church or by Protestants under the Revised Common Lectionary year A. I also recognized the Lord’s Prayer and prayers of the people, and the Alleluia was the same one I’ve sung for decades (albeit with the syllables broken differently).

What was most different was that instead of hymns, the singing consisted of a series of chants by the cantor, with the congregation singing an antiphon after each phrase. The cantor tried to teach the congregation the antiphons, and I found (despite the language) I was able to sing along when the words matched the handout.

However, in a (IMHO foolish) attempt to save money or the planet, the handout only covered what was different for the season of Advent. There were several antiphons that were not handed out — perhaps they were familiar to regular worshippers — but the net effect was to exclude visitors from participation in the worship.

I had hoped from the handout we would sing (in Catalan) perhaps the most universal Advent hymn

Veniu, veniu, oh Emmanuel,
sou l'esperança d'Israel
que en trist exili ací tothora
redempció de vós implora.
Exulta! Exulta! Israel,
a tu vindrà l'Emmnanuel.

Veniu, esclat del nostre hivern,
Oh Saviesa de l'Etern!
De vostra llum el món fretura
per retrobar-vos dalt l'altura.
Exulta! Exulta! Israel,
a tu vindrà l'Emmnanuel.

Veniu, oh Rei Omnipotent,
d'antics oracles compliment.
Veniu, refeu nostra flaquesa,
Déu eternal, font de bonesa.
Exulta! Exulta! Israel,
a tu vindrà l'Emmanuel.

but apparently that was for an earlier Sunday.

In Australia, I attended two communion services: one fro the 1995 Australian prayer book at an Anglo-Catholic parish, and the other using the 1662 BCP at an evangelical one. Not surprisingly, the former used the ICEL translation of the Sanctus (“…God of power and might”) and other parts of the ordinary; the latter had the Elizabethan words, even if in an unfamiliar order. So the latter was nominally more similar to Anglo-Catholic worship from Rite I or the 1928 BCP.

But if you ignored the words and watched what people did, the liturgical practice was just the opposite. At the Anglo-Catholic (modern language) church, nearly everyone made the sign of the cross and most kneeled at the familiar parts of the service. At the evangelical (traditional language) church, there were no kneelers and no sign of the cross; it also had a sermon more than 30 minutes long (versus 12 minutes at my home parish).

Still, it seems as though there is a distinct subset of the Western church today that retains the liturgy and practices of the pre-Reformation church. For these Christians, worshipping in another denomination with similar liturgical style (e.g. at a baptism, wedding or in a mixed marriage) will be comfortable, as will a chaplain’s service at a college, in a hospital or the military.

The issue of East and West seems more insurmountable. My Orthodox (ex-Episcopalian) friend claims there are many similarities, but in my one visit to his (Greek) church they were hard to find. Many of the non-ethnic Orthodox parishes in the U.S. use familiar words (where applicable) and so at such churches there might be more recognizable similarities.

Still, there seem fewer opportunities for common ground. In the 13th century, the emperor Michael Paeologus — founder of the last dynasty of the Byzantine Empire — tried to reunify the Eastern church with Rome barely 200 years after the Great Schism. However, the laity (and some clergy) of the Greek church sabotaged his efforts because they didn’t want to give up their distinct worship style in the name of unity with Rome — even though it ultimately meant surrendering the empire to the Ottoman invaders.

Thus we must constantly pray for healing the divisions in Christ’s church, even if such healing (like the second coming) may not happen in our lifetimes.

Blessed is He

One of the Lutheran blogs I follow is Brothers of John the Steadfast, the organization that worked hardest to save Issues. Etc. Tuesday’s post is entitled “Note on Liturgy #17 — Sanctus.” I spotted an interested difference in worship, specifically regarding the Benedictus.

I grew up on 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and now (usually) attend a 1928 BCP parish. On my p. 77 of my first prayer book the Preface and Sanctus are rendered as

Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious name; evermore praising thee, and saying

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts, Heaven and earth are full of thy Glory: Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High.

Rite I of the 1979 PECUSA prayer book has this, and also adds the Benedictus

Here may be added
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

Because of the 1928 BCP, in Hymnal 1940 the Sanctus doesn’t include the Benedictus until the 2nd Supplement (1981), which adds a new version of the Santcus (Hymns #796-801) with the Benedictus for all 8 communion services.

Among the LCMS hymnals, The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) is the oldest in my collection. Page 26 reports “The Sanctus” complete with the Benedictus:

Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth
Heav’n and earth are full of Thy glory;
Hosanna, Hosanna, Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is He, Blessed is He,
Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna, Hosanna, Hosanna in the highest.

Lutheran Worship (1982), as with PECUSA’s 1979 prayer book, offers old and new words. Divine Service I is similar to TLH, except “thy” becomes “your” and the refrain is “Blessed is he” not “He” — hopefully signifying a change in style, rather than in theology.

Rite II in PECUSA has the new words

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might,
heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

and sure enough, Divine Service II of LW is the same, except it says “pow’r”.

However, “God of power and might” will be gone under the newly approved Catholic version of the Sanctus, reverting to a more faithful translation of the Latin text returning to original English text with this text:

Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of Hosts.
Heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

The 1928 BCP (sans Bendictus) matches the 1662 COE prayer book — lacking the Benedictus found in the 1549 BCP. Although both the 1549 and 1552 prayer books were edited by Archbishop Cranmer, the Benedictus was removed in the 1552 BCP and apparently not restored until the 20th century.

Last year my Lenten discipline was reading about the history of the English prayer book. From that, I gathered that the four revisions of the prayer book during this turbulent century-plus (1549, 1552, 1559 and then 1662 after the Puritans were deposed) all centered on the inherent contradiction of how the Church of England was first defined: “Catholic and Reformed.” Henry, Edward and especially Elizabeth sought compromises that pleased everyone and no one to hold the church (and the country) together.

Dropping the Benedictus in 1552 was obviously a win for the Reformed (Calvinist) side. In his seminal The Story of the Prayer Book (1933: 71), Percy Dearmer (editor of The English Hymnal) notes that the Holy Communion service of the American BCP combines both the 1549 and 1552 approaches. He then wrote (p. 71) approvingly of the 1552 change to the Sanctus:

Proud are we of the First Model [1549], there is no less cause for pride in the Second, when we remember that its purpose is to provide a liturgy that is Apostolic rather than Patristic. The omission of the Introits, the Benedictus, and the Agnus is an advantage in which the First Model in its present use now shares (for they are no longer anywhere compulsory.). It was a good change; and even those who like to use these forms in the place of anthems or hymns, as is generally allowed to be legitimate, would not desire to have them all made compulsory again.

Somehow I never thought of the Lutherans as patristic, so I'd be curious to learn more about why they used the Benedictus during all these years that many (most?) Anglicans did not.

Next hymnal: Schism II without Schism I

Exactly a year ago, (following Peter Toon), I asked “A new US church - a decade away?” Looking at the progress of Common Cause Partners, I said “Five years seems like a best case.”

But exactly a week ago, the recent TEC and ACC defectors held a ceremony in Wheaton, Illinois to form a new Anglican province (hereafter NAP). AnglicanTV has a wide assortment of videos from the event.

While this is just a milestone en route to a full ecclesiastical authority — not to mention recognition in the broader Anglican Communion beyond the GAFCON bishops who visited Canterbury last week — it’s obvious that things are moving much more quickly than I predicted in December 2007. So if it takes a few years to become fully legal, then 2009 or 2010 (as I said in September) seems more likely.

However, this paragraph from David Virtue’s report caught my eye:

Asked about what Prayer Book would be used, [ACN Moderator Robert] Duncan said that that would be left to the various diocese and networks. There would no official Prayer Book, some will use the 1662 and others will use the 1979, he said.

This is troubling on two levels.

First, why continue to use the deeply flawed, revisionist PECUSA prayer book? As Peter Toon notes, it has so seriously broken the continuity with the original BCP that it should be called A Book of Alternative Services (1979). In fact, these alternative (Rite II) services that are exactly the services that the Evangelicals are using and why they adopted the 1979 prayer book.

Second, AMiA and Toon produced a 1662 prayer book with modern words. So if theology and words and beliefs matter, why continue to perpetuate the flawed theology of TEC née PECUSA?

But what really bothered me is what’s missing: the 1928 BCP. Yes, I know there are arguments about whether it is a faithful interpretation of 1549 or 1662, but those arguments are fewer than for the 1979 prayer book. More seriously, the earliest generation of Anglican rejectionists — who I term “Schism I” — formed around their rejection of the 1979 prayer book and its associated theology.

And back to the theme of this blog, what does this say for our next hymnal, one that does not enrich the TEC retirement fund? Alas, traditionalists are happy to continue using (and reinforcing the themes) of the TEC Hymnal 1982.

From a liturgical standpoint, I would think that the FiFNA (anti-WO) part of NAP should partner with Schism I parishes to create a traditionalist hymnal that is a worthy successor to Hymnal 1940, my favorite hymnal. If so, sign me up!

However, my fear is that NAP will make a watered-down, compromise hymnal in an attempt to maintain bureaucratic control and span the gulf that separates its Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings. This will bring us politically correct hymns that mangle doctrine, rather than building upon tradition and liturgy that reach out to us across the centuries.

A 17th century Rite II

As I mentioned Monday, the Prayer Book Society and the Anglican Mission in the Americas are producing a new edition of the 1662 BCP. Monday afternoon, PBS president Peter Toon gave more details:

It is a regrettable fact that most of the forms of service designed for use since the late 1960s in western Anglicanism have sought to set aside the pattern and doctrine within the historic Book of Common Prayer, and replace them with a shape and theology that is a mixture of ancient structure and modern doctrine. Even where some of the historic content has been preserved, as in Rite One services of the 1979 Prayer Book of The Episcopal Church, it is made to fit into the “shape” of the modern Rite Two.

Therefore, there is a real need in contemporary Anglicanism for the availability of classic Common Prayer in a way that is acceptable and usable by those who currently use Rite Two, or the Canadian 1985 Book, or the like. There is an open space developing for use of traditional services in contemporary English, where the doctrine and devotion of the historic Anglican Way are present, known and received.

Thus, the project is oriented at AMiA (low church) parishes — many of which switched to the Rite II 1982 prayer book before fleeing ECUSA in this decade.

I guess there was no reason for the PBS/AMiA to worry about the Anglo-Catholics, who can read the original edition online in 17th century language not that different from the 1928 BCP. Here is the collect for Sexagesima (two days ago)

LORD God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do; Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Still, there is a big question of how far the PBS/AMiA went towards Rite II — in particular, did it follow the modern mainline Protestant (and Catholic) ICET translations of the original Latin? For many, the key test is the first response of the Sursum Corda.

	Latin	1662 BCP	ICET
Priest	Dominus Vobiscum	The Lord be with you	The Lord be with you
People	Et cum spiritu tuo	And with thy spirit	And also with you

The older translation is more literal, and the two translations are not the same. Update: The Toonian 1662 BCP says “And with your spirit,” which preserves the meaning while dropping the thees and thous.

Of course, there are other innumerable other differences between the 1662/1928 renditions and the ICET. Some are inconsequential, such as “thy” vs. “your”; but others have doctrinal implications, such as “I believe” rather than “We believe.” Will the new PB modernize the Lord’s Prayer? Almost every Rite II parish I’ve attended still says “Our Father, who art in heaven.”

The whole point of the ICET was to unify English translations in modern language. If the PBS/AMiA project adopts the ICET, it can use the musical settings of Hymnal 1982, but it also adopts what many consider to be doctrinal errors.

If this project is not to be bound by ICET, then will this AMiA liturgy use responses unique in the English language? Or is there an opportunity to develop a contemporary, orthodox liturgy? The LCMS is the only remotely orthodox Protestant group in the current CCT, but perhaps Pope Benedict XVI could bring the US Catholic bishops to the table.

Either way, will this mean new musical settings to go with the new words? Rite II parishes abandoned Hymnal 1940 (in small part) to be able to sing “And also with you” and “Lord have mercy”.

Celebrating 30 years of schism

The modern Anglican wars began with the Congress of St. Louis in September 1977, in which 2,000 Episcopal clergy and laity met in reaction to the ordination of women and the 1979 revision to the prayer book. The result was the Affirmation of St. Louis and the beginnings of what we now call the “continuing Anglican” movement.

Last week, two of the major traditionalist Anglican groups held a convention, but more on that in a moment.

Thirty years ago today, the first four continuing Anglican bishops were consecrated in Denver by Rt. Rev. Albert A. Chambers, retired ECUSA bishop of Springfield. The bishops were James Mote of Denver, Robert Morse of Oakland, Calif., Peter Watterson of West Palm Beach, Fl. and Charles Dale Doren of Pittsburgh.

The next morning, the New York Times reported “Episcopal Dissidents Consecrate Bishops,” and the story was picked up by AP and UPI. The Times story reported:

The establishment of a hierarchy of bishops gives the Anglican Church of North America, as it it has been temporarily named, the full resources of an independent church and is expected by its leaders to spur the pace of growth.

Alas, it was all downhill from there, as the continuing Anglican movement degenerated into the alphabet soup that characterizes it today. Morse formed the APCK (Anglican Province of Christ the King), Mote formed the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church), Doren formed the UECNA (United Episcopal Church of North America) and Watterson (like many others) left for the RCC.

The rest of the traditionalist Episcopalians stayed in ECUSA, accepting the new prayer book and (in most cases) the ordination of women. However, the 2003 General Convention fueled another exodus, with consent to the ordination of Gene Robinson, failure to ban gay marriage and rejection of a basic statement of Christianity put forth by Bp. Keith Ackerman of Quincy. For others, GC 2006 was the last straw.

Twenty-plus years after the movement was born, did those leaving ECUSA after the GC 2003 and GC 2006 join with the continuing movement? No, they created their own hierarchies and bishops, notably the AMiA (Anglican Mission in the Americas) and CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America).

Some of these newer groups (AMiA, CANA) with some older groups formed the Common Cause Partners, whose website (“United-Anglicans.org”) is tragically laughable denial of the ongoing schism. At best, the CCP is a loose federation which might form a new denomination in a decade, but seems equally likely to spin apart on its own centripetal forces.

The proliferation of denominations gives credence to critics who say that all those (us?) continuing types can do is fracture and schism. Don’t get me wrong: if it’s a choice between heresy and schism, the early church fathers showed us that truth is more important than unity. However, between the continuing groups there are few doctrinal issues — notably that CANA can’t decide how it feels about women’s ordination. But most of the rest of the disagreements seem to be over liturgy (APCK vs. UECNA) or personalities (most of them).

There are a few signs of healing and perhaps sanity. Last summer, the ACC, UEC and APCK have put aside their differences of the preceding 29 years, joining back in communion the first three churches of the continuing movement. Both ACC and UEC were represented at the decennial APCK convention in Oakland last Friday, when James Provence was installed as Morse’s successor as APCK “primate.”

Meanwhile, the AMiA convention in Dallas last week attracted a number of Anglican bishops and clergy, including Common Cause bishops in the US and Anglican bishops from outside the US (including UK, and Africa). No sign of reaching out to new partners, but a strong show of unity from the existing ones.

Interestingly, the AMiA claims (according to David Virtue) to be producing a new translation of the 1662 BCP into modern language, co-authored by Rev. Dr. John Rodgers of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry and Rev. Dr. Peter Toon of the Prayer Book Society USA. No word of when or how the prayer book will be distributed — but this prayer book could become the first instrument of unity that bridges the St. Louis and recent defectors from ECUSA.