Derek Olsen’s blog tells us in Modern Day Sarum Prymer about a new initiative, a book of Offices and prayers in traditional English. It is the Sarum Prymer compiled and published by Fr Michael Shirk, a priest of the Independent Catholic Christian Church.
I have had a little correspondence with Fr Michael, a few months ago, and found him to be a very interesting person with many interests in common with yours truly. You should go over to the first link given on this posting, and consider ordering this primer. He has also published several books of prayers and liturgical ceremonies.
It is very encouraging to find such well-educated and dedicated priests concerned for making a real contribution to Christian culture and something lasting.
The Blue Flower 
Although the group seems very much within the AffCath orbit, the several books produced by Shirk seem very liturgically conservative, and within the Dearmerish tradition of Anglicanism. The formatting of both the Prymer and his book of common prayer remind one of Anglo-Catholic books printed in the last century. I shall order a copy of the Prymer, but as for a usable BCP, I think I shall stick to the excellent production, which is also very, very inexpensive to purchase, put out by Lancelot Press.
Dale, Are you talking about the Lancelot Andrewes Press BCP done for English Orthodox Communications, 2009? This is a very nice edition. (I use it at both ACA/TAC and Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite churches. And my great-great-great-great grandkids should be able to use it as the dating of Pascha goes thru 2199!)
Yes, it is an excellent production. It is physically very beautiful, and as I mentioned, cheap as well. It is strange that it is denominated “English use” since Hallam (Dean of the British Antiochian deanery) absolutely refuses its use in England! One does have to be careful with the Mass itself since there are several byzantinizations, but these can easily be avoided.
Although it feels and looks exactly like a BCP it is really much closer to the older “Manual of Catholic Devotions for Members of the Church of England” that some of us are old enough to remember as the primary book for the laity in Anglo-Catholic churches before the apeing of the novus ordo.
Sadly, the Lancelot Andrewes Press BCP has a great “botch” in its anaphora, or Prayer of Consecration, it having taken the strange alterations which one WRO parish unilaterally introduced into that anaphora as approved in 1977, for “the real thing.” Ben Andersen (now Dom Benedict Maria Andersen, OSB, of Silverstream Priory) acknowledged this error to me in private correspondence, and expressed the desire that a corrected edition might soon be produced. At the risk of tedium, I will copy below a portion of my article on the liturgy of St. Tikhon which was published on The Anglo-Catholic blog a couple of years ago.
************************************************************************************************************
Strangely, however, when in 2009 The Book of Common Prayer (subtitled The Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church in the English Parochial Tradition according to Orthodox Catholic Usage), an attractive and beautiful book, appeared, there were further changes of a puzzling nature to its Eucharistic Prayer. (Other changes in the rite appear to be matters of style and “lay-out).” In the first place, the exordium of the includes elements of both the 1764 Scottish and the 1928 PECUSA prayers. It runs:
“All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only son, Jesus Christ, to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his own Oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world …”
where the 1928 American runs “who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice …” (etc.) and the 1764 Scottish “who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice …” (etc.). Later on in the Prayer, in the petitions taken from the Roman Canon, the first, the Memento etiam is translated differently than in the 1977 version — this may be a matter of style, although I prefer that of 1977 — while the ensuing Nobis quoque peccatoribus is abbreviated and paraphrased in its beginning as “And vouchsafe to give unto us some portion and fellowship with …” (etc.) which seems as undesirable as it is unaccountable a change. I have been given to understand since my original posting of “Thoughts on an Anglican Use Mass” on March 8 that these changes, or some of them, may represent no more than the singular and eccentric usage of one particular Western-Rite Orthodox priest and parish that by regrettable inadvertence was published as the “canonical” version, and that this shall be corrected in the future. In the light of this new information, I am obliged to qualify my statement in the earlier posting concerning the Eucharistic Prayer of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as affording “a striking example, as I see it, of how not to do this sort of thing.” Most of the “flaws” or “objectionable features” that I had in mind were the work not of the compilers, bit of the botcher(s) who were responsible for the version that was unfortunately published in 2009. And yet I cannot withdraw it entirely, because the wording of the 1977 “epiclesis” (or “invocation”), which was unaltered in 2009, does seem cumbersome and objectionable. Far better than “And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood” would have been something like “And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son to the end that all who shall receive the same may be sanctified both in body and soul, and preserved unto everlasting life,” of which the final part is drawn from the Scottish 1929 rite.
Since the 2009 OBCP is primarily for EOs and since the Anglican liturgical tradition encompasses RC (pre-1549), Lutheran (1549 BCP), and Reformed (1552 BCP) elements, I’d like to think the starting point for the OBCP liturgy was liturgics and eucharistic theology, as in accordance with Orthodoxy, rather than just mere liturgical tradition or personal word choice.
In the specific sections mentioned, I doubt one in 1,000 ACA members in American pews today would be able to tell the difference if they weren’t specifically told to listen for them. And I doubt 1 in 10,000 could come up with any theological preference for either.
I think that perhaps Dr Tighe should take a look at the BDW of the Oridinariate if he really wishes to see a botched liturgical production; one is certain that it, at least, contains the possibility of the liturgical use of balloons; a major feature of most of the great feasts in the local Roman parish where I live.
Of course, since the “Anglican” use of the Roman Church does not really even include an Anglican form of the canon of the Mass at all, I do believe that people who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.
Dale, In my personal experience with our Antiochian Western Rite (USA) over the past 20 years, seems like so many of the individuals in the 1990s, when our missal/service book/hymnal/etc. were being developed, were former ECUSA and continuing Anglicans. My long-time priest was a former ECUSA priest. The parish is now led by a priest that came from an Anglo-Catholic background. I’ve never had any former ECUSA or Anglicans who joined our WR complain to me about the Anglican-derived liturgy. As for the lay converts, doesn’t seem like many ever even hardly notice the rather small modifications in their former text; of course, they do realize there are some additions (e.g., “I believe, O Lord, and I confess…”).
Ultimately, I suppose, none of these details matter all that much. I would become a Roman Catholic if I believed the papal claim — I’d have to — and it wouldn’t really matter (for the purposes of that decision — though I might still have opinions and desires) what form the Liturgy took. If I could not (as I cannot) accept those claims, I simply could not go, even if all the externals were exactly as I prefer.
The situation with Orthodoxy is a little more complex, but similar. If I believed the Orthodox Church to be what it says it is, I’d have to go. If I were graciously permitted a measure of the practices I’d left behind. I’d be thankful, but if I were not given such a gift, I’d still have to go. However, not being able to accept everything required of one, it would make no difference if every detail of what I prefer were to be allowed — I still couldn’t go.
To me, the questions are simple — I hope I’m not being simplistic.
ed, As regards your thoughts on RCs and EOs, I think both the questions and answers, are as you say, simple, and isn’t simplicity normally a good thing? (Thinking Occam’s Razor and other philosophical & related ideas.)
I think it is why Rome almost always initially tries to convince the sceptic of its papal claims. If it can get the assent then, the rest immediately falls into place. How could you not be RC if you accepted all the papal claims?
I think your thoughts on EOs mostly right. Yes, a bit more complex and maybe also a lot less fully defined, but once again if you accept a key premise (one true church), how could you not be EO? But like so many Anglicans who appear to mostly agree with Constantinople vis-a-vis Rome’s unique dogmas, you also don’t discuss what you don’t accept that you believe is required “not being able to accept everything required of one”. I sometimes think non-EOs assume our dogma is much more firmly set in stone than is truly the case. Technically, we haven’t had an Ecumenical Council since the 8th Century, so most of the medieval period and Reformation/Counter-Reformation are mostly alien and foreign to the essential us. And this seems more relevant as we move back away from our sometimes flirtation with failed medieval scholasticism (with the Russians kind of being an outlier) and engage both RCs and Reformers in our own right, finally explicitly referencing them but in light of our own history, tradition, analytical methods, exegesis, and our greatest thinkers, then and now.
Noticed you didn’t opine in regard to any Reformation alternative (Anglican, Lutheran, or Reformed). I think both Lutheranism and Calvinism can stand on their own as fully realized coherent systems that lay claim to very strong dogmatic statements (though they tend to prefer to say they are preserving or re-discovering key lost truths rather than being the one true church). Methodism comes close, but the weak ecclesialogy and its inherent ties to Anglicanism have worked against it.
Unfortunately, history appears to show the inability of Anglicanism to remain strong in and of itself. Their lack of both detailed strong confessional statements and a most influential founder works against maintaining a permanent, strong foundation?
Michael,
As one who has changed churches a number of times in my 71 years (Litheran to “Independent Catholic”, to Episcopal, to Pentecostal, to more generic Evangelical, to TAC), I become ever more and more aware of how flawed any church on this earth will be. There comes a time when one has to realize that and stop moving in such a fashion. The church on earth, whatever its manifestation, is and will be radically disappointing. It’s made up of human beings like me — and I am radically disappointing. I do not, will not, and cannot fulfill what God has in mind for me, but I do need to grow where I am toward the earthly unattainable goal of “the fullness of the image of Christ.” God help us all. I’ve landed at last in a very flawed TAC Anglicanism, fully aware of its deficiencies, but trust God to keep working on it and on me until the Age is done. I won’t find a different me in any other place.