Burkean wisdom amidst liturgical confusion

Your constitution, it is true, whilst you were out of possession, suffered waste and dilapidation; but you were possessed in some parts the walls, and in all the foundations of a noble and venerable castle.  You might have repaired those walls; you might have built on those old foundations - Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.

Burke's Reflections may not be the first source one reaches for when considering how to respond to liturgical revision.  The above extract, however, came to mind during a recent discussion concerning the pastoral reality of contemporary rites being normative in many parishes.  

In the extract, Burke rebukes the French Revolution for its "spirit of innovation", creating a constitution anew rather than building on and restoring what remained of the ancient constitution.  This might have some relevance in the context of contemporary rites - often having characteristics which undermine the idea and the practice of Common Prayer - being well-established in a majority of parishes as the main liturgy.  As such, in many places it would be a "spirit of innovation" to seek to entirely replace contemporary liturgies with traditional forms (1662, 1926, 1928 etc): a revolutionary move which, at the least, sits uneasily alongside Common Prayer's recognition that continuity of liturgical text matters to the Church's formation, peace, and unity.

Might it not, in other words, be better and wiser to seek to repair and to renovate rather than impose revolutionary change?  

Here are three suggestions for what we might call a Burkean reform of contemporary liturgies.

1. Use the texts from the Prayer Book tradition retained in contemporary liturgies.

The Collect for Purity; the Summary of the Law; the Prayer of Humble Access; the Blessing.  These texts from the Prayer Book tradition have shaped and sustained Anglican piety over centuries.  Refusing to use them is to reject a rich inheritance, stocked with wisdom.  What is more, these texts are often abandoned not even for other texts but for nothing at all: a deliberate act of impoverishment.  Using contemporary forms of classical texts from the Prayer Book tradition ensures that contemporary liturgies are enriched and that congregations are again shaped and formed by the wisdom of these texts.  

The theology of these classical texts is particularly enriching for contemporary rites.  The Collect for Purity embodies the need for grace preparing us for the holy mysteries.  The Summary of the Law sets before us the fundamental moral teaching of the Christian Faith and its abiding significance.  The Prayer of Humble Access is a statement of how the Lord's Body and Blood "are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper", in a way not found in most contemporary rites. The blessing centres us on the gift of the peace of God, infinitely more significant than shaking hands with the person in the pew in front of us.

In Common Worship this also applies in part to Eucharistic Prayer C, which is based on the 1662 Prayer of Consecration and Prayer of Oblation.  (Unfortunately, the contemporary liturgies of TEC, ACC, and CofI offer no such provision.) It is a means of ensuring that Cranmer's Eucharistic theology - robustly rooted in the Lord's atoning sacrifice, petitioning that "we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood", pleading the benefits of His passion, and offering the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving - can shape contemporary Eucharistic piety.  Where this provision is not available, use should be made of whichever authorised Eucharistic Prayer most conforms to the Prayer Book tradition in form and content.

2. Establish common texts in contemporary liturgies

Perhaps the key insight of the tradition of Common Prayer is that the repeated praying of common texts over years shapes heart, mind, and soul.  Contemporary liturgies, of course, reject this wisdom in favour of 'choice'.  And so Common Worship offers a choice of 8 Eucharistic Prayers; TEC 1979 4; Canada BAS 6; Ireland 2004 3.  A simple step towards restoring and renovating Common Prayer is to use one Eucharistic Prayer (as noted above, the one which most conforms to the Prayer Book tradition in form and content).  Let this one Eucharistic Prayer permeate heart, mind, and soul, shaping and forming a prayerful approach to the Sacrament, rather than multiple Eucharistic Prayers distracting us. 

Related to this, bring stability to contemporary liturgies by setting aside the seasonal material that is often proposed for use. Common Worship's Times and Seasons is the particular culprit here, a modern version of "the number and hardness of the Rules called Pie, and the manifold changes of the Service".  The use of seasonal material can result in the greeting, confession, introduction to the peace, sentence at the fraction, blessing and dismissal all ceasing to be common texts.  

One effect of this is to actually lost the significance of feasts, drowned under a deluge of constantly changing material.  By contrast, the only seasonal material in the 1662 (and related classical expressions) Holy Communion is the proper prefaces, reserved for the principal feasts and thus having much greater significance precisely because of the stability and consistency of the rite throughout the year.

Keep proper prefaces for the principal feasts, and maintain common texts for greeting, confession, introduction to the peace, sentence at the fraction, blessing and dismissal, enabling contemporary liturgies to reflect something of the wisdom of Common Prayer.

3. Maintain Prayer Book practices

Two significant Prayer Book practices are easily transferred to contemporary liturgies.  The first is kneeling to receive the Sacrament.  This staple feature of Anglican Eucharistic piety has both practical and spiritual benefits, as the 1662 rubric indicates:

which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue.

It facilitates orderly reception at the communion rails, and gives expression to how the "inward and spiritual grace" of the Sacrament should be received.  Standing to receive lacks the latter and can often impede the former.  

Secondly, the manual acts at the Words of Institution are entirely appropriate, emphasising the centrality of these words to the Eucharistic Prayer.  Those who devised contemporary liturgies would, of course, be horrified at the thought of the manual acts being used - 'the whole Eucharistic Prayer consecrates' etc.  Such views are of little, if any, significance.  In England, Ireland, and Canada, forms of the classical Prayer Book remain the doctrinal norm.  This being so, the theology of consecration expressed through the manual acts remains normative and contemporary liturgies should be read in this manner.  

The provision for additional consecration in contemporary inevitably involves repeating the Words of Institution, indicating that this theology of consecration is, at the very least, compatible with contemporary rites.  The manual acts also reflect the abiding reality that the words of institution are the very centre of contemporary Eucharistic Prayers (often emphasised by acclamations which often follow).  Using the manual acts embodies the conviction that consecration occurs, that this bread and wine are indeed set apart and become efficacious signs of the Lord's Body and Blood.  

Kneeling to receive and the manual acts are both means of ensuring that the theology and piety of the Prayer Book tradition shape and inform contemporary rites.  They give a depth and substance lacking in the actions associated with contemporary rites.  Standing to receive is not representative of humility and gratitude: it is speaks more of the posture of the consumer than a communicant. An absence of the manual acts, rather than pointing to a theology of consecration, too easily suggests no theology of consecration, while also implying a lack of significance in these words and this bread and this wine.

Renovation and rebuilding rather than revolution (or counter-revolution) offers a more realistic and more meaningful response to pastoral and liturgical realities.  Conforming contemporary liturgies as much as possible to classical Common Prayer, alongside the well-established use of 1662 (and its variants) for Early Communion and Evensong, offers the prospect of restoring a sense of Common Prayer to a liturgical landscape scarred by the concept of 'choice' and an approach to liturgy more akin to the Westminster Directory than to the BCP.  In place of choice and confusion, conformity and Common Prayer can be nurtured even in a strange land.

And whereas heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm ... now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have nothing but one Use.