Talk:Common Worship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Common Worship is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
[edit] ASB and BCP
Note from the author of the first edit. I wrote this article because the excellent Book of Common Prayer article contains an external link to the Common Worship article, that did not exist yet.
This entry would benefit from some editing to improve the style and add hyperlinks to cross-reference relevant entries in Wikipedia. note from original author - this has now been done by experienced wikipedians -- 11 Jan 2005
More formal scholarship about the origins and motivations for the book 'Common Worship' would be valuable for future generations. note from original author - a learned edit from someone who understands liturgical reform would still be valuable -- 11 Jan 2005
Feb. 2006: I have remodelled the article having produced a short piece on the Alternative Service Book to which there is also a link. RA
[edit] Criticisms of CW
I note that, threaded within the otherwise excellent commentary on the book, is criticism of it. I think it would be best to gather these and other criticisms (and perhaps responses to them) in one section and to cite them. Unfortunately, being Canadian, I'm not acquainted with the book, aside from its existence. Fishhead64 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed the same thing, Fishead64. I have pulled out some problem sentences and pasted them here. Firstly, I don't think we should discuss how widely a form of worship is used without being able to cite research. This sentence is written in the style of personal experiences:"In practice the latter has all but disappeared from mainstream English worship, although it is still sometimes used at marriage services and is still the standard form of choral evensong used at many cathedrals and churches." Secondly, we probably should not discuss the debate about whether common prayer requires variety or standardization without citing quotations or opinion surveys: "This allows individual churches to tailor their services to their own setting and culture and the needs of their particular congregations, but it has been criticised as rendering the idea of "common prayer" almost obsolete. " I suggest that when good sources have been found for the second discussion, such as summaries of Synod debates, that it be reworded to reflect the factual state of the debate, and put back into the article. As regards the disappearance, or not, of the BCP - it is so soon after the publication of CW that any surveys are unlikely to be interesting. When it does become interesting, it is something for the Book of Common Prayer article, not for here. That is my opinion, anyway. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I heartily disagree. The Prayer Book Society routinely complains about the lack of use of its book. Does Hrodulf know anything to the contrary? Yes, I rely on experience. huge amounts of it. Not all knowledge comes from sociologists. As for the obsolescence of common prayer the matter is self evident. Where there are eight eucharist prayers, several forms of confession, no obligation to use the lectionary - in short, dozens and dozens of options, then the single use proposed by Cranmer is gone. Does Hrodulf have any background knowledge of this matter? Roger Arguile August 2nd. 2006
- The reason that "Yes, I rely on experience. huge amounts of it," works for good book and newspaper publishers, is that they know you are really Roger Arguile and know what you are talking about. I can pretty much guess that too. But the strange thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can write, and nobody knows who they are, so the best articles Wikipedia:Featured Articles may not have brilliant prose (sadly most don't), but they have tonnes of citations backing them up. You won't always be here to answer questions.
- Your attribution of the complaint to the Prayer Book Society does it for me, as I am sure it will
to tofor almost any curious Wikipedia reader. Please put it in the article when you get the chance. - "obsolescence of common prayer ... is self-evident" I don't have the background knowledge, which is exactly why I asked. Allow me to rephrase: The proponents of the new book obviously pushed it through Synod with the title 'Common Worship' to imply a relationship with the original intent of the BCP. Its opponents obviously tore it down. How did the proponents defend the books as truly Anglican and truly common? Who spoke on each side of the debate (on the floor or in the press) and what did they say? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Traditional language" ≠ "almost identical to BCP"
To say that CW "retains a version of the Eucharist which is almost identical to that in the BCP" is too vague, as it fails to specify whether the identity is one of language or one of structure (and associated theology). CW has contemporary and traditional language versions of both structures - it is not correct to implicitly identify Order 2 with BCP language. If one wishes to discuss the theological similarity between Order 2 and BCP, that should be kept quite separate from any discussion of language. Vilĉjo 23:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree: 'almost identical'is not vague. Apart from the substitution of the word 'impartially' for the word 'indifferently', the addition the Greeting and Agnus its words are identical. The word 'traditional' on the other hand, is most certainly vague. As for the theology, I am not sure what you are saying. Nor am I sure why you want to be prescriptive about what should be kept separate. It is the word 'traditional' which is capable of several meanings.Roger Arguile 11:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I should correct myself, I guess by realising that the Exhortations and the collect for the monarch are omitted. I forgot them because I don't remember anyone ever using the former in thirty five years and the former I haven't heard in thirty. In a short essay one cannot include the contents of a modern Proctor and Frere. As for what is 'correct'that is, to state the matter a little strongly. It would be helpful to know your background and where you are coming from. You can find mine by looking at my user page. I am sure neither of us need to be peremptory. Roger Arguile 11:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
My other point is that your new sentence under 'Content and Style' is not about content and covers what is noted a sentence or so below. Roger Arguile 11:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies if I came across as slightly brusque. To deal with your last point first: if by my "new sentence" you mean the one which now opens the section, this is simply a relocation of the sentence which previously ended the paragraph, so there is no duplication, and if it is not relevant to its section now, then it was equally irrelevant before. (I also changed the term "leap forward" as it sounded too laudatory, like a publisher's puff.) If you think it belongs elsewhere, or should be deleted entirely, feel free.
- My problem with the sentence about language was that the only exception to modern language mentioned was the traditional-language version of Order 2, ignoring the fact that there is also a trad-lang version of Order 1 (not forgetting Collects and Post-Communions, Night Prayer, and the various bits explicitly taken from the BCP). It seemed to be erroneously equating the BCP-based Order 2 with traditional language (an impression which was reinforced when you mentioned Order 2 in your note on my talk page). Whatever the intention of the author, it seemed to me to risk conflating or confusing two separate issues, one of which (language) was the subject-matter of the sentence, and the other of which (structure) was not.
- As you say, "traditional" is capable of several meanings, but as the term is used in CW it is specifically the opposite of "contemporary" in describing language, and that is how I was using it. Actually, I dislike the term (some of us might say that a Eucharist in really "traditional language" would begin "Introibo ad altare Dei …"!), and its meaning may be unclear to the unversed reader, so I will remove it.
- As to my background, like you I am a C of E parish priest. I have a particular interest in liturgy, but don't claim any especial degree of expertise greater than would be expected in one of my profession. I did, however, notice that there are significant gaps and errors in this article as it stands, though the slight edits I did undertake didn't attempt to address them, as they will require more substantial rewriting (and therefore time). For example, there is no reference at all to the very first major book in the CW series (Initiation Services, published in 1998). (Even that was not the first book in the series: Calendar, Lectionary and Collects came out in 1997, though this article can perhaps be excused for not mentioning it, as all the material was subsequently incorporated into the main book.) That is the single most glaring omission, but there have been other publications of CW material which are not mentioned: for example, the Additional Collects published in 2004, the revised versions of the Series 1 Wedding and Burial services, the draft Ordinal, "Rites on the Way" (a sort of CW equivalent of Rome's RCIA), and arguably New Patterns for Worship, though that is perhaps more in the nature of a companion volume than an integral part of the series. As to errors: it is incorrect to state that there is no CW preface for Michaelmas - there is one provided in the President's Edition (which contains quite a lot of material omitted from the standard edition). In fact the whole paragraph beginning "One other respect" is incorrect in the light of the President's Edition. Vilĉjo 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I accept what you say. I had forgotten the President's Edition and you are quite right about the other material. I shall leave you to get on with it.Roger Arguile 15:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
