Talk:Common Worship

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

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 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 to for 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)


 * Wow, that was quick! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"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)

Deism?
Why is Deism listed here? Uberhill 16:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

The Title
I think something is needed about the title "Common Worship". It seems to me that it was likely deliberately chosen to mislead - it sounds cosily like "Common Prayer", but the one thing it clearly isn't - as is mentioned in the article - is "common". I suspect, however, it will be impossible to get reliable and verifiable information on this as the church has a habit of giving highly disingenuous reasons: for example, when old parsonages are sold off nowadays the sale contract includes a restrictive covenant prohibiting the use of the name "Old Vicarage" or "Old Rectory". The church's explanation was that it was to avoid confusing postmen, parishioners and the like, but there was in fact no evidence of this happening. The real reason was clearly embarrassment: people would see the fine Georgian or Victorian Old Rectory and compare it with the Barratt-box Rectory and conclude that the church has gone down in the world and the Rector now no longer matters as much as the banker or whoever, who lives in the Old Rectory. There seems little prospect of ever proving this motivation, however.Halsbury (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would like to contribute to that - but, I'm not really sure of what sources I might cite for criticisms of C.W.. There is a Foreword in a Folio Society edition of the 1662 BCP that has good criticism in relation to the ironic uncommon-ness of C.W., but I don't know whether it could be called a reliable source or not - now how it could be cited. Oh, the wonders of being new to editing Wikipedia... Nusrich 06 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm something of a regular in the BCP area here on Wikipedia and couldn't help but notice your interest in adding some material to this article. While I own a decent number of BCP editions, I don't own the Folio Society printing of the 1662. If you have your copy free, I would encourage you to look at it to see if you can tell who penned the foreword. If you can find a name, I'll help you cite it! If you ever have any desire for help editing articles–particularly Anglican-interest articles–you are more than welcome to ping me at my talk page! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi - thank you so much for the help! The foreword in this edition was written by Sir Patrick Cormack, wherein he praised the Prayer-Book & for its superior & more reverent language & liturgical structure compared with Common Worship & the ASB. Hopefully the name helps with citation - I’ll look into him a little more to learn more about what other things he has done. Nusrich 06 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, just looked him up - he was president of the Prayer Book Society for a long time. Nusrich 06 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The opinion of the president of the Prayer Book Society is a notable one that deserves mention with inline attribution. If you have the book open, see if you can find the information page at the front of the book. You'll be able to find the ISBN (a long number) and other publishing info that is needed to properly build out a citation. If you can also add the quote you want to reference and the page it's on, please do so. I'll create a citation from that information that you can use as an example of how to do so in the future! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Looking into it, it seems that Folio Society books don't have ISBNs or Barcodes. Closest I could find was an ASIN number on the Amazon selling page (B000QUXNR6), but I'm not sure how useful that may be for citation. It was first published in 2004, and Cormack's Foreword has a copyright for the same year. The most relevant parts to criticising modern liturgies are: "The last forty years have been years of liturgical anarchy in the Church of England. The quest for modernity has left congregations confused, and although many traditionalists have been alienated, the young have not been attracted in great numbers. One of the reasons surely is that the command of modern liturgists over the language does not begin to equal Cranmer's. The language of the bus queue is not appropriate for worship, and to suggest that young people cannot be moved by noble and stirring language is an insult to their intelligence." on page x . Do let me know if any more info would be useful, & thank yo so much for all the help thus far! Nusrich 06 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is great! Thank you for your help, ! Below is a citation derived from the information you provided:
 * I'll take on adding this content shortly! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, no problem at all! Do you think "Criticism" should be its own section in the article, or just added to one of the already existing ones? Nusrich 06 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, no problem at all! Do you think "Criticism" should be its own section in the article, or just added to one of the already existing ones? Nusrich 06 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I opted for a new "Appraisal" section. I'm in the process of wrapping up the article on Geoffrey Cuming, a titan of Anglican liturgical historiography and a major figure in the 20th-century revision efforts, so my hope is to significantly expand the article on Common Worship soon! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)