1662 Support

I'd go with the 1662-IE IVP because of how straightforward it is. Fewer options are helpful for mission. Also, it has that historic connection that is pretty dang neat.

— Isaac Rehberg (@Fr_Isaac_R) June 30, 2021

I think any Anglican mission should consider both the future and the present, and I do think the book best situated for future adoption across national and jurisdictional lines is the 1662:IE.

— Richard Tarsitano ⚓️ (@GodRemembrancer) June 30, 2021

I think it very much depends upon what one sees as the aim and goal of common prayer. I would argue that the 1662:ie provides a real, historical foundation from which others could, if they must, add devotions their consciences demand

— Richard Tarsitano ⚓️ (@GodRemembrancer) June 5, 2021

The 1662:IE has a great one in the appendix, but here is one from the prayer book society: https://t.co/lsLW9gXwao

— Richard Tarsitano ⚓️ (@GodRemembrancer) June 4, 2021

I’d recommend the 1662 IE because of the ease of use and beauty of the traditional language. You don’t have 1,000 options to paralyze you. You just do it what it says and you do it beautifully.

— Franz Pieper (@franz_pieper) April 15, 2021

You probably have already done this, but I would recommend a look at the 1961 English (in the back of the 1662:IE) or 1962 Canadian lectionaries as well. As someone who came to a similar conclusion regarding the 1945, I found these two to be the most edifying.

— Richard Tarsitano ⚓️ (@GodRemembrancer) May 5, 2021

We use this one, which is the 1662 IE text pointed by Christopher Hoyt (editor of the Book of Common Praise 2017):https://t.co/ynhuFk9jdN

— Christ Church Anglican South Bend (@ChurchBend) May 18, 2021

In case you were looking for our interview with the editors of the 1662 IE, we uploaded an edited version here: https://t.co/0RAE1GrwDE

— NorthAm Anglican (@NorthAmAnglican) March 28, 2021

That's too bad. I make sure to say the 2nd Exhortation (1662 version) twice per year, and I usually make an invitation to confession in my first homily during Advent/Lent. With a mostly evangelical parish, it's still a foreign concept to them.

— Eric Matthew Parker ⚓ (@ericmparker) July 1, 2021

The English Missal allows, of course, for a very "Prayer Book Catholic" mass that incorporates virtually all of the 1662 Communion service, adding in Prayers at the Foot, the traditional Offertory prayers, and the Canonhttps://t.co/XwjzYAhY5p

— Oxford English Missal Society (@EnglishMissal) June 29, 2021

I think it's time we revive the term "Prayer Book Catholic", accepting all that was good in the High Church party and moderate Tractarianism, adding correction with modern historiography on the "catholicity" of the Reformers & recovering a better/realistic view of the 18th cent.

— Eric Matthew Parker ⚓ (@ericmparker) June 29, 2021

A very helpful explanation of the phrase here: https://t.co/AtfbyazHkS

— Eric Matthew Parker ⚓ (@ericmparker) June 29, 2021

I think it very much depends upon what one sees as the aim and goal of common prayer. I would argue that the 1662:ie provides a real, historical foundation from which others could, if they must, add devotions their consciences demand

— Richard Tarsitano ⚓️ (@GodRemembrancer) June 5, 2021

The simplicity of the 1662 is a function of its beauty and utility for the common worshipper. Subsuming our own preferences to a rich and real tradition is a powerful tonic against the consumerism which plagues our souls and minds--the 79 fails to meet this need.

— Richard Tarsitano ⚓️ (@GodRemembrancer) June 5, 2021

A taste. Very fair critiques of Ritualism and compelling, especially for someone who has always felt uncomfortable with the 1662 Canon. pic.twitter.com/s0Rmq68gYM

— J. Manresa (@julesgmanresa) May 4, 2021

By contrast, the 1928 BCP is affirmed as our jurisdiction's supreme expression -- Article 10 places all other authorized liturgical texts in an explicitly subordinate place. The 1662 is implicitly authorized -- but only with the Ordinary's permission.

— Mark Perkins (@mporterperkins) May 4, 2021

I think this rests on the assumption that what we mean by Anglo-Catholicism is Tractarianism. But historically, I don’t see how that’s tenable. Those in the AC Congress Movement weren’t using the 1662. They were using the Missal and/or the Roman Rite.

— Wesley Walker (@WesleyWalker4) April 23, 2021

Is the conclusion then that self-described Tractarians ought support the 1662? (Or perhaps the 1787 in the American edition) https://t.co/5UEVGK2NLm

— Ray Davison⚓ (@BeardedDraygon) April 23, 2021

I also do not understand how some can say the 1662 is "the standard" (i.e. the thing by which one measures oneself) and settle for a liturgy which is so very different (1979/2019). When a liturgy which much more closely meets the standard is published, why is there not rejoicing?

— Richard Tarsitano ⚓️ (@GodRemembrancer) March 26, 2021

Hi, IVP editor here. We're happy to work with anyone who wants to use the IE text—in fact we've already been doing that for various projects. We'd love to talk with anyone who has ideas to use the book.

— Ethan McCarthy (@e_mccarth) June 30, 2021