1
The silent music of our praise
MICHAEL PERHAM
Ten years on from the authorization of The Alternative Service Book (ASB) of 1980 the pressure had begun for the revision of the rite and to add to its Eucharistic Prayers. That there is no similar pressure in relation to the Common Worship eucharistic rites (save in relation to Eucharistic Prayers when children are present) ten years after the revision of 2000 bears witness to the fact that the current rites have been an enrichment of what has gone before and are satisfying the need in the Church for good liturgy that enables the people of God to draw close to God in worship.
It is profitable to explore why that may be. At least three answers suggest themselves. One is the literary quality and richer theological imagery of much of the new material, notably within the Eucharistic Prayers. Another is the clarity of shape and structure in the rite. A third is, perhaps, a turning of the tide where people have ceased to yearn for endless variety and have recognized the value of repetition and memorability in worship. This chapter explores all three, as well as noting some other features of the way that Holy Communion Order One has been received and assimilated in the life of the Church of England.
One important difference between the ways the 1980 and 2000 liturgies have been received is in the way the texts have been presented to congregations. In 1980 many churches (parishes and chaplaincies) purchased full sets of the large brick-like ASB and issued these to congregations to use in worship. It seemed a welcome return to the old days where people had used the Book of Common Prayer, often bringing their own copy to church with them. It marked the end of a decade or more of living with liturgy in pamphlets. But the reality was that the book was too large to handle and the rite too complex to follow and, besides that, the era of the pamphlet had changed what people found helpful. Other churches used the slim red âseparateâ, which avoided the large book, but retained the complexity of the rite. Gradually, especially with the development of desktop publishing, parishes began to create their own versions, particularly in the interest of making the service more accessible to visitors and newcomers.
In the year 2010 very few churches choose to use a large book or a âseparateâ from Church House Publishing. The local version has become the norm. In terms of good and vibrant liturgy this has been a mixed blessing. Some churches have produced their own version that excludes all variety. There is a whole deanery in the north of England that has used for ten years a form that makes the use of seasonal material unlikely and prints only one Eucharistic Prayer. It is Prayer A, one of those almost unaltered from the 1980 book and the 1971 Series 3 that preceded it. Such local versions exist in many churches, making the rite almost as inflexible as the Book of Common Prayer and depriving the congregation of most of the richness that will be described in this chapter.
However, in the majority of churches, the local version, or, more likely, the collection of local seasonal versions, has made the liturgy more flexible, easier to follow and richer in liturgical and theological content. This has been the more so where those designing the booklets have resisted the temptation to include too much text. In Common Worship the Liturgical Commission attempted to discourage people from focusing on the written word at the expense of the liturgical action by printing the full text of the Eucharistic Prayers not in the main order of service, but in the supplementary material, instead giving the congregation in the main text only the words they needed to respond to the presidential texts. But there is in many churches a desire to have the full text. Once it is provided, it is more difficult for the leader of worship to introduce variety and spontaneity to match the occasion.
Before turning to the Eucharistic Prayers, it is worth exploring how successful have been the attempts to move the celebration on from the norms of the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of clarity of shape, the clear fourfold pattern of the eucharistic liturgy has established itself. The Gathering leads into the Liturgy of the Word, the Liturgy of the Word into the Liturgy of the Sacrament, the Liturgy of the Sacrament into the Dismissal, though it is a pity that the order for the Eucharist did not follow the Initiation Services in naming the final section âThe Sending Outâ, which has a more dynamic imperative to it. Within the rite, the placing of the penitential material at one place, as part of the Gathering, rather than, as in 1980, printing it twice with a choice to use it as part of the preparation or in response to the Liturgy of the Word, has brought clarity and established a norm. In general a greater care about notes and rubrics has helped those leading and participating to understand more clearly the flow of the liturgy. One particular example of this, though one that is still ignored in a number of churches, is the clear instruction to precede the Collect with an invitation to silent prayer, so that the Collect recovers its traditional role as the collecting up of the prayers of the whole community, rather than becoming a theme prayer, setting the scene for the readings, as it had become in 1980.
In terms of richer language, often expressing more engaging theology, there is reason to be grateful that a number of evocative texts are now in the main order, rather than hidden in supplementary material where many people failed to find them. Among the texts that have now become part of the repertoire of many congregations are the alternative form of confession (âMost merciful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we confess âŚâ), originally part of the 1970 revision of Morning and Evening Prayer, with its satisfying lines that draw on Micah 6.8:
In your mercy
forgive what we have been,
help us to amend what we are,
and direct what we shall be;
that we may do justly,
love mercy,
and walk humbly with you, our God.1
There are also the alternative invitations before the distribution, the first, rich in Scripture, drawing on the Roman rite, and incorporating phrases from Matthew 8.8, John 1.29 and Revelation 19.9.
Jesus is the Lamb of God
who takes away the sin of the world.
Blessed are those who are called to his supper.
Lord, I am not worthy to receive you,
but only say the word, and I shall be healed.
(Invitation to Communion, Holy Communion, Order One)
The second, which comes from the Eastern Church and dates back to the fourth century, is based on 1 Corinthians 5.7â8.
Godâs holy gifts
for Godâs holy people.
Jesus Christ is holy,
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
(Invitation to Communion)
Both these theologically rich texts existed in the supplementary material of the 1980 rite, but neither were in frequent use until brought into the main order in 2000. Particularly in the case of the âJesus is the Lamb of Godâ text, it is an example, of which there are others, of a text that had previously seemed to be associated with a particular churchmanship (in this case Catholic), being brought into the mainstream and used by people of widely different traditions.
Another example of that phenomenon is the use of the Roman offertory prayers, slightly changed to meet Evangelical sensitivities about âofferingâ. In this case the texts have not been brought into the main text, though the response âBlessed be God for everâ has been and, with the printing of local versions, this dual text has become firmly established in many places, though not to the exclusion of some other particularly well crafted âprayers at the preparation of the tableâ.
David Frostâs fine alternative version of the so-called âprayer of humble accessâ has also become better known for its inclusion in the main order.
Most merciful Lord,
your love compels us to come in.
Our hands were unclean,
our hearts were unprepared;
we were not fit
even to eat the crumbs from under your table.
But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation,
and share your bread with sinners.
So cleanse and feed us
with the precious body and blood of your Son,
that he may live in us and we in him;
and that we, with the whole company of Christ,
may sit and eat in your kingdom.
(Prayer before the distribution, Holy Communion, Order One)
It was written, as a contemporary equivalent to Thomas Cranmerâs original, for Holy Communion Series 3, alongside his Post-Communion Prayer, âFather of all, we give you thanks and praiseâ, but the General Synod judged that the Church would prefer to stay with the traditional prayer and Frostâs version was rejected, reappearing in 1980 in the supplementary texts. His Post- Communion Prayer, written originally as a presidential text, has been found to work as a congregational prayer, and is such in the 2000 rite and, because it is spoken together by the whole worshipping community, its richness in theological themes has become part of their understanding of Christian faith.
The 2000 rite has also acquired a stronger Trinitarian emphasis, giving a liturgical encouragement to the recent recovery of Trinitarian theology after a period of neglect, a recovery that is reinforced by the return in the 2000 calendar to âSundays after Trinityâ once Eastertide is over. The Gathering may begin with âIn the name of the Father âŚâ, and the Collect conclude with the Trinitarian ending, and the default text to introduce the prayers of intercession is âIn the power of the Spirit and in union with Christ, let us pray to the Fatherâ. Among a collection of prayers after communion in the supplementary material is this fine Trinitarian prayer from the Scottish Book of Common Order.
You have opened to us the Scriptures, O Christ,
and you have made yourself known in the breaking of the bread.
Abide with us, we pray,
that, blessed by your royal presence,
we may walk with you
all the days of our life,
and at its end behold you
in the glory of the eternal Trinity,
one God for ever and ever.
(Supplementary Texts: Prayers after Communion)
Its more freque...