1662 still able to unite:

And in every province: “The Book of Common Prayer 1662 is the normative standard for liturgy.”

Not in every province - the 1662 BCP does not appear in the list of authorised liturgies for the Scottish Episcopal Church

http://www.scotland.anglican.org/media/organisation/boards_committees/files/sec_code_of_canons_2006.pdf

Schedule to Canon 22.

Kennedy

Speaking of remnants of English colonialism.... The new law report seems to agree with the GAFCONites about the binding authority of the 1662 BCP: “The Book of Common Prayer 1662 is the normative standard for liturgy.”

When is someone (other than this not-so-humble layman) going to call this nonsense for what it is? The 1662 BCP isn't even "the normative standard for liturgy" in the C of E, where its rubrics (such as north-side celebration and the prohibition of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament ["for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians"]) have long been widely and actively ignored. It certainly is not the "normative standard for liturgy" in the Scottish Episcopal Church, for which "Laud's Book" of 1637 is the standard. When TEC separated from the C of E, Samuel Seabury worked for American adoption of the Scottish form of the Communion service as a condition of receiving ordination by the Scottish non-jurors ... and, in fact, the traditional American Communion service is based on the Scottish liturgy, and contains a proper epiclesis.

Honest "High Church" Anglicans have to admit that the 1662 is theologically inadequate. In particular, its Communion service is far too "Reformed." As the Scots have always insisted, the lack of an epiclesis is a serious flaw. The Scots also reject the binding authority of the 39 articles, not even printing them as a "historical document" in their prayer book ... and it is clear that appeals to the authority of the 1662 are intended also to assert the authority of the Articles.

In any case, Scotland, the United States, and New Zealand have moved well beyond the 1662 in our modern prayer books and couldn't in good conscience submit these books to being judged against the 1662. I for one am not about to surrender the rich "modern Catholic" service of Holy Eucharist in the American 1979 for the bald and truncated 1662 Communion service. Nor, as an honest "modern Catholic" am I going to pretend that I agree with the Articles of Religion.

I find you site very interesting. We have been to an oral hearing for permission for a Judicial Review on 7 August 2008, which was refused. The Church Commissioners asked for costs of £18,000. The judge asked if they really intended to ask a parish church for costs. I am told that the CC s nodded their heads vigorously. £2,000 costs were awarded. The new In cumbent claims he has chairmanship of our PCC by right though he is not a member nor does he live in the parish - though as a result of the merger we challenged without sucess he is the incumbent a larger combined benefice. I asked for the authority for his claim and he refers to 14.1 a of the Parochial Church Meetings and Council Measure 1956 (with ammendments) all Clerks in Holy Orders in a Benifice are members of each parish PCC, so are Readers.

I have not been able to find such a reference. Can anybody assist?

'And in every province: “The Book of Common Prayer 1662 is the normative standard for liturgy.”'

In every province of what planet?

Regarding the Cardinal's concerns, I often feel that Rome's attitude toward ecumenical relations is not unlike the Bush administration's attitude toward diplomacy:

"We'll talk to you only when you realize how wrong you are to not do things our way."

I really don't see why any Anglican would want to be involved with those who have so institutionalized sexism and sexual phobia that they can't see it.

Maybe we should refuse to talk to them until they begin ordaining women and allowing those presbyters who wish to, get married.

"A covenantal agreement, properly understood, was an expression of mutual generosity or “generous love”: finding out the real intentions and needs of the other person or group, “so that when we do address divisive issues, we have created enough of a community for an intelligent generosity to be born”."

That is a generous love to those who were allowed into the discussion to begin with. No so much for our LGBT brothers and sisters who were excluded from the conversation. (Let me rephrase - not so much for our openly LGBT . . . )

The comment above from Freddy Crabbe does not appear to relate to any of the Church Times articles quoted, but it does refer to the Church Representation Rules. We already have this article on those rules.

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/001543.html

I have copied Freddy's comment there and answered his query to the best of my ability. If anybody else wants to respond to Freddy's comment, please do so there and not here.

Hmm, Rowan's rubric of generous love sounds all right, then. Yet it demands that as a queer citizen and believer I commit to live down, beneath the best in embodiment of which I may be indeed capable.

And to live down, beneath, in order to protect the touchy and weaponized negative expectations which certain traditional or conservatives stubbornly persist in having of me - well that is hardly loving or generous in true, real life and relationship.

Sorry, then, Rowan. I just cannot bring myself to meet the lower - even nasty - expectations that so many traditional or conservative believers preach so loudly that they categorically have of me. No thanks, Rowan.

In New Zealand, we have our very own Prayer Book, which is the main resource for worship in our churches. However, some of us still provide at least one Celebration of the 1662 BCP Service every Sunday. Daily Mass, however, is normally taken from the NZPB, which has a wonderful set of resources for Eucharist and Daily Offices. Does anyone 'do' daily Mass anymore?

I must say that, as a retired priest, well used to 1662 (which usually is a more reflective service. However, I love both old and new Eucharistic services
(Bring out of your treasures something old and something new!)

"In every province, worship is acknowledged in the Church’s law and practice as “a fundamental action and responsibility”, the report says. And in every province: “The Book of Common Prayer 1662 is the normative standard for liturgy.”

Theres a superb letter in the Church Times from a church of Ireland synodsman rebutting that assertion.

It was interesting that in the Jerusalem Statement, GAFCON declared 1662 normative. Yet, many of the members of GAFCON really don't use it, indeed, tend to shy away from such formal liturgical worship. So how is it normative? Besides, while the language is far better than anything our modern liturgists can attain to, especially in Canada, it is theologically deficient.