The Book of Common Prayer is probably the second most misunderstood book, after the King James Version. Think of the KJV-onlyists (whose propaganda I became an expert on in my formative years), who say that the KJV itself is the immutable Word of GOD; whereas 'The Translators to the Reader' made it clear that the translators' own philosophy was that their translation was just one of a long line-'perfect' not in the sense that the humans behind it were free from any sort of error, but by the sheer fact that their translation (however 'mean') was still a translation of the Word of God, and hence the Word of God itself. (Just as the King's speech translated in different languages is still the King's speech, even if every translation does not convey the same beauty, perfect sense of meaning, &c. everywhere-I'm paraphrasing.) Similarly, many KJV-onlyists believe that the exact wording of the KJV is authoritative, and reject any sort of footnotes, marginal notes, &c. even though again, the translators' very philosophy was that marginal notes were essential in conveying the different interpretations of the text and that THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH!! (their words, not mine!) What they objected to in fact was not marginal notes themselves, but long-winded (sectarian) theological diatribes posing as textual notation, characteristic of the Geneva Bible. In the same way, that the Book of Common Prayer must be the ONLY form of worship is refuted in the Preface to the prayer book itself; acknowledging the necessity of revision of not just the words of rites, but of the fundamental nature and form of the rites and ceremonies themselves. And while I personally believe the 1662 to be the standard of worship, and that any attempt to revise the (1662) BCP is met with bitter opposition, as is evidenced by this Preface, the very 1662 itself in its day was met with the exact same opposition that revisions of it face today.
At least the authors of the Book of Common Prayer had the good sense to realize that the King James was the only legitimate Bible for non-Catholic English speaking world!
Please pray we who in bad toxic relationships be plucked from them and surrounded with those our Lord God desires
God Bless You For The Sharing Of Our Dear Lord's Holy Word!
Grateful. Thankful. Blessed.
Amen delights
Even though I do not belong to the Church of England, The Book of Common Prayer is a faithful document of Christianity!
9:28, Concerning The Service of the Church.
16:36, Of Ceremonies why some be abolished, and some retained.
🙏
16:36
The Book of Common Prayer is probably the second most misunderstood book, after the King James Version.
Think of the KJV-onlyists (whose propaganda I became an expert on in my formative years), who say that the KJV itself is the immutable Word of GOD; whereas 'The Translators to the Reader' made it clear that the translators' own philosophy was that their translation was just one of a long line-'perfect' not in the sense that the humans behind it were free from any sort of error, but by the sheer fact that their translation (however 'mean') was still a translation of the Word of God, and hence the Word of God itself. (Just as the King's speech translated in different languages is still the King's speech, even if every translation does not convey the same beauty, perfect sense of meaning, &c. everywhere-I'm paraphrasing.)
Similarly, many KJV-onlyists believe that the exact wording of the KJV is authoritative, and reject any sort of footnotes, marginal notes, &c. even though again, the translators' very philosophy was that marginal notes were essential in conveying the different interpretations of the text and that THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH!! (their words, not mine!) What they objected to in fact was not marginal notes themselves, but long-winded (sectarian) theological diatribes posing as textual notation, characteristic of the Geneva Bible.
In the same way, that the Book of Common Prayer must be the ONLY form of worship is refuted in the Preface to the prayer book itself; acknowledging the necessity of revision of not just the words of rites, but of the fundamental nature and form of the rites and ceremonies themselves.
And while I personally believe the 1662 to be the standard of worship, and that any attempt to revise the (1662) BCP is met with bitter opposition, as is evidenced by this Preface, the very 1662 itself in its day was met with the exact same opposition that revisions of it face today.
At least the authors of the Book of Common Prayer had the good sense to realize that the King James was the only legitimate Bible for non-Catholic English speaking world!