On the Articles: Article XXIV

The Ninth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandethIt is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

In the earliest days of the Church, Greek was the common tongue between peoples and the language of the educated, though throughout the Roman Empire, different areas would have different local languages. It wasn’t until around the 500s and 600s that Latin, in the West, became predominant over Greek, particularly for Scholarship, and was adopted by the Western Church. In the East, Greek remained the language of the people and thus the language of the Church. When The East brought Christianity to new lands, one of the first tasks it undertook was to translate the liturgy and Scriptures into the local language, while in the West Latin was simply imposed, and only those who received an education (which did not always include the clergy) could understand and speak Latin.

While some efforts were made at times to translate all or parts of the liturgy into languages spoken by the people in the West throughout the course of the first millennium. Ultimately, however, the Roman Church in the West would declare that only the Latin liturgy and Scriptures were to be used, and outlawed the translation of the Scriptures into other languages. This would notably lead to the execution of John Wycliffe who was martyred for seeking to translate the Bible into English. Yet there were some notable reasons for seeking to prevent translation, chiefly that of mistranslation. In the case of English in particular, it lacked theological terminology because until the time of the English Reformation, the English peoples had only truly ever known the Scriptures and liturgies in Latin, and so as English as a language had developed over the course of the centuries it had never needed to develop that vocabulary, much of which was created by the English reformers themselves.

With so many people unable to understand their faith, it begs the question of whether or not they can ever truly believe or come to know God. Christ died to reconcile us to the father, yet if we cannot read or hear the Scriptures in an understandable way, we may still know that we can be reconciled to God, but God remains distant from us because we cannot come to know him.

In addressing this concern through the Article it begins by saying, “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God,” meaning that it is clearly opposed to Scripture that the people would not understand the language of the liturgy and administration of the Sacraments. St Paul in his first epistle to the Church at Corinth gives a number of passages in which this conclusion can be drawn. He speaks of the need for translation of words from those speaking in tongues, because it would not be edifying for them to speak apart from the ability of the rest of the Body assembled to be able to understand. Similarly, in discussing the Eucharist, St Paul says that we must examine our conscience and discern Christ’s Body before receiving lest we receive to our condemnation. The obvious question becomes how can someone know that if they only know to receive by virtue of following others because they cannot understand the words of institution or anything else relating to what is happening in the preparation of the Lord’s Table?

The article then continues saying it is also contrary to the “custom of the Primitive Church.” Here, primitive simply means old, and does not mean to imply a lack of sophistication. We might now say “early Church.” As was previously noted, the practice was generally to translate the Scriptures and liturgies into local languages in the time of the early Church, though this wasn’t always the case.

Some might point out an apparent irony that today the language of the Book of Common Prayer, being over three-hundred years old now, may well not be “understanded of the people,” any longer. The language of the Prayer Book, along with the language of the Articles themselves, is no longer used in every day English in any country, and in many ways, phrases used in the BCP, King James Bible and Articles of Religion may still be in use, however their meaning has changed. This can lead to misunderstandings.

The reality, however, is that by virtue of the fact that no suitable religious English existed in the 16th century when the BCP was first compiled, English-speakers who used the first Books of Common Prayer had to deal with many similar issues of figuring out precisely the meaning of words. The word “atonement” which did not previously exist in the English language, would have been no more familiar to an English-speaker from the 1550s than would the word “holpen” might to someone today.

Simply because the people may need to look up or ask someone what a particular word means does not necessarily seem to violate the intention of this Article, which is chiefly that the language be that spoken by the people. Looking back to St Paul in his letter ot the Corinthians, the purpose behind his letter lies largely in the realm of order in Church, that everything be done in order and with reverence.

From the language choices of the Reformers it is clear that the issue of reverence was on their minds. In some cases where specific religious language did not exist, they could have used existing religious language to convey the necessary sentiment or information, however instead may have chosen to establish new words that would both convey the sense and be used more exclusively in a religious context.

Today, due to the cultural influence of the Book of Common Prayer and King James Version of the Bible on the subsequent development of the English language along with the broader cultural influence of Christianity in Anglophone cultures in the West, such as Canada, religious language is now often used, in its modern forms, in non-religious contexts. By returning to the use of more archaic English from these older documents, while it can require a bit more work to understand, it seems to more properly fulfil the sentiments of this Article which mean more than just being understood, but being understood in the context of reverent worship of God.

On the Language of the Prayer Book

The Third Sunday in Advent

O LORD Jesu Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee: Grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries may likewise so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

The language of the Prayer Book is archaic, there is no getting around it. While it is variously described as being more contemplative, solemn or formal than the alternative and modern language services available in the Book of Alternative Services, the reality is merely that the diction is archaic. The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 uses language of the day, but the language is now 350 – 450 years old, and the Canadian Prayer Book of 1962 models its language on that of the 1662 Prayer Book. So while it clearly is archaic, is it solemn, stiff and formal as it is otherwise described, or is it just our unfamiliarity with the way the language is employed that makes it so?

Here is a simple comparison between the language. The collect for Advent above is said each week during advent from the Book of Common Prayer. The collect for Advent from the Book of Alternative Services follows:

Almighty God, give us grace to cast away the works of darkness and put on the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life in which your Son Jesus Christ came to us in great humility, that on the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the living and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

In this example, the prayers have largely been unchanged; the Book of Alternative Services merely updated the language to modern use, for the most part. Some of the more obvious changes beyond mere word order are the change of, “thy Son Jesus Christ,” to, “your Son Jesus Christ, and, “him who liveth and reigneth,” to, “him who lives and reigns.” In the latter example it is simply a matter of it being the proper suffix for a third person singular present tense verb. In modern English, the suffix of –eth has been replaced with –s. In the former example, however, the change is a bit more complex. Thy is similarly an archaic form of your, which is used in the Book of Alternative Services translation, however it ignores one critical point. Thy was also the singular informal form of you. Many languages maintain such a distinction. In French, tu is used as the informal second person singular, and the second person plural vous is used as the second person singular in formal circumstances. This same usage is found in Spanish with tú and usted. In modern English, the form of you is used in both cases, and it is therefore impossible to tell if it is formal or informal, singular or plural, without some form of context. In the archaic form of English used in the Prayer Book, however, this informal use of thy is preserved. Far from being formal, the use of this archaic language, when properly understood, reminds us of the deeply personal relationship we engage in with God through the liturgy. Its use, according to Sue Careless, suggests intimacy, affection and love and reflects a type of speech which would be used with a close friend or beloved, in contrast with you and your which would have been used with someone for with whom the relationship was more formal or distant.

In understanding that context of linguistic use, reading the Prayer Book constantly highlights the intimacy of the personal relationship we hold with God through Jesus Christ. In the modern language of the Book of Alternative Services, there is nothing to suggest that we do not have that personal relationship, but neither are there sufficient context clues to us, for instance in the collect example used, to suggest that intimacy and informality that is expressly stated in the Prayer Book’s language.

Beyond the reminder of informality, by virtue of the archaic language, we set the liturgy apart from our daily lives. Much like how we might dress with intention of worship, our use of language reflects a clear desire to set this time apart for the sacred worship of God. The language of the Prayer Book is poetic and quite beautiful. As has been referenced previously, the Prayer Book and King James Bible are viewed as seminal English literary work and revered as such even by non-Christians merely for their beautiful use of the English language. As anyone knows, when you translate poetry, it does not always translate well; some of the beauty of the Prayer Book is lost in the modernised language of the Book of Alternative Services.

Aside from setting ourselves apart, it is also a reminder of an important truth. As we sing in the hymn Diademata, God is, “ineffably sublime.” He is so great we cannot describe him in words. If we cannot properly describe him in words, how can we even attempt it using simple or common words? The fact that the use of these words is today largely limited to their religious context helps remind us that our normal vocabulary is insufficient. As David Mills argues, we use the language of the Prayer Book to, as best as we are able, express truths beyond words.

The language of the Prayer Book, as this post first recognized, is archaic. It needs to be understood. Ultimately, however, that is no different than any other aspect of the liturgy. The meaning behind the high mass cannot always be understood simply by participating in it, and some effort needs to be made to understand the history and symbolism behind different acts and even words. With the language of the Prayer Book it is little different: we must make an effort to understand the words we say, because behind them stands the doctrinal theological fullness of the Anglican tradition.

The language of the Prayer Book is a precious deposit of the Anglican tradition. In learning the language of the Prayer Book, we become one step closer to unlocking the full potential of the Prayer Book as a tool of faith in the Anglican tradition.