Interestingly but not surprisingly, the 1928 and 1662 versions of the Book of Common Prayer are more sensitive to the original Greek and Hebrew than the 1979 version. In the memo below, I hope to illustrate one of the reasons why I believe that the theology of salvation in the 1979 BCP is faulty, and that its authors were intentional in making it so.
The 1979 text (Rite II) has at the breaking of the bread,
“Christ our Passover IS sacrificed for us”
Ironically, it is taken from the King James (KJV) Bible which in this rare case translates the original language poorly. 1 Corinthians 5:7 is better stated:
“Christ our Passover HAS BEEN (or was) sacrificed for us”.
This is how all other serious English Bibles translate the words of Paul, and there is a world of difference between the two renderings. Paul perceived that Christ was sacrificed (for once and forever)... suggesting that both finality and ongoing relevance are contained in the Greek tense. Accordingly, the 1928 (and 1662) BCP says, at the comparable place in the Communion Service,
"God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again"
The authors of the 1979 BCP, not unwittingly went back to the KJV wording in order to take the focus of our attention away from Christ's sacrifice (historical and eternal) and place our attention upon the event of the Eucharist celebration itself. Now there's nothing wrong with acknowledging God's mercy as an ongoing reality, and there's nothing wrong with recognizing the "real (present tense) Presence" of Christ in the bread and wine. The problem is that the 1979 BCP wording can also be made to fit with a revisionist eucharistic theology which connotes we are bonded to Him by OUR ongoing sacrifice (present tense) rather than by HIS final sacrifice (past perfect tense). This is actually the easiest way to understand the construction and mindset of the 1979 Eucharist, which also says:
"We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Recalling his death, resurrection, and ascension, WE OFFER YOU THESE GIFTS."
Note that this does not refer to "our gifts of thanks and praise" but to the Eucharist elements themselves. Let's contrast it once again with mindset of the 1662 (and 1928) BCP:
"WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness,
but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under
thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore,
gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful
bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and
that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."
It seems reasonable to conclude that some who celebrate using the 1979 liturgy (those who are paying attention) have learned to their detriment that the Eucharist is a time in which we give something back to Christ in order to perfect our salvation. Indeed, this revisionist liturgy has seemed to feed Gnosticism and Mysticism in the Episcopal Church for 40 years. The liturgy erroneously and perversely suggests that we (God's people) must struggle to participate with Christ in His sacrifice... that His sacrifice is only factually perfected in the Eucharist. Who is sacrificing for whom?
I must ask whether Anglicans of today, including those that are newly escaped from The Episcopal Church want to practice a form of Christianity that knows God has sacrificed (sufficiently) for us... or do they prefer to stick with the 1979 BCP which contributed mightily, just 40 years ago, to the destruction of Anglican orthodoxy in the United States? New Anglicans (those that are now forming the Anglican Church of North America) say they despise the theology of The Episcopal Church... a theology that perceives God as not all-powerful, perceive us as not all-lost, and that believes the words of our mouth and the meditations of our heart don't really matter.
But are these true Anglicans willing to discard the liturgy that teaches the very heresies they despise? Are they willing to read 1 Corinthians 5:8?:
"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven... but with the unleavened bread...."
So far, the leaders of ACNA have been only accommodative to the "old leaven" of the 1979 BCP. These former Episcopalians have shown little if any determination to discard the customs of proverbial Egypt. 40 years from now they will regret it.