Rite I or II?

[Maid Marie]

Hello,

The EC that I attend usually does Rite II. Today I visited one used Rite I. Having only attended an Episcopal Church for a year now, I don't know the history of why there are two Rites. And the lady I asked didn't know either.
Could someone explain why we have two Rites?

And just to share - boy, were they different....

 

[Drax]

It's a great question! The old Book of Common Prayer in the US (1928) had a somewhat different tone and feel to it. The language sounded more "King James," and thus worship contained a certain formality. The current (1979) BCP did a lot of updating to the liturgy, and Rite II puts it in the common vernacular. Rite I retains the older language feel for churches that did not want to lose that aspect of worship. Rite I is not exactly the same as 1928, but it's "in the ballpark." A few of the responses in Rite I are different than they are in II (such as "and with thy spirit" instead of "and also with you"), and there aren't as many Eucharistic prayers. There's also a Rite I version of Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer.

Interestingly, having grown up in extremely informal and (I hate to say it) shallow churches, even Rite II seemed quite formal to me when I first heard it. The parish I attend now does Rite I services on Sunday mornings. I love it. It has a certain timelessness to it. I try to avoid the inevitable debates that people engage in over the Rites, but I definitely like Rite I. Now they do have a Wednesday noon communion service here which is Rite II, and the Bishop always wants to do Rite II when he's here, so they're not hardline about it. But they really emphasize history and old musical works and so forth, so Rite I captures the feel of how they want to worship!

 

[Maid Marie]

It's a great question! The old Book of Common Prayer in the US (1928) had a somewhat different tone and feel to it. The language sounded more "King James," and thus worship contained a certain formality. The current (1979) BCP did a lot of updating to the liturgy, and Rite II puts it in the common vernacular. Rite I retains the older language feel for churches that did not want to lose that aspect of worship. Rite I is not exactly the same as 1928, but it's "in the ballpark." A few of the responses in Rite I are different than they are in II (such as "and with thy spirit" instead of "and also with you"), and there aren't as many Eucharistic prayers. There's also a Rite I version of Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer.

Interestingly, having grown up in extremely informal and (I hate to say it) shallow churches, even Rite II seemed quite formal to me when I first heard it. The parish I attend now does Rite I services on Sunday mornings. I love it. It has a certain timelessness to it. I try to avoid the inevitable debates that people engage in over the Rites, but I definitely like Rite I. Now they do have a Wednesday noon communion service here which is Rite II, and the Bishop always wants to do Rite II when he's here, so they're not hardline about it. But they really emphasize history and old musical works and so forth, so Rite I captures the feel of how they want to worship!

Thanks, your explanation makes sense. And you bring up the things I noticed this morning that were "off" to me. I, too, am from a non-liturgical background and think Rite II is very formal and deep. I had looked at Rite I before and just though the differences were the thees and thous. But this morning as I responded naturally with and also with you, I noticed that I was the only one saying that. Then I started studying what was going on in the book and realized something was REALLY different here. I noticed the rector did a lot more talking, had his back to us [might just be the old building's architecture didn't allow for the altar to be moved forward - I do know that there is a reason for the rector's back to be towards us, just don't know if it is the congregation's preference or architecture but it was hard to hear him], and less Eucharistic prayers [my FAVORITE part of the service and what I truly miss being in the Nazarene Church].

I ought to reread Rite I this afternoon and see really read it to understand better what was going on this am.

 

[freezerman2000]

For me, the Rite 1 is closer to the 1928 form...a beautiful service...My church uses Rite1 for the service I go to,, and everyone is happy with it.
We tried Rite 2, but decided to use 1 exclusively...The early morning service uses 2 though.
We have so many members, we have three services on Sunday.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We use selected parts of Common Worship in our main services. We also have a 1662 service.

 

[Drax]

For me, the Rite 1 is closer to the 1928 form...a beautiful service...My church uses Rite1 for the service I go to,, and everyone is happy with it.
We tried Rite 2, but decided to use 1 exclusively...The early morning service uses 2 though.
We have so many members, we have three services on Sunday.

Oh wow! We have three services too (all Rite I): Eucharist with only organ (no choir), Morning Prayer with choir, and Eucharist with choir. I've only gotten to experience a 1928 service once. It was pretty amazing.

We use selected parts of Common Worship in our main services. We also have a 1662 service.

I just read some of the Common Worship texts online on the Church of England site. Very nice! It's somewhat like Rite II, but not entirely. Do many parishes use the 1662 in the UK?

 

[Maid Marie]

We use selected parts of Common Worship in our main services. We also have a 1662 service.

I am so new at this that I am clueless as to what you are telling me.

 

[Mr Dave]

Just read some of the Common Worship texts online on the Church of England site. Very cool! It's somewhat like Rite II, but not entirely. Do many parishes use the 1662 in the UK?

We use Common Worship normally at University Eucharists. Most Parishes use Common Worship as the default, some use The Book of Common Prayer as the default but these are a small minority (Tis a shame, I love the BCP, so much I use it sometimes to guide my own personal prayer). Quite a few parishes (that I've seen anyway) offer a 1662 BCP service for those who want it even thought the main services are Common Worship, comme ici (although this is a more trad church anyway) - Pattern of Services | St John's Church, Ranmoor

 

[Drax]

I am so new at this that I am clueless as to what you are telling me.

Haha I've been there too! Everybody who doesn't grow up with it definitely has a learning curve. And when I moved and went from a Rite II to a Rite I parish, there was further learning to do!

1662 is a Book of Common Prayer which, though it was not the first, historically has been sort of a default or standard for the others. Many of the prayers were carried over into America's 1928 BCP. Some of them are in our current BCP too. 1662 was very influential on many BCPs and liturgies all over the world. It's an amazing work. I'm no expert on the history of Common Worship, though, so I'll leave it to those who can explain it more effectively!

We use Common Worship normally at University Eucharists. Most Parishes use Common Worship as the default, some use The Book of Common Prayer as the default but these are a small minority (Tis a shame, I love the BCP, so much I use it sometimes to guide my own personal prayer). Quite a few parishes (that I've seen anyway) offer a 1662 BCP service for those who want it even thought the main services are Common Worship, comme ici (although this is a more trad church anyway) - Pattern of Services | St John's Church, Ranmoor

Thanks! That is very interesting! I'd really like to visit a 1662 service someday.

 

[Maid Marie]

Haha I've been there too! Everybody who doesn't grow up with it definitely has a learning curve. And when I moved and went from a Rite II to a Rite I parish, there was further learning to do!

1662 is a Book of Common Prayer which, though it was not the first, historically has been sort of a default or standard for the others. Many of the prayers were carried over into America's 1928 BCP. Some of them are in our current BCP too. 1662 was very influential on many BCPs and liturgies all over the world. It's an amazing work. I'm no expert on the history of Common Worship, though, so I'll leave it to those who can explain it more effectively!

... I'd really like to visit a 1662 service someday.

Well, I can add the 1662 and 1928 service to my bucket list. Along with my wish list of someday having extra cash to visit the plethora of Episcopal Churches in Manhattan like St Thomas and Trinity Wall Street for their High Church services.

I have visited several Anglican churches in England but that was when I was in college 20+ years ago. I did go to the Sunday service at Coventry Cathedral but we in my group were all so tired from our travels that I was half asleep. That was also before I knew or cared at all about what this denomination did or believed.

I also went to a mid-week service at Canterbury Cathedral honoring St Thomas a Becket. There was a lot of Latin - would that have been a 1662 service? That was when I had just arrived there and jet lag was really bad. So bad that I fell asleep standing up but caught myself in time before I hit the floor.

And thanks for the explanation about the 1662 book.

 

[Mr Dave]

Well, I can add the 1662 and 1928 service to my bucket list.


I also went to a mid-week service at Canterbury Cathedral honoring St Thomas a Becket. There was a lot of Latin - would that have been a 1662 service? That was when I had just arrived there and jet lag was really bad. So bad that I fell asleep standing up but caught myself in time before I hit the floor.

And thanks for the explanation about the 1662 book.

You gotta get a copy

Latin in Canterbury? Wow, that surprises me. No the 1662 is in English.

The Beginning of the Athanasian Creed from the BCP;

QUICUNQUE VULT

WHOSOEVER will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith.
Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.


Until you buy a copy, you can get it all here, it's not the same though
Worship in the Church of England

 

[Maid Marie]

Speaking of the 1662 BCP - I found a facsimilie http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/HC.pdf of the original printing and then I found Worship-Book of Commom Prayer-The Lord's Supper or Holy Communion. What caught my eye was the use of the phrase "notorious evil liver". Gotta tell ya, I've never heard of that line before. My father likes off the wall phrases and words like this. I should try that one on him and see what he says/does. Comparing the two sites, I guess evil liver means malicious. And if I recall correctly, at that time love was found in the bowels so evilness must be found in the liver... [“For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.” Philippians 1:8]?

 

[Mr Dave]

I took it to mean someone who lives (a liver) in an evil and notorious way.
Although I like your take on it

 

[Maid Marie]

You gotta get a copy

Latin in Canterbury? Wow, that surprises me. No the 1662 is in English.

The Beginning of the Athanasian Creed from the BCP;

QUICUNQUE VULT

WHOSOEVER will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith.
Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.


Until you buy a copy, you can get it all here, it's not the same though
Worship in the Church of England

Just as you were posting about that site, so was I.

Well, I thought it was in Latin. Maybe it was just a few phrases like QUICUNQUE VULT and then in my exhaustion the Elizabethan language [or Charlesian?] just seemed like Latin to me. That was the driest service ever but jet lag WAS really bad that day. I remember thinking throughout the entire thing "I have no clue what they are saying and what is going on here."

 

[Maid Marie]

I took it to mean someone who lives (a liver) in an evil and notorious way.
Although I like your take on it

AHHHHHHhhhh....that would make sense. Duh!

 

[Mr Dave]

Just as you were posting about that site, so was I.

Well, I thought it was in Latin. Maybe it was just a few phrases like QUICUNQUE VULT and then in my exhaustion the Elizabethan language [or Charlesian?] just seemed like Latin to me. That was the driest service ever but jet lag WAS really bad that day. I remember thinking throughout the entire thing "I have no clue what they are saying and what is going on here."

Yep, great minds

I went to Evensong at Sheffield Cathedral and struggled and I wasn't jet-lagged, so I don't blame you for not following it all I know they have all the Latin titles for the Psalms etc... (today's Evening Prayer gives us; In convertendo, Nisi Dominus, Beati omnes, Saepe expugnaverunt, De profundis, Domine, non est) (Goodness, there's a lot of psalms tonight), so I guess if they said those bits and then shunted into the 17th Century English then it could have all blended into one.

 

[Maid Marie]

I went to Evensong at Sheffield Cathedral and struggled and I wasn't jet-lagged, so I don't blame you for not following it all I know they have all the Latin titles for the Psalms etc... (today's Evening Prayer gives us; In convertendo, Nisi Dominus, Beati omnes, Saepe expugnaverunt, De profundis, Domine, non est) (Goodness, there's a lot of psalms tonight), so I guess if they said those bits and then shunted into the 17th Century English then it could have all blended into one.

I think that's it.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Do many parishes use the 1662 in the UK?

I think they all do.

 

[Seek 2 Pray]

From what I have read, rite I and rite II differ not just in the language, but in the intent too.


I grew up with 1928 BCP and love the language even now. The prayer book's Eucharistic service at that time was more penitential in approach, a legacy of the medieval catholic tradition.


When the Episcopal Church in the U.S. revamped the BCP in the late 1970's, they made some changes but kept something similar in Rite I. Rite II, however, was intended to look back furtherthan the middle ages to the early Christian practices. The penitential approach is replaced in Rite II with worship focusing of praise, honor, glory...


So, while I love the traditional rite, there is something special about Rite II, in connecting with earlier Christian worship.

 

[Drax]

I think they all do.

Very cool!!!

From what I have read, rite I and rite II differ not just in the language, but in the intent too.


I grew up with 1928 BCP and love the language even now. The prayer book's Eucharistic service at that time was more penitential in approach, a legacy of the medieval catholic tradition.


When the Episcopal Church in the U.S. revamped the BCP in the late 1970's, they made some changes but kept something similar in Rite I. Rite II, however, was intended to look back furtherthan the middle ages to the early Christian practices. The penitential approach is replaced in Rite II with worship focusing of praise, honor, glory...


So, while I love the traditional rite, there is something special about Rite II, in connecting with earlier Christian worship.

That is really interesting. I did not know that!