Alternative liturgy

[Theatreguy18]

do you have any experience with the enriching our worship liturgies or the liturgy of the English missal or the American missal ?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

I am not sure, but I think my congregation may use it or rely on it.

 

[Padres1969]

Not to my knowledge sorry.

 

[Deegie]

do you have any experience with the enriching our worship liturgies or the liturgy of the English missal or the American missal ?

Yes, I know Enriching our Worship quite well. Don't use it much at all at my current parish, but it's used quite often in seminary and diocesan liturgies around here.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't understand what is meant by missal. It's not a term we use in our tradition.

 

[Paidiske]

Missal is a Catholic word for a prayer book.

 

[SteveCaruso]

The Missal (think "Mass") is the portion of the BCP that holds the Eucharist. Before it was revised and enveloped into the BCP it was a separate book.

The "Anglican Missal" is a more recent publication that re-writes the Eucharist so that it is more like a Roman-style service.

 

[Dave-W]

Before it was revised and enveloped into the BCP it was a separate book.

I think I have in my library a couple of Missal books from parishes around my home town. They are 1950s and 60s vintage (I believe they survived the flood)

I also have a Book of Common Prayer (am not sure of its vintage); along with my various Siddurim (Jewish prayer books)

 

[gordonhooker]

I think it was in 1921 when the Society of St. Peter and St. Paul published the Anglican Missal.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

It sounds like apism to me.

 

[Paidiske]

That might be a tad unfair, Naomi.

I know lots of Anglicans who use very Catholic terminology; missal, Mass, and so on. They're not necessarily being try-hard Catholics, they're just using the language that they grew up with and that's familiar to them as people in that end of Anglican tradition.

I think it's more important that whether we call it the prayer book, the missal, or indeed project the words onto a screen, we realise that we are doing the same thing, and that we share this practice in common, than get hot and bothered about whether we all use precisely the same language.

 

[D.Hogan]

I think that the liturgy out of the Book of Common Prayer (which ever your province uses) should be the absolute norm. While the way it is celebrated is up to congregational preference, the words should not deviate (within reason) . Anglicanism to our favor and our detriment is rather passive on many things, but the Book of Common Prayer could be the only thing a large chunk of us have in common. I would like to think Anglicanism in all its strange "camps" and "wings" could agree on this.

Outside of the main Sunday service, I am fine with other forms of liturgy and prayer meetings that a parish would want to do (provided they do not contradict Biblical standards, and are Christ centered).

But I would also remind folk that we have a whole prayer book of liturgies and services we can employ.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

The Book of Common Prayer in England is not the same as the Book of Common Prayer in the USA.

As with the majority of COfE churches, we have a 1662 service each Sunday, with a maximum attendance, including clergy and sacristan of less than 10. It's a service that shrinks each year as those that attend die off.

The main service in COfE now is Common Worship and that is extremely diverse in its options. A CW service in an Anglo-Catholic church would be very different to one in an Evangelical church.

You simply can't force fit Anglicans into one mould. A key thing about Anglicanism is that we are Scripture, Reason and Tradition, i.e. Evangelical, Broad Church, and Catholic. In England, we minister to everyone who lives in a parish (and everyone does live in a parish), not simply those who favours a particular version of churchmanship. This is a key strength of Anglicanism, and long may it continue. We do not walk away from those we don't agree with. We walk alongside them.

 

[Paidiske]

I agree with everything Naomi just said, except identifying different strands of Anglicanism with different legs of the three-legged stool. All strands need all three legs (and where did that leave the charismatics, too?)

Although I'm a bit cranky because I was just denied permission to use a service from another province that I judged would be better than anything we have, for a particular circumstance!

 

[D.Hogan]

I didn't imply anything about walking away or disagreeing with anyone, that's just not something I will do. Lol. My aim was to point out the BCP as for a point of unity. Mind you this is also just opinion. (I did say Should after all)

As long as people go to church on Sunday, praise God! But experience in a diverse range of parishes and liturgical traditions, it has impressed me with the BCP's resiliency to adapt, that's all.

 

[mark46]

It sounds like apism to me.

I believe that the Church uses the Book Of Common Prayer in all its provinces. I see no import in whether it is called a missal or not, or whether part of it is called a missal.

And yes, the Book of Common Prayer is somewhat different in the various provinces, and in those outside the AC. However, I believe that it is the Anglican Tradition (and tradition) to profess that "we are what we pray". This somewhat presupposes a BCP.

 

[Paidiske]

I think we've long since left behind the era where we all prayed the same thing. I have no problem with this (as per Article XXXIV).

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I believe that the Church uses the Book Of Common Prayer in all its provinces. I see no import in whether it is called a missal or not, or whether part of it is called a missal.

And yes, the Book of Common Prayer is somewhat different in the various provinces, and in those outside the AC. However, I believe that it is the Anglican Tradition (and tradition) to profess that "we are what we pray". This somewhat presupposes a BCP.

The vast majority of the Anglican communion would not refer to any of our service books as missals. Fact.

When you say that the BCP is used in all provinces, there may be service books called that, but they are not the real BCP, i.e. The 1662.

In our fellowship, half a dozen people "use" the BCP, and several hundred of us use liturgy that is drawn from Common Worship (and only a few liturgy wonks would be aware of that).

 

[Arcangl86]

The vast majority of the Anglican communion would not refer to any of our service books as missals. Fact.

When you say that the BCP is used in all provinces, there may be service books called that, but they are not the real BCP, i.e. The 1662.

In our fellowship, half a dozen people "use" the BCP, and several hundred of us use liturgy that is drawn from Common Worship (and only a few liturgy wonks would be aware of that).

There are plenty of Anglicans who use books referred to as missals, even though those books are usually unofficial. And I have ot disagree with you that only the 1662 English Book of Common Prayer is the "real" one. What makes it the "real" one exactly?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

There are plenty of Anglicans who use books referred to as missals, even though those books are usually unofficial. And I have ot disagree with you that only the 1662 English Book of Common Prayer is the "real" one. What makes it the "real" one exactly?

It's funny, I don't know a single person on the ground that refers to liturgical books (i.e. 1662 or CW) as a missal and I am very well connected as a member of Deanery Synod (which crosses all churchmanships).

I don't understand why people are happy just being Anglican. I love the Church of England and wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

I have visited many Anglican and Episcopal churches over the last couple of years and can't remember a single one that used a prayer book of any description. Liturgy has been either printed out onto a handout or projected onto a screen. The average parishioner would not know how the service was put together.

In our fellowship, our services are drawn from Common Worship. We don't have the same format week in week out. We mix up what we include, and the order of all the different bits. The actual liturgical bits are recognisable as coming from CW. Before CE, when ASB was the standard book, we often used New Zealand liturgy. We are quite happy to do this kind of thing.

In this day and age, BCP is the real alternative.