Episcopal Rite III Eucharist?

[Padres1969]

Well, that's two, not one. And then a number of Anglican parishes use the 1928 book, and some go for others as well. So, I don't think we're there. Besides, TEC and ACNA themselves are committed (apparently) to making newer editions.

The reason I said what I did is because Common Prayer was once a widely-heralded strength of Anglicanism, regardless of whether one was High Church or Low Church or whatever. No more.

Well it's kind of two, but only in that one version (Rite I) uses the Elizabethan English, and the other uses contemporary language (Rite II). The liturgy contained there in however is very similar and in my opinion the differences are not terribly significant. When I go to a Rite I service I never feel it's particularly different than the Rite II services I attend typically other than the style of the language. I find the old English a little less relate-able, but it's still a clearly Anglican service (or what I think of as Anglican coming from the contemporary side). Certainly not much different than the Rites themselves between their various Eucharistic prayers and other options contained there in. Maybe it's because I came from the RCC where there are still post Vatican II 16 different Rites (not including Rite of Religious Orders), that I just can't find two Rites, separated primarily by style of language, to be excessive in any way. Could the two be unified a little more, certainly seems possible. But I don't see that as a massive obstacle should they decide to do that some day, but I also don't see it as a necessity even now.

Now if you want to talk about Anglicanism as a whole, even if limited to just North America and the 1928 BCP that's fine. I wasn't because the ECUSA churches don't typically use the 1928 BCP anymore. But clearly there are differences between the BCP used by the ECUSA and other North American Anglican bodies that go deeper than simply the BCP version we're using. I don't think going back to the last book we all had in common, the '28 BCP, is really the answer to anything.

As for the ACNA and ECUSA making further revisions, I can't speak to the ACNA, but as I understand it the ECUSA isn't committed to making any changes as yet. They're just exploring the possibility. And from what I've read there's a large number of clergy and lay leaders who feel the 1979 BCP still has plenty left to teach us before we toss it out, even if no one really uses the Star Wars prayer (Eucharistic Prayer C) anymore.

 

[Albion]

1. As far as having a Traditional Language Rite I and Modern Language Rite II, this only makes logical sense.

   So long as you can understand both of them, I don't see why that would be. We did fine for over 400 years with one book, one rite, and it was considered as something good for the church that kept the church together. Now look at how we have different provinces racing to break new ground, beat the crowd, placate each special interest group or party either in or outside of the church.

Anyhow, that's a way of looking at it. My church doesn't have the problem, so I was just making a point about Anglicanism in general for other people's consideration.

 

[SteveCaruso]

So long as you can understand both of them, I don't see why that would be. We did fine for over 400 years with one book, one rite, and it was considered as something good for the church that kept the church together.

This echoes what a number of Cranmer's detractors were saying about the Latin Sarum Rite.

 

[Albion]

This echoes what a number of Cranmer's detractors were saying about the Latin Sarum Rite.

There's no comparison.

 

[SteveCaruso]

There's no comparison.

"If the Latin is perfectly understandable, why do we need 'Modern' English?" isn't comparable to, "If the Elizabethan English is perfectly understandable, why do we need Modern English?" ?

To a Modern English speaker, "suscepit" is just as unintelligible as "holpen."

 

[Albion]

As I said, I offered a thought for anyone who might be interested. For anyone who's not interested or doesn't understand, there's no reason to fight over it.

 

[graceandpeace]

By "different" do you mean it wasn't one of the 4 Rite II options, Eucharist Prayers A, B, C or D? I mean a service can have contemporary music and yet still be following Rite II.

But if the Eucharistic prayer wasn't one of the Rite II A-D options, then maybe it was a Rite III service. Keep in mind Rite III can run the gamut it seems as long as the bare minimum of the rubrics and prayers are followed per the BCP. So it's conceivable a Rite III service could be very close to a Rite II and contain pretty much everything you'd expect of a Rite I or II service.

Problem I see with Rite III is that it's so vaguely defined that it could conceivable get very far from Rite I and II. The service I attended on Sunday was about the ragged edge of what I imagine would be permissible even for the ECUSA as at some point it ceases to be "common" prayer. Luckily the bishop does need to sign off on it for use as I understand.

No, it was not from the BCP.

I have the text & I've been trying to gather where it came from. The closest I can come up with is that some text is very similar to something in "Enriching our Worship," though I found some text directly from a Scottish Episcopal liturgy. That's about as much as I can figure out from Google. Either there is a full, consistent text the liturgy is coming from that I can't find, or it is a "mix" of this & that.

Again, the content of text is not problematic for me, but some of the music from the service, though...no thanks.

In any case, I will be sticking with the service with our BCP.

 

[Albion]

Some of the recent commentaries touch upon a point that most of us weren't thinking of initially. In some parishes, with or without the bishop's express permission, some liturgical innovations do take place (depending upon which province you belong to), and the parish gets away with it, usually because it's called a "trial" liturgy or done for a "special occasion," something like that.

 

[graceandpeace]

I do wish we could just stick with the BCP. There are already different Eucharistic prayers & such.

If I recall, TEC's GC approved a move to update the BCP. I think this is a good decision, but once that comes to pass, I just hope parishes can stick with what options are found within. It seems like most parishes already do just use the BCP anyway, but maybe once some updates are made there will be a less-felt need to "tweak" with supplements.

 

[graceandpeace]

Some of the recent commentaries touch upon a point that most of us weren't thinking of initially. In some parishes, with or without the bishop's express permission, some liturgical innovations do take place (depending upon which province you belong to), and the parish gets away with it, usually because it's called a "trial" liturgy or done for a "special occasion," something like that.

Maybe, I can't say.

The contemporary service I attended is a regular service that's been going on for years. It's not for me, tis all.

 

[Padres1969]

I do wish we could just stick with the BCP. There are already different Eucharistic prayers & such.

If I recall, TEC's GC approved a move to update the BCP. I think this is a good decision, but once that comes to pass, I just hope parishes can stick with what options are found within. It seems like most parishes already do just use the BCP anyway, but maybe once some updates are made there will be a less-felt need to "tweak" with supplements.

As I understand it the GC authorized exploring the possibility of updating the BCP and Hymnal. But as I understand it they've made no move to as yet actually do so. But if they do move forward, I agree. I hope they'll retain Rite I and II and if need be provide a few options in those rites for those that want a few of the commonly added things in Rite III. Maybe swap out the "Star Wars" prayer for example. And I agree stick to using them once created.

Or at the very least tighten up Rite III if they retain it as an option. The way it's written right now it's a bit freeform.

 

[Padres1969]

Some of the recent commentaries touch upon a point that most of us weren't thinking of initially. In some parishes, with or without the bishop's express permission, some liturgical innovations do take place (depending upon which province you belong to), and the parish gets away with it, usually because it's called a "trial" liturgy or done for a "special occasion," something like that.

Yeah if I were more inclined I'd look into whether this particular Rite III was approved of for regular usage by the LA bishop. But I'm not so inclined and will work under the presumption it was until proven otherwise. They seem to like it and they offer a Rite I and II at this particular parish on Sunday so I won't knock them from the perspective they're making sure everyone is provided the service option they prefer. Plus as I said, I was grateful to find a service available so late on a Sunday even if it was an odd (from my perspective) Rite III one.