Question about visiting a Rite I Liturgy

[pmcleanj]

pmcleanj


That's a little harsh. We don' go to Rite one for anything even close to that.

I think you may be confusing what I said about a "service of obligation", and applying it generally to "Rite I" services.

There are many reasons to go to "Rite I" services, including but not limited to a love of Merbecke, or an affinity for the Prayer of Humble Access or for nine-fold sung Kyries or for the beautiful prose of Thomas Cranmer. If you do love these things though, you are better off finding a Rite I service that's offered as the main service of the day rather than taking in one that's scheduled at 8:00 a.m. where most optional elements are often left out.

Remember, the original question was from someone who wanted to get the flavour of a Rite I service -- and I don't think you give a Rite I service a fair shot when some of the most beautiful elements are being skipped so as to cover the essential elements as quickly as possible.

Which is not to say it's a bad thing for churches to offer a service of obligation. If one is an essential-services or shift worker and have no option but to work on Sunday it's tremendously gracious to still make the effort to worship on Sunday and gracious also of the Church to meet that need. And if your ski excursion or brunch date means that you would normally skip worship but you decide to get up an hour earlier to squeeze in a quick worship service as well, more power to you.

And if your parish actually offers a full sung Eucharist at 8:00 in the morning with musicians, hymns, optional canticles and prayers included, full-scale sermon instead of summary homily, processions, and all the rest that goes to make up a normal 90-minute service, than obviously the foregoing considerations don't apply and there's no reason not to turn to the 8:00 a.m. service to get the full flavour of a Rite I service.

But typically, the 8a.m. service has no choir or music and uses the short forms of prayers or canticles when the option is given.

 

[gtsecc]

so you don't like rite II?

NO - I don't think choice, which is great for secular government, is good for the Church.

 

[gtsecc]

We are much better off all Rite 1 or all Rite 2.

 

[gtsecc]

I think many anglocatholics subconsciously begin to think that the Church invented the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. In all honesty the fact that Christ is divine, is unrelated to whether or not we believe he is divine.

He is the Holy Son of God, because he is the Holy Son of God, not because the Church said so at Nicea.

Subconciously?
No - explicity.
The Church did not MAKE Jesus divine, but we did confess it. And, without that confession in one voice - it could not be known or believed.

 

[Adammi]

So, I've been to Catholic Churches and studied the BOCP and Anglicanism, so I think that I am basically aware of what to expect. What should I tell me friend who is going to be like a fish out of water?

 

[No Swansong]

Subconciously?
No - explicity.
The Church did not MAKE Jesus divine, but we did confess it. And, without that confession in one voice - it could not be known or believed.

So you are saying that AngloCatholics explicitly created the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ?

I know that is not what you meant but your response to Cola does not address his comment. He was commenting on what he believes most AngloCatholics subconsciously believe, not how the doctrine of the Trinity was recognized by the Church.

 

[No Swansong]

So, I've been to Catholic Churches and studied the BOCP and Anglicanism, so I think that I am basically aware of what to expect. What should I tell me friend who is going to be like a fish out of water?

I would recommend that you just tell your friend to follow your lead and let him/her take in the Liturgy first and then attempt to answer questions afterward. You may however want to discuss whether your friend can receive communion or not beforehand so that there is not a possibly embarrassing experience.

 

[pmcleanj]

A lot depends on your friend -- is s/he an analytical person, or an artistic person? Acquainted with the language of myth, or firmly rooted in the age of reason?

S/he'll experience worship where the vertical dimension between man and God flows is enabled by the horizontal man-to-man dimension that we create by coming together as a community; and where to the same degree the horizontal dimension of our communion with one another as brothers and sisters is enabled by the verticle dimension of our relationship with God.

We act this out by a "liturgical" form of worship, where the members of the community play an active role by singing and reciting texts in unison, and by participating in the back-and-forth action of versicles and responses. So your friend will need his/er reading glasses to be able to read the texts (and some sticky-notes don't hurt, if you have time to come a bit early, get the bulletin, and mark the page numbers that you'll find in the bulletin).

During worship, the community engages in three different types of God-focussed activity, which we distinguish by different postures: we kneel to bring our petitions before God; we stand to praise God, and we sit to be instructed in God's word. So your friend won't be able to fall asleep: s/he will have to keep an eye on the worshippers in front of her/m go see which posture s/he's supposed to take next (sit half way back to make sure that at least someone is in front of you).

Within this context of an active and interacting community, we do two things that render us "church": we preach the Gospel, and we celebrate the Sacraments. The role of the people in preaching is to hear it -- so that's easy, even for a "fish out of water". The role of the people in the Sacrament varies with the Sacrament, but the common one is the Eucharist where our role is to "take and eat". The Eucharist is a transformational Sacrament: it might be a very good idea not to take part of it if you're not prepared to be changed by it. In most congregations unbaptized persons are asked not to take part, which is probably wise in that unbaptized persons are unlikely know what kind of life-changes they are assenting to when they take Christ bodily inside themselves.

If your friend sits far enough back to see several people, s/he'll note that though there are various trends of posture and consistent behaviour, at all times there are one or two people in the congregation doing something different: standing when everyone else kneels, or crossing themselves when no-one else does, or bowing in the middle of some prayer. So you and your friend won't need to worry about sticking out because you decided not to go up to the altar for communion, or because you didn't go to one knee before going into the pew: you'll fit in by being different. Relax and enjoy it.

Does that help?

 

[Adammi]

So, should we not receive communion? Part of our motive for going to an Episcopal Church for Ash Wednesday and not a Catholic one, is that the Episcopal Church has open communion. Is this not accurate?

 

[Colabomb]

So, should we not receive communion? Part of our motive for going to an Episcopal Church for Ash Wednesday and not a Catholic one, is that the Episcopal Church has open communion. Is this not accurate?

My father does not know if your friend is a Christian. If your friend is a baptised Christian (of any denomination) they are of course welcome to the table.

 

[pmcleanj]

So, should we not receive communion? Part of our motive for going to an Episcopal Church for Ash Wednesday and not a Catholic one, is that the Episcopal Church has open communion. Is this not accurate?

Some parishes do practice completely open communion. There is good precedent for this: Suzannah Wesley herself actually experienced conversion during participation in the Eucharist, and from her subsequent maternal example we gained two of the greatest clergymen of the reformation. I myself participated regularly in the Eucharist prior to my conversion, and look what it led to in my life! I wonder often whether I would have been led to ask for Baptism without the conversion of my life that occured through the Eucharist, and I praise God for that conversion.

But, in most North American parishes what is practiced is "Communion of the Baptized" -- communion that is open only to all Baptized Christians. That is substantively more open than the closed communion practiced by the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, or even than the "close" communion practiced by LCC or LCMS Lutherans. But completely open communion is considered heterodox by most Anglicans.

There is some logic to this: the Eucharist is the formative (and reformative) meal of the Body gathered -- and the Body is the whole company of all Faithful People, and Baptism is the means by which one is made "a member in Christ". It's not just a snack or a symbol; it is much more even than a very deep symbol. If you visited a Baptist church, you would probably think twice about joining in to the Baptism ritual, unless you were powerfully led right then and there to oblate yourself to God. The Eucharist should inspire a similar degree of hesitation at least. At a minimum, I'm sure that if you are powerfully led then and there at the moment of the consecration to convert your life such that you are led to receive, that the priest would be available for your follow-up conversation about your desire for Baptism at the earliest possible date.

Does that make sense? Prior to the great liturgical reforms of the 1970's, the norm was Confirmation as a requirement for Communion; and I'm sure that what I just said makes more liturgical and theological sense than that. But Anglican praxis doesn't always have to make sense.

 

[Adammi]

Some parishes do practice completely open communion. There is good precedent for this: Suzannah Wesley herself actually experienced conversion during participation in the Eucharist, and from her subsequent maternal example we gained two of the greatest clergymen of the reformation. I myself participated regularly in the Eucharist prior to my conversion, and look what it led to in my life! I wonder often whether I would have been led to ask for Baptism without the conversion of my life that occured through the Eucharist, and I praise God for that conversion.

But, in most North American parishes what is practiced is "Communion of the Baptized" -- communion that is open only to all Baptized Christians. That is substantively more open than the closed communion practiced by the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, or even than the "close" communion practiced by LCC or LCMS Lutherans. But completely open communion is considered heterodox by most Anglicans.

There is some logic to this: the Eucharist is the formative (and reformative) meal of the Body gathered -- and the Body is the whole company of all Faithful People, and Baptism is the means by which one is made "a member in Christ". It's not just a snack or a symbol; it is much more even than a very deep symbol. If you visited a Baptist church, you would probably think twice about joining in to the Baptism ritual, unless you were powerfully led right then and there to oblate yourself to God. The Eucharist should inspire a similar degree of hesitation at least. At a minimum, I'm sure that if you are powerfully led then and there at the moment of the consecration to convert your life such that you are led to receive, that the priest would be available for your follow-up conversation about your desire for Baptism at the earliest possible date.

Does that make sense? Prior to the great liturgical reforms of the 1970's, the norm was Confirmation as a requirement for Communion; and I'm sure that what I just said makes more liturgical and theological sense than that. But Anglican praxis doesn't always have to make sense.

Yes, that completely makes sense. Both of us have been baptized in the traditional orthodox Trinitarian form. Will that be questioned?

 

[pmcleanj]

Yes, that completely makes sense. Both of us have been baptized in the traditional orthodox Trinitarian form. Will that be questioned?

Nope. Quite frankly, the chances of being questioned even if you were baptized not at all, or in a new-age hyper-heterodox form, are vanishingly small. Asking questions always involves moving your upper lip, and we Anglicans prefer to keep it stiff

 

[Timothy]

Nope. Quite frankly, the chances of being questioned even if you were baptized not at all, or in a new-age hyper-heterodox form, are vanishingly small. Asking questions always involves moving your upper lip, and we Anglicans prefer to keep it stiff

You mean it's possible to move my upper lip? Why didn't someone tell me SOONER?

 

[No Swansong]

Cola is correct I simply didn't know if your friend was a Christian. Of course any baptized Christian is welcome to the Table. As for receiving communion before conversion there are many views on this. I simply warn those who I do not know to be Christian (I assure you in a loving and supportive manner) because Paul warns not to receive unless one recognizes Christ in the Eucharist. This of course is problematic if one doesn't recognize Christ at all except for possibly as an historic figure.

I pray for a deeply moving experience for you and your friend.

 

[longhair75]

I came to a point in my life that, as a member of the Roman Church, the disagreements I had were putting me beyond what I considered membership in good standing. At that point I continued to try to work the disagreements out but stopped participating in the Eucharist. Not long after that, the incident that precipitated my final departure from the authority of Rome occurred.

When I finally found the Episcopal Church, I waited until I had spent some time discussing my conversion with the Rector to be sure of my position before participating in the Eucharist in my new Church.

 

[Adammi]

I enjoyed the service so much. I was very impressed by the service and by the friendliness of the people. You guys definitely have something going for you within Anglicanism. I definitely plan on occasionally visiting this church.

 

[Colabomb]

I enjoyed the service so much. I was very impressed by the service and by the friendliness of the people. You guys definitely have something going for you within Anglicanism. I definitely plan on occasionally visiting this church.

I'm glad you found it enjoyable!

 

[karen freeinchristman]

And Happy Birthday, Adam!

 

[Adammi]

And Happy Birthday, Adam!

Thanks....

And thanks to fate (or God lol)...the priest asked us to sign the guest book so that he would have our phone numbers so we could meet sometime and talk over coffee or something. Well, after we left we both realized that the guest book didn't even ask for our phone numbers, so we were disappointed that the only way he could contact us would be by mail. My friend just called me to say that he coincidentally just ran into him at Starbucks. We are going to meet him there next Thursday.