Rite I or II?

[Seek 2 Pray]

You know, I would be wary of the idea that the earlier Christians were less penitential. There were some people when the new liturgies were being developed in the 70's that argued that, but a lot of liturgical scholars would question that now. The problem was things like the lack of confessional prayers was interpreted outside of the larger context, where confession was always done privately. Penances were also much more serious than most modern Christians would be comfortable with, including excommunication for long periods for regular sins. Penance was major serious business. Given that we no longer have that, or insistence upon or even common use of public confession, I'm not sure we can claim that the less penitential liturgy is really recapturing what the early Church had.

The modern liturgies are just that - modern - and if people are going to use them it is probably best to understand them that way.

Wonderful! I am always looking for more information. I just was sharing some information and teaching I had encountered. Could you recommend any reading on this subject?

I found the idea of a connection with the early church comforting. Oh well! It took me a long time to reconcile with the modern language, I love words and writing, so I can get a little wrapped up in the choice of words. So, I felt a loss of connection with the church by losing the familiar language.

I am aware of some of the differences with early church penance, as you said long periods of excommunication, with penance, and hopefully, returning to the fold at Easter.

 

[freezerman2000]

We did Rt.1 in church today, with a double Baptism...it was great...
It was standing room only!

 

[Maid Marie]

Now that Lent is over, we have returned to Rite II. I really enjoyed the Easter Vigil last night. This was held at a church I've not been to yet. The website describes it as Anglo-Catholic. It had the smells and bells I like The two I normally attend [two churches, one parish] don't have as much smells and bells so I guess it would be considered a low church or a broad church?

 

[MKJ]

Wonderful! I am always looking for more information. I just was sharing some information and teaching I had encountered. Could you recommend any reading on this subject?

I found the idea of a connection with the early church comforting. Oh well! It took me a long time to reconcile with the modern language, I love words and writing, so I can get a little wrapped up in the choice of words. So, I felt a loss of connection with the church by losing the familiar language.

I am aware of some of the differences with early church penance, as you said long periods of excommunication, with penance, and hopefully, returning to the fold at Easter.

I used to have a link to some good articles on this, but they don't seem to be there any more. I find some interesting stuff on the Canadian Prayer Book Society webpage, but it might be more polemical than what you want. It's also focused on the Canadian situation, though the liturgical issues are very similar.

Here is one that is interesting, and rather nicely written I think. Not everyone would agree obviously. The site has lots of other stuff as well.

I think a connection to the early (and medieval, reformation, etc) church is important, and I think that the older style liturgies accomplish that much better than the new ones do, despite the claims by their supporters that they are a move back to early church practices. I generally attend a liturgy from the BCP in the older tradition - it is possible to do so in many other places as well if you prefer the older liturgy or language.

 

[Seek 2 Pray]

MKJ,

Thank you so much for your reply. I did enjoy the article that you linked in your repsonse. Very informative! It is rather shocking and disheartening to read the author's contention that the scholarship was so lax.

I look forward to reading the articles you mentioned on the Canadian Prayer Book Society's webpage. I scanned the titles and am intrigued.

It has been awhile since I spent time reading on these matters. It is amazing how busy teaching and graduate school have kept me!

I understand about having preferences for earlier liturgies. As I said, it took me awhile to get used to the changes. Where I live now, my options are limited, but I miss the options from my hometown to attend services using other options.

Again, many thanks! I look forward to finding some time to read.

 

[MKJ]

MKJ,

Thank you so much for your reply. I did enjoy the article that you linked in your repsonse. Very informative! It is rather shocking and disheartening to read the author's contention that the scholarship was so lax.

I look forward to reading the articles you mentioned on the Canadian Prayer Book Society's webpage. I scanned the titles and am intrigued.

It has been awhile since I spent time reading on these matters. It is amazing how busy teaching and graduate school have kept me!

I understand about having preferences for earlier liturgies. As I said, it took me awhile to get used to the changes. Where I live now, my options are limited, but I miss the options from my hometown to attend services using other options.

Again, many thanks! I look forward to finding some time to read.

Glad you enjoyed it! The bishop who wrote it is now retired and is working as a parish priest down in Texas if you are ever down that way.

MKJ

 

[PaladinValer]

Rite I is very similar to the 1549 BCP and the historic Scottish BCP Eucharist liturgies ("Laud's Liturgy").

Rite II draws from the Liturgical Movement.

I should note that Rite II doesn't necessarily mean that those parishes or missions which use it drop things like the Prayer of Humble Access, etc.. I've attended parishes and know priests who primarily use Rite II and use those rubrics from Rite I and even traditional Catholic rubrics from supplemental liturgical books.

It should be noted also that many parishes and missions which primarily use Rite II often use Rite I during Lent. My current parish is numbered among them.