Rite I or II?

[Maid Marie]

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.

Thaks for the explanation. It explains why I have felt so comfortable and hopeful in the service that I usually attend. I grew up in church having my emotions manipulated and then from other Christian friends hearing that I must be a bad person just cuz I exist [in other words they were overly penitential almost to an extreme]. Throw in an abusive grandmother and you have a very depressed Christian. But I love the Rite II's approach of praise, honor, glory and thanksgiving. There is less mea culpa and more joyfulness which is something I have desperately needed for decades. In the year I have been attending, I have healed alot between the EC's Rite II and having a different pastor come in at my Naz church.

 

[file13]

Hi Maid Marie! You might have noticed already, but I thought it might be useful to point out that different part of the Anglican communion all have their own "Book of Common Prayer". Our English brothers and sisters have the 1662 BCP as their "official prayer book." Here in the US, the 1979 US BCP is the official prayer book for The Episcopal Church (TEC), though there are some Anglican churches (like those in the ACNA) which still use the 1928 US BCP and I've even heard of bishops in the TEC that do allow some parishes to use the 1928 US BCP. The point is, if you're confused about the different prayer books, it's helpful to remember that the English and US each have their own and that each is different, as does the rest of the Anglican world.

As Drax mentioned above, all BCPs do have a common source and that common source is the 1662 English BCP, which is still the standard--at least on paper--for the Church of England. For more info, you might poke around this site which has not only the historical English BCPs, but versions of them from around the world.

Anyways, hope this helps!

 

[Healed_IHS]

Personaly, and I am a bit older than the OP son, the music tends to distract me. Hymns are nice and have their place but the contemporary stuff out there (IMHO) doesn't make Christianity better as much as it makes music worse. Then again, as far as Christian rock goes I listen to stuff which makes secular and non-secular people cringe... stuff like U2. Yeah, that Bono guy, lol.

Either that or monastic chanting/enya.

So my tastes can be argued as well.

This is the reason I prefer non vocal liturgies on the whole. One of the churches I attend has a wonderful compline sung by "professionals" from Yale school of music that I think is fantastic. Even when I get "stuck" into going to a musical liturgy I don't participate aside from closing my eyes and listening to others enjoy the music.

 

[Maid Marie]

Hi Maid Marie! You might have noticed already, but I thought it might be useful to point out that different part of the Anglican communion all have their own "Book of Common Prayer". Our English brothers and sisters have the 1662 BCP as their "official prayer book." Here in the US, the 1979 US BCP is the official prayer book for The Episcopal Church (TEC), though there are some Anglican churches (like those in the ACNA) which still use the 1928 US BCP and I've even heard of bishops in the TEC that do allow some parishes to use the 1928 US BCP. The point is, if you're confused about the different prayer books, it's helpful to remember that the English and US each have their own and that each is different, as does the rest of the Anglican world.

As Drax mentioned above, all BCPs do have a common source and that common source is the 1662 English BCP, which is still the standard--at least on paper--for the Church of England. For more info, you might poke around this site which has not only the historical English BCPs, but versions of them from around the world.

Anyways, hope this helps!

I realized this summer when I visited an Anglican Church in Bermuda that there were differences. I guess I just never realized that it went beyond Rite I and Rite II even down to many churches still using one from 1662. Kind of reminds me of how some Catholics have a strong attachment to the tridentine mass [sp?] while others prefer something more contempory.

Thx for the additional info.

 

[Maid Marie]

Connections are forming here in my mind...

The service I go to that uses Rite II has gone back to Rite I for Lent. I remember that they did this last year so wasn't caught off guard. And as I am saying it [as well as when I have said Rite II] there have been some parts that just seem TOO familiar for someone like myself who didn't grow up on this stuff.

My mother used to teach music so I have a greater familiarity to sacred music than most low church members. As I was looking through some of my sacred music CDs yesterday, it dawned on me why parts of Rite I and II seem familiar - these rites, especially Rite I, are patterned after the Catholic Mass and for both there are 5 things in common - Kryie, Glora, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus and Agnus Dei. I have these five in Latin on a CD of Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I downloaded it to my MP3 player so that I can have 'church' when I want it

Thus, the reasons why parts of Rite I [and somewhat II] seem familiar is because I have heard Missa Papae Marcelli as well as Vivaldi's Gloria, Arvo Part's Sacred songs and various forms of Agnus Dei enough that, with my familiarity of Romance languages, I have unintentionally translated them and stored the lyrics in my memory. Thus when I saw the words in the Episcopal church this past year, I would have these feelings of deja vu.

Coming from a Nazarene church that plays only loud rock music for church, this is a significant jump on the learning curve here.

 

[Seek 2 Pray]

Connections are forming here in my mind...



"My mother used to teach music so I have a greater familiarity to sacred music than most low church members. As I was looking through some of my sacred music CDs yesterday, it dawned on me why parts of Rite I and II seem familiar - these rites, especially Rite I, are patterned after the Catholic Mass and for both there are 5 things in common - Kryie, Glora, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus and Agnus Dei. "--Maid Marier




Yes, the liturgy does share common elements within the (worldwide) catholic church. There are differences in the liturgical practices that foster ongoing discussions in the church community, and probably always will.

Personally, I prefer to keep my focus on the common elements we share, both within the catholic tradition and within Christianity as a whole.

Here is my plain and simple view on my denomination in history.
Worship, its form and practice, is the key to the beliefs of the Anglican church. Although variations have been noted through history, over the centuries the Anglican church has both morphed and remained static. Changes were seen in belief and practice, initially, based on the personal beliefs of the reigning monarch (or the monarch's advisors).

In response to secular social developments in the age of Enlightenment, the practices moved towards the more protestant end of the spectrum (read "low church"). Then the 19th century witnessed the church moving towards the opposite end, or at least more towards the middle with the Oxford Movement, the revival of beliefs and practices from the catholic tradition. During the 20th century, modern scholarship would leave its imprint on the church as well, with reforms aiming to emulate the early church.

The church has been static in that the Book of Common Prayer is central to the Anglican tradition. You can study the original BCP, a Victorian English BCP, one of the modern BCP's and identify what they have in common. You can also compare any of these to the liturgy from other catholic and orthodox churches (with good translations) and see the common thread of the liturgy, which always gives me chills! I love when I see how similar is the worship for Christian believers around the world.



Has anyone else noticed an increase in "catholic" practices within some of the other mainline Protestant denominations in recent years? I find it fascinating. Some friends have mentioned using a rosary for prayer (was a Methodist, I believe), and praying the stations of the cross. Some have also been taking more frequent communion and using real wine instead of juice for communion (this was the same family member with the same church affiliation). All of which they did not do when I was growing up!

I choose to think this a hopeful and positive reminder of our common faith.

 

[Maid Marie]

Personally, I prefer to keep my focus on the common elements we share, both within the catholic tradition and within Christianity as a whole.

...Has anyone else noticed an increase in "catholic" practices within some of the other mainline Protestant denominations in recent years? I find it fascinating. Some friends have mentioned using a rosary for prayer (was a Methodist, I believe), and praying the stations of the cross. Some have also been taking more frequent communion and using real wine instead of juice for communion (this was the same family member with the same church affiliation). All of which they did not do when I was growing up!

I choose to think this a hopeful and positive reminder of our common faith.

I like to focus and celebrate what we have in common, too. Which is why I went to a Stations of the Cross service last night at an RCC, attend a weekly UMC bible study, regularly go to an EC service along with all my Nazarene church functions. Have even gone through periods of time in which I regularly visited my friends' P/C churches. I believe it is spiritually and emotionally/mentally healthier for me to do so.

And yes, I have noticed more Protestants taking an interest in older forms of Christian worship. My take is that as the world becomes increasingly secular more and more are finding that they need these forms of worship to reconnect them to God and the community of believers. Plus, doing ancient practices brings stability in a world that is constantly changing.

I use this to try to remind my own church leaders that not all people are going to be drawn to a rock music only service.

 

[Maid Marie]

Connections are forming here in my mind...

The service I go to that uses Rite II has gone back to Rite I for Lent. I remember that they did this last year so wasn't caught off guard. And as I am saying it [as well as when I have said Rite II] there have been some parts that just seem TOO familiar for someone like myself who didn't grow up on this stuff.

My mother used to teach music so I have a greater familiarity to sacred music than most low church members. As I was looking through some of my sacred music CDs yesterday, it dawned on me why parts of Rite I and II seem familiar - these rites, especially Rite I, are patterned after the Catholic Mass and for both there are 5 things in common - Kryie, Glora, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus and Agnus Dei. I have these five in Latin on a CD of Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I downloaded it to my MP3 player so that I can have 'church' when I want it

Thus, the reasons why parts of Rite I [and somewhat II] seem familiar is because I have heard Missa Papae Marcelli as well as Vivaldi's Gloria, Arvo Part's Sacred songs and various forms of Agnus Dei enough that, with my familiarity of Romance languages, I have unintentionally translated them and stored the lyrics in my memory. Thus when I saw the words in the Episcopal church this past year, I would have these feelings of deja vu.

Coming from a Nazarene church that plays only loud rock music for church, this is a significant jump on the learning curve here.

The funny part is that when I would say during the liturgy the words "We praise thee, we bless thee, we adore thee, we glorify thee" I'd think "boy....this sounds really good, someone ought to put it to music." And then I realize this past week that not only has someone done that but did it over 400 years ago! And not only did Vivaldi do that, but I have played it many times and even in church! It is http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/images/sheet/viv-glod.pdf When I told my music teacher mother this she just put her head in her hands and groaned

 

[Drax]

The funny part is that when I would say during the liturgy the words "We praise thee, we bless thee, we adore thee, we glorify thee" I'd think "boy....this sounds really good, someone ought to put it to music." And then I realize this past week that not only has someone done that but did it over 400 years ago! And not only did Vivaldi do that, but I have played it many times and even in church! It is http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/images/sheet/viv-glod.pdf When I told my music teacher mother this she just put her head in her hands and groaned

 

[higgs2]

I like Rite II. I think in this day and age Cranmer might as well. He prescribed the service to be “in such a language and order as is most easy and plain for the understanding both of the readers and the hearers.” So Elizabethan English just does not do it for me. I don't use the KJV either. (I do like going to plays by Shakespeare, but that's a different story.) But I do understand that others like it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But then again, as a Catholic our Novus Ordo liturgy was so poorly written in English thanks to Vatican II that some of us wish we had more of a Rite II with the "thees" and "thines" to make it sound a little better!

I like Rite II. I think in this day and age Cranmer might as well. He prescribed the service to be “in such a language and order as is most easy and plain for the understanding both of the readers and the hearers.” So Elizabethan English just does not do it for me. I don't use the KJV either. (I do like going to plays by Shakespeare, but that's a different story.) But I do understand that others like it.

 

[slave x of x christ]

howdy! new here, hope to meet and greet with you fine folks some time.

our parish has both rites, but our rite one is a low massy kind of affair, as our rite two is a sung high mass.

i like the chat about the more "praise" driven nature of the rite two mass, i totally agree. one thing that i do miss in this vein from rite one is the comfortable words, that reassurance has always tugged my heart.

but their is something to be said for the beauty of the pent. nature of rite one. during advent, i always attend rite one on sundays it added a demention to the feel of the "mini-lent". i think the prayer of humble access is a great example of this.

our parish also from time to time says a missal mass from the anglican missal, but our parish is a little more catholic then the average bear.

as for the offices, our family has been saying the rite one mp and ep simply for the offer of more canticles. although the magnificat and nunc are always said in "rite one language".

maid, for grins sometime, look if your area has an "anglican-use" roman catholic parish. their liturgy is almost rite one in its original form, sans the cannon of the mass.

"Has anyone else noticed an increase in "catholic" practices within some of the other mainline Protestant denominations in recent years? I find it fascinating. Some friends have mentioned using a rosary for prayer (was a Methodist, I believe), and praying the stations of the cross. Some have also been taking more frequent communion and using real wine instead of juice for communion (this was the same family member with the same church affiliation). All of which they did not do when I was growing up!"

I choose to think this a hopeful and positive reminder of our common faith.

a methodist church here says a mean compline service. they also have a regular taize service with icons, insence and a very watered down bcp mass. the methodists also have their "oxfordian types" including the rosary (i dont think they as a whole belive in intercession), and a methodist benedictine community of nuns. all very awesome things.

thanks for the fun thread! hope to see more of these.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Welcome to CF and STR, slave

 

[slave x of x christ]

oops...

"but their is something to be said for the beauty of the pent. nature of rite one. during advent, i always attend rite one on sundays(IN ADVENT) it added a demention to the feel of the "mini-lent". i think the prayer of humble access is a great example of this

 

[MKJ]

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.

 

[slave x of x christ]

true about the excommunication...unless you showed favor in the archdeacons court. (cha-ching)

 

[higgs2]

But then again, as a Catholic our Novus Ordo liturgy was so poorly written in English thanks to Vatican II that some of us wish we had more of a Rite II with the "thees" and "thines" to make it sound a little better!

I am not a Roman Catholic, I'm talking about the TEC 1982 BCP.

Vatican II rocked or could have, if it had gone all the way and not been hinered and stopped. IMOP

 

[MKJ]

I am not a Roman Catholic, I'm talking about the TEC 1982 BCP.

Vatican II rocked or could have, if it had gone all the way and not been hinered and stopped. IMOP

Yes, he is saying that due to the deficiencies of the new Catholic liturgy, many Catholics would be pleased to have something like the current American BCP.

 

[higgs2]

Yes, he is saying that due to the deficiencies of the new Catholic liturgy, many Catholics would be pleased to have something like the current American BCP.

Oh, cool. I understood it as the opposite, but that just shows my ignorance. Thanks you for the explanation.

I thought our BCP and the post Vat. II liturgy were p. similar though.

 

[MKJ]

Oh, cool. I understood it as the opposite, but that just shows my ignorance. Thanks you for the explanation.

I thought our BCP and the post Vat. II liturgy were p. similar though.

Well, I would say they are - they belong to the same liturgical family if you will. But the Rite I (I think?) imitates some of the aesthetics of the old liturgy. Also, there is still room in it to have a pretty traditional liturgy in the BCP whereas I believe the Catholics are pretty scripted with their OF masses. I don't think, for example, that they can choose to celebrate with the priest facing away, and they never seem to kneel to receive the Eucharist.