For Anglicans - differences in Masses

[mardukm]

Dear Anglican brethren,

Since the Tridentine Mass was established during the Reformation, I assume that the Anglican Mass is a PRE-Tridentine Mass?

1. Is that correct? If so, what are the differences between the Tridentine Mass and the Anglican Mass?
2. What are the differences between the Anglican Mass and the Mass of the Western Orthodox?
3. Is the Anglican Use Rite very different from the traditional Anglican Mass?
4. Is the Mass of the Low Church Anglicans different from the Mass of the High Church Anglicans? If there are differences, would they be similar to the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gelsbern]

The Tridentine Rite existed well before it was called such. It was the Council of Trent which established it as the official rite, however it was in widespread use already. The reason it was delcared the official rite is that there were some outlying areas using slightly different rites,

With that being said the Anglicans were Catholic and didn’t change a thing except their statement on who the head of their church was. There has been some changes since but if you look at the Tridentine Rite and the Anglican Rite side by side the only major difference is the language they are written in.

 

[Contarini]

The Tridentine Rite existed well before it was called such. It was the Council of Trent which established it as the official rite, however it was in widespread use already. The reason it was delcared the official rite is that there were some outlying areas using slightly different rites,

With that being said the Anglicans were Catholic and didn’t change a thing except their statement on who the head of their church was. There has been some changes since but if you look at the Tridentine Rite and the Anglican Rite side by side the only major difference is the language they are written in.

That’s not true. Henry VIII changed relatively little liturgically speaking, but huge changes took place under Edward VI, which were largely affirmed under Elizabeth. Some re-Catholicization has happened since, and the liturgical changes in England were always very conservative compared to what the rest of the Reformed world was doing (Lutherans are somewhat of a different story), but the theological basis of Cranmer’s liturgy is clearly and distinctively Protestant, even specifically Reformed in many ways.

If you’re talking about those Anglo-Catholics who use the “Anglican Missal,” then of course you’re right, since the Anglican Missal is basically an English translation of the Tridentine Missal. But if you’re talking about the BCP in either its English or Scottish/American branches, then there are obvious differences, including significant theological ones. (The Scottish tradition, followed by the Americans, is relatively more Catholic than the English.)

Anglo-Catholics make much of the “Sarum Use,” which was the form of the Roman Rite used in much of southern England in the late Middle Ages–it was one of many local variants which were standardized by Trent. However, Cranmer’s liturgy is very different from the Sarum Use or from any other form of the Roman Mass, though he did borrow some specifics from Sarum.

There’s a lot of misleading Anglo-Catholic propaganda floating around on this issue.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Dear Anglican brethren,

Since the Tridentine Mass was established during the Reformation, I assume that the Anglican Mass is a PRE-Tridentine Mass?

Well, it depends on what you count as the “Anglican Mass.” Cranmer’s two liturgies (the relatively conservative 1549 and the much more radical 1552) were composed while Trent was meeting, and before the official “Tridentine” revision and standardization of the Roman Mass. The Catholic use Cranmer would have known best was that of Sarum, or Salisbury, which was the standard use for southern and eastern England. Cranmer translated and adapted the Mass, but he also radically Protestantized it, particularly with regard to the question of sacrifice.

The official English BCP to this day is that of 1662, which is basically Cranmer’s with some tweaks (which take it back in a slightly more Catholic direction). The American tradition is based on the Scottish, which is more informed by 17th-century patristic/liturgical scholarship coming out of the “high church” movement, and thus less nervous about the idea of sacrifice (though still clearly speaking of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving rather than making the Mass a propitiatory sacrifice in any sense). However, the Episcopal Church revised its BCP quite radically in 1979, taking it closer to the post-Vatican-II Western Catholic liturgy (the same body of liturgical scholarship informed both revisions). In England, they haven’t officially replaced the 1662 BCP (they need an Act of Parliament to do that), but de facto the most commonly used liturgy today is the “Book of Common Worship,” which contains a variety of formularies with a “post-Vatican-II” bent similar to that of the 1979 American BCP. (Many of the very low-church C of E Anglicans don’t use a formal liturgy at all, I’ve been told.)

1. Is that correct? If so, what are the differences between the Tridentine Mass and the Anglican Mass?

1. What are the differences between the Anglican Mass and the Mass of the Western Orthodox?

1. Is the Anglican Use Rite very different from the traditional Anglican Mass?

The basic difference is the theology of sacrifice. More broadly, Cranmer structured the liturgy to reflect Protestant soteriology, beginning with the proclamation of the Law (the 10 Commandments), through the proclamation of the Gospel, confession of sin and acknowledgment of our need for grace, and then the Eucharist itself as the offer of God’s forgiveness. He moved all the language about sacrifice–offering ourselves, our souls and bodies, to the prayer of thanksgiving, and he also put the Gloria in Excelsis at the end, because in his theology you can only praise God once you have received assurance of forgiveness. The Scottish/American tradition moved back in a more traditional direction on some of these points.

1. Is the Mass of the Low Church Anglicans different from the Mass of the High Church Anglicans?

Well, Low Church Anglicans wouldn’t call it Mass. In fact, using the term “Mass” is one of the signs that you’re dealing with an Anglo-Catholic. The most extreme Anglo-Catholics abandoned the BCP in the late 19th or early 20th centuries (GKC would know more) for the “Anglican Missal,” which was basically a translation of the Roman Rite. At the other end of the spectrum, especially in England (and also in parts of Australia), very low-church Anglicans worship in ways that look a lot like regular old free-church Protestantism. But the Book of Common Prayer has provided a unity for the broad middle of Anglicanism, with wide diversity in ceremonial and application. (For instance, High Church Anglicans would be more likely to have daily services, even daily Mass, while Low Church Anglicans would focus more on Sunday worship, and in the past often did not have weekly Eucharist even then–in the U.S. today weekly Eucharist is almost universal, though I think the English situation is different).

The liturgical movement of the mid-to-late 20th century brought unity in some ways, by interpreting and applying the liturgy in a more ecumenical fashion (for instance, the new focus by Anglo-Catholics and for that matter Roman Catholics on the Eucharist as the act of the community made a rich sacramental theology more accessible to non-Anglo-Catholics), but it also led to a proliferation of different ways of celebrating the liturgy. The American BCP is relatively unified–the Church of England today seems to have no real common liturgy at all any more, from what I hear.

If there are differences, would they be similar to the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass?

Not exactly. The equivalent there is between those who hold to the older forms of the Prayer Book (1662 in England, 1928 in the U.S.) or to the Anglican Missal on the one hand, and those who accept the liturgical revisions on the other (though there’s a “Rite I” in the 1979 American BCP that is very similar to the 1928 version, which allows for a moderate traditionalism). Both high-church and low-church Anglicans can be found among those who reject the new rites, though they give somewhat different rationales. (In England, as I said, the extremes on both sides are more likely to reject the Prayer Book altogether, but there are Prayer Book traditionalists there too.)

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Well, it depends on what you count as the “Anglican Mass.” Cranmer’s two liturgies (the relatively conservative 1549 and the much more radical 1552) were composed while Trent was meeting, and before the official “Tridentine” revision and standardization of the Roman Mass. The Catholic use Cranmer would have known best was that of Sarum, or Salisbury, which was the standard use for southern and eastern England. Cranmer translated and adapted the Mass, but he also radically Protestantized it, particularly with regard to the question of sacrifice.

The official English BCP to this day is that of 1662, which is basically Cranmer’s with some tweaks (which take it back in a slightly more Catholic direction). The American tradition is based on the Scottish, which is more informed by 17th-century patristic/liturgical scholarship coming out of the “high church” movement, and thus less nervous about the idea of sacrifice (though still clearly speaking of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving rather than making the Mass a propitiatory sacrifice in any sense). However, the Episcopal Church revised its BCP quite radically in 1979, taking it closer to the post-Vatican-II Western Catholic liturgy (the same body of liturgical scholarship informed both revisions). In England, they haven’t officially replaced the 1662 BCP (they need an Act of Parliament to do that), but de facto the most commonly used liturgy today is the “Book of Common Worship,” which contains a variety of formularies with a “post-Vatican-II” bent similar to that of the 1979 American BCP. (Many of the very low-church C of E Anglicans don’t use a formal liturgy at all, I’ve been told.)

The basic difference is the theology of sacrifice. More broadly, Cranmer structured the liturgy to reflect Protestant soteriology, beginning with the proclamation of the Law (the 10 Commandments), through the proclamation of the Gospel, confession of sin and acknowledgment of our need for grace, and then the Eucharist itself as the offer of God’s forgiveness. He moved all the language about sacrifice–offering ourselves, our souls and bodies, to the prayer of thanksgiving, and he also put the Gloria in Excelsis at the end, because in his theology you can only praise God once you have received assurance of forgiveness. The Scottish/American tradition moved back in a more traditional direction on some of these points.

Well, Low Church Anglicans wouldn’t call it Mass. In fact, using the term “Mass” is one of the signs that you’re dealing with an Anglo-Catholic. The most extreme Anglo-Catholics abandoned the BCP in the late 19th or early 20th centuries (GKC would know more) for the “Anglican Missal,” which was basically a translation of the Roman Rite. At the other end of the spectrum, especially in England (and also in parts of Australia), very low-church Anglicans worship in ways that look a lot like regular old free-church Protestantism. But the Book of Common Prayer has provided a unity for the broad middle of Anglicanism, with wide diversity in ceremonial and application. (For instance, High Church Anglicans would be more likely to have daily services, even daily Mass, while Low Church Anglicans would focus more on Sunday worship, and in the past often did not have weekly Eucharist even then–in the U.S. today weekly Eucharist is almost universal, though I think the English situation is different).

The liturgical movement of the mid-to-late 20th century brought unity in some ways, by interpreting and applying the liturgy in a more ecumenical fashion (for instance, the new focus by Anglo-Catholics and for that matter Roman Catholics on the Eucharist as the act of the community made a rich sacramental theology more accessible to non-Anglo-Catholics), but it also led to a proliferation of different ways of celebrating the liturgy. The American BCP is relatively unified–the Church of England today seems to have no real common liturgy at all any more, from what I hear.

Not exactly. The equivalent there is between those who hold to the older forms of the Prayer Book (1662 in England, 1928 in the U.S.) or to the Anglican Missal on the one hand, and those who accept the liturgical revisions on the other (though there’s a “Rite I” in the 1979 American BCP that is very similar to the 1928 version, which allows for a moderate traditionalism). Both high-church and low-church Anglicans can be found among those who reject the new rites, though they give somewhat different rationales. (In England, as I said, the extremes on both sides are more likely to reject the Prayer Book altogether, but there are Prayer Book traditionalists there too.)

Edwin

Contarini is kind to suggest I’d know more on anything, re: this subject. I don’t. He’s covered it well.

In my own parish, the Anglican Missal (with a dash of Latin) was frequently used for Mass, under our previous, late priest. The current priest is slightly less on the AC side (I think) and so far it’s 1928, all the way.

I miss the Missal.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

I think to compare, it depends what you are thinking of as normative. The old Anglican BCP liturgies are much more like the Tridentine Mass than the new ones, or the OF is.

Although Contarini is right that there are many differences in detail, I think the *idea *of liturgy is similar in the older Catholic and Anglican liturgies. What it is supposed to “do” how we think about constructing it, and so on. Someone used to one type usually “gets” the other, whereas those who have only been exposed to the 20th century creations often find they don’t immediately.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

“depends on which Anglicans you ask” ----quote from a wise sage

Contarini is kind to suggest I’d know more on anything, re: this subject. I don’t. He’s covered it well.

In my own parish, the Anglican Missal (with a dash of Latin) was frequently used for Mass, under our previous, late priest. The current priest is slightly less on the AC side (I think) and so far it’s 1928, all the way.

I miss the Missal.

GKC

 

[GKC]

“depends on which Anglicans you ask” ----quote from a wise sage

Well … that sage does know something, I guess.

Maybe.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I think to compare, it depends what you are thinking of as normative. The old Anglican BCP liturgies are much more like the Tridentine Mass than the new ones, or the OF is.

Although Contarini is right that there are many differences in detail, I think the *idea *of liturgy is similar in the older Catholic and Anglican liturgies. What it is supposed to “do” how we think about constructing it, and so on. Someone used to one type usually “gets” the other, whereas those who have only been exposed to the 20th century creations often find they don’t immediately.

I think that the similarities between the old BCP and the Tridentine liturgy are relatively much more superficial than the similarities between either liturgy and the new liturgies, let alone the similarities between Catholic and Anglican revised liturgies. I particularly don’t see how, substantively, you can claim that the old BCP liturgies are more like the Tridentine Mass than the OF is. Cranmer’s Eucharistic liturgy is a systematic refutation of the central theological premise of the Tridentine Mass. Why does the fact that both liturgies use majestic language, speak of God’s majesty and human sinfulness a lot, and use a similar lectionary trump the fact that one liturgy repeatedly claims to be a propitiatory sacrifice offered to God while the other systematically denies in every way Cranmer could think of that it is anything of the sort? (OK, I admit that this is much truer of the English than of the American BCP–I know less about the Canadian tradition.)

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that the similarities between the old BCP and the Tridentine liturgy are relatively much more superficial than the similarities between either liturgy and the new liturgies, let alone the similarities between Catholic and Anglican revised liturgies. I particularly don’t see how, substantively, you can claim that the old BCP liturgies are more like the Tridentine Mass than the OF is. Cranmer’s Eucharistic liturgy is a systematic refutation of the central theological premise of the Tridentine Mass. Why does the fact that both liturgies use majestic language, speak of God’s majesty and human sinfulness a lot, and use a similar lectionary trump the fact that one liturgy repeatedly claims to be a propitiatory sacrifice offered to God while the other systematically denies in every way Cranmer could think of that it is anything of the sort? (OK, I admit that this is much truer of the English than of the American BCP–I know less about the Canadian tradition.)

Edwin

What I would say is that Cranmer had a limited scope to work with, and there was only so much he could do. As I understand it, the Catholic understanding is that each individual Mass is participating in the one Sacrifice and oblation, outside of time. I don’t see that as foreign in any way to the Canadian BCP, which I believe is very similar to the British one.

However, that is not precisely what I was getting at. The construction of the new liturgies was done with a particular theology in mind as well, and they had a much more freedom to make the liturgy into what they wanted than Cranmer had. Our Canadian BCP is clear that it does not see the liturgy as a reflection of Scripture and Tradition that is meant to shape us, but that we use Scripture and Tradition as we see fit to shape the liturgy - it calls Scripture a repository of symbols that we may choose from to suit ourselves.

Cramner’s intent is not the whole sum of the subject. What he accomplished isn’t identical with that. The older liturgies are about God and what he does for us, and the newer ones are about what we think about him - though the Anglicans are much worse I’d say than the Catholics.

 

[Contarini]

What I would say is that Cranmer had a limited scope to work with, and there was only so much he could do.

He did quite a bit, especially in 1552.

As I understand it, the Catholic understanding is that each individual Mass is participating in the one Sacrifice and oblation, outside of time. I don’t see that as foreign in any way to the Canadian BCP, which I believe is very similar to the British one.

I agree that you can interpret Cranmer’s language in a manner compatible with Catholicism, and that liturgy is not restricted to the intention of the liturgist. My point is simply that the theological divergence between the two texts is huge, and dwarfs the theological differences between old and new liturgies.

However, that is not precisely what I was getting at. The construction of the new liturgies was done with a particular theology in mind as well, and they had a much more freedom to make the liturgy into what they wanted than Cranmer had. Our Canadian BCP is clear that it does not see the liturgy as a reflection of Scripture and Tradition that is meant to shape us, but that we use Scripture and Tradition as we see fit to shape the liturgy - it calls Scripture a repository of symbols that we may choose from to suit ourselves.

Where does the Canadian BCP say this? Are you talking about the 1985 “Book of Alternative Services”? I note that on p. 9 there is a reference to “the holy
scriptures as the repository of the Church’s symbols of life and faith.” I don’t see it saying that we can just choose the symbols we like to suit ourselves–it seems to me that you are over-interpreting that a bit. But I’m not very familiar with the Canadian liturgical texts, and the Canadian BAS does look a lot more dogmatic in its revisionism than the 1979 US BCP.

Cramner’s intent is not the whole sum of the subject. What he accomplished isn’t identical with that. The older liturgies are about God and what he does for us, and the newer ones are about what we think about him

Can you substantiate this? I’ve heard these kinds of claims from Anglican traditionalists for years (in fact, my first in-depth acquaintance with Anglican liturgy was with traditionalists using the 1928 American BCP), but have never found them convincing. And yes, I’ve read some of Peter Toon’s arguments. I certainly accept that the new liturgical texts don’t express 16th-century Reformed theology as well as the old ones do, but the broader, more ecumenical claims you’re making here have never seemed well-grounded to me. It seems rather as though traditionalists come to the revised texts determined to find heresy and cherry-pick rather harmless things in order to make this point. To me the theology behind the 1979 BCP seems thoroughly orthodox. I don’t see it as contradicting the basic theological premises of the older liturgy, just having a different emphasis, which in many ways I see as a good thing. The 1979 BCP stresses creation and Incarnation and salvation as the fulfillment of God’s covenant purposes, while the older liturgies seems to see salvation primarily as the means by which we avert God’s wrath and are forgiven for being wretched sinners. I think there’s value to the latter emphasis and that there’s too little transcendence and awe in the newer liturgies. In particular, I wish that the 1928 BCP had simply been retained as an alternative liturgy instead of the mutilated and truncated Rite I. But on the whole it seems to me that 1979 embraces historic, orthodox Christianity more fully and richly than the older Anglican liturgies do. (Again, I’m speaking of the U.S. book, which has a lot more theological unity and a lot more concern for continuity than the English or Canadian equivalents, I think.)

• though the Anglicans are much worse I’d say than the Catholics.

Again, we may be talking past each other because of the differences between Canada and the U.S. But in the U.S. context I would entirely disagree. On the whole, I think 1979 is a movement toward the center of historic Christianity. I wouldn’t say that it’s better than 1928 necessarily–it definitely loses something in majesty and penitential punch. But I think the Catholic revisions were more poorly done on the whole and do not gain as much, though there too the narrow sacrificial focus of the old Roman Canon left much to be desired.

 

[Bluegoat]

He did quite a bit, especially in 1552.]

I agree that you can interpret Cranmer’s language in a manner compatible with Catholicism, and that liturgy is not restricted to the intention of the liturgist. My point is simply that the theological divergence between the two texts is huge, and dwarfs the theological differences between old and new liturgies.

Where does the Canadian BCP say this? Are you talking about the 1985 “Book of Alternative Services”? I note that on p. 9 there is a reference to “the holy
scriptures as the repository of the Church’s symbols of life and faith.” I don’t see it saying that we can just choose the symbols we like to suit ourselves–it seems to me that you are over-interpreting that a bit. But I’m not very familiar with the Canadian liturgical texts, and the Canadian BAS does look a lot more dogmatic in its revisionism than the 1979 US BCP.

Yes, that is what it says - my interpretation of that is based on the rest of the book, particularly the notes. It also describes the BAS as having “the idiom, worldview and cadence” (or something quite close to that) as the current age - a terrible idea IMO. It’s very much on the idea that the community discovers God. Or, as another example, it tends to remove Scriptural passages which are controversial, even removing several verses from the psalms.

I’m not that familiar with the American BCP, but others have told me that the Canadians went further than they did in a number of ways. It’ possible in the Canadian book to have a Eucharist with neither a Creed, nor a Confession, for example, which I don’t think is possible in the American book. (And I’ve actually been to such a service.)

Can you substantiate this? I’ve heard these kinds of claims from Anglican traditionalists for years (in fact, my first in-depth acquaintance with Anglican liturgy was with traditionalists using the 1928 American BCP), but have never found them convincing. And yes, I’ve read some of Peter Toon’s arguments. I certainly accept that the new liturgical texts don’t express 16th-century Reformed theology as well as the old ones do, but the broader, more ecumenical claims you’re making here have never seemed well-grounded to me. It seems rather as though traditionalists come to the revised texts determined to find heresy and cherry-pick rather harmless things in order to make this point. To me the theology behind the 1979 BCP seems thoroughly orthodox. I don’t see it as contradicting the basic theological premises of the older liturgy, just having a different emphasis, which in many ways I see as a good thing. The 1979 BCP stresses creation and Incarnation and salvation as the fulfillment of God’s covenant purposes, while the older liturgies seems to see salvation primarily as the means by which we avert God’s wrath and are forgiven for being wretched sinners. I think there’s value to the latter emphasis and that there’s too little transcendence and awe in the newer liturgies. In particular, I wish that the 1928 BCP had simply been retained as an alternative liturgy instead of the mutilated and truncated Rite I. But on the whole it seems to me that 1979 embraces historic, orthodox Christianity more fully and richly than the older Anglican liturgies do. (Again, I’m speaking of the U.S. book, which has a lot more theological unity and a lot more concern for continuity than the English or Canadian equivalents, I think.)

I’m not sure what I can give you other than what you’d get from Peter Toon. What sort of substantiation are you thinking of?

I have done a fair bit of reading on this, but I’m not a liturgical scholar by any means. Ultimately I suppose my thoughts on this are experiential more than anything. I get the TLM, and I get DL, and I find that people who are used to those services also get the old BCP liturgy. Whereas they don’t really relate to the new ones. I can’t imagine anyone who is serious about the old liturgy singing “Gather Us In” or “Sing a New Church” but it seems to be very popular with those who prefer the new liturgies. I think it is interesting to note that the change in liturgies happend at the same time as a serious change in Christian thinking, and in concert with all the problems so evident in the Anglican Church today. I realize that is by no means scientific evidence, but I do think it is indicative of something more than majestic language being at issue.

I don’t see the older liturgies emphasizing averting God’s wrath at all, so there must be a disconnect in our views there - I actually seriously object to that language.

Again, we may be talking past each other because of the differences between Canada and the U.S. But in the U.S. context I would entirely disagree. On the whole, I think 1979 is a movement toward the center of historic Christianity. I wouldn’t say that it’s better than 1928 necessarily–it definitely loses something in majesty and penitential punch. But I think the Catholic revisions were more poorly done on the whole and do not gain as much, though there too the narrow sacrificial focus of the old Roman Canon left much to be desired.

I think perhaps part of my problem is that I don’t think the new liturgies are a move to a more historic view. I think they are a move to a reconstruction of a historic view that has been widely undermined on the supposed historical facts and so tends to support fashionable biases more than anything else.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Very interesting comments.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Contarini]

Yes, that is what it says - my interpretation of that is based on the rest of the book, particularly the notes. It also describes the BAS as having “the idiom, worldview and cadence” (or something quite close to that) as the current age - a terrible idea IMO. It’s very much on the idea that the community discovers God. Or, as another example, it tends to remove Scriptural passages which are controversial, even removing several verses from the psalms.

The RC Daily Office (post-Vatican-II) does that as well. Do you mean that they don’t use them even in the daily office? The 1979 BCP includes them in brackets, making them optional.

It’ possible in the Canadian book to have a Eucharist with neither a Creed, nor a Confession, for example, which I don’t think is possible in the American book.

We can have a weekday liturgy without using the Creed, and the confession of sin is not required–the usual practice is to omit it in the Easter season.

We also have something called “Rite III” which is not to be the main Sunday liturgy but which allows for a wide diversity of practice. The parish I attended in NJ used an alternative, inclusive-language prayer at the 10:30 service, which meant that technically the 8 AM liturgy was the “main” service of the week. . . .

I’m not sure what I can give you other than what you’d get from Peter Toon. What sort of substantiation are you thinking of?

Well, to stick with Toon–for the most part he reads heresies into the 1979 BCP in ways that seems unjustified. For instance, he claims that “Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Spirit” is modalist. I don’t see it. Father, Son, and Spirit are one God. That’s not modalism–it’s orthodoxy. He claims that “by the power of the Holy Spirit” denies the virgin birth, when it’s both more reasonable and more charitable to conclude that the language is simply ruling out misunderstanding in an era where Christian religious language is less universally understood than it once was. I don’t like that change, but I think he reads too much into it by claiming that all conception happens “by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

He objects to the “baptismal covenant” language because he claims that it makes baptism a contract we negotiate with God. Again, I just don’t see it. The main difference between the old and new baptismal liturgies is that the new ones take adult conversion as the paradigm, where the old liturgy assumed infancy. Theologically, the new liturgy is right in my opinion. (Note denying infant baptism, only saying that the Christian theological paradigm for baptism is a convert repenting of sin and putting faith in Christ, not just an infant being initiated into the community.) He confuses the way many Episcopalians interpret the baptismal covenant with the covenant language itself. I don’t think that’s fair.

Again, he objects to unifying the rites of initiation, even though this is clearly the ancient approach, and confirmation as we know it is generally accepted to have been a Western peculiarity and somewhat of a historical accident.

He objects to the weakening of original-sin language–but again, it’s pretty clear historically that Christians in the first three centuries (and the Orthodox to this day) do not think about these things the way Augustine did, and the Catholic scholar Delumeau observed that the period from 1300 to 1700 was a time of relatively unusual focus on sin and guilt within Western Christianity, compared to earlier periods in Christian history.

When I asked for “substantive” arguments I meant something along the lines of “here’s the heresy found in the new liturgy or the orthodox teaching omitted,” etc. Toon tries to do this, but as I said I think he fails. I’m looking for something more than “people who like the new liturgies like Marty Haugen.”

I don’t see the older liturgies emphasizing averting God’s wrath at all, so there must be a disconnect in our views there - I actually seriously object to that language.

We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness,
Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed,
By thought, word, and deed,
Against thy Divine Majesty,
provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.

I don’t object to this prayer, by the way–I would tend to say it should be kept for penitential occasions, but I’d like to be able to use it in Lent and maybe on Fridays of Ordinary Time.

Edwin

 

[Skeptic92]

Dear Anglican brethren,

Since the Tridentine Mass was established during the Reformation, I assume that the Anglican Mass is a PRE-Tridentine Mass?

1. Is that correct? If so, what are the differences between the Tridentine Mass and the Anglican Mass?
2. What are the differences between the Anglican Mass and the Mass of the Western Orthodox?
3. Is the Anglican Use Rite very different from the traditional Anglican Mass?
4. Is the Mass of the Low Church Anglicans different from the Mass of the High Church Anglicans? If there are differences, would they be similar to the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass?

Blessings,
Marduk

If you mean the pre-Trent rite that is employed VERY rarely by the Anglican (or Catholic Church) you mean the Sarum Use Missal (however I have only seen this celebrated twice) which is EXTREMELY like the Tridentine Missal, apart from a few differences, the clergy (Celebrant, Deacon, Sub-deacon & Acolyte who had to be instituted, so in reception of the minor order) vest at the High Altar, after incensing all altars in the Church, it’s in English and a few other slight differences, but it’s really not that much different.

 

[Bluegoat]

The RC Daily Office (post-Vatican-II) does that as well. Do you mean that they don’t use them even in the daily office? The 1979 BCP includes them in brackets, making them optional.

They not used at all, and if I recall correctly the versed do not actually appear in the psalms . If you didn’t know, you would not realize anything had been changed.

We can have a weekday liturgy without using the Creed, and the confession of sin is not required–the usual practice is to omit it in the Easter season.

THis seems weird to me. How can you have real worship and adoration without the confession, and without understanding the need we have for God’s forgiveness? And without the confession, we don’t get the Comfortable Words.

What strikes me though is that this change, from what I understand, was justified on the basis that the early liturgies didn’t include them. But of course they were expected to confess privately, or even publicly, which modern Anglicans do not have to do - and most never do.

We also have something called “Rite III” which is not to be the main Sunday liturgy but which allows for a wide diversity of practice. The parish I attended in NJ used an alternative, inclusive-language prayer at the 10:30 service, which meant that technically the 8 AM liturgy was the “main” service of the week. . . .

We have a lot of this sort of thing. Technically, the BCP here is supposed to be the “official” prayer book, and the BAS is supposed to be secondary, and not used for discerning doctrine. But in many places the BCP is not used at all, or only at the 8:30 service. In some diocese priests who refused to use it in their parishes were driven out

Well, to stick with Toon–for the most part he reads heresies into the 1979 BCP in ways that seems unjustified. … I’m looking for something more than “people who like the new liturgies like Marty Haugen.”

I had to look up Marty Haugen - is he very awful? I found this article that might be more useful than what I might say myself to express my thoughts - it is rather long and dry and you may find you don’t want to bother if it is a subject you are not interested in that much. I won’t be offended at all if you don’t.

I don’t object to this prayer, by the way–I would tend to say it should be kept for penitential occasions, but I’d like to be able to use it in Lent and maybe on Fridays of Ordinary Time.

Edwin

Interesting, I don’t tend to read that prayer quite that way, but I can see why one would.

 

[ACCScotsman]

There are some very well articulated responses here that I appreciate and respect. I am not the greatest historian on Cramner, but my impression of him was that he sold out his Catholic principles to stay in favor with Edward VI’s court. His lust for power was greater than his zeal for the faith. There was an accurate observation made that Henry VIII changed little. The English Church under Henry was still in communion with Rome, just not under the auspices of Rome. In many cases Anglicans and Romans are reluctant to mention that fact. Pride won’t allow us, It was politics, not theology. Henry VIII was far from a saint, but he was a true Catholic and was not under excommunication from the Vatican when he died. It was Elizabeth and her rabid anti-catholic court who luthered, calvined, and knoxed, the Church of England. For great insight, I suggest one read The Affirmation of St. Louis as it relates to the continuum of Anglican Catholics of present day.

But to address differences in Masses. For a Roman Catholic used to the Vatican I Mass, the legitimate Anglican Mass is simply Vatican I in Shakespearean English. Compare a St. Joseph’s Prayerbook side by side with a St. Augustine’s Prayerbook. They prove to be nearly identical. Emphasis must be on legitimate here. The Anglican Communion does not practice a legitimate Mass, nor is the Apostolic Succession valid. This is not because they are Anglican, it is because they were invalidated by the ordination of women in 1977. Originally limited to the US and Canada, it has now spread all throughout the Lambeth Conference. The so-called “conservative” bishops would not deal with women’s ordination and allowed the Anglican Communion to begin to disintegrate. It took the consecration of a gay bishop to finally push the :“conservatives” into action. Now there are evangelical, low-church, very Protestant minded Episcopalians, who tend and track conservative, even sometimes led by women. It still is not a Mass. No sacrifice exists where it is physically and ecclesiastically impossible for a sacrifice to exist.

The Mass in the legitimate Anglican Catholic tradition can only be found in a few places. This Mass is found in the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, The United Episcopal Church, and the Roman Anglican Use Parishes. The ACC, APCK, and UEC all use the Anglican Missal and variations of the Book of Common Prayer, including the Scottish, English, South African. There are no books of “inclusive language”, “alternative services” or Rite III. The 1979 Apostate prayer book included what we have jokingly called the Star Wars Liturgy. “Form 3” I believe it was talked about the vast expanses of the universe and interstellar space.

The Roman “Anglican Use” largely utilizes the American Anglican Missal which has been recognized as valid by the Vatican, noting is was written by Anglican scholars. The ACC, APCK, and UEC, the churches holding the valid and proven Apostolic Successions trace their lines back through the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht, the Polish National Catholic Church in many cases, or through the Scottish/Celtic Church. Regardless each arrives at the point of the earliest church fathers. Pope John Paul II said in a writing once that there is no reason why Roman Catholic and Old Catholics should not share the faith and ‘same’ sacraments despite a state of “irregular” communion.

One should not confuse Anglicans of the Anglican Communion with Catholics in the Anglican tradition. The ACC of which I am part of is proud to say is of the latter. The invitation of the Holy Father to disaffected Anglicans applies to the former. We are a very small part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let us continue to pray “that they all may be one”.

 

[GKC]

There are some very well articulated responses here that I appreciate and respect. I am not the greatest historian on Cramner, but my impression of him was that he sold out his Catholic principles to stay in favor with Edward VI’s court. His lust for power was greater than his zeal for the faith. There was an accurate observation made that Henry VIII changed little. The English Church under Henry was still in communion with Rome, just not under the auspices of Rome. In many cases Anglicans and Romans are reluctant to mention that fact. Pride won’t allow us, It was politics, not theology. Henry VIII was far from a saint, but he was a true Catholic and was not under excommunication from the Vatican when he died. It was Elizabeth and her rabid anti-catholic court who luthered, calvined, and knoxed, the Church of England. For great insight, I suggest one read The Affirmation of St. Louis as it relates to the continuum of Anglican Catholics of present day.

But to address differences in Masses. For a Roman Catholic used to the Vatican I Mass, the legitimate Anglican Mass is simply Vatican I in Shakespearean English. Compare a St. Joseph’s Prayerbook side by side with a St. Augustine’s Prayerbook. They prove to be nearly identical. Emphasis must be on legitimate here. The Anglican Communion does not practice a legitimate Mass, nor is the Apostolic Succession valid. This is not because they are Anglican, it is because they were invalidated by the ordination of women in 1977. Originally limited to the US and Canada, it has now spread all throughout the Lambeth Conference. The so-called “conservative” bishops would not deal with women’s ordination and allowed the Anglican Communion to begin to disintegrate. It took the consecration of a gay bishop to finally push the :“conservatives” into action. Now there are evangelical, low-church, very Protestant minded Episcopalians, who tend and track conservative, even sometimes led by women. It still is not a Mass. No sacrifice exists where it is physically and ecclesiastically impossible for a sacrifice to exist.

The Mass in the legitimate Anglican Catholic tradition can only be found in a few places. This Mass is found in the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, The United Episcopal Church, and the Roman Anglican Use Parishes. The ACC, APCK, and UEC all use the Anglican Missal and variations of the Book of Common Prayer, including the Scottish, English, South African. There are no books of “inclusive language”, “alternative services” or Rite III. The 1979 Apostate prayer book included what we have jokingly called the Star Wars Liturgy. “Form 3” I believe it was talked about the vast expanses of the universe and interstellar space.

The Roman “Anglican Use” largely utilizes the American Anglican Missal which has been recognized as valid by the Vatican, noting is was written by Anglican scholars. The ACC, APCK, and UEC, the churches holding the valid and proven Apostolic Successions trace their lines back through the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht, the Polish National Catholic Church in many cases, or through the Scottish/Celtic Church. Regardless each arrives at the point of the earliest church fathers. Pope John Paul II said in a writing once that there is no reason why Roman Catholic and Old Catholics should not share the faith and ‘same’ sacraments despite a state of “irregular” communion.

One should not confuse Anglicans of the Anglican Communion with Catholics in the Anglican tradition. The ACC of which I am part of is proud to say is of the latter. The invitation of the Holy Father to disaffected Anglicans applies to the former. We are a very small part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let us continue to pray “that they all may be one”.

I’m a Continuing Anglican myself, and there is much I agree with here. But there are a few points…

Henry was technically excommunicated by Clement VII in 1533. It was a move in the chess game between Henry and Rome, and Clement expected it would bring Hank to the table for talk, again. It didn’t. And while he remained largely RC in his theology, Henry did fiddle with some details over the years. Edward’s protector’s were the source of much of the reformed thrust of the CoE; Elizabeth, in the Elizabethan Compromise, moved back toward the center.

And there are other Continuing Anglican jurisdictions who are in the same mold as those you list here.

GKC
posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[Contarini]

THis seems weird to me. How can you have real worship and adoration without the confession, and without understanding the need we have for God’s forgiveness? And without the confession, we don’t get the Comfortable Words.

What strikes me though is that this change, from what I understand, was justified on the basis that the early liturgies didn’t include them. But of course they were expected to confess privately, or even publicly, which modern Anglicans do not have to do - and most never do.

They were expected to confess publicly if they committed a very serious sin, true. Private confession is generally thought to have only become common among laity in the early Middle Ages, though a friend of mine (a moderately traditionalist Catholic) claimed that St. John Chrysostom refers to private confession as if it were a normal practice. I haven’t looked at the passage in question myself.

The public confession that we have in the Anglican tradition was a Protestant practice replacing private confession and expressing Law-Gospel theology. Anglo-Catholics need to deal with that. It’s one of the basic ambiguities in Anglicanism. It’s true that Catholics have the Confiteor–but that was originally part of the priest’s and servers’ devotional preparation for Mass. The placement of the confession in Anglican liturgy clearly reflects 16th-century Protestant theology. I don’t see this as a bad thing, necessarily, but it is in fact an innovation and Anglo-Catholic traditionalists need to be honest about this.

I think that the practice of using the confession throughout the year except during Easter is a pretty good one, myself.

I had to look up Marty Haugen - is he very awful?

Depends whom you ask. I don’t think he’s awful–just vastly overrated by people of a contemporary liturgical bent (i.e., post-Vatican-II Catholics and mainline Protestants). I think some of his songs are very good, but he’s not a patch on Wesley or Gerhardt or the translations of John Mason Neale. I mentioned him because you mentioned one of his songs: “Gather Us In.” I actually had my first quarrel with my wife (then my girlfriend) over this song–she sang it in church and I started criticizing it afterwards. . . . We’ve influenced each other over the years, so I probably like it more than I did then, but I still wince at the “not in the dark of buildings confining” part.

I found this article that might be more useful than what I might say myself to express my thoughts

I’ve skimmed it and will probably come back to it later. It’s very interesting–thanks! Definitely the Canadian BAS goes a lot farther than the 1979 US BCP. One of my long-term concerns is that 1979 may turn out to play a similar role to 1549, in being a relatively conservative transitional form. At some point in the next few decades there is going to be a move toward a new BCP in the U.S., which is going to depart far more radically from the tradition. I’m pretty sure of that.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There are some very well articulated responses here that I appreciate and respect. I am not the greatest historian on Cramner, but my impression of him was that he sold out his Catholic principles to stay in favor with Edward VI’s court.

I don’t know where you get that idea. I think the evidence points pretty solidly in the opposite direction. Cranmer’s convictions were solidly Protestant, indeed specifically Reformed in my opinion, before the death of Henry VIII. To some degree he sold out–or at least watered down–his Protestant principles in order to maintain his position under Henry VIII. Diarmaid MacCulloch documents Cranmer’s battle for “evangelicalism” (in the 16th-century sense) in great detail in his magisterial biography.

The English Church under Henry was still in communion with Rome, just not under the auspices of Rome.

I’m not sure that Rome recognized such a distinction, frankly. Certainly Henry’s position was ambiguous.

But to address differences in Masses. For a Roman Catholic used to the Vatican I Mass, the legitimate Anglican Mass is simply Vatican I in Shakespearean English.

If you’re talking about the Anglican Missal, sure. But this dates from 1921. By your own premises, then, it follows that Anglicans had no valid Mass for three and a half centuries, and then had to get it from the RCs. This makes no sense to me. It would have been far more honorable, on these premises, to follow Newman and convert to the RCC. The Anglo-Catholicism you defend looks like sheer fantasy to me. I know that you have equally harsh opinions of my version of Anglicanism. I am speaking honestly and will not take offense at you for doing the same thing.

If you are talking about the traditional BCP, then your claim is simply nonsense.

Never mind that there is no “Vatican I” Mass, though I understand that you are referring essentially to the Mass of Pope Pius V.

The Mass in the legitimate Anglican Catholic tradition can only be found in a few places. This Mass is found in the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, The United Episcopal Church, and the Roman Anglican Use Parishes. The ACC, APCK, and UEC all use the Anglican Missal and variations of the Book of Common Prayer, including the Scottish, English, South African. There are no books of “inclusive language”, “alternative services” or Rite III. The 1979 Apostate prayer book included what we have jokingly called the Star Wars Liturgy. “Form 3” I believe it was talked about the vast expanses of the universe and interstellar space.

]

Sure, it sounds goofy. But how is it unorthodox, much less apostate? Actually I’ve become rather fond of it, though I wouldn’t want to hear it all the time.

Edwin