Similarity between our Mass and an Anglican Service

[anonymous1995]

I think I might have posted something similar here, but I couldn’t find the thread I started. This is a new thread on the topic.

I deliberately choose to evade from the Traditional Catholicism forum where I may get biased responses.

Recently, I browsed through several webpages regarding the rubrics and meanings of a typical Anglican Service. To my surprise, I discovered striking similarities between our Ordinary Form of Mass and it. At least in terms of the general flow of rituals. The Eucharistic Prayer II of our Holy Mass is very close to the Eucharistic Prayer of an Anglican Service.

I am not here to insinuate any argument questioning the validity of our Holy Mass or whatsoever - in fact I am fed up with such endless clamors which bring about nothing but hatred and confrontation, for most debaters always get far-fetched in their discussions and later on the entire thread is messed up with emotional outbursts.

YET, this stunning similarity sounds an alarm to me. While it is inevitable that any Christian Eucharistic liturgies are established in accordance with the prototype of the Last Supper and integrated with the liturgical legacies from the Early Apostolic Age, depending on the degree of it, I am a bit worried about the loss of a unique Catholic identity in our Holy Mass.

By the loss of a unique Catholic identity, which will spark a vehement debate if not elucidated adequately, I DO NOT intend to go into issues like the use of Latin, Gregorian Chants, altar rails, altar architecture, Latin motets, the ‘ad orientem’ controversy, the existence of various Eucharistic Prayers instead of the Roman Canon only, translation problems, vestments of the ordained, altar boy/girl issue, etc. (I specify what is excluded first to avoid further disputes.) WHAT I FOCUS ON is the logistics of the Mass.

There are many missing traditional Mass parts which developed over centuries in our Ordinary Form of Mass. Asperges Me, while not an ordinary or mandatory session of a Mass, is now rarely seen. Prayers before the Altar are gone. The part from Suscipe Sancte Pater up to the Lavabo is greatly abridged. Some Psalms are missing. Eucharistic Prayer II, the one commonly used in my parish for every Sunday and weekday Mass, fails to express EXPLICITLY AND ELEGANTLY the theology of the Holy Mass as a Sacrifice as well as the Communion of Saints. To me, this is a great loss, the loss of the very precious gemstone our Holy Mother Church has cherished and passed on for centuries.

NEVER take me to be a sedevacantist, a schismatic or other titles labelling me as a rebel. I NEVER criticise the intention or validity of the Vatican II Council and Pope Paul VI’s Reform. The only thing is that our liturgy really needs some reform of the reform, one that can imbibe our liturgy with a bit more of the traditional elements. I really truly hope that for our Eucharistic Prayer, the wordings can be embellished and Nature of Sacrifice and Communion of Saints mentioned more explicitly, which can already very much distinguish our Holy Mass from any Anglican Service.

Any idea? Objection? Suggestion?

By the way, someone contended that the Eucharistic Prayer II is supposed to have its origin in a Eucharistic Prayer written by St. Hippolytus of Rome, who in a period was deemed schismatic and thus the intention of the prayer is very much of question.

There is little counter-arguments for this apparently ‘traditionalist’ attack. My first doubt is: why would Rome canonize him as a martyred saint if he were under suspicion of aberrance? Now, if he has been recognised by both Rome as a saint, then it is assumed that his writings are compatible with the orthodox teachings of the Church, so there should not be serious query into the validity of the EP II. Moreover, to me, as far as the language in the Eucharistic Prayer he wrote is in line with the Catholic faith, I don’t see why a surmised ‘wicked intention’ of a saint will quiver the Sacrament’s validity.

Having said that, I think that the Eucharistic Prayer II should still need slight modifications regarding the translations. I can’t tell why, but I feel that it lacks some sort of embellishment.

N.B. I am not polished in English since I’m not a native speaker. I apologise for my handicapped communication if any of my thought is not so clearly laid out in this thread.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Similarity? Three words: it varies greatly.

By the way, your English is very good.

 

[anonymous1995]

Similarity? Three words: it varies greatly.

By the way, your English is very good.

‘It varies greatly.’ Really? Since I’m not a liturgy expert, probably my first instinct does not reflect the whole picture.

Any more evidence showing the gaps between the two?

By the way, thanks for your compliment!

 

[triumphguy]

|In 1982 while studying at London University I went for a tour of St. Paul’s (Anglican) Cathedral. A liturgy started on the altar (people were sitting in the choir stalls) and since it seemed exactly like a Catholic mass I attended (thinking it was in fact an RC mass). It wasn’t until after communion that I realized by some statements of the presider that I had just been to an Anglican mass.

 

[liturgyluver]

‘It varies greatly.’ Really? Since I’m not a liturgy expert, probably my first instinct does not reflect the whole picture.

Any more evidence showing the gaps between the two?

By the way, thanks for your compliment!

It doesn’t vary greatly at all. Your initial observation is right both about the Eucharistic Prayer and the general structure of the service. The Anglican lectionary is virtually the same too so they use the same readings.

The Anglican liturgy is as follows:

Greeting - In the name of the father, etc

The Lord be with you

Invitation to confession (their general confession has slight differences with the Catholic one)

Collect

First Reading

Psalm

Second Reading

Gospel Reading

Creed

Sermon

Intercessions

Peace (this is one of the key differences - it is here rather than after the Our Father)

Offertory and Taking of the bread and Cup

Eucharistic Prayer

Prayer after Communion

Notices

Blessing

Before the new translation, the words to the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus were identical.

The reason for the similarity is that both services - and those of other western churches were developed when liturgical revision was looking back at ancient Eucharistic rites. In both cases the Anglican Church and the Catholic church adopted the classic western shape that was in use in the ancient church and pre-dated embelishments in medieval times and at the reformation.

I would make two further points - like us, the Anglicans have a number of Eucharistic Prayers which each impart a different feel and come from different traditions of the Church.

Secondly, it is not only about shape of the liturgy but also how it is executed by the clergy, and I feel this is where some Catholic parishes get it so badly wrong when they don’t celebrate the mass with reverance and dignity both during the Eucharitic Prayer and distribution of communion.

 

[liturgyluver]

Similarity? Three words: it varies greatly.

By the way, your English is very good.

Not if you compare the Ordinary Form with the modern Anglican Eucharistic rites. Of course both the Tridentine rite and the Prayer Book rites are very different.

 

[porthos11]

‘It varies greatly.’ Really? Since I’m not a liturgy expert, probably my first instinct does not reflect the whole picture.

Any more evidence showing the gaps between the two?

By the way, thanks for your compliment!

Yes, it varies greatly. Low Church Anglicans of the evangelical strain have a more Protestant style of worship, focused more on the Scriptures. Eucharists may not necessarily be every Sunday. They may focus more on the Morning or Evening Service from the Book of Common Prayer or one of the “alternative” service books. Their formats may be more free-wheeling and vestments, if any, may be simpler or even non-existent.

Then there are High Church Anglicans who are more ritualized and make much use of the Communion service in the Book of Common Prayer, usually as the principal service every Sunday. Clergy are usually vested in a manner similar to Roman-rite Catholic priests.

And then there are the really high, Anglo-Catholics who, despite the lack of communion with Rome, nonetheless affirm Anglicanism’s Catholic heritage, hold on to traditional Catholic teaching and often sync their practice with current Catholic practice, while some have retained traditional Catholic practice. They call their services Masses and even use a derivative of the Roman Missal. Some Anglo-Catholics celebrate according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal (often with more reverence and adherence to the rubrics than many Catholic parishes do), or an English translation of the older Roman Missal (such as the English Missal, a translation of the Roman Missal in effect in the 1950’s, with optional elements from the Book of Common Prayer).

So yes, one cannot place a finger on what is “Anglican worship” because, as has been said, it varies widely.

 

[liturgyluver]

Yes, it varies greatly. Low Church Anglicans of the evangelical strain have a more Protestant style of worship, focused more on the Scriptures. Eucharists may not necessarily be every Sunday. They may focus more on the Morning or Evening Service from the Book of Common Prayer or one of the “alternative” service books. Their formats may be more free-wheeling and vestments, if any, may be simpler or even non-existent.

Then there are High Church Anglicans who are more ritualized and make much use of the Communion service in the Book of Common Prayer, usually as the principal service every Sunday. Clergy are usually vested in a manner similar to Roman-rite Catholic priests.

And then there are the really high, Anglo-Catholics who, despite the lack of communion with Rome, nonetheless affirm Anglicanism’s Catholic heritage, hold on to traditional Catholic teaching and often sync their practice with current Catholic practice, while some have retained traditional Catholic practice. They call their services Masses and even use a derivative of the Roman Missal. Some Anglo-Catholics celebrate according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal (often with more reverence and adherence to the rubrics than many Catholic parishes do), or an English translation of the older Roman Missal (such as the English Missal, a translation of the Roman Missal in effect in the 1950’s, with optional elements from the Book of Common Prayer).

So yes, one cannot place a finger on what is “Anglican worship” because, as has been said, it varies widely.

This is an excellent description of the potential Anglican liturgical landscape. I would say, in England at least - and certainly in London - though, that 95% of parishes have as their main service a Parish Communion or Sung Eucharist with vestments and they use Common Worship rather than the BCP for their communion office (the BCP here is generaly used for 8am Holy Communion or Choral Evensong - Matins has virtually vanished, apart from at the Cathedrals. There are also a few mega-Evangelical Anglican churches which are liturgy lite.) So since the liturgical movement in the Anglican Church there is less variety than is often thought to be the case. There are Catholics who unwittingly attend Anglican Eucharist without reaslising the difference - and it is even sadder that sometimes, when pointed to the Catholic Church, they sometimes find, as you say, a service conducted with less reverance and solemnity.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Since Anglicanism was founded by simply replacing the Pope with Henry the VIII, wouldn’t it make sense that the liturgies stayed the same?

Of course there is a very big difference since they do not have a valid Eucharist and don’t have Apostolic Succession, so it may look the same, but is very different.

 

[porthos11]

Since Anglicanism was founded by simply replacing the Pope with Henry the VIII, wouldn’t it make sense that the liturgies stayed the same?

As a matter of fact, they did. Henry VIII, while the instigator of the break from Rome, did not repudiate any Catholic doctrine or practice and in fact, things did remain the same. Anglican clergy retained valid Holy Orders throughout Henry’s reign and Anglicanism was pretty much English Catholicism minus communion with the Pope.

The Book of Common Prayer was promulgated only later, in the reign of Edward VI. This was also the time the new Anglican ordination rites were promulgated which the Catholic Church declared invalidated Anglican Holy Orders. Anglicanism has since become an anything-goes religion, which is why you will find a whole spectrum of doctrine and worship within the Anglican Communion, all acceptable and tolerated.

 

[anonymous1995]

Having read through the above posts, I have another question: given the close resemblance between Anglican High Services and our Holy Mass (OF), will this compromise the distinctive Catholic liturgical impression on the faithful? I mean, liturgy is an important device to impress the laymen, invoking their awe and reverence to God while fostering a sense of cohesion among the congregation.

 

[liturgyluver]

Having read through the above posts, I have another question: given the close resemblance between Anglican High Services and our Holy Mass (OF), will this compromise the distinctive Catholic liturgical impression on the faithful? I mean, liturgy is an important device to impress the laymen, invoking their awe and reverence to God while fostering a sense of cohesion among the congregation.

I don’t believe it is the liturgy that would compromise the distinctiveness of catholicism, and in any case since the new translation many of the words are different so there is a distinctive element to that. I think rather than focussing on the shape or wording of the liturgy, it would be more productive for parishes instead to focus on how the liturgy is executed - some parishes show how they can provide a reverent solemn execution of mass through dignified ceremonial, good music (the best of old and new) which the faithful happily participate in, and in not rushing through the distribution of communion and the mass. It is amazing how infectious it becomes on the assembled when standards are raised - and after this second-rate celebrations of the liturgy will just not do!

 

[englishredrose]

Only knowledgeable Roman Catholics would ‘see’ any difference between the two and the one difference is that we have different colours I think since my priest made a point of saying he is now using anglican colours - I’m anglican by the way. But a lot of people in the anglican world like to play at being Roman Catholic thru and thru until the crunch of confession and other teaches.

I think we do have different wordings but that may be the type of Mass we are following.

Those would be the only visual differences you may find between the two masses not forgetting and cosmetic differences ie type of building and service etc. Oh in our church now we are using all our own books, anglicans where as before we used the missal and celebration hymnal - essentially a Catholic hymn book for those who like those terms and our service sheet had the Catholic Redemption Society on the bottom which no longer there. No offence but we really are not Catholics.

On a Catholic teaching level then there is the difference between cosubtantial and the other I get mixed up but on here you use those terms less than english Catholics do wh are very up on the two terms. Some of you well all of you state the Real Presence of Christ is at all Catholic Masses but no where else and that is why you cannot receive anywhere else. I am not here to argue that point, just pointing out the difference between Anglicans and Catholics. There are many Anglicans who hotly believe as much as any Catholic that Christ Real Presence is at any Mass. But the difference is that some priests will teach that - those of Catholic leanings whilst other Priests may teach the other and it is upto personal choice if you go onto the Church of England Website and look it up. It is down to what ‘we’ personally believe about Christ Real Presence at Mass or not rather than what we are formally taught. I don’t remember being taught anything at my confirmation class 25+ years ago although I was about 16 and too old for the juniors and too young really for adults and being only one at 16 the priest gave me a choice and natural I chose to be with my mum plus I didn’t know the under ten’s where as I knew some of the adults already so it was natural to choose adult class and he tended to ask a question and went around the room with it and thankfully not me as didn’t have answers back then but am certain no mention was made of cosubstantial or not even in laymen terms. Where as you guys are formally taught you got to think that and that is not obviously present in either Mass in any visible differences but only what we personally believe.

The rest of the differences are all cosmetic in that low church of england won’t use incense or possibly only have one server for the full sung eucharist who may appear from the choir. They don’t do smells and bells is the term. They don’t geneflect or do the sign of the cross though and that be a real difference between the two services but high church of england/anglican there isn’t any real obvious difference other than cosmetic in that what that priest likes to do and where things happen as been said only the real knowledgeble observent Catholic would see any different in the colours. You would have to know that it wasn’t a Catholic Church but basically no one would be offended as such in the Anglican Church about anyone who is confirmed in ‘their’ church can receive communion in Anglican Churches. We just know you guys are taught not to rather than what we are taught and we are taught you guys don’t like us doing so unless we do get chance to ask the priest beforehand and for some reason he says yes, but it isn’t any big deal to me in my personal outlook because not receiving communion in a Catholic Church is so widely taught and my faith don’t rely on Communion to feed me per se but that the way I am.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Having read through the above posts, I have another question: given the close resemblance between Anglican High Services and our Holy Mass (OF), will this compromise the distinctive Catholic liturgical impression on the faithful? I mean, liturgy is an important device to impress the laymen, invoking their awe and reverence to God while fostering a sense of cohesion among the congregation.

I don’t think this would be too large a problem except in places like England.

 

[Chatter163]

Having read through the above posts, I have another question: given the close resemblance between Anglican High Services and our Holy Mass (OF), will this compromise the distinctive Catholic liturgical impression on the faithful? I mean, liturgy is an important device to impress the laymen, invoking their awe and reverence to God while fostering a sense of cohesion among the congregation.

You sound as if this is a new condition, and are wondering what effect it will have on the future. The fact is that these similarities have existed for the better part of a century in many places. You just discovered recently what has been around for a long time.

Also, there are great variations from place to place. Many High Anglican venues are moderately Anglo-Catholic, while others (especially in England) are extremely high and even Anglo-Papalist. Often (admittedly not always) the similarities are more about style and less about theology. At first glance they appear similar, but a deeper examination appears otherwise. An example would be the understanding of the Mass as the Holy Sacrifice. A handful of Anglo-Catholics use the Roman Canon (which they call the Gregorian Canon). These folks, I would say, fully understand that the Mass is the one and only Sacrifice of Calvary being re-presented to us in the Eucharist. But they are a minority, even among those who call themselves Anglo-Catholics. This is why the Holy See has made the use of our eucharistic prayers a required feature of the Anglican Use liturgy former former Anglicans coming into the Catholic Church.

Clearly the petrine office (i.e., the papacy) and infallibility is another theological issue. The sacred liturgy is less likely to be indicative of this.

Some Anglo-Catholics accept the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, while others do not. Again, the liturgy is generally not revealing of these differences, except on 8 December and 15 August and certain other Marian feasts.

Then there are devotional differences regarding the saints, ranging from practices identical to our own, to those who are uncomfortable with asking for the prayers of the saints. Yet the latter still consider themselves Anglo-Catholics, and attend the same ceremonies.

Use of the sacrament of confession also varies from similar to our own to virtually never. The Anglican axiom is “Anyone can, some should, none must.”

I was raised as an Anglo-Catholic. The perceptions are quite different. Originally I was a moderate Anglo-Catholic, then moved into the advanced Anglo-Papalist camp, on my way to becoming a Roman Catholic, Deo gratias. This was all decades ago, but I thoroughly understand the different varieties of Anglicanism, including the different Anglo-Catholoc camps.

 

[anonymous1995]

Only knowledgeable Roman Catholics would ‘see’ any difference between the two and the one difference is that we have different colours I think since my priest made a point of saying he is now using anglican colours - I’m anglican by the way.

Those would be the only visual differences you may find between the two masses not forgetting and cosmetic differences ie type of building and service etc.

Oh I see. Actually, do cosmetic differences between a High Church Anglican Service and a Roman Catholic Mass (OF) have any profound effect on theological perception and sense of belonging to the Church?

In particular, I would like to know what does it mean by ‘different colours’. Does this phrase refer to the diversity of coloured vestments in the Anglican Church as compared to Roman Catholic Church? Anyone who is knowledgeable on the colour differences of vestments of the ordained?

 

[anonymous1995]

I think rather than focussing on the shape or wording of the liturgy, it would be more productive for parishes instead to focus on how the liturgy is executed

YAY!!! Liturgyluver you are on the same wavelength with me!

In my opinion, I really want the following to be implemented in a Holy Mass (OF):

1. MORE RESPECT TO JESUS PLEASE!!!
   I hate phone calls, meaningless gossips, random chats and permissive parents who let their kids fool around as if they were in Disneyland. There are some who wear pants and slippers as if going to bed. (Wow! Church is indeed the home to the people!) Some are late for half an hour and still show no guilt. Some consume the Host as if chewing rubber band. Many still keep silent and make singing the privilege of the choir despite the use of vernacular hymns. Many do not kneel down when the priest carries the Host from the Tabernacle in a separate Eucharistic Chapel to the Main Altar.
2. The use of Gregorian Chants
   Leaving aside the problem of irreverence, music is another big issue. The cardinal objective of music in liturgy, if I do not make it wrong, is to adore and glorify our Trinity God. This being a truth of all times, the spiritual and pastoral impacts of elegant music on the faithful should never be downplayed - they come in parallel. Gregorian chants are the rich legacies of our Holy Church, which have in centuries proffered to our saints the nourishment for eternal life. Sadly, our priests seem to turn a deaf ear to Our Pope Emeritus’s exhortation in Sacramentum Caritatis that, chants should occupy a higher priority than other forms of sacred music despite their equal positions in liturgy. I truly hope that chants be widely incorporated in our liturgy, which may hopefully instill a truly Catholic tradition in our liturgy.
3. The use of Latin hymns, motets, etc.
   Vernacular hymns have replaced all Latin music written by great composers in history. Mozart and Haydn are gone. Palestrina is little known by the laymen. I do not mean to demean the significance of liturgical localization, considering the wide spectra of cultures around the world. In fact, there are many elegant Chinese hymns composed in these decades which successfully integrate traditional Chinese music elements into organ pieces, and thus have gained widespread popularity in the Chinese Catholic community. Yet, our Church is not only established for particular races; it is an organic body of tradition traced back to the Apostolic ages. There really should be a balance between vernacular and Latin music in our Mass. I don’t want Palestrina, for example, to be reserved for trained musicians in theses despite his significant contribution to our sacred music.
4. Altar rail
   I was educated in an Anglican high school. The Ascension Day Service is an annual religious activity compulsory to all students. Sitting at the back of the Altar, I was dumbfounded to see an Altar rail - an authentically Catholic architecture vanished from where it should be in after the turmoil of liturgical revolution in the 70’s. Restoration of altar rails reiterates and emphasizes the significance of the Holy Communion in our Mass liturgy, imbibing our Church with something traditionally Catholic.
5. Say the black and do the red
   This I don’t waste time elaborating on.

Pope Benedict XVI once commented, if not criticized, our OF Mass as a ‘banal and mediocre’ product. What we all Catholics have to do is to rejuvenate our Mass with appropriate bits and pieces from our great tradition, embellishing it to be the most solemn and elegant Christian liturgy in the world with which we can pride on.

By the way, this is a terribly interesting and thought-provoking website. I strongly urge all of you to take a look at it. I’m sure you’ll be amazed.

ccwatershed.org/

N.B. A further question on the difference between Anglican Service and Holy Mass: any real examples of differences in wordings? I do not have the newest English Missal for OF.
Mmm… In Latin ‘Dominus vobiscum’ is literally translated as ‘Lord be with you’. This is fine. But for ‘Et cum spiritu tuo’, I don’t know which genius translated it as ‘And also be with you’, apparently a distortion of its genuine meaning. Any such problem now in the new translation?

 

[ProVobis]

Mmm… In Latin ‘Dominus vobiscum’ is literally translated as ‘Lord be with you’.

There may be some disagreement here. The subjunctive is fine when it’s “May the peace (or spirit) of the Lord be with you.” But the Lord IS with you, like in the Hail Mary. FWIW, the Polish has it in the indicative mood, “Pan z wami.” Looks like the Anglicans made it stick, though, just like they did with “Sursum corda” which literally translated is “Upwards hearts” not “Lift up your hearts.” Just sayin.

Since Anglicanism was founded by simply replacing the Pope with Henry the VIII, wouldn’t it make sense that the liturgies stayed the same?

About Henry VIII, he mandated the currently used (by Catholics) Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be. Some other Protestant denominations use their own versions, such as “debts” instead of “trespasses.”

 

[liturgyluver]

Amonymous I agree with most of the points you made above - I certainly think our priests should make more effort to chant the Introductory rites and the Eucharistic Prayer. Perhaps because of my Italian heritage I am not a fan of mass in Latin, though I agree with the Vatican II documents that the faithful should have the opportunity to sing the Ordinary of the mass in Latin.

As regards to “Sursum Corda” “Et cum spirito tuo” etc the initial Anglican translation was “Up with your hearts” though the final translation in the Prayerbook was Lift up your hearts. In the modern translations “And with thy/your spirit” was used. It was the ICEL who first promulgated “And also with you” which was soon adopted by all the western churches (though Anglicans always retained “And with thy spirit” in its traditional language liturgies - which are still popular even where the modern “shape” is used.

 

[Symphorian]

In particular, I would like to know what does it mean by ‘different colours’. Does this phrase refer to the diversity of coloured vestments in the Anglican Church as compared to Roman Catholic Church? Anyone who is knowledgeable on the colour differences of vestments of the ordained?

Liturgical colours will be largely the same. (White, red, green and violet). There may be some variations following Old English tradition. For example, in Advent, some churches use Sarum Blue and during Lent, Lenten Array or Lenten White might be employed. Lenten Array/Lenten White is an off-white linen which may have symbols of the Passion embroidered in red. It’s hung up in time for Ash Wednesday. If Lenten Array is used, statues and pictures should also be veiled in the same material. In Passiontide, a dull crimson or oxblood might be used for Altar frontals and vestments with the Orphreys in black. Yellow vestments might be used for Saints that are confessors and matrons. There may be a festal set of vestments/frontals which would be made of the very best materials and richly embroidered in gold.

There can be local variation.

Pic of Sarum Blue:

farm3.static.flickr.com/2152/2226775454_1ce8485e54.jpg

Pic of Lenten Array:

farm1.static.flickr.com/185/410384353_b1eb1a9573.jpg

T