What is an Anglican service like?

[Justy90]

Hello friends,

As are many of you, I am following with great interest the news of the Holy Father’s overture to Anglicans who have a desire for communion with Rome. I also know that there are Anglican Rite Catholic Churches (is that the proper terminology? these details aren’t easy ) already in existence. My question, then, is threefold:

1. What are Anglican services like, liturgically? I know absolutely nothing about them. Could someone give me a very basic primer?
2. What are Anglican Rite Catholic liturgies like?
3. Does anyone have any predictions as to what an Anglican-Catholic service will look like in the future now that these new ordinariates are about to be established?

Hope this question makes sense…thanks a lot!

Peace,
+AMDG+

It’s very similar to a Catholic mass. There are a few things that are a bit different. The Eucharistic prayers are different and the Peace is in a different place during the service than during the Catholic mass. The Our Father is followed by “For thine is the kingdom etc.” The music is far superior in my opinion to Catholic music. I absolutely fell in love with the English flavoured Anglican music and how during Advent some of our songs are sung in rounds. How beautiful it is to hear! We have an intercessory healing altar that folks go and have prayers said for them and oil anointings after communion. It’s a great experience if you have never been. You won’t feel lost though because it is very similar in form to the Catholic mass.

 

[pgerpup]

Phemie, One of the things I miss from the 1928 Prayer Book is that we used to kneel to receive and we would all stay at the rail until all had received and we rose and left the rail together. It was a wonderful way to take communion. I still miss it after all these years. So what that it took more time? What’s everyone’s hurry anyway?

 

[Justy90]

Phemie, One of the things I miss from the 1928 Prayer Book is that we used to kneel to receive and we would all stay at the rail until all had received and we rose and left the rail together. It was a wonderful way to take communion. I still miss it after all these years. So what that it took more time? What’s everyone’s hurry anyway?

I became Anglican just 7 short years ago and I adore the way we receive communion, but this sounds like it would be even sweeter. To have everyone wait until the very last person receives and then all leave together would be a marvelous thing I’m sure.

 

[Catholic29]

Perhaps the addition of Anglicans will be a backdoor into allowing a married priesthood in the Western Church. I would be in favor of that happening.

Nice idea, but I’ll be willing to bet the Vatican is drafting new stipulations as we speak if the document doesn’t exist already, that effectively slams shut any possibility for married Catholic men becoming priests in a Anglican Rite.

And so the priestly vocations famine continues in earnest within the lion’s share of the Western Church.

 

[Middleman]

Nice idea, but I’ll be willing to bet the Vatican is drafting new stipulations as we speak if the document doesn’t exist already, that effectively slams shut any possibility for married Catholic men becoming priests in a Anglican Rite.

And so the priestly vocations famine continues in earnest within the lion’s share of the Western Church.

Maybe not. Maybe they’ll allow married priests to be ordained to the Anglican rite like they do to the Eastern rite.

 

[emeraldcoast]

Maybe not. Maybe they’ll allow married priests to be ordained to the Anglican rite like they do to the Eastern rite.

This is what I am thinking as well since married priest are part of the Anglican tradition.

Throwing this out there for discussion.
If you were a Roman Catholic man or a Non-Catholic man in RCIA that is struggling with the issue of becoming a priest and wanting to have a family would you consider becoming a part of the Catholic-Anglican Rite if it had the option for you of being both a “Father” and a “Dad”?

God Bless!

 

[Bluegoat]

The plan is for the Anglican rite to allow married clergy, but married Bishops will have to be demoted to priests.

It is also expected that the liturgy used will be something close to the Sarum usage, or the 1928 BCP,** NOT** like the modern Anglican rites. So not like the NO, but very much like the Latin Mass, but in English. It will also likely involve all of those pre-NO practices - priest facing the altar, kneeling for communion, etc.

Some typical differences in the Anglican practice are having the Gloria after the Eucharist rather than at the beginning, and common confession always. Anglicans generally do not participate in services dedicated to adoration of the Eucharist. They always offer the Eucharist in both kinds. They are not allowed to use Latin except when it counts as the “language of the people” in a monastery or college. (But, many sing the mass setting in Latin. The Nicean Creed is always in English though.)

One thing that the Anglican usage can offer is very beautiful versions of the offices for daily use, designed for use by clergy and people. Morning prayer, evening prayer, and compline.

Stylistically, this can be interpreted in a very “high” way, with lots of vestments, alter dressing, tons of servers, incense, lots of saints etc. Or, it can be done in a “low” way - the priest wears cassock and surplice, there is a table instead of an altar or a bare altar, sometimes the priest celebrates from one end, not many saints, and no incense. But long, erudite (one hopes) sermons of 45 minutes. And the hymns are often a little different.

Both done well can be very beautiful - done not well…

 

[GKC]

Anglicans are difficult to generalize about.

In my parish, occasional Latin, occasional Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Gloria upfront, 1928 Book, supplemented by the Missal.

GKC

The plan is for the Anglican rite to allow married clergy, but married Bishops will have to be demoted to priests.

It is also expected that the liturgy used will be something close to the Sarum usage, or the 1928 BCP,** NOT** like the modern Anglican rites. So not like the NO, but very much like the Latin Mass, but in English. It will also likely involve all of those pre-NO practices - priest facing the altar, kneeling for communion, etc.

Some typical differences in the Anglican practice are having the Gloria after the Eucharist rather than at the beginning, and common confession always. Anglicans generally do not participate in services dedicated to adoration of the Eucharist. They always offer the Eucharist in both kinds. They are not allowed to use Latin except when it counts as the “language of the people” in a monastery or college. (But, many sing the mass setting in Latin. The Nicean Creed is always in English though.)

One thing that the Anglican usage can offer is very beautiful versions of the offices for daily use, designed for use by clergy and people. Morning prayer, evening prayer, and compline.

Stylistically, this can be interpreted in a very “high” way, with lots of vestments, alter dressing, tons of servers, incense, lots of saints etc. Or, it can be done in a “low” way - the priest wears cassock and surplice, there is a table instead of an altar or a bare altar, sometimes the priest celebrates from one end, not many saints, and no incense. But long, erudite (one hopes) sermons of 45 minutes. And the hymns are often a little different.

Both done well can be very beautiful - done not well…

 

[sww315]

What a question! To the typical Catholic layman, an Anglican service looks more or less like a Mass; theologians (which I am not, at least not one with any formal training) see some important differences, mostly in the Canon of the Mass. As you might guess, there is typically no prayer for the Pope and no doctrine of the Real Presence. (Notice I said typically–there’s always an exception in Anglicanism, so please don’t reply and say that your parish is a Anglo-Papalist Continuing Church parish that does have these things.)

One of the main problems within the Anglo-Catholic movement for years has been agreeing on a liturgy. There are some truly beautiful liturgies out there which are theologically correct Catholic forms, but it’s hard to get Anglo-Catholics–often an over-educated, quarrelsome lot (of which I am a member, I might add)–to agree on one.

Much like Catholic liturgy, the different Anglican liturgies can be performed beautifully or poorly. I have great sympathy and reverence for the Traditional Latin Mass, but the Cathedral where I live performs a beautiful Novus Ordo mass every Sunday. (I think the new translation will help greatly with most of my remaining sticking points regarding the NO.)

I have to admit that I am a bit disheartened to hear that Cardinal Levada cited the Book of Divine Worship as the baseline for developing a new Anglican liturgy for use in the new personal ordinariate. It is based on the most “progressive”–that is, least faithful to tradition–version of the Book of Common Prayer, that released by the Episcopal “Church” in the USA in 1979. Most Anglicans inclined to take the Pope up on his offer would probably prefer one of the older forms.

 

[GKC]

While you may be aware (and are, of course) that Anglicans are a motley crew, it is a point I have had to stress repeatedly,over the years on RC boards. I likely will continue to do so.

GKC

What a question! To the typical Catholic layman, an Anglican service looks more or less like a Mass; theologians (which I am not, at least not one with any formal training) see some important differences, mostly in the Canon of the Mass. As you might guess, there is typically no prayer for the Pope and no doctrine of the Real Presence. (Notice I said typically–there’s always an exception in Anglicanism, so please don’t reply and say that your parish is a Anglo-Papalist Continuing Church parish that does have these things.)

One of the main problems within the Anglo-Catholic movement for years has been agreeing on a liturgy. There are some truly beautiful liturgies out there which are theologically correct Catholic forms, but it’s hard to get Anglo-Catholics–often an over-educated, quarrelsome lot (of which I am a member, I might add)–to agree on one.

Much like Catholic liturgy, the different Anglican liturgies can be performed beautifully or poorly. I have great sympathy and reverence for the Traditional Latin Mass, but the Cathedral where I live performs a beautiful Novus Ordo mass every Sunday. (I think the new translation will help greatly with most of my remaining sticking points regarding the NO.)

I have to admit that I am a bit disheartened to hear that Cardinal Levada cited the Book of Divine Worship as the baseline for developing a new Anglican liturgy for use in the new personal ordinariate. It is based on the most “progressive”–that is, least faithful to tradition–version of the Book of Common Prayer, that released by the Episcopal “Church” in the USA in 1979. Most Anglicans inclined to take the Pope up on his offer would probably prefer one of the older forms.

 

[pgerpup]

Um, I got lost in this somewhere. Did someone say that Catholics don’t do Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, or Compline? I thought we got those services indirectly from the Catholic Church. Especially Compline. I think I remember from my EFM days that Compline was written by a priest for Monastic nuns. Isn’t that correct? My memory isn’t what it used to be and EFM was a long time ago.

 

[Bluegoat]

Um, I got lost in this somewhere. Did someone say that Catholics don’t do Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, or Compline? I thought we got those services indirectly from the Catholic Church. Especially Compline. I think I remember from my EFM days that Compline was written by a priest for Monastic nuns. Isn’t that correct? My memory isn’t what it used to be and EFM was a long time ago.

No, I said Anglicans have particularly lovely versions of these services. They also seem to be more commonly available and used by Anglicans than the various Catholic versions are by Catholics.

Monastics have a much more full daily round of services in most cases, both Catholic and Anglican. Too many for most lay-people to stick to regularly. But the Anglican offices were specifically designed to be used in everyday life, not just in monastic life.

 

[Bluegoat]

Anglicans are difficult to generalize about.

In my parish, occasional Latin, occasional Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Gloria upfront, 1928 Book, supplemented by the Missal.

GKC

Yes, I’ve attended Anglican churches that have the Gloria at the beginning too. But I think it is accurate to say that having it at the end is typically Anglican, in that if you see it at the end you know it is an Anglican thing.

I tend to prefer it at the end myself, though I am not really picky about it.

I am a bit surprised that another poster said there is no doctrine of the Real Presence. I would say that until recently, that was the exception rather than the rule, that it is generally (not universally) represented now by people who don’t know a lot about it or misunderstand it, and that it is most certainly not reflected in the liturgy.

 

[GKC]

Yes, I’ve attended Anglican churches that have the Gloria at the beginning too. But I think it is accurate to say that having it at the end is typically Anglican, in that if you see it at the end you know it is an Anglican thing.

I tend to prefer it at the end myself, though I am not really picky about it.

I am a bit surprised that another poster said there is no doctrine of the Real Presence. I would say that until recently, that was the exception rather than the rule, that it is generally (not universally) represented now by people who don’t know a lot about it or misunderstand it, and that it is most certainly not reflected in the liturgy.

Agreed to all. You can easily find folks who affirm Trent, Session XIII, canon 1. And transub is not unknown.

GKC

 

[sww315]

I am a bit surprised that another poster said there is no doctrine of the Real Presence. I would say that until recently, that was the exception rather than the rule, that it is generally (not universally) represented now by people who don’t know a lot about it or misunderstand it, and that it is most certainly not reflected in the liturgy.

A fair point, Bluegoat; I meant to say no doctrine of transubstantiation. And, as GKC notes, transubstantiation is certainly not unknown. Sadly, my knowledge of church “politics” (small though it is) outstrips my knowledge of theology.

Perhaps the best summary of Anglican eucharistic belief is John Donne’s poem:

“He was the Word that spake it;
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it;
I do believe and take it.”

 

[GKC]

A fair point, Bluegoat; I meant to say no doctrine of transubstantiation. And, as GKC notes, transubstantiation is certainly not unknown. Sadly, my knowledge of church “politics” (small though it is) outstrips my knowledge of theology.

Perhaps the best summary of Anglican eucharistic belief is John Donne’s poem:

“He was the Word that spake it;
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it;
I do believe and take it.”

Amen.

GKC

*posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Bluegoat]

A fair point, Bluegoat; I meant to say no doctrine of transubstantiation. And, as GKC notes, transubstantiation is certainly not unknown. Sadly, my knowledge of church “politics” (small though it is) outstrips my knowledge of theology.

Perhaps the best summary of Anglican eucharistic belief is John Donne’s poem:

“He was the Word that spake it;
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it;
I do believe and take it.”

yes, I think that is a great summary. I’m very fond of Aristotle, and I think transubstantiation is a good explanation. But what Donne said is, I think, at the heart of it.