I have worshiped in almost every denomination known to man. However, the RCC is not among them. Could someone tell me how similar the RC liturgy is to the Anglican BCP?
Very gladly. Before 1570, each diocese had its own Liturgy; the early church allowed variety. During the Council of Trent, it was decided that the entire world should have "One Mass". They abolished every liturgy composed after 1250. There are two forms of Roman worship today: the Extraordinary & the Ordinary forms. The "Extraordinary" form, or "E.F." was fully assembled in 1570. It's best known under its 1962 edition. It is extraordinary because a very small number of dioceses, parishes, and religious orders actually use it. It is always in Latin, as per the laws of Trent. The "Ordinary" form, or "O.F.", was codified in 1969. It's the Mass used at 90% of Roman churches. It was supposed to be the "One Mass" of Vatican II, but some resisted it, and that resistance has grown lately - hence the "extraordinary form". O.F. is almost always in the language of the people. The structure for your typical Sunday Mass is: Opening Hymn & Incensing the altar (Called "Introit" in the E.F.) Sign of the Cross ] - * Invitation & Confession - * Priestly prayer of absolution ] - * All this is said by the priest & altar servers alone in the E.F. LORD HAVE MERCY GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST (omitted in Lent & Advent) Collect of the Day O.T. reading Psalm (refrain-verse) N.T. reading "Alleluia" sung by choir Gospel HOMILY NICENE CREED Prayers of the Faithful (Not extant in the E.F.) Offertory (sacred vessels brought over, bread prepared, wine prepared, incensed; collection taken) In the O.F. some lay people go to the back of the church & bring the elements forward. In the E.F. they're always ready on a side-table called a Credence Table. Preface & HOLY, HOLY, HOLY Eucharistic Prayer LAMB OF GOD Communion Prayer - Dismissal - Sign of the Cross Many who prefer the "extraordinary form" are disgusted with the 1969 Ordinary form. They believe that administering the chalice to the laity, the vernacular prayers, the encouragement of lay-participation, and the use of hymns makes it all so very "protestant". There's a lot of animosity. ~~~~ The BCP Communion structure of 1552-1928 was basically composed by Cranmer as a translation from a very old (c. AD 8th-9th century) rite called the Sarum or Salisbury rite. Cranmer made noticeable changes to the Mass: The Lord's Prayer replaced the sign of the Cross. The Kyrie ~ Lord have mercy replaced with the Ten Commandments. The Nicene Creed before the Sermon. The Agnus Dei ~ Lamb of God omitted. The Glory to God in the Highest placed after Communion (they sang a Hymn after the Last Supper) Most BCP editions since 1960 have tried to come closer to the Mass. What you'll see in American episcopal churches is basically a copy of the modern Mass. Probably ecumenical reasons.
Thank you very much! Could you worship in a RC church, considering that you would not be allowed to take communion?
Made a few edits for clarity, if you want to look at the post again. Every Sunday, I go to the local Franciscan-operated parish church at 7 PM Mass, to see those friends who have stayed loyal despite my protest. They certainly welcome me, in the spirit of the last 40 years, though I gladly accept their ban on my reception of Communion, given their blasphemous & idolatrous sacrifice of the Body & Blood of our Lord. The opening Confession is directed to God, Mary, the angels, the saints, and "you, my brothers & sisters" in the pews. Apart from a few prayers for the papal authority and prayers involving literal sacrifice of the bread & wine, it is possible to worship God in the modern Mass - from a safe distance. If you ever stumble into an Extraordinary Form Mass (very unlikely), you'll notice that generally no one talks beforehand, and the congregation is almost entirely silent during the Mass. It's entirely a clerical set of actions up in the sanctuary, and would probably make you, personally, very uncomfortable.
The Book of Divine Worship for 'Anglican Use' Roman Catholics in the USA retains a considerable amount of material that would be familiar to 1662/1928 BCP users such as the Collect for Purity, the Decalogue or Summary of the Law, The Comfortable Words, Prayer of Humble Access etc... Anglicans well versed with their own relatively recent Eucharistic liturgies (Series 3/ASB1980/Common Worship 2000 for CofE folks) should find much of the Roman OF familiar and easy enough to follow. Consular has already pointed out the major differences.
My parish has been using the new ACNA liturgy, and it is great, they corrected the ICEL error, (And also with you) now (And with your spirit) and the Nicene Creed has the Filioque omitted
That's good! That's not so good... What was their rationale for this removal? Was it theological certainty or ecumenical outreach? I wonder if the modern Roman liturgists would ever be convinced to remove the Filioque from the Mass.
The reason is that the Filioque was an addition promulgated by Rome. It was never in the original Nicene Creed, and was never supposed to be added. That is why
Here is a good read on ACNA and the reason behind the removal of the Filioque from the Nicene Creed http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/26609
The Nicene Creed I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God, Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the + Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Holy Scriptures call the Third Person of the Trinity "The Spirit of Jesus" in many places, especially in Acts. Since the Lord Jesus is the Word of God in human nature, the Spirit must proceed from the Son as well as the Father. Regardless of what Ephesus demanded in A.D. 431, the addition of the "filioque" into the Roman Mass reflects a truth about God. It may not have been reached in an ecumenical council, but does that really matter? Nicaea I in A.D. 325 said that no one should kneel on Sundays, but that's been ignored. Why are we holding such things as sacrosanct that are clearly not right? We're far too wrapped up in appearances and traditions. If it's true, let it be confessed.
If the ACNA's new liturgy is like this, I like it very much. I watched the opening eucharist of the ACNA 2012 National Assembly and was right impressed. TEC should take a cue: I didn't watch past the part at the end where the African bishop started to formally relinquish some AMIA priests to the oversight of the ACNA, but up until then I was enamered by the liturgy.
Back to the topic...I came across a Catholic missal at a thrift shop recently, New...St. Joseph Sunday Missal and Hymnal, published in 1966. It is the Mass from 1965, which is neither the current Novus Ordo nor the Extraordinary. It was an interim missal in effect between 1965-1970. I find it very similar to our own...minus the Hail Marys and other appeals to the saints, I've sat through a number of weekday catholic masses and found even less difference than was in the missal. I've only been to one catholid Sunday mass and, to be frank, It bordered on a Methodist service. The choir clapping and wearing baptist style choir robes, people talking to each other all through the service, no kneeling or kneelers, modern building..not very impressive. A traditional catholic website has collected a bunch of photos of some of the more ignominious examples of the modern catholic mass: http://traditio.com/nos.htm But then, who are we to cast stones, given our embrace of U2carists and Clown Masses....sheesh
The 1965 Mass was a gem compared to the rubbish of 1969, and the unspeakable garbage of the 1973-2011 translation. It's very interesting that 1965 retained the Roman Canon for the consecration of the Eucharist, and yet it isn't used at all in the 1969 Missal practice, despite being the First Eucharistic Prayer.
This is not entirely correct. I have been to Novus Ordo masses before that in fact still use the Roman canon. It all depends on the priest's disposition and theological leanings.
Yes, I offer my retractions. Perhaps that outburst was influenced by the fact that I've only ever heard the Roman Canon used once in this entire city, after many Masses. It was an undue assumption on my part. Certainly Prayers II, III, and IV are preferred to I because of their brevity. There is a joke about me at my Anglican parish, when services sometimes run more than an hour and a half: "this guy knows all about one-hour services, he was a Roman Catholic!" Many Masses are certainly celebrated with brevity in mind today, and E.P. I is not conducive to that.
No Protestant would be able to worship in a RC church. And vice-versa. There are irreconcilable differences.
In my experience, yes - though without participating in the central act of receiving Holy Communion... Confiteor: Has the words: "... I ask Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me..." Sometimes this Confiteor is omitted, and so I have no trouble. Kyrie: Good. Gloria: Good. Collects: Usually a good prayer asking for heavenly aid, defense, mercy, strength, etc. Readings & Gospel: it's holy scripture! Nicene Creed: I believe it all. Offertory: "May the Lord accept this sacrifice into your hands" - theologically objectionable. Eucharist - Communion: I believe the Lord consecrates the bread & wine according to His blessing, even if Roman theology has overlaid propitiatory sacrifice & fleshly presence over His commemoration. Thankfully the laity has very little to do with this, apart from opening their hands or mouths. The only assent given is "Amen" at the Great Doxology, which praises the Trinity. After this point, a non-Roman has very little to do except sit silently and awkwardly, while everyone else goes up to receive. "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us" before Communion may seem innocuous, but it's addressed to Jesus present in the transubstantiated bread & wine. A true Protestant who has zeal for truth would feel very uncomfortable and "outside" this act of worship. My solution is to pray and praise God during the first half of the Mass, the "Liturgy of the Word", but after the recitation of the Creed, to leave the church.
You cannot participate in the public liturgy of a church that requires you to profess that the bishop of Rome is Christ's vicar on earth, that communion with that church is essential to salvation, that you can merit heaven through your good works, that devotion to the Blessed Virgin is required to lead a holy life, etc., etc., etc.