I’ve been attending a local TEC church for the past two months rather than the RCC parish of which I am a member. I’m of course in the habit of saying that I am “going to Mass” rather than “going to church” on Sundays. I understand there are some Anglicans who call the Sunday Eucharist service “the Mass” but that most Episcopalians do not. I’m curious who here may call the Eucharist service “Mass” and who doesn’t, and why.
There are two types of Anglican services, namely the Matins/Morning Prayer/Evensong Evening Prayer type service; and the Sacramental Eucharistic service.... They can be called the 'divine service' or by their own types, so you may see Morning Prayer at 9am, and Eucharist at 10am and such
I stick to "service" due to my background. 25+ years as a RC, followed by a roughly equal period in Protestant churches. It didn't take long in that latter period for me to come to view the RC "sacrifice of the Mass" as error-laden, so I became greatly averse to RC Mass (and RC anything) and wanted nothing to do with any of it. After all those years I can't help associating the very word with Romanism. (It took me a while to overcome my aversion to calling our priest "father", too, but eventually I did.) That is where I am, and why; I hope you won't be offended by my frankness.
I usually say “going to church”, or sometimes “attending the liturgy”. My preference is the latter, but some people don’t know what that means, so it’s a “know your audience” type of thing.
I appreciate your frankness. So would you say that the word “Mass” is Roman (“ite missa est”) by association and that because the Roman theology of the Eucharist is that it is a re-presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary, that is what distinguishes it from a Protestant Eucharist service? For myself, I am having a difficult time making the distinction. There is some language in the Roman canon that is more specifically “sacrificial” but in the main I have a hard time thinking it is all that much different than the Eucharist service I see on Sunday at the TEC parish. The body and blood are being given as Eucharist and as far as I can tell it’s the same, basically, at both churches. It seems to be a distinction without a difference.
I suppose the word “Mass” being derived from the dismissal in Latin just doesn’t signify much with those who have had the liturgy in English since the Reformation. It stands to reason anyways.
I have from time to time come across Episcopalians who employ the word “Mass” in this way. I don’t have any objection to it; it just never seemed natural to me.
It seems as though the term Mass became intentionally suppressed for its connotation with the RC theology. The 1549 BCP called it “The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass” In the 1662 and 1928 BCP I read “Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy communion” and in 1979 BCP It’s just simply “The Holy Eucharist “ it’s interesting how the title has evolved.
That is how I was introduced to the Church, by a family just like that. it’s little wonder I am so confused about where I ought to be
I use the word "Mass" most often. I attend Mass at an Anglican Catholic Church. The Archbishop, Canon and Priests of our Diocese of the South all refer to it as Mass.
The concept of a re-presentation in RC theology includes the idea that Christ's sacrifice is ongoing, that He is being offered up (re-presented) as a sacrifice to the Father in the Mass. Add to this the doctrine of transubstantiation, which holds that the bread ceases to be bread but becomes the fullness (physicality, spirit, and deity) of Christ. These aspects are disturbing to me because of where they tend to (mis)lead people's beliefs; there is a tendency among RC faithful to worship the host. And folks tend to focus too heavily on the grace they believe is imparted through the reception of the Sacrament (this grace being sanctifying, not saving, grace), while losing focus on the saving grace already provided to them by God through faith in Christ's finished work of redemption; I think it's too easy to confuse the two and wrongly believe that Christ is continuing to provide redemption through the re-presentation (the "sacrifice of the Mass") itself. Since we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, not through faith in the Sacrament nor through reception of the same, and since proper beliefs (not mistaken ones) are to be encouraged, to my mind the distinction is significant. I think Anglican theology and teaching leads the Eucharistic recipient to view the Eucharistic liturgy as: our sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise (not Jesus being offered up to God. It is a remembrance of Jesus' redemptive sacrifice for us, which was a once-for-all event; while it is neither repeated nor re-presented sacrificially, some of us will say that the Sacrament mystically brings the reality of what Jesus did for us back then into the present as we solemnly celebrate it "in remembrance" of Him. It is also emblematic and a reminder, as we receive the elements, that we are in Christ (part of His Body on earth) and that He lives in & through us. Our awareness is renewed of the fact that He desires us to be close to Him, in fellowship and intimate communion and communication with Him. Although it is taught that He is present in spirit for those who worthily receive, the substances of bread & wine remain as bread & wine and we therefore are in no way led to worship the Communion elements as though they were God in the flesh come down to earth. I think maybe as you are exposed to Anglican Eucharistic beliefs and teachings over time, your awareness of a distinction will likely grow. It can take some time to absorb some of these thoughts. Until then, since the 'mechanics' of the Eucharistic liturgies appear so similar to the eye and ear when attending a Mass or service, you naturally will tend to perceive those similarities more than you will the subtle differences (which are in the realm of belief rather than of outward appearance).
I use the term Mass from time to time. It seems to me that it signifies that the most important thing is what we do when we are sent out into the world to live as disciples of Christ. The sense of gathering and scattering is essential to the notion of Ecclesia. Called out and sent out. The most normal term we use in my Diocese is Eucharist, which is ancient and venerable, and reminds us that we are called to be a people of thanksgiving. Jesus dodn;t tell us what to call it, he simply told us to do this as his anamnesis.
Anglicans here in my Australian diocese refer to the Eucharist service as the Mass, but I find it hard to do so since I am a former RCC and I don't like the reminder of that. I just refer to it as either services or church.
I prefer to use 'Holy Communion' in my promotional materials because that is the name emblazoned at the top of the page in the Prayer Book. In the circles I run in, 'Mass' is generally a good clue you are going to walk into a Missal service but not always. But when I'm communicating with my Spanish speaking colleagues it makes more sense to use La Misa except in countries where La cena del Señor is fully interchangeable. Of course, the word 'Mass' does conjure up Roman Catholicism in the minds of most folk. There can be baggage with that. At the same time calling the service the 'Lord's Supper' conjures up evangelicalism; grape juice and who knows what for bread. This is one occasion where local custom is something to be mindful of.
My church, and most parishes in my diocese refer to the service as "the Eucharist" on paper. A few refer to it as "the Mass". I don't think anyone calls it "the Lord's Supper" formally. In passing I would say "I'm going to church" more than "I'm going to Mass".
Ditto for me. Around my parish I only hear the word "mass" about once per year, in reference to the Christmas eve "Midnight Mass" (which is actually conducted at about 8 or 9 pm, go figure).