In American Anglicanism/ Episcopalianism… what is the difference between a “rite 1 eucharist” and a “rite 2 eucharist”.
Language, mainly. It is intended to be the same Rite.
The 1979 book Rite I is similar in tone to the 1928 BCP, which has no other Rite. Rite II in the 79 book is contemporary English.
Rite I also makes a few changes to wording, moves some things around , but generally doesn’t ring oddly on the ear of anyone accustomed to the 1928 BCP, especially if they aren’t paying attention.
The two Rites, and the 79 book, may be found here, by looking carefully:
The Rite 1 was basically a bone to the Traditionalists.
The 1979 changed the theology in important ways. Here is one prayer called the Prayer of Humble Access. The bold area was removed from Rite 1 and the Prayer itself from Rite 2.
WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
It took away the need to be washed by Christ’s Blood and the concept that our bodies could be used in a sinful manner (sexual revolution and first years of abortion…).
Just curious, what prompted your question?
I AM an ex-episcopalian who left before all the “anglican” schisms. When orthodox meant agrreing with the ressurection, theVirgin birth, and the literal interpretations of the creeds.
If you read the living Church you will understand.
I always liked rite I more than 1929. With 1929 you get the ten commandments at the start, and the Gloria at the end.
Rite I is just more catholic to me.
That’s 1928. And that happens unless your rector moves the Gloria around. As ours always does.
As I said, some folks don’t pay attention to the changes. Some folks don’t care.
I’m one of those who doesn’t especially care. Either way is fine by me.
There is a local Episcopal Church across from my Catholic Church, and the sign at the front mentions the times for “rite 1 and rite 2 eucharists”. I pass by it all the time, so I was just curious
In that case, King James vs modern language.
That’s cheating for the true 1928 mass you have to have the whole thing as written starting with the commandments and including the long exhortations each time.
I always get the english 1929 confused with the 1928 american books.
And I bet that riteI which is more like the TLM is at the crack of dawn.
Rite II is more like NovusOrdo, with its more contemporary english, they have not changed since the mid 70s and still say “and also with you”. But the book was ratified and made official in 1982.
No, you don’t.
Now I really confused, (not a nice thing to do to a man that had a stroke).
Which year was the English book, and which year was the American book?
am very sorry, re: the stroke. Both my parents were hit by one, massively.
My comment was referring to the Gloria., not to you being confused on the question of 1929/1928.
There was a proposed English book, in 1928, not adopted. There were a few other proposals, in the centuries prior, and a a couple of bits and pieces of things approved by Convocation, but until the 1980 Book of Alternate Services, the real thing/last word was the 1662 Book.
The US 1928 Book was, 1928, yep. But unless one is doing a strict, by definition, Prayer Book Mass, the liturgy in the 1928 Book is often modified, added too, supplemented, as from the Missal. In fact, in a 1928 Mass, the *Gloria * need not be said at all
Good luck, and hang in there.
Yep… rite 1 comes first, then rite 2 later.
It is not uncommon to see both Rites offered. Our Parish uses both Rite 1 and Rite 2 in different services (all are centered around the Holy Eucharist) every Sunday.
You have no evidence that any such nefarious purpose was intended. I don’t like the omission myself, but you’re making up supposed agendas for which there is no evidence.
*Holmes (admitted) to have misled the Church, for he justified the failure to respond to the challenge of the Society for the Preservation of the Book of Common Prayer (SPBCP) in these words:
“They were correct when they said, as they did repeatedly and sometimes abrasively, that the theologies of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and STU (Services for Trial Use. i.e., what was to become the 1979 book) were different. The SLC probably was strategically wise in not affirming this too loudly, but its members knew that the SPBCP was correct. There is a clear theological change." (emphasis added.)*
Link to article.
I link this not for arguments sake, just for education. Regardless of viewpoint, the reality that the Episcopal Church has suffered devastation since the time this has come in is clear. Not implying the theological changes caused it, they just parallel each other. So sad a beautiful tradition has been damaged so badly. I hope they manage to recover it somehow, though it looks like the chances are slim.
Thank you for saving me the effort of finding Homes’ words and Canon Read’s article.
There is little to be added to this conversation, except to note that when the Roman Catholic Church created services for the “Anglican Use”, they took the 1979 prayer book as a primary model, thus retaining Rite 1 and Rite 2, and created the Book of Divine Worship.
There is little difference between the Episcopal Church services and the adapted services for Roman Catholics, at least until the end of the Ante-Communion (what the in-crowd call “The Service of the Word”). In Rite 1, the traditionalist Prayers of Consecration have been replaced with the traditional language of the Old Roman Canon.
By the way, for those Roman Rite Roman Catholics who really like the old “We believe…” format of the Nicene Creed, the Rite II in the Book of Divine Worship is identical to the old “We believe” format of the Nicene Creed of Novus Ordo. I believe (no pun intended) that this form is still acceptable use.