Went to my first mass today.

So after I missed the bus today, I saw that the Cathedral, which I was right in front of was having a mass. I had always been interested in seeing a Roman mass, and had planned to visit during one somewhere but had never gone. So I chose to take the chance and went inside.
It was really lavish inside the church, but despite the decorations, the mass had already started and my gaze focused on the priest the whole time. The priest 's vestments were more elaborate, and some of the words were different, but overall I was surprised at how similar it was to an Anglican service (which I guess just shows despite his odd theology, Cranmer was a conservative liturgist).

They said the Lord’s prayer, sang the Agnus Dei, and I was again surprised-as an amateur classist:thumbsup:- when “Agnus” was pronounced correctly. Then they began communion, and I was pleased when everyone, deacons and laity alike, bowed to the Blessed Sacrament when partaking of it.
Then, I left out of respect for the belief that I may not receive the sacrament due to Anglican orders being invalid-which is, in my opinion wrong.
Nonetheless I enjoyed it a lot, and it added to my religious experience, seeing as how I’m sort of caught between high church Anglicanism and Catholicism.

:tiphat: Hello there. So glad that you attended your first Mass. I’m a convert and remember attending my first Mass. May God richly bless you.

Speaking as someone who was high Church Anglican…

Not a huge difference between us.

Biggest adjustment crossing the Tiber is really the issue of authority.

Oh, the Catholic Church wants you to take classes for everything, including becoming Catholic. And things take a while.

Anglican Church told me come down right now if you aren’t doing anything and get baptized. And then you can take Communion this Sunday.

Glad you enjoyed it…:slight_smile:

OP, I am sure that your knowledge of history tells you know that the High Church Anglican service came from the Catholic Mass. There was a time when it was possible, theologically, if not politically, to imagine the Anglican Church coming back into communion with the Catholic Church. Today, after the last fifty years of Anglican developments, that is hard to see.

and I happen to agree that Anglicans have invalid communion. I think you’ve got it mistaken though, Anglican liturgy is similar to Catholic liturgy it’s not Catholic liturgy that is similar to Anglican liturgy Catholicism was around first

Non-Catholics can go up and receive a blessing, join the Eucharist queue and arrive with your arms crossed in front of your chest, that’s the sign to the Priest that you are not baptised Catholic and he will bless you. :slight_smile:

P.S. If you get the opportunity, you should experience a Latin Mass.

The huge difference between the Catholic Church and Anglicanism IS the Mass, the 7 Sacraments and the Valid Holy Orders, which makes the Catholic Mass soooo important.The Catholic Church has over 2,000 years of History and Authority given Her by Christ Himself. I hope this won’t be your last Mass. The Catholic Church has opened a huge door, ready to welcome you Home!!! God Bless, Memaw

Glad you attended and keep coming! I was such an amateur classicist that I didn’t know there was Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation. I was taught, or only remembered, the Classical Latin pronunciation. When I first heard Agnus spoken correctly for Ecclesiastical Latin I couldn’t figure out why it wasn’t said how I expected it to be.

I agree. About the Eucharist the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion says:

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

That is quite a repudiation of Catholicism. I realize that within Anglicanism there are many who ignore if not repudiate the Articles or parts of them. But it remains part of the patrimony.

A good number of us here, myself included, came from high Anglican backgrounds. I think that one has to keep in mind that high Anglicans, aka “Anglo-Catholics,” believe many teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that other Anglicans do not. Several people here have made reference to the 39 Articles of Religion, an historic Anglican formulary. But most high Anglicans don’t subscribe to the 39 Articles, as they consider all seven sacraments to have been instituted by Our Lord Himself; they most likely believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, purgatory, the historic authority of the Church, etc.

The awareness that many or most other Anglicans do not believe what I believe–in fact, in many cases they had a different faith altogether–was a strong factor in my journey into the Catholic Church.

I know that, but saying it that way seemed like an awkward word order, since Anglican liturgy is my reference point. Does that make sense?

This is true, although we have to remember that the articles are not strictly binding, ie a confession. They are general principles of faith, but as long as teachings which are explicitly banned in them (like transubstantiation) are not invoked, there is a lot of latitude within their application. Although I generally believe in the Articles, numbers 19 and 21 (condemning the Eastern Churches and qualifying the authority of Church councils, respectively), their wording is painfully clear, so I wholly disagree with them.

I also hold a doctrine of the Eucharist, which although it does not clash with the Articles, is controversial due to it’s being much “higher” than that held by most Anglicans. It is, I would say, very close to consubstantiation, whereas most other Anglicans espouse somegthing closer to receptionism.

It is true that the 39 Articles have never been binding on laymen, though historically they were binding on the clergy, who assented to them at their ordination. When one has a priest who assents to a denial of transubstantiation, that is a huge red flag from a Catholic perspective. Ditto for purgatory, the invocation of saints, and the notion that the Blessed Sacrament is not to be adored or “carried about,” as the articles say. One begins to see a pattern emerge that shows the extensively Protestant influence in the formation of Anglican teaching, even if the 39 Articles are not required of laymen. Blessed John Henry Newman expressed a perspective where the Articles could be understood in a matter compatible with the Council of Trent, but then again, look where that belief led him.

As for the similarities between the two Eucharistic rites, that is indeed true. But do note that all of the Roman Catholic Eucharistic prayers refer to the sacrificial nature of the Mass–another thing denied by the Articles–whereas this is not the case in the Book of Common Prayer, which suggests that the eucharist is some type of sacrifice, but not specifically the salvific Sacrifice of Calvary, which is what the Articles condemn.

Exactly.

And plenty of Catholics cross over to high Anglo as they have disagrements with the Church on annulments or whatever, yet retain all thejr Catholic beliefs. So pointing to the 39 articles doesn’t mean much with them. They are known for diversity.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.