Episcopal Rite III Eucharist?

[Padres1969]

This is geared more toward Episcopalians specifically, but anyone can feel free to chime in. Has anyone been to a particularly good, or particularly bad (or just interesting if not good or bad), '79 Episcopal Church BCP Rite III service? Obviously they can vary wildly since the Rite III service is so very bare bones and non-specific in the BCP.

They're obviously not particularly easy to find either as they're not typically a regular Sunday service. My own parish doesn't use Rite III at all being a strictly Rite II parish (and none of the churches near mine use it at all either being Rite I, Rite II or Rite I/II combo, so I've never had the opportunity to see a Rite III service of any kind in person myself. Though this weekend that's going to change as I'm going to be out of town and the only Sunday service I can reasonably easily attend is going to be a, strangely enough, regularly scheduled Rite III service that this particular church uses for a late Sunday evening mass.

I'd be interested in others experiences with Rite III to compare my own experience this weekend to when I get back.

 

[SteveCaruso]

It is tough to find because any "Rite III" service needs to be approved by the Bishop. I haven't experienced any, and unless it was something interesting, like recreating an historic liturgy, I wouldn't be interested.

 

[graceandpeace]

I've never encountered "Rite III" in my region.

 

[Padres1969]

I've never encountered "Rite III" in my region.

Yeah there's none in my diocese either. This was up in the Diocese of Los Angeles that I encountered this particular Rite III.

 

[Albion]

So...give us the review like Siskel and Ebert.

 

[Padres1969]

So...give us the review like Siskel and Ebert.

I'd probably give it two thumbs down. Siskel and Ebert style. I mean when the service is described by their own website as

"A new, creative and innovative worship experience marked by a mixture of modern takes on old hymns, original music, Scripture reading, discussion, prayer, and communion."

I didn't go in with high hopes. It wasn't as bad as it could have been I'll grant them. But in terms of "innovation" they've gone a bit far. It had the basic layout of a liturgical celebration like Rite II, but almost everything had been modified. Responses were a little different (if a similar meaning). The statement of faith had been moved however to before the first reading, and it was decidedly NOT the Nicene or Apostles creeds. The music was too modern to my more traditional ear. And the strangest thing was the "discussion" part of the service. Never seen something so "interactive" placed in a liturgical setting. About the only thing unchanged was the central part of the Eucharistic Prayer and the Our Father.

I'm admittedly more of an Anglo-Catholic so to see a service that had so much in common with Non-Denominational Churches I've visited was frankly a bit strange. I mean if it floats their boats, which it seemed to, so be it. And I thank them for having a service at the one time, and location, I was able to attend. Even with it's oddities I'd rather have attended than not. But don't count me among those that would attend such a service regularly. I find a high church Rite II to be in the groove or sweet spot if you will.

 

[Albion]

Thanks. That wasn't what I expected, even though I don't know a thing about the Diocese of LA. Maybe it was the word "mass...."

 

[Padres1969]

Thanks. That wasn't what I expected, even though I don't know a thing about the Diocese of LA. Maybe it was the word "mass...."

Mass is what we call a Eucharistic Service at my parish, and many others in my experience.

Admittedly calling a Rite III service of the kind I visited a "mass" is a stretch.

 

[Albion]

Mass is what we call a Eucharistic Service at my parish, and many others in my experience.

That was my guess today, although when I first saw it--and the idea of having a Rite III at all suggests something out of the ordinary--I thought it was a reference to the LA parish's reputed style. That turned out to be a pretty poor guess, huh?

Admittedly calling a Rite III service of the kind I visited a "mass" is a stretch.

 

[Padres1969]

That was my guess today, although when I first saw it--and the idea of having a Rite III at all suggests something out of the ordinary--I thought it was a reference to the LA parish's reputed style. That turned out to be a pretty poor guess, huh?

Fixed to prevent further confusion. Sorry it's force of habit for me. Being raised Roman Catholic, and today being High Church/Anglo Catholic, I think of all Christian communion based services as "mass" unless I stop myself.

This Rite III service was arguably still a mass, but it would be a very interesting argument, and a tenuous one at best. I mean any reference to "sacrifice" was taken out of the Eucharistic Prayer and the breaking of the bread. To be fair to Rite III that's not necessarily the case, as I believe the Rite III prayers in the '79 BCP still retain those references.

 

[SteveCaruso]

"A new, creative and innovative worship experience marked by a mixture of modern takes on old hymns, original music, Scripture reading, discussion, prayer, and communion."

 

[Albion]

Fixed to prevent further confusion. Sorry it's force of habit for me. Being raised Roman Catholic, and today being High Church/Anglo Catholic, I think of all Christian communion based services as "mass" unless I stop myself.

Not really a problem. At times, I use it myself. I simply guessed at the intent when I saw it in your sentence.

 

[graceandpeace]

Thanks for telling us about your experience.

You know, our church does offer a "contemporary" service, but I've never heard it referred to as "Rite III." Now I'm wondering if I should ask about this, because I wonder if it would be classified as such.

The reason is, I visited the contemporary option recently, & the Eucharistic prayer was different (though not in any negative way I could gather, I liked it just fine.) The prayers of the people was slightly shorter & I think different, too. Otherwise, it felt mostly like Rite II, except it included a praise band with a mix of CCM & hymns instead of the choir with organ.

If the text of the service was the norm, I wouldn't necessarily object, I would just need to adapt to some of the differences. The band & some of the CCM stuff, though...yea, no thanks, LOL. I used to like it (so much so that I used to sing in a band), but I've definetly changed as I've traveled along this path. Now that I've experienced the true gems of Christianity - from the Orthodox chants to the Episcopal hymnal & more - I can't go back to most of the CCM stuff. It just falls flat. As I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't object to newer hymns & songs being used, but the content should be seriously considered - for theology & suitability for congregational singing.

 

[Padres1969]

Thanks for telling us about your experience.

You know, our church does offer a "contemporary" service, but I've never heard it referred to as "Rite III." Now I'm wondering if I should ask about this, because I wonder if it would be classified as such.

The reason is, I visited the contemporary option recently, & the Eucharistic prayer was different (though not in any negative way I could gather, I liked it just fine.) The prayers of the people was slightly shorter & I think different, too. Otherwise, it felt mostly like Rite II, except it included a praise band with a mix of CCM & hymns instead of the choir with organ.

If the text of the service was the norm, I wouldn't necessarily object, I would just need to adapt to some of the differences. The band & some of the CCM stuff, though...yea, no thanks, LOL. I used to like it (so much so that I used to sing in a band), but I've definetly changed as I've traveled along this path. Now that I've experienced the true gems of Christianity - from the Orthodox chants to the Episcopal hymnal & more - I can't go back to most of the CCM stuff. It just falls flat. As I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't object to newer hymns & songs being used, but the content should be seriously considered - for theology & suitability for congregational singing.

By "different" do you mean it wasn't one of the 4 Rite II options, Eucharist Prayers A, B, C or D? I mean a service can have contemporary music and yet still be following Rite II.

But if the Eucharistic prayer wasn't one of the Rite II A-D options, then maybe it was a Rite III service. Keep in mind Rite III can run the gamut it seems as long as the bare minimum of the rubrics and prayers are followed per the BCP. So it's conceivable a Rite III service could be very close to a Rite II and contain pretty much everything you'd expect of a Rite I or II service.

Problem I see with Rite III is that it's so vaguely defined that it could conceivable get very far from Rite I and II. The service I attended on Sunday was about the ragged edge of what I imagine would be permissible even for the ECUSA as at some point it ceases to be "common" prayer. Luckily the bishop does need to sign off on it for use as I understand.

 

[Albion]

Does anyone ever wish we all had "Common Prayer" again?

 

[Padres1969]

Does anyone ever wish we all had "Common Prayer" again?

If we stick to Rites I and II, I think we do. It's when we start getting "innovative" with the rubrics that it starts to be a little bit too "uncommon." You could make a argument either way about what I saw Sunday. I'd probably argue it had gone too far. Having things like Congregational reflection to me are probably over that invisible line.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Does anyone ever wish we all had "Common Prayer" again?

In a word: Yes.

At length: Yeeeeesssss...

As much as I like some of the stuff I've read in things like Enriching Our Worship, or occasionally tweaking the service by using some of the rubrics, I feel that often it's over-used.

The BCP as it is today, plus all of the published supplements, are what software developers refer to as "bloatware." Lots of holdovers and redundancies that seek to handle too many possibilities. I fear that we're getting back to the sheer size and amount of material that prompted Thomas Cranmer to condense things down in the first place.

 

[Albion]

If we stick to Rites I and II, I think we do.

Well, that's two, not one. And then a number of Anglican parishes use the 1928 book, and some go for others as well. So, I don't think we're there. Besides, TEC and ACNA themselves are committed (apparently) to making newer editions.

The reason I said what I did is because Common Prayer was once a widely-heralded strength of Anglicanism, regardless of whether one was High Church or Low Church or whatever. No more.

 

[Albion]

The BCP as it is today, plus all of the published supplements, are what software developers refer to as "bloatware." Lots of holdovers and redundancies that seek to handle too many possibilities. I fear that we're getting back to the sheer size and amount of material that prompted Thomas Cranmer to condense things down in the first place.

Good point.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Well, that's two, not one. And then a number of Anglican parishes use the 1928 book, and some go for others as well. So, I don't think we're there. Besides, TEC and ACNA themselves are committed (apparently) to making newer editions.

The reason I said what I did is because Common Prayer was once a widely-heralded strength of Anglicanism, regardless of whether one was High Church or Low Church or whatever. No more.

As far as having a Traditional Language Rite I and Modern Language Rite II, this only makes logical sense. One of the core parts of the spirit of Cranmer's reformations was to ensure that the service was in the common language. Where EME is an integral part of our church's history and is an anchor back to our foundation, no one speaks EME as their first language anymore.

Now if there was 1-to-1 parity between the Rites (which is presently not the case), we could easily have a single BCP; a single Common Prayer. Just two editions of the BCP with dialectical changes. The words would be essentially the same, and one could probably read along with either and do the grammatical changes in their head with little effort.

But there are still some problems to tackle. As I continue to work on my Breviary (which will be a 4-volume set; Rite I Year 1, Rite I Year 2, Rite II Year 1, Rite II Year 2) I'm hitting some hard constraints trying to simply match up page numbers between the Daily Office portions for Rites I and II. I'm not even going to bother with the reference sections (Rite I Collects vs. Rite II Collects, 1979 Psalter vs. 1928 Psalter, KJV Lectionary vs. NRSV Lectionary, etc. – those portions can't possibly be matched up page-by-page).