I had an amusing little exchange, but also kind of sad, by way of follow up to a post I made here. A certain pastor felt a need to level the charge that unless a person holds his fingers together after the consecration, so as not to permit any particle of the host to fall to the ground, then that person must be a receptionist since they do not care that the body of Christ would be allowed to fall away during the Sacrament.

Hmmm….interesting point of view, no? So, all you pastors out there who are not using 13th century Papal Rubrics are placing yourself under suspicion of being a bunch of “receptionists”, or, as this pastor put it recently, you might be among those who “don’t really believe in the Real Presence.” Got it? Just thought you should know.

On the other hand, as I informed this pastor, given his scruples, I am shocked he celebrates the Lord’s Supper at all! For surely he must know that there are atoms, molecules and other bits and particles of the Blessed Body and Blood that are here and there on the altar and no doubt not ending up where they are intended: into the mouth of the communicants, and so, I suggested shock that he would do anything that might possibly result in such a situation, up and including celebrating the Sacrament at all!

And so the wheel of rubric-obsessive legalism of the hyper-ritualists turns!

I’m quite sure our dear Lord suffers His body and blood to be accidentally dropped, and the atoms, molecules and otherwise that do are, within the proper use and action of the Sacrament, truly His body and blood. Why, I think I read somewhere that He even suffered His body and blood to be splattered and scattered by scourge, nail, and spear, for us, and for our salvation. Reverence? Yes. Hyper-ritualization? No.

There has been a bit of a buzz across the Lutheran Blogosphere with the [thankfully few] pastors who are committed to insisting that the bread and wine that remains after the Divine Service, remain perpetually the body and blood of Christ. One chap delivered himself of the opinion that in spite of what Luther and Chemnitz has to say on the practice, and what our Confessions have to say about it, it is not what they say that counts here, but what they don’t say that really matters. This strange argument from silence, shaky as it is, is being put forward as a legitimate reason to reserve the elements after the Sacrament, regarding them perpetually to be the body and blood of Christ. Here is my response to these latest musings.

I’m really quite puzzled why men who have pledged themselves to the Lutheran Confessions, who have read how Martin Luther is appealed to as the “chief teacher of the churches of the Augsburg Confession,” and whose writings on the Lord’s Supper are specifically held up in the vein of: “For more on this, read Luther” in the Confessions, can, in my opinion, be so dismissive of Luther’s position. The “lost Luther reference” has been returned to an English edition of the BOC, adding even more weight to the position of our chief teacher on these matters.

The entire freight/weight of the issue as addressed in the Confessions stands firmly against reservation, for any reason. Further, an argument constructed to support reservation based on the silence of our Confessions is even more difficult for me to understand.

Why can we not agree that we should consume what has been consecrated, as our Lord would have us do? Even if we are not of the same mind about what it may be after the Divine Service is over, we can say without any doubt what it is in the action and proper use of the Supper, as the Formula makes abundantly clear.

Dismissing Dr. Ziegler’s excellent study is unfortunate. Some, sadly, describe what I can only describe as disdain for Lutheran fathers and traditions. They are permitting, in my view, a romanticized view of the Early Church to trump the proper teachings and traditions and opinions of our Lutheran fathers, who are more than worthy of our respect and honor. It is as if the first five hundred year of writings, good as they might be, are far superior to our own Lutheran fathers and their teachings.

Martin Luther and our fathers all agree that we are to consume what is consecrated. If we do happen to have consecrated elements left [something that apparently, just as our fathers warn, leads to foolish questions and useless speculations], we should treat them with great reverence and respect. But when we commune the sick and shut-in, I believe it is very poor pastoral practice not to consecrate the elements and speak the Word of our Lord, a consecrating Word, in their hearing. Let them hear the Lord saying into their years, “This is my body…this is my blood…for you.” A conditional consecration, or a mere assurance of consecration, is most unfortunate, along the lines of an assurance of absolution, rather than the absolving words themselves.

I particularly am troubled by the patronizing attitude, as I perceive it, and forgive me if I misunderstand this, when I hear pastors say that they repeat the Verba, “for the communicants faith.” In other words, what I’m hearing them to say is, “Of course I the pastor know what this is, but for the benefit of the weak in faith, who seem to have a need to hear the Verba repeated, I say them.” This is an attitude that is contrary to our Confessions, which make it very clear that there is never to be a celebration without the Verba.

If in fact the Verba are repeated, not by way of assurance, or along the lines of, “We said this on Sunday” but as they are from our Lord, then I suppose this is, in the final analysis a moot point, since, despite what the pastor’s speculation might be, the fact is that the communicant has the sure and certain promise of their Lord, whose words have just been put into their ears, and that Word creates, and gives, what it says. Therefore, pastoral speculations aside, there is a consecration and our Lord’s Word of Promise and Institution are being said and the body and blood of Christ are under the bread and wine.

So, finally, if some pastors insist on regarding the bread and wine after the benediction in the Divine Service to be the body and blood of Christ and do not shut it up, reverence it, adore it, pray to it and otherwise misuse it, but distribute it to the sick and shut-in, saying the Words of Institution as declaration and promise, not as mere assurance, or “for those whose faith require it,” then we should not be too opposed to their opinions about the bread and wine that remain after a celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as long as they remain just that: private opinions and speculations. And as long as they speak the word of our Lord as they are to be spoken: consecrating and instituting words of promise, declarations, not mere assurances.

Rev. Ben Harju posted this story on his blog. It is an example of the kind of attitude toward worship and the liturgy that is understandably why some Lutherans let the pendulum swing too far the other direction in their reaction against such inane irreverence and foolishness. And who can possibly blame them? Why, this story is almost enough to make me join the ranks of the Polycarpathian hyper-ritualists [calm down: just teasing guys].

Now, I suppose I could say, “Thankfully, this was not in one of our congregations.” But that would be hypocritical. Over the years I’ve witnessed “clown eucharists” in one of our Synod’s congregations where a guy dressed up like a clown did a “mime” Eucharist at the altar, complete with dipping a crucifix into a chalice of wine. In a few of our congregations, there have been events in which people are re-baptized to remind them of their baptism: yup, the whole nine yards, down to hopping in a backyard swimming pool. In another congregation, we’ve had a bed in the chancel during Lent for a sermon series on sex, advertised by people dressed up as Wookies on street corners. I have had to sit through “worship experiences” while listening to a “worship leader” do a great imitation of a Las Vegas lounge lizard tickling the ivories. Oh, yes—there are plenty of dumb things to go around in our circles too, to be sure. But this particular story struck me as a great example of the kind of dumb things you sometimes see in churches. And this story is precisely why I’ll gladly, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, genuflect and adore the Blessed Lord Christ during the Most Venerable Holy Sacrament of the Altar. For it is His body and blood that is present under the consecrated elements, than ever feel any affinity for this kind of nonsense. Truly, God is with us.

My questions for all of us is this: Do we, in truth and fact, by the blessing of God, in the power of the Spirit, truly believe, teach and confess that it is Christ’s body and blood that we are receiving in the Eucharist? Do we hold firmly to the blessed reality of what is happening in the Lord’s Supper? It is the Risen, Ascended and Ever-Living Lord who deigns to feed us with His body and blood? Are we fully aware of the majesty of His glory when He is present among us in this way? Do we realize precisely to whom we are singing when we sing the Agnus Dei after the consecration? To the Almighty Lord of Sabbaoth who has lovingly come among us, under the bread and wine? This truth, and this reality, should shape everything we do in the Divine Service. Let other Christian confessions who do not believe, teach and confess the actual presence of our Lord under the bread and wine find their substitutes in emotionalism, irreverence, trite and flippant actions and behaviors in the house of the Lord. Let us however always realize that we are in the presence of the Holy One of Israel and act accordingly.

Here is Pastor Harju’s post.

Some time ago I received word from one of my parishioners about
something strange they had encountered while visiting a relative’s
congregation. Apparently, during the distribution of the Blessed
Sacrament, this congregation was handing out Goldfish crackers to the
children. While the parents were receiving our Lord’s Body, a dish with
Goldfish crackers was distributed to the children at the communion
rail. I suppose this was meant to include the children in the
distribution or something like that.

Upon hearing this, I promptly asked for some details, warned against
receiving the Sacrament at congregations not in our fellowship (this
was at a parish outside the Big Three Lutheran denominations in America
- yet Lutheran), and politely explained that it’s quite devilish to
hand out anything BUT our Lord’s Body and Blood during the
distribution. Certainly, something was *fishy* about this whole thing,
smelled of the Evil One himself, and should be avoided at all costs
(aside: how does he keep getting us with food?!)
In this sort of way I warned the flock entrusted to my care.

Fast forward to not so many weeks ago. This congregation has a new
pastor, and has for a little while now. Some of us have gladly
befriended him. Yet the poor sod made the mistake of inviting me into
his church to have a look around (with a couple of others). For those
of you who have played “Baldur’s Gate,” when I get into a new nave,
chancel, and/or sacristy I become a liturgical version of Noober.
“Heya. What’s that? Why’s that there? What do you use that for? What’s
in there? How long has that been here?” And so on. The poor man didn’t
see it coming. I’m just genuinely curious and interested in broadening
my horizens.

So while in the sacristy the pastor is showing us his communion ware,
and I see a little bag of Goldfish crackers. And so I say, “Oh, that’s
right. This is the church that was handing out the Goldfish crackers
during communion.” And the pastor kind of looks around uncomfortably
and says it is. So I cheerfully and casually explained that I’ve warned
my parishioners to avoid him/them. So
then I say, “But you don’t still do that, do you?” The cleric becomes a
bit squeemish, saying, “Yeahhhh.” So I say, “Oh.” Keep in mind, I am
trying to be polite, not to mention keep my thinking in the boundaries
of “best construction.” So I say, “Well, it’s not like you’re blessing
them, right?” Again the cleric becomes squeemish. “Oh,” I say. “Well,
it’s not like you’re putting them on the altar during the consecration,
right?” Now the poor cleric is really squeemish, and says, “Well….”
Oh, the cloud of disappointment that fell upon that sacristy.

It seems they still have been placing Goldfish crackers on the altar,
blessing them at the consecration, and distributing them to the
children. I’m pretty sure they’re not being blessed with the Verba
(oh please oh please oh please oh please). Truly, I expected the
opposite response to each of those questions I asked. In case this
pastor (who shall remain nameless, and whose congregation and location
shall remain nameless) reads this: PLEASE STOP WITH THE GOLDFISH
CRACKERS. THIS IS A BATTLE WORTH PICKING.” I pray changing this
practice will be no battle at all for him.

Continuing a series of posts on some thoughts and concerns on matters of worship, forms, rites and rituals, I’d like now to address the issue of whether or not the word “Mass” is the best way for us to refer to the Divine Service, or the Service of Holy Communion. It has become, in some circles, nearly a de rigeur mark of a certain commitment to historic Lutheran worship forms to use the word “Mass.” Frankly I’ve noticed the term used in a sort of an “in the know” kind of way. It has become a way to distinguish the “us” from the “them” in certain segments of our Synod. That is unfortunate.

It is my contention that the word “Mass” has a huge amount of theological baggage associated with it that makes its use highly problematic, at best, and, at worst, extremely hazardous to including good and proper understandings of the nature, and purpose, of the Divine Service. Appealing to its use in the Augsburg Confession and Apology, as if that simply settle the question, fails to take into account the nature and context of the AC and Ap.

Rev. Daniel Preus, head of the Luther Academy, and former First Vice-President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod wrote the following article that appeared in LOGIA magazine. I’m reproducing it here because I believe Rev. Preus really goes to the heart and core of the concerns inherent in using the word “Mass” to refer to the service of Holy Communion.

Luther and the Mass

Justification and the Joint
Declaration
Daniel Preus

BY THE TIME THIS ARTICLE
APPEARS, [this article appeared in 2001], about two years will have passed since the signing by Rome and various
Lutherans of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Few
ecumenical events in recent church history have received the attention that the
adoption of this document has produced. Supporters continue to laud the
Joint Declaration as a major ecumenical break-through. Detractors remain
no less adamant that the Joint Declaration represents no progress at
all, indeed, that it is a compromise or even a concession of the worst kind.
Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments supporting the latter view is that
made by the Department of Systematic Theology of Concordia Theological
Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana in the April 1998 issue of the Concordia
Theological Quarterly. In response to a preliminary form of the Joint
Declaration, it quotes from the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Gift of
Salvation paper, another document produced through the dialogue process,
that

spells out “diverse understandings of merit, reward,
purgatory, and indulgences, Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in
the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those who have not
been evangelized” .For Lutherans it is nonsense to speak of consensus on
justification if these issues remain unsettled.¹

Read more…

Or: Why "Say the black, do the red" is the wisest course

I've grown concerned, once more, that we have at work in our Synod an overreaction to how some have moved away, in some cases nearly completely, from the the historic form of Lutheran worship. I've posted several times on the problems in moving away from historic Lutheran worship and practices. But I also see a problem with what I regard as a rigidity that has set in, in some circles, when it comes to what I'll call a "hyper-ritualization" of the Lutheran Liturgy. It is happening because of a well-intentioned desire to resist the movement to abandon the historic liturgy altogether, but it is not a measured reaction. It is over-reaction.

I think some are are getting too concerned about Medieval-era Roman Catholic rubrics calling, for example, for a pastor to hold his fingers in a certain
position, in a certain way, "just so" when performing the liturgy. It is this kind of
hyper-ritualization of all things having to do with worship and liturgy
that is about the best formula I can imagine for turning people away
from the liturgy. The better way is to "say the black, do the red" as contained in the
hymnals and its companion volumes, not trying to "one up" the church's
accepted worship resources.

The case in point I have in mind is the advocacy of the pastor holding his thumb and forefinger together, unless he is touching a host, from the moment of the consecration to the benediction, during the service of Holy Communion. Such a practice derives from the Roman Catholic Latin Mass, as it developed during the High Middle Ages. It is a direct result of the doctrine of transsubstantion, as this web site site indicates:

Let me go back to the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries to see
how important the Church considered signs. The elevations of the Host
and Chalice were performed, not because of a theological question as
to the precise moment of transubstantiation, but rather to solve the
pastoral problem of people venerating the Host and Chalice before the
words of consecration were pronounced, and so that they would not be
confused as to the proper moment to display their devotion. At that
time, the rubrics indicated that the priest would only make a medium
bow after the consecration of each species, and not a genuflection.
It is also at this time that the instruction ‘Indutus
planeta’ was given for the priest to hold his thumbs and
forefingers together after the consecration of the host. Source.

Consider then how the Medieval Latin Mass, as it is being reincarnated today in the Roman Communion, was a result of false doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and the purpose of the service of Holy Communion (the Mass). It is not wise to be fondly looking back not to the Reformation era for its traditional liturgical practices, but back to the low-point of the Medieval Roman Mass. Here are the instructions for how to pronounce the Words of Institution, with the rubric about the finger holding.

Consecration of the Host:

1. Just before the “Qui pridie…” (“The
   day before He suffered”) is said, the priest wipes his thumbs
   and forefingers on the Corporal.
2. Just before the words of
   Consecration, he uncovers the Ciborium if there is one.
3. He places both elbows on the altar, bows his head and pronounces the
   words of consecration, “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM”,
   distinctly, secretly and reverently.
4. After the consecration, the priest must hold his thumbs and
   forefingers together until the post-communion, unless of course he is
   touching or holding the host.
5. The priest genuflects in adoration (by this time, the ‘medium’
   bows have been replaced with genuflections).
6. The Elevation of the Host follows, as high as the priest can
   comfortably do so.
7. He then replaces the consecrated host back on the Corporal.
8. Again he genuflects all the way down to the ground.
9. If there is a Ciborium, he replaces the cover at this time. Source

Let us keep in mind that at the same time in the Western Church's history when there was the greatest accumulation of rubrics, rites, ceremonies, layered on in increasing levels on to the basic structure of the Communion service, there developed the most horrendous errors in regard to the Lord's Supper and the Church's teaching and confession of what the Communion service was all about. It was precisely these sort sorts of highly elaborate rituals that were used to prop up what the Smalcald Articles identifies as the "greatest abomination" — the Roman Mass.

I am quite concerned by the fact that there are those who are advocating for a return to the form of the Communion service as found during the High Middle Ages, as described on this web site. Here is another detailed web page describing the classic Roman Mass. Trying to go back to such rubrics and practices, that are not part of our Synod's worship forms, hymnals and agendas, is highly unwise, to say the least.

The best way to help our congregations grow in their appreciation for the historic, traditional Lutheran liturgy is
not to try to reinstitute practices that derive from a time and place where the precise manner
in which the liturgy was performed was required in order to merit
satisfaction and offer a worth sacrifice. I am, by no means, ridiculing traditional liturgical
practice, but I would like to counter the arguments advanced by
some that the "better" way is to try to follow the kind of minutiae
of liturgical rubrics that were refined to a "high art" during the darkest times for the Gospel in the Medieval Roman Catholic Church.

Martin Luther himself had a grand time tweaking the noses of those too
caught up in questions of rubrics, gestures and vestments. For example, Luther had this to say to a man who was concerned that in
the Brandenburg area many of the Roman customs were retained, Luther,
not wanting to make any laws about these things, sent a reply that is
fairly dripping with sarcasm:

"Provided the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached purely with no human
additions and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are
observed, with no invocation of the saints, no carrying of the
sacrament in procession, no daily masses and vigils for the dead, no
holy water and salt, and provided that pure hymns are sung in Latin and
German, then it does matter if there be a cross of gold or silver,
whether the cope be of saffron, silk or linen; and f the Elector is not
content to put on one gown, let him have three the way Aaron wore them,
one on top of the other; and if he doesn't find one procession enough,
let him go around seven times like Joshua with trumpets blowing; and if
he wants to leap with the harp, psaltry, and cymbals, let him dance
like David before the ark. Conscience is not to be bound, and if we
have given up these practices in Wittenberg, we may have reason which
are not valid in Berlin. Except where God has commanded, let there be
freedom." (WA Br 8:635).

How does this quote apply here?

There are some well-meaning folks in our Missouri Synod who would wish not merely to adorn their liturgy with "extras," but also imply and suggest to others that these "extras" are really the better
way, a more attentive practice, a more acceptable, a more Lutheran, a
more churchly way of doing the liturgy. And therefore we must say: No,
you are wrong. You may of course, in Christian freedom, wear as many
robes as you like, and may hold your fingers however you wish, and may gesture, genuflect, bow and make as many signs of the cross as you wish, but you dare not
suggest that this is the "more appropriate" and the "better" way. It is
another way, not a more appropriate way.

I am concerned that some have mistakenly chosen to regard the matter of rubrics to be of
such essence to the Lutheran Confession that they have lost the joyful
sense of freedom in the Gospel, as espoused by Dr. Luther, or, at least, have given pious laypeople the impression that unless the "nth" degree of rubrics are followed or heeded that there is somehow something "less" about a worship service. This should not be.

Let those who have ears to hear, hear! Very interesting/informative article on worship trends in mainstream American evangelicalism. Might the church that was first called "evangelical" learn a thing or two from this report also?

Read more…

Concordia Publishing House through Acclamation provides
fresh musical settings of the Propers (Introit, Psalm of the Day,
Gospel Acclamation, Gradual, and Hymn of the Day stanza) for choirs and
congregations. These settings will be available electronically through
the Web for purchase on weekly, quarterly, or annual subscription. Acclamation supports both the three-year and the one-year lectionaries.
             

Each component will be based on the ESV translation of Scripture as used in LSB. The music will be easy to learn for both the choir/cantor and the congregation. The ease of use is what distinguishes this item from any other like it out there now presently. I encourage you to look into this resource in order to enhance the Divine Service in your parish.

The Divine Service consists of two main elements: the Ordinary and
the Propers. The Ordinary consists of those parts that do not change
but become the framework for the congregation, such as the Kyrie, Hymn
of Praise, Creed, Preface, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. Those items that
change from week to week or by season are known as the Propers of the
day, such as the Scripture readings, the Collect, Introit, Psalm of the
Day, Gradual, Gospel Acclamation (Verse), Proper Preface, hymns, and
even the sermon. Because these elements change on a weekly basis, the
church choir or cantors is often assigned the responsibility of
preparation and presentation.

Rubrics: the instructions provided to those leading the church’s worship on the proper forms, gestures, postures and actions appropriate for the conduct of the Divine Service. These are usually provided in red ink in the books used by pastors to lead worship. The following are some thoughts on what I regard to be a case of too much of a good thing becoming a not so good thing.

I am concerned that rubrics to the extent described below may encourage a kind of elitist "we know best" and "we know better than the rest of the Synod" kind of attitude, which in turn, in my experience, leads, particularly younger pastors, to blur the line between ritualism and confessional Lutheranism. Further, it may very well mislead people into thinking that genuine Lutheranism is characterized by these kinds of ultra-ritualization of the Divine Service, which in fact is not found in historic Lutheranism, but rather in Romanism, where the precise conduct of the Mass is very much tied into regarding the Mass as a meritorious work by which we propitiate God. Is there a risk in emphasizing rubrics to this extent that we will, no doubt unintentionally, create false impressions?

I’ve noticed that pastors who are this much "into" rubrics tend to look down their noses at any pastor who does not conduct the Divine Service with this level of ritualism, regarding him as somebody who is "not really in the know" and "not as Lutheran" as "we" are. They have a tendency to fancy themselves the ones who "really" know what’s what and consider themselves to be "leaders" pulling the Synod along after their example, considering the approved hymnals and agenda of the Synod to be insufficient, lacking, deficient, etc. I’ve known any number of pastors who are so deeply immersed in rubrics that it finally ends up pulling them away from the faith of the Lutheran Church, either into Romanism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

I asked the person who posted the rubrics copied below what his source was and was informed they come from a mixture of Roman and Anglican sources, and from Lutherans fascinated by such sources in the 1950s and 1960s. I suspect that the source for such rubric details derives in fact not from Lutheranism at all, but in high-church Romanism and/or Anglicanism. See for instance this Anglican manual of rubrics which appears quite similar. I’ve had a hard time locating rubrics like this in the actual practice of historic Lutheranism from the age of orthodoxy. A good bit of this also comes from a LCMS seminary professor who died several decades ago. It was in response to this professor that Hermann Sasse wrote his essays, "A Warning Against the High-Church Danger" and nobody, that I know of, would ever have accused Dr. Sasse of being low church. In fact he was one of the most knowledgeable historians of the Western liturgy we’ve ever had.

I love the liturgy, but this degree of rubricification of the Divine Service may not be helpful ultimately in accomplishing the goal of maintaining and strengthening a love for the traditional liturgical worship of Lutheranism.  And, lest anyone glow a gasket, let me say this. I would, anyday and twice on Sunday, much more prefer all of this to the alternative! So, remain calm. Don’t panic. I don’t intend to start putting on tent revivals.

Your thoughts? Am I simply seeing red, or is this something to be concerned about?

The subdeacon distributes the offering plates to the ushers and receives them back. The celebrant does not concern himself at all with the collection of the offerings unless there are no attendants. Meanwhile the server takes the items from the credence to the celebrant. First he takes the veiled chalice to the celebrant. The celebrant, upon receiving the chalice, places it just to the left of center. He carefully uncovers the chalice, folds the veil (ninefold), and places it on the altar to the right of the corporal. He removes the pall and places it on the folded veil.

Read more…

The first president of the Missouri Synod worked long and
hard to restore a common historic liturgy to the church when so many churches
were following their own devices. C. F. W. Walther’s efforts received some
negative feedback. He responded in a publication that he edited for many years:
Der Lutheraner, as in this example,
translated from the July 19, 1853, issue, volume 9, number 24, page 163.

Whenever the divine service once again follows the old
Evangelical-Lutheran agendas (or church books), it seems that many raise a
great cry that it is "Roman Catholic": "Roman Catholic"
when the pastor chants "The Lord be with you" and the congregation
responds by chanting "and with thy spirit"; "Roman
Catholic" when the pastor chants the collect and the blessing and the
people respond with a chanted "Amen." Even the simplest Christian can respond to this outcry:
"Prove to me that this chanting is contrary to the Word of God, then I too
will call it `Roman Catholic’ and have nothing more to do with it. However, you
cannot prove this to me." If you insist upon calling every element in the divine
service "Romish" that has been used by the Roman Catholic Church, it
must follow that the reading of the Epistle and Gospel is also
"Romish." Indeed, it is mischief to sing or preach in church, for the
Roman Church has done this also . . .Those who cry out should remember that the Roman Catholic
Church possesses every beautiful song of the old orthodox church. The chants
and antiphons and responses were brought into the church long before the false
teachings of Rome crept in. This Christian Church since the beginning, even in
the Old Testament, has derived great joy from chanting… For more than 1700
years orthodox Christians have participated joyfully in the divine service.
Should we, today, carry on by saying that such joyful participation is
"Roman Catholic"? God forbid! Therefore, as we continue to hold and to restore our
wonderful divine services in places where they have been forgotten, let us
boldly confess that our worship forms do not tie us with the modern sects or
with the church of Rome; rather, they join us to the one, holy Christian Church
that is as old as the world and is built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets.

Here are a number of pictures of paintings of the historic Lutheran worship service, also known as the Gottesdienst, Divine Service, following the pictures are comments on Lutheranism and liturgy. Here is the page where I found them. Here are the images. Sorry for the poor quality, but it just the best I could do given the originals provided at the web site in Germany.

Lutheran Divine Service in Hamburg

Lutheran Divine Service in Muhlberg/Elbe

Lutheran Divine Service in Gorlitz

Lutheran Divine Service in Salzhemmendorf

Lutheran Divine Service. Location not known.
From the book: Historische Bilder zum Evangelisch-Lutherischen Gottensdienst

More thoughts from C.F.W. Walther:

"We know and firmly hold that the character, the soul of Lutheranism,
is not found in outward observances but in the pure doctrine. If a
congregation had the most beautiful ceremonies in the very best
order, but did not have the pure doctrine, it would be anything but
Lutheran. We have from the beginning spoken earnestly of good
ceremonies, not as though the important thing were outward forms, but
rather to make use of our liberty in these things. For true Lutherans
know that although one does not have to have these things (because
there is no divine command to have them), one may nevertheless have
them because good ceremonies are lovely and beautiful and are not
forbidden in the Word of God. Therefore the Lutheran church has not
abolished "outward ornaments, candles, altar cloths, statues and
similar ornaments," [AP XXIV] but has left them free. The sects
proceeded differently because they did not know how to distinguish
between what is commanded, forbidden, and left free in the Word of
God. We remind only of the mad actions of Carlstadt and of his
adherents and followers in Germany and in Switzerland. We on our part
have retained the ceremonies and church ornaments in order to prove
by our actions that we have a correct understanding of Christian
liberty, and know how to conduct ourselves in things which are
neither commanded nor forbidden by God.

We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church
customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to
cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. The Roman
antichristendom enslaves poor consciences by imposing human
ordinances on them with the command: "You must keep such and such a
thing!"; the sects enslave consciences by forbidding and branding as
sin what God has left free. Unfortunately, also many of our Lutheran
Christians are still without a true understanding of their liberty.
This is demonstrated by their aversion to ceremonies.

It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the
difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism in outward
things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a person sacrifices
the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American
denominations just so they won’t accuse us of being Roman Catholic!
Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving
Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather
rejoice that they can tell by our ceremonies that I do  not belong to
them?

  It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail in our
Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced in many
congregations. The prejudice especially against the responsive
chanting of pastor and congregations is of course still very great
with many people — this does not, however, alter the fact that it is
very foolish. The pious church father Augustine said, "Qui cantat,
bis orat–he who sings prays twice."

This finds its application also in the matter of the liturgy. Why
should congregations or individuals in the congregation want to
retain their prejudices? How foolish that would be! For first of all
it is clear from the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 14:16) that the
congregations of his time had a similar custom. It has been the
custom in the Lutheran Church for 250 years. It creates a solemn
impression on the Christian mind when one is reminded by the
solemnity of the divine service that one is in the house of God, in
childlike love to their heavenly Father, also give expression to
their joy in such a lovely manner.

We are not insisting that there be uniformity in perception or
feeling or taste among all believing Christians-neither dare anyone
demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless, it remains true that
the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship
of other churches to such an extent that the houses of worship of the
latter look like lecture halls in which the hearers are merely
addressed or instructed, while our churches are in truth houses of
prayer in which Christians serve the great God publicly before the
world.

Uniformity of ceremonies (perhaps according to the Saxon Church order
published by the Synod, which is the simplest among the many Lutheran
church orders) would be highly desirable because of its usefulness. A
poor slave of the pope finds one and same form of service, no matter
where he goes, by which he at once recognizes his church.

With us it is different. Whoever comes from Germany without a true
understanding of the doctrine often has to look for his church for a
long time, and many have already been lost to our church because of
this search. How different it would be if the entire Lutheran church
had a uniform form of worship! This would, of course, first of all
yield only an external advantage, however, one which is by no means
unimportant. Has not many a Lutheran  already kept his distance from
the sects because he saw at the Lord’s Supper they broke the bread
instead of distributing wafters?

The objection:  "What would be the use of uniformity of ceremonies?"
was answered with the counter question, "What is the use of a flag on
the battlefield? Even though a soldier cannot defeat the enemy with
it, he nevertheless sees by the flag where he belongs. We ought not
to refuse to walk in the footsteps of our fathers. They were so far
removed from being ashamed of the good ceremonies that they publicly
confess in the passage quoted: "It is not true that we do away with
all such external ornaments"

(C.F.W. Walther, Explanation of Thesis XVIII, D, Adiaphora, of the book The
True Visible Church, delivered at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in
Indianapolis, Indiana, Beginning August 9, 1871, at the 16th Central
District Convention, translated by Fred Kramer, printed in Essays for
the Church [CPH: 1992], I:193-194).

And another commentary on historic Lutheran worship (source):

A notion of the extent to which the Lutheran Church retained and purified
olden ceremonies may be got from the following description of its usages
so late as the eighteenth century ([Rudolf] Rocholl, Gesch. d. ev.
Kirche in Deutschland, 300):

According to the Brunswick Agenda of Duke Augustus,
1657, the pastors went to the altar clad in alb, chasuble, and mass
vestments. Sacristans and elders held a fair cloth before the altar
during the administration, that no particle of the consecrated Elements
should fall to the ground. The altar was adorned with costly stuffs,
with lights and fresh flowers. “I would,” cries [Christian] Scriver,
“that one could make the whole church, and especially the altar, look
like a little Heaven.” Until the nineteenth century the ministers at
St. Sebald in Nuremberg wore chasubles at the administration of the
Holy Supper. The alb was generally worn over the Talar, even in the
sermon. [Valerius] Herberger calls it his natural Säetuch [seed-cloth],
from which he scatters the seed of the Divine Word. The alb was worn
also in the Westphalian cities. At Closter-Lüne in 1608 the minister
wore a garment of yellow gauze, and over it a chasuble on which was
worked in needlework a “Passion.” The inmates and abbesses, like
Dorothea von Medine, were seen in the costume of the Benedictines. The
“Lutheran monks” of Laccuna until 1631 wore the white gown and black
scapular of the Cistercian order. Still later they sang the Latin
Hours. The beneficiaries of the Augustinian Stift at Tübingen wore the
black cowl until 1750. The churches stood open all day. When the
Nuremberg Council ordered that they should be closed except at the
hours of service, it aroused such an uproar in the city that the
council had to yield. In 1619 all the churches in the Archbishopric of
Magdeburg were strictly charged to pray the Litany. In Magdeburg itself
there were in 1692 four Readers, two for
  the Epistle, two for the Gospel. The Nicene Creed was intoned by a Deacon in Latin.
  Then the sermon and general prayer having been said, the Deacon with two
  Readers and two Vicars, clad in Mass garment and gowns, went in procession
  to the altar, bearing the Cup, the Bread, and what pertained to the preparation
  for the Holy Supper, and the Cüster [Verger] took a silver censer
  with glowing coals and incense, and incensed them, while another (the    Citharmeister?)
  clothed and arranged the altar, lit two wax candles, and placed on it two
  books bound in red velvet and silver containing the Latin Epistles and Gospels
  set to notes, and on festivals set on the altar also a silver or golden
  crucifix, according to the order of George of Anhalt in 1542. The Preface and    Sanctus were in Latin. After
  the Preface the communicants were summoned into the choir by a bell hanging
  there. The Nuremberg Officium Sacrum (1664) bids all the ministers
  be present in their stalls, in white chorrocken, standing or sitting, to
  sing after the Frühmesse [Morning Mass], “Lord, keep us steadfast.”
  The minister said his prayer kneeling with his face to the altar, with
  a deacon kneeling on either side. He arranged the wafers on the paten in
  piles of ten, like the shewbread, while the Introit and Kyrie
were sung. The responses by the choir were in Latin. Up to 1690 the
Latin service was still said at St. Sebald’s and St. Lawrence’s.
Throughout this (eighteenth) century we find daily Matins and Vespers,
with the singing of German psalms. There were sermons on weekdays.
There were no churches in which they did not kneel in confession and at
the Consecration of the Elements.

These ceremonies yielded finally to the attacks of the Reformed and the
influence of Rationalism. – In our own age we feel an increased respect
for the dignified worship of the Reformers.

(Edward T. Horn, “Ceremonies in the Lutheran Church,” in The
Lutheran Cyclopedia [Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899], p. 83.)

One of my Roman Catholic readers sent in this humorous proposal for sending liturgical referees at random to visit parishes to make sure they are conducting the Mass properly. You might enjoy the thought of a Lutheran version of a "ref" visiting parishes at random. Here is a guide to the liturgical referee’s signals. The idea is that he stands quietly to the side and only throws a flag when appropriate.

 

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

   

Example Liturgical Signals
	No Crucifix in sanctuary.
	Liturgical dance detected.
	Member of laity giving homily – to be evicted from lectern.
	Incomplete or no consecration. Occurs when illicit matter is used, wrong formula used, only one of the two elements of bread or wine is not properly consecrated, or no validly ordained male priest/bishop is not present. In case where only one element is consecrated a replay is called for.
	Illegal use of hands. Normally called when the celebrant has left the sanctuary to shake everybody’s hands.
	Questionable or just downright heretical theology used in homily. When detected the Liturgical Ref pulls on his lips in a downward direction.
	The "What the heck am my hearing" signal is one of the most common signals and indicates syrupy banal liturgical music or the inappropriate use of secular music such as show tunes and popular music (especially from the seventies).
	Disregarding the prescribed text of the Order of Mass. This is another common liturgical penalty despite the fact that no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
	Illicit Posture. Usually called when you are being asked to stand instead of kneel or any other poster adaptation not specified by the GIRM or set by your bishop’s conference or licitly specified by your local ordinary.
	Illicit purification of sacred vessels. This is called when the purification of the sacred vessels is done by an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion despite the fact the the Pope revoked the indult in the U.S. for this permission.
	Illicit Participation. Called when too many people are in the sanctuary. For example occurs when EMHC arrive before the fraction rite or when some members of the congregation are invited into the sanctuary to pray with the priest during the consecration.
	Un-Christian Like Conduct. Can be called when elements of other religions contrary to Christianity are introduced such as new age beliefs. Un-Christian Like Conduct is also often called in the parking lot after Mass.
	Illegal Pass. The celebrant is simply not allowed to make a pass at anybody.
	Stole Infraction. Normally occurs when the celebrant wears his stole on top of the chasuble. Another penalty can be added if the celebrant does this and the stole is also horrendously ugly or has an seventies themes.
	Illegal Receiver of Holy Communion. Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
	Clowns in the sanctuary – run for your life.
	Excessive use of inclusive language. Penalty is thrown when grammatical awkwardness is detected in avoiding male pronouns and every other sentence begins brothers and sisters.

New church plants! Contemporary worship! One requires the other, right? Ah, well…perhaps not. A "contemporary/relevant worship" guru has second thoughts.

For all the money, time, and effort
we’ve spent on cultural relevance—
and that includes culturally relevant
worship—it seems we came through
the last 15 years with a significant
net loss in churchgoers, proliferation
of megachurches and all.

You need to read this article.

I’m generally impressed, and grateful, for the comments that are sent in to this blog. They are usually always thoughtful, intelligent and well reasoned, along with being cordial and gracious. Sure, there are a few exceptions, from time to time, but that’s why God created the "delete" key in blogging software. And then there are comments that come in that I find so impressive that truly deserve their own separate posts. Here is one of them. Thanks Mike.

As an Army soldier I cannot and will not speak for Marines, but formality and practiced precision go deeper than our close association with death.  As one who performs funeral honors frequently, I can tell you that the military bearing is a sign of my honor to the departed and their family.  That is the motivation and focus as we practice and prepare.

As a superior once told me, "That man up front spent his entire life serving others.  The least you can do is serve his widow for an hour on Saturday."  That has stuck with me.  No better place is this sentiment shown than at Arlington, where men march the exact same 21 steps and pause at 21 second intervals in all weather 24 hours a day 365 days a year for long dead heroes we can’t even name and most Americans never visit.

My hat off to you for correctly identifying this as an object lesson for the spirit of the liturgy: humility and deference when confronted with someone else’s sacrifice – not our own.

The focus on the ritual directs our focus to the things that truly matter.. it points us to the things that we would overlook if we did not observe the ceremony.  It is never about the ceremony itself.  The ceremony is a tool that pulls our attention away from ourselves and forces us to face objective reality apart from our personal situation.

No honor guard ever serves at a funeral out of personal pride in the merit of his bearing and training.  The service, the ritual, the "liturgy" that we follow is done to communicate our heartfelt gratitude and respect.  To take away proper ceremony is to divorce an act of proper respect.  In the minds of most (including my Drill Sergeants back at Basic), you cannot separate ceremony and respect because ceremony IS respect.  The two are linked so closely that where ceremony is lacking, respect will be also.

One always effects the other.  For the military, ceremony and respect are linked.  For the church, we prefer to see it in terms of practice and doctrine.

The amazing parallels between being a Soldier and being a Christian are too many to identify in this post so I will just touch on a few of them.  Certainly St. Paul identified it:  we are both at war against a deadly enemy and alone we cannot hope to win.  Preparation, unity, ceremony, and repetition are tools to accomplish the task of victory.  The necessary death of the old life so that a new life can be made.  The consequences for a lack of vigilance is certain death.  As a Soldier, I desperately cling to my training.  As a Christian, I desperately cling to the cross.

Maybe this is why the US Army saw the importance of formulating a common creed and requiring that it be memorized by all recruits.

I’ve never understood all the enthusiasm for the "O Antiphons." But, now I do. Thanks for all the comments that persuaded me to give these more attention, prayerfully, which is what they are meant to be: aids for devotion to our Blessed Lord.

I was reading the latest issue of Touchstone and ran into a striking observation quote in the opening editorial. The author was writing about Christmas Carols, but said this, and I’ve inserted a couple words to drive the point home:

Like the oldest and best liturgies, these songs are no one’s personal property, time and usage have wiped away nearly all distracting fingerprints of authorship and "originality." Instead, they belong to all of us. They are old friends to us, and like the best old friends, they are comfortable and reassuring, and yet also full of mysteries and surprises and strange, hidden delights. Our Christmas Carols [our historic liturgies] are among the most precious shared possession of our fragmenting, fraying culture [Synod/Church], and for all that we abuse them and demean them, they seem to remain imperishable.

Source:
Touchstone
December 2006
"God Rest Ye Merry: On Celebrating the Darker Meaning of Christmas"
by Wilfred McClay

A pastor friend of mine sent me this absolutely spot-on article on the banality and lack of reverence that seems to be the "style" these days in many congregations. I find myself wondering why it is that parents permit their children to show up at church dressed like they just woke up and threw on whatever they could grab. In the case of many teenagers coming looking like slobs. I know that is blunt, but it is true. Imagine  if they were to attend a solemn court of law proceeding, or a funeral of a loved one, or even their High School Prom or Homecoming dances dressed in such sloppy fashion? Would they show up dressed like such bums? Perhaps they are encouraged toward such "informality" by the pastor who runs through the liturgy looking at his watch, fearful that the service will go past 60 minutes, or who drones through the words of the Lord’s Supper as if he is reading yesterday’s news. I suspect, they are not receiving the kind of parental guidance they need in such matters. Am I suggesting that they should wear dresses and coats and ties? If they are old enough, why not? If the family is financially able to afford one formal set of clothes, why not?

And consider the conduct of the liturgy in many of our congregations, or the constructions of our houses of worship. Some look more like non-denom barns, or concert halls, than holy houses where the Blessed Trinity is worshipped and where He tabernacles among His people under the bread and wine of the Holy Supper. Where is the sense of awe, reference, holiness that God intends for His people when they come before Him?

The article was written by Father Scalia, son of the Supreme Court justice, which explains the very well done courtroom analogy.

Read more…