Ship of Fools: High Church Lutheranism

Thread: High Church Lutheranism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024798

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I hear occasional rumours about certain Lutheran parishes being somewhat higher than the norm. Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church in Detroit is, I think, pretty well known, but I know very little about the ceremonial use there.

The few Swedish and Danish congregations I have run into have tended to be a lot like High-Central (Swedish) or MOTR (Danish) Anglicanism - but less self-conscious. The one thing that is noticeably (and thankfully) absent is the tyranny of the spoken liturgy.

Are the few random impressions that I have gained anywhere near?

How widespread is High Church Lutheranism (Evangelical Catholicism, if you prefer) in the USA?

Do I assume that in Germany that Prussian blackness is still largely unchallenged?

PD

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I attend a Lutheran church in Brazil. I'm never sure what the word 'high' really means, but the services are quite liturgical.

(I like that, although I sometimes get a bit tired of the standing up-sitting down thing [Biased]

)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Then stay kneeling throughout, and make everyone else feel slightly uncomfortable by your piety! [Big Grin]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

LOL, it would be even better if I could look pious by sitting half-sleeping in the corner of my bench. Because I'm quite good at that [Biased]

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

There are a variety of "high church" features in North American Lutheranism that vary considerably from parish to parish (and varies from high-church Anglicanism). Any parish I note below is ELCA, my denomination.
The use of vested liturgical deacon and subdeacon (dalmatic and tunicle) is a regular feature (I believe St. Luke's in Chicago still uses this arrangement, as does Redeemer, St. Paul, and St. Peter's New York); other parishes will transform the ELW "communion assistant" into a vested deacon).
Lutheran parishes will often chant quite a bit of the service, more so than typical Anglican parishes.
The full range of Holy Week services, including the Easter Vigil, is seen more and more often these days.
Incense is certainly not unkown in many Luthean parishes (Mt. Olive Lutheran, Gloria Dei, South Bend, St. Luke's Chicago).
Some parishes have the reserved sacrament (e.g., First Lutheran, Pittsburgh, which also has a daily Eucharist). This is sometimes in the pastor's office, sometimes in a tabernacle (First Lutheran has a beautiful tabernacle).
Zion in Detroit - I was there some years ago, and they were using an ordo of their own devising - including the 1549 BCP Canon (re-arranged a bit, if I recall - I may be wrong, but that order of service may still be on their Website). They also chanted the minor propers to the psalm tones from the English Gradual (the little blue paperback I remember from my Episcopal youth). In general, though, the minor propers are not an obsession of high-church Lutherans, although the traditional introits and graduals were included in Lutheran hymnals through the Service Book and Hymnal. I should note that Zion is LC-MS, and I really don't know what their liturgy is like since Fr. Fenton left for the Antiochian Orthodox Church.
High church Lutheranism is not unknown in the EKD - Marienkirche in Berlin is fairly high.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Trying to relate sonata3's post to what I've seen in Brazil, I can say that most of the preachers here wear vestments (but I wouldn't know a dalmatic from a tunicle). There are chants in the liturgy; most of the times they will be said, but I've heard them sung on some occasions. Likewise for the Psalms. I've never seen incense, unless it was at an alternative, Taizé-style service. Holy Week services are quite common. And I don't know what reserved sacrament is [Biased]

Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Then stay kneeling throughout, and make everyone else feel slightly uncomfortable by your piety!

Albertus you owe me keyboard and fresh cup of tea! [Overused]

Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :

Well, my experience of Brazilian Lutheranism is quite to the lower side of things.

In IECLB (German Lutherans, with a strong link with the EKD), the Prussian black robe sans stole is (much) more common than alb+stole. No incense in the main service (which often is the only one). No vested servers. Most of the times, not even the choir (should there be one) is vested. The service may be chanted, but often isn't. The Book of Offices is not mandatory. Communion may be common chalice (wine) and hosts or grape juice wee cuppies and diced Wonderbread. Many parishes have both, in alternating weeks. It's common to have a monthly service in German.

IELB (LCMS mission) is somewhat higher, but not high. Alb+stole is the norm, chasubles are very rare but not unheard of. Liturgia Luterana is mandatory and brings different service music settings (dry and Communion). Communion is wine and wafers, common chalice only. No vested servers. No servers at all, most of the time. I don't know about incense.

A funny twist, though, is that the IECLB places which do pray the Great Thanksgiving tend to have a full Eucharistic Prayer. IELB places are usually Sursum Corda, Sanctus, Words of Institution (with manual acts). And that's it.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Episcoterian:

A funny twist, though, is that the IECLB places which do pray the Great Thanksgiving tend to have a full Eucharistic Prayer. IELB places are usually Sursum Corda, Sanctus, Words of Institution (with manual acts). And that's it.

That would fit with the origins of the two groups. The LCMS tends to be the more conservative of the two denominations liturgically, and so the Preface, Sanctus, Lord's Prayer, Verba way of consecating the elements fits with the old Saxon Communion Order. I do not think that extended Eucharistic Prayers became common in Lutheran circles, inclusing EKD, until the 1960s.

PD

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

Speaking of Eucharistic Prayers, it's worth noting two differences between what is now in ELCA's ELW, and TEC: Lutheran prayers have no oblation (Luther was determined to emphasize the eucharist as God's gift to us, not what we might offer God), and the epiclesis tends to be "weak": i.e., not one that could be considered consecratory, with an explicit prayer to transform bread and wine into the consecrated elements.
A TEC eucharistic prayer, with language something like "we offer to you, from the gifts you have given to us, this bread and this wine" (I think from Enriching Our Worship) was offered for trial use in the period leading up to the 2006 ELW, but did not make it into ELW.
Of course, it is only relatively recently that eucharistic prayers have come into use in Lutheranism (the older practice being preface dialogue, preface, Sanctus/Benedictus, and Institution Narrative).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

Of course, it is only relatively recently that eucharistic prayers have come into use in Lutheranism (the older practice being preface dialogue, preface, Sanctus/Benedictus, and Institution Narrative).

Is that true of Scandinavia?

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I hear occasional rumours about certain Lutheran parishes being somewhat higher than the norm. Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church in Detroit is, I think, pretty well known, but I know very little about the ceremonial use there.

The few Swedish and Danish congregations I have run into have tended to be a lot like High-Central (Swedish) or MOTR (Danish) Anglicanism - but less self-conscious. The one thing that is noticeably (and thankfully) absent is the tyranny of the spoken liturgy.

Are the few random impressions that I have gained anywhere near?

How widespread is High Church Lutheranism (Evangelical Catholicism, if you prefer) in the USA?

Do I assume that in Germany that Prussian blackness is still largely unchallenged?

PD

The Nordic Catholic Church may be of some interest to you. They are former high-church Church of Norway clergy and laity who were received by the PNCC some years ago.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

There's also the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, which is a nosebleed-high jurisdiction of former LCMS people.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Sonata said it well; I just wanted to add/clarify that St. Luke's in Chicago indeed has a tabernacle. Technically it may be an aumbry as it's on the 'north' wall behind the presider's chair. I've never been too clear on that issue.

An ELCA church near me actually has a shiny tabernacle on the shelf that is where the high altar used to be, right behind the freestanding altar. The church is upper MOTR for Lutherans at best.

Redeemer, Atlanta, has a tabernacle as well, if I recall correctly, but is not particularly high.

Augustana, Washington DC, is also rather high and uses incense. I think they prefer to use three ministers.

There are a couple of highish churches here and there in PA, probably influenced by First, Pittsburgh.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

Of course, it is only relatively recently that eucharistic prayers have come into use in Lutheranism (the older practice being preface dialogue, preface, Sanctus/Benedictus, and Institution Narrative).
Is that true of Scandinavia?

I'm travelling, and don't have Frank Senn's Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical with me, but he has a chapter on post-Reformation developments in the Swedish Lutheran church that is fascinating to read. My comment above is certainly an over-simplification (I was thinking largely of 19th-century to the present in North America).

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

I'd certainly invite Sonata 3 or Martin L to disagree, but I would offer this: that Lutheran Liturgy as defined by "high church" is losing ground today, as more and more churches experiment with "contemporary worship", which in ELCA Lutheranism can mean pretty much anything.
The Liturgical Renewal movement began with the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal reached its apex with the 1978 Lutheran Book of Worship. But the liturgy has never been treated with the same kind of reverence as it is in RC or TEC circles.
So the kind of liturgical service you're talking about is "quirky," practiced here and there,but not held up as the ideal.
The best thing to come out of the liturgical renewal for Lutherans is an increased celebration
of the eucharist as the norm for Sunday worship, and a more robust baptismal theology and practice.
The current worship book, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, presents a service that CAN be done in a highly liturgical way, but my experience is that mostly it is practiced in a less liturgical way. (Alb/stole or no vestments at all). In our neck of the woods I've also noticed that some churches are not following the lectionary but the pastors are self-selecting the readings.

[ 12. May 2012, 20:00: Message edited by: uffda ]

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

I agree. Unfortunately, by experimenting with [an almost invariably poorly done interpretation] of contemporary, Lutheran churches are eroding away their given [often cradle Lutheran] crowds, and still by and large failing to attract in the numbers that they thought the change in style would attract.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I've found that the sunny side of traditional actually works best for most people, youth included. Most people like Baptisms to look like baptisms and Communion to be Communion. "Being yourself" and embracing your denominational identity and tradition is in fact often more effective than trying to be "rad" and denying it. New stuff is fine, in moderation.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
I'd certainly invite Sonata 3 or Martin L to disagree, but I would offer this: that Lutheran Liturgy as defined by "high church" is losing ground today, as more and more churches experiment with "contemporary worship", which in ELCA Lutheranism can mean pretty much anything.
The Liturgical Renewal movement began with the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal reached its apex with the 1978 Lutheran Book of Worship. But the liturgy has never been treated with the same kind of reverence as it is in RC or TEC circles.
So the kind of liturgical service you're talking about is "quirky," practiced here and there,but not held up as the ideal.
The best thing to come out of the liturgical renewal for Lutherans is an increased celebration
of the eucharist as the norm for Sunday worship, and a more robust baptismal theology and practice.
The current worship book, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, presents a service that CAN be done in a highly liturgical way, but my experience is that mostly it is practiced in a less liturgical way. (Alb/stole or no vestments at all). In our neck of the woods I've also noticed that some churches are not following the lectionary but the pastors are self-selecting the readings.

Uffda, yours are thoughtful comments, and I can only partially disagree. The notion that "high church is losing ground" -- I would say, yes, and no. From my experience (largely in the Midwest and Northeast Coast), liturgical vestments are more common, the traditional rites of Holy Week are celebrated more often, full eucharistic payers used more often, while at the same time the music becomes less and less traditional.
And there are certainly regional variations -- when traveling in the South, I attend Episcopal churches without fail.
Your comment about liturgy never having had the same kind of reverence as in TEC, yes - partially growing out of the fact that no Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, or Book of Worship, has ever had the legal status that the BCP has in the Episcopal Church. Lutheran books are "commended for use." Which makes the liturgy of a Zion in Detroit possible, as well as some of the less savory types of service that I think you are alluding to.
That ELW is "mostly practiced in a less liturgical way" - I would replace your 'mostly' with 'often' -- again, where in the US you are visiting or living makes a big difference.
With regard to the lectionary, I've rarely encountered a parish not using RCL.
So I don't disagree with you, but would add some nuance. Then too, my perspective is clouded because I've been around long enough to know where to go, and where to avoid going.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
I agree. Unfortunately, by experimenting with [an almost invariably poorly done interpretation] of contemporary, Lutheran churches are eroding away their given [often cradle Lutheran] crowds, and still by and large failing to attract in the numbers that they thought the change in style would attract.

So far the local ELCA shack has been careful to walk a line between the traditional and the contemporary. The former occurs three times each weekend (7.30am; 9.30am and 10.45am in the Church and the latter thrice (6pm Sat; 8.30 and 11.45) in the parish hall. However, I think they are beginning to lard the traditional service with too much modern music as I am beginning to get wandering Scando-Lutherans in my Anglican shack.

Growing up the only Lutheran church locally was Danish. The German Lutherans had been bombed out during WW2, and shared one of the Anglican parishes once a month for Communion. The Danes were pretty high - chasuble for Communion and the Eucharistic prayer sung including the Words of Institution with the major elevations. Sometimes there would be a robed assistant, but more often than not the Pastor would do most of the service himself apart from the lessons which would be read by the laity.

The German service was more Protestant in feel, and I am not just talking about the black gown, but the general atmosphere. Music was very good even in a small congregation!

PD

[ 13. May 2012, 00:49: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I haven't seen a Lutheran pastor vested in black in either an LCMS or ELCA church for the last 40 years.

Today's ELCA is a merger of three predecessor church bodies. The LCA was generally the "higher" of the two, for various ethnic and self-defining reasons; its own predecessor churches tended to be culturally bound to their mother countries through Continental seminaries,and saw themselves as serving the people of those ethnicities in this relatively new cultural outpost. A bit later in history the churches that became the ALC adopted a more Methodist attitude of assimilating into the local culture and developing its own American seminaries. Worship in the ALC tended to be more relaxed. The AELC, the third church body in the merger, was a group of progressive Missouri-Synodian theologians, pastors and laypeople who were ejected from professorships and parishes and such during a conservative retrenchment in that denomination; my guess is that they would tend to worship higher up the candle than, say, the LCMS church of my childhood, which tended to be deathly afraid of anything that might remotely be construed as Popish. (Funny, since the order of service was very parallel to the typical RC Mass.)

One phenomenon that I experienced as a younger person was that Lutheran churches in urban areas and university towns tended to be much higher than churches in suburbia and in rural areas.

Now the big push in Lutheran circles is for pastors/churches to be "missional" to whatever location it's in or target mar- -- I mean segment of society it wishes to reach out to. I think this translates, in a lot of uncreative suburban minds, to pastors wearing polo shirts, ditching the lectionary and otherwise trying (usually very unsuccessfully) to compete with the block-long big-box churches with "praise music" and rollerblading or whatever. (We visited one of these churches last year while on vacation in an affluent little lakeshore village near Traverse City; "painful" is how I'd describe that experience.)

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Lutherans overall, tend to exhibit a lack of reverence about the liturgy. It is almost taboo to admit that one enjoys the order of service.

If an Episcopal priest said that he was going to ditch the BCP79 order as the bishop wouldn't care anyway, the parishioners would be in an uproar.

If an ELCA pastor said that he was going to ditch the ELW order as the bishop wouldn't care anyway, the parishioners would be secretly upset, but few if any would admit it.

I have to chuckle at LutheranChik's comment about target markets and polo shirts. I am always on the lookout for new churches to visit, and although I keep my eyes peeled for Lutheran-ELCA and Episcopal places, I almost always end up at Episcopal places. Being in suburbia, I will only consider "traditional" ELCA places, and they are increasingly few and far between, the other places being exactly what LC suggested...polo shirt places. What scares me is that these are the churches nearest to the headquarters of the ELCA.

[ 13. May 2012, 02:41: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Ugh. Polo shirts? I'm not a native Ecclesiantician, but I can at least say what we meet up with (in the English services, I mean, I'll not inflict the Vietnamese on you).

First, I've never seen a pastor conduct worship in anything but alb and stole (or for the more old-fashioned, cassock, surplice and stole). Our assistants are always robed as well, though without stoles of course if they are laypeople. There is generally at least one, even in a small parish. There may be as many as three in my experience.

Incense, well, not generally. We have the usual "I'm allergic" folks, and it's just not been a part of our tradition for a long, long time.

We like processions, we like fancy hardware and candles and acolytes and crucifers (esp. when they screw up), and we have fights over the position of the baptismal font, which is usually placed as prominently as possible.

Liturgy--the churches I've been in rarely mess with the liturgy. The wrath of the parishioners would descend upon them. If they must get creative, they do it in the prayers or a responsive reading. But woe betide the fool who skips the invocation, confession and absolution, creed, or so forth. Verily he will be a grease spot in the narthex, and the little old ladies will tut over the cleaning expense.

Music. Well, it seems to depend mainly on the pastor and music person (that is, organist/choir director/what have you) with mixed input from the congregation, where you will find every possible opinion. Since it is impossible to please everyone, they naturally try to do just that--usually by shuffling musical styles at services (often designating one hour or another as "traditional" vs. "contemporary"). My current place seems to choose a different style every Sunday of the month, so on say the first you get the old red hymnal, on the second a praise band (hidden discreetly in the choir loft where no one can see them), on the third a mix of both, and on the fourth something from Africa. Whatever. I just go with the flow and try not to wince when someone can see me.

We stick to the lectionary except for the occasional preacher who decides to do a summer series, usually based on continuous readings from one book. Not sticking to the lectionary gets raised eyebrows from all the people who know darn well what readings ought to be (since the lectionary is printed in our hymnbooks, study Bibles, various periodical resources, and so forth). From the preaching end of it Mr. Lamb and I find the lectionary to be a good defense--when someone takes offense at the readings (which appear to be all too targeted to their particular sins), we point at the date on the lectionary table and tell them to take it up with God. At which point they go off in a huff.

Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :

Well,this sounds all eminently sensible, LC, IMHO [Smile]

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

Of course, those polo shirts would likely be in the proper liturgical color. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Polo shirt with brightly-coloured contemporary stole, at least, surely? And invariably the Holy Eucharist according to the ELW, accompanied by contemporary music. Otherwise, just too ouch-inducing. [Waterworks]

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Polo shirt with brightly-coloured contemporary stole, at least, surely?

Stole-over-street-clothes is not a particularly common ELCA Lutheran thing around here. It's usually either cass-alb/stole/cincture or polo shirt and khakis.

quote:
LSvK:
And invariably the Holy Eucharist according to the ELW, accompanied by contemporary music. Otherwise, just too ouch-inducing.

Yeah, um, just bring the Vicodin.

On a positive note, some places are starting to discover the RC contemporary settings of the ordinary, so this bodes well for the use of the actual "book" order of service. Furthermore, ELW does include a contemporary setting (#8) that is meant for a worship band (although I once had to sit through it being played by an elderly organist on pipe organ).

[ 13. May 2012, 17:29: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

Martin L said:

quote:
I am always on the lookout for new churches to visit, and although I keep my eyes peeled for Lutheran-ELCA and Episcopal places, I almost always end up at Episcopal places.

quote:
Furthermore, ELW does include a contemporary setting (#8) that is meant for a worship band (although I once had to sit through it being played by an elderly organist on pipe organ).

Martin L, you don't have to draw me a map. May I express my condolences on setting 8.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

A quick tangent? Do Lutherans view their ministers as having a sacramental ordination like Catholics or do they view their ministers as simply ministers, like Baptists and other Protestants?

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

No quick answer with Lutherans, I'm afraid, and the answer is part of the reason why "high church" Lutheranism is harder to pin down than "high church" Anglicanism.

Lutherans would not call it a "sacramental" ordination, although to outward appearances it looks like a sacramental ordination.

Lutherans regard the ministry as something necessary for the good order of the church. It is tied to a man or woman having received a call from a congregation or agency of the church to minister. Seminary education is highly valued
and candidates for ordination go though a thorough preparation and evaluation process prior to ordination.

Lutherans take the position that their is only one order of ordained ministry, the Pastoral ministry. Ordination involves prayer and the laying on of hands asking God to make the ordinand a pastor in the church.

However, Lutherans do not understand that this ordination conveys any "power" either to consecrate or to bless. The pastor is essentially no different than a lay man or woman.
Baptism is the chief sacrament and, if you will, the great equalizer. The pastor does not consecrate the bread and wine, in our view, but proclaims the Words of Institution as a promise of Christ. We believe the Bread and Wine is his real and true Body and Blood, not because it was consecrated by a properly ordained priest, but because Christ promised it. It's a Gospel thing.

Nevertheless, pastors who cease to minister and go off to pursue some secular vocation are not re-ordained should they later desire to return to the ministry, and retired pastors are always accorded the title "Pastor" whether they are performing a service or not.

Others might want to comment, but I hope this helps you to understand why the liturgy is regarded as it is in Lutheranism, and why the high church movement is a bit more tentative in the Lutheran Church.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

In light of recent changes, I have also started to notice the practice of calling former bishops "Bishop," even though they no longer exercise that elected role. The ELCA Churchwide representative at our synod assembly last year was a former bishop from out east who now works at Churchwide HQ. He was consistently addressed as Bishop, and he participated along with our own bishop in the laying on of hands at the ordination of several pastors. I have seen this use of "bishop" elsewhere, too.

Be that as it may, the majority of our bishops do ride their horses into the sunset (or are run out on the rails) and return to simple pastor roles when their episcopal duties are fulfilled, resuming the simple title "pastor." I do think we are starting to see the hints of a changing attitude, though.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Uffda's explanation suggests an implicit or tacit view that in some way ordination in the Lutheran Church is seen as conveying "character" and as something that is indelible in some sense (note, I do not invoke any notion of ontology/ontological staus here, however). I'm aware of the views or speculations of Luther himself, which were much more of the idea that the Christian pastoral ministry is an office that a man might take on and then lay aside without there being any sort of adhering character. However, it doesn't seem to me that this is the way the ordained ministry has actually been treated in mainstream Lutheranism over the centuries; indeed, rather the contrary. The systematisers of Lutheran theology disposed of Luther's more radical ideas, which ISTM were more theoretical propositions than acutal prescriptions for how the Church was to operate in practice.

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

Lietuvos, it really is an instinctive, reactive
response. Lutheran Theologians and pastors would flee from any idea of an indelible character being conveyed at ordination. This is precisely the reason why Lutherans had such division over the "Called to Common Mission" with the Episcopal Church and why the ELCA provided for the pastoral exception that allowed an ordinand to be ordained by anyone but the bishop.
Lutherans are a confessional church, more than a liturgical church. We would say that if the theology isn't right, it doesn't matter whether the liturgy is right.

This also abuts the principle of "adiaphora", that church practices that are neither commanded by or opposed to scripture are essentially "neutral"
and can be used or not used as one prefers. Scandinavian Lutherans may still be in the historic succession of bishops, but such a concept must never be insisted upon, and so they are in communion fellowship with Lutherans who are not in the historic succession.

The liturgy would also fall into the category of "adiaphora" and so could be celebrated with great pomp and circumstance or simply and plainly. The main thing is the promise of Christ to be present in the bread and wine, and so long as that promise is clearly proclaimed, all else is secondary.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
There's also the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, which is a nosebleed-high jurisdiction of former LCMS people.

Oddly enough, the UECNA picked up a couple of priests from the ALCC in 2009 after their Bishop withdrew permission for them to use the Anglican BCP. They were well trained and both have made themselves very useful in the UECNA.

PD

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Lietuvos, it really is an instinctive, reactive
response. Lutheran Theologians and pastors would flee from any idea of an indelible character being conveyed at ordination. This is precisely the reason why Lutherans had such division over the "Called to Common Mission" with the Episcopal Church and why the ELCA provided for the pastoral exception that allowed an ordinand to be ordained by anyone but the bishop.
Lutherans are a confessional church, more than a liturgical church. We would say that if the theology isn't right, it doesn't matter whether the liturgy is right.

This also abuts the principle of "adiaphora", that church practices that are neither commanded by or opposed to scripture are essentially "neutral"
and can be used or not used as one prefers. Scandinavian Lutherans may still be in the historic succession of bishops, but such a concept must never be insisted upon, and so they are in communion fellowship with Lutherans who are not in the historic succession.

The liturgy would also fall into the category of "adiaphora" and so could be celebrated with great pomp and circumstance or simply and plainly. The main thing is the promise of Christ to be present in the bread and wine, and so long as that promise is clearly proclaimed, all else is secondary.

Mmm, yes, it's complicated. I understand there is one official theology and another implication by practice. I think the latter is true of protestant practice in general. As to the Eucharist, what you need in Lutheran theology, I think, is the Church's intention to follow Our Lord's instruction, "Do this..." (Intention) and the elements that Christ ordained in the Sacrament: Bread and Wine (Matter), as well as the use of the Form that He ordained (inseparable from His words of Institution, at least in contemporary practice, regardless of any ancient canons or primitive practice). What is more unequivocally modified in Lutheran theology is the category of Minister, which changes from a bishop/priest of the apostolic succession to the corporate Body of Christ, the Church, as that worldly manifestation in which the Eucharist is proclaimed according to Christ's word of promise. In this sense, there isn't any separation between the ordained public ministers and the broader lay assembly. However, this is a theological distinction - albeit a significant one - rather than a practical distinction in the way things play out. That isn't unimportant, yet it isn't such a gap for Anglicanism, which as an entire body has always been quite vague and equivocal about the definition of such things (regardless of how its multiple parties may have felt about these issues).

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I find that I can connect with the Lutheran position on Holy Orders on some levels but not others.

I tend to be a firm believer that all the baptized are priests. However, the Church sets apart individual Christians to be ministers of word and sacrament. However, Baptism and Communion are 'Word' things not 'priest' things. I.e, the child is regenerate, and the bread and wine His body and blood through His word, not any sort of objective priestly power. However, a deaco, priest or bishop has to be properly called and ordained, and to celebrate HC without a proper Minister is not a regular act of the Church.

That said...

Holy Orders are indelible, but clergy are not 'different' - they are Christians who have been set aside to perform certain functions for the Church. If someone wanders away from the ministry and sells insurance for a while he is still a priest. They can return to the ministry any time they get a call. The worst that can happen to him is that the Bishop can suspend him from the exercise of his Orders - but only if he has screwed up seriously.

Apostolic succession is largely a matter of history not mumbo-jumbo. The laying on of paws goes back from me to William White to Archbishop Cranmer to Wareham, and so on and so forth, one assume, back to the Apostles. However, far more important than hands on head is the continuity of doctrine with the Apostles. The hands on head bit is the sign and seal of the doctrinal side of things.

Some Lutherans I have met can accept that POV, for others it seems too - erm - Popish.

PD

[ 14. May 2012, 06:11: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Episcoterian: In IECLB (German Lutherans, with a strong link with the EKD), the Prussian black robe sans stole is (much) more common than alb+stole. No incense in the main service (which often is the only one). No vested servers. Most of the times, not even the choir (should there be one) is vested. The service may be chanted, but often isn't. The Book of Offices is not mandatory. Communion may be common chalice (wine) and hosts or grape juice wee cuppies and diced Wonderbread. Many parishes have both, in alternating weeks. It's common to have a monthly service in German.

I'm in IECLB, and this agrees with my experiences.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
However, far more important than hands on head is the continuity of doctrine with the Apostles.

Sounds Orthodox to me.

Another tangent: I've always thought that, historically, Anglicans can believe pretty much whatever they want as long as they worshipped according to the BCP whereas Lutherans could worship in any way they wanted as long as they believed the same thing. Oversimplied but correct?

[ 14. May 2012, 13:10: Message edited by: New Yorker ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Oversimplified certainly, but probably more or less true.

The Carey-Vaticanist tendency has lately been pushing in a more Lutheran direction, but Anglicans have always traditionally (instinctively if not statutorily) believed in Lex credendi, Lex orandi. (Have I got that right? In English, the law of belief is the law of praying) In other words, worship shapes our theology rather than the other way about.

It's what the RC liturgical theologian Aidan Kavanagh means when he talks about the priority of worship; the Church exists most fully when it is worshipping, and theology then begins to unpack what that means.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
However, far more important than hands on head is the continuity of doctrine with the Apostles.
Sounds Orthodox to me.

Another tangent: I've always thought that, historically, Anglicans can believe pretty much whatever they want as long as they worshipped according to the BCP whereas Lutherans could worship in any way they wanted as long as they believed the same thing. Oversimplied but correct?

Like most of these things - inaccurate enough to be true! It is also more true in the USA than it would be in England. The Established status of the C of E means that you have a certain percentage of clergy who are not all that loyal to Anglican forms, but see it as "the best boat to fish from."

The tendancy of Anglicans to define doctrine through worship is why a certain kind of Anglican starts kicking hard when anyone messes with the BCP. I find that being of the more theologically protestant type of High Church Anglican I am most at home with a modified form of the 1662 BCP. I tend to be wary of the liberal catholic slant of a lot of modern liturgical materials. With Anglicanism not producing a Book of Concord, so the way in which we worship tends to be what we point to when we want to define ourselves.

If Anglicans had produced a Book of Concord it probably would have contained the Articles, Nowell's Catechism, Jewel's Apology, the two Books of Homilies, and the BCP all of which would have had a chilling effect on later moves to catholicize Anglicanism.

American Lutheranism seems to have a slightly different attitude to liturgy than the Scandanavian or German variety. From my admittedly limited contacts with the European Lutherans seems to suggest that their attitude to liturgy is more along the lines of a rather factual 'this is how it is done.' No particular reverence for the liturgy, but they have a sense that it would not be Lutheran to dispense with it either.

PD

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

There are a few refuges of high church Lutheranism in Minnesota and the surrounding states. St. Olaf College and the closely allied St. John's Lutheran church of Northfield are probably the greatest bastions of high church Lutheran liturgy I've encountered, featuring extensive use of chant, vestments, and occasional use of incense and processions.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
I agree. Unfortunately, by experimenting with [an almost invariably poorly done interpretation] of contemporary, Lutheran churches are eroding away their given [often cradle Lutheran] crowds, and still by and large failing to attract in the numbers that they thought the change in style would attract.

+1

Most ELCA congregations don't have the willingness to abandon their liturgical worship completely and don't have the resources to do a good job of supporting two styles of worship.

I believe the LCMS is doing a little better in this regard because they have fewer, larger churches, by comparison.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
There are a few refuges of high church Lutheranism in Minnesota and the surrounding states. St. Olaf College and the closely allied St. John's Lutheran church of Northfield are probably the greatest bastions of high church Lutheran liturgy I've encountered, featuring extensive use of chant, vestments, and occasional use of incense and processions.

I would say the main style of liturgy at Valparaiso University's Chapel of the Resurrection could be described similarly, although less-formal styles are used as well. It's a big space with long aisles that lends itself well to processions and grand gestures and symbols, but it's also very adaptable and can be reconfigured to a more intimate setting and even the St. Gregory of Nyssa, San Francisco, style of two rooms (one for readings/sermon and then a hop, skip, and simple dance to an altar area).

The sanctuary in the round part of the chapel is gigantic, and as one arrives at the rail to receive Communion, it seems like a taste of heaven: huge space, long altar that dwarfs all who stand nearby, bright light and color, people in white robes. Makes up for the massive bare red-brick walls out in the nave.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

I drive by this church periodically. I always found the use of the word "mass" on their sign to be somewhat curious. Looking at their web site they have a "contemporary mass" with praise band and a "traditional mass". The contemporary mass and description of Eucharistic ministers strikes me as almost being a kind of Lutheran Novus Ordo.

[ 15. May 2012, 02:55: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

"Mass" or even "High Mass" is standard nomenclature in the Church of Sweden, I understand. The latter doesn't necessarily refer to a smells-and-bells spectacular, and the use of the word does not imply a particular position on the candle, AFAIK.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Yes, the average spike would be very disappointed with the average Swedish Hogmesse. It is usually your basic Sung Communion service. Generally speaking these days the Pastor will usually wear Eucharistic vestments, or at least alb and stole. To an Anglican, the usual ceremonial in Sweden looks MOTR but with the major elevations. Occasionally they go a little 'higher' - Novus Ordo style - but not often.

PD

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
"Mass" or even "High Mass" is standard nomenclature in the Church of Sweden, I understand.

It is thus through most of Scandinavia. Although it literally translates as "High Mass," it is perhaps better described as "principal mass at 11 o'clock." You won't find very high antics in the Church of Norway or the Danish church, but you will find modern-day dabbling in various corners of the Church of Sweden. Some YouTubing will produce various results from Sweden.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

As this thread seems about to fade, I thought two thoughts from two distinguished authors might send it off gracefully;
(1) The Canadian novelist Robertson Davies' "The Cunning Man" has much to do with Toronto's Anglo-Catholic parish St. Mary Magdalene (disguised in the novel as "St. Aidan's" - Healey Willan becomes "Dr. DeCourcy Parry"). After the Bishop sends his archdeacon to St. Aidan's to remind them of the importance of the 39 Articles, and of the many ways St. Aidan's is straying from the path, Dr. Hurrah, a physician and narrator of the novel, notes that his nurse/assistant "...goes to St. Aidan's, which is not so strange to her High Lutheran upbringing as it is to many Anglicans."
(2) Frank Senns's magisterial "Christian Liturgy" quotes a 17th-century Puritan ambassador to Sweden, describing his visit to a Swedish cathedral: "In the choir are many pictures of saints...and at the east end of it a high altar, and a stately crucifix upon it; there are also diverse other and lesser crucifixes in several paces....In the vestry we saw also chalices and pyxes, with pieces of wafer in them; and none could see a difference betwixt this and the Papists' churches."
Night, all.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Saxony was pretty traditional too. Parts of the liturgy remained in Latin in the bigger towns, Eucharistic vestments were retained down to about 1790, and there was a very strong musical tradition. IIRC Schutz worked for the Saxon Court, and Bach was, of course, at Leipzig with both composers providing big, what Anglicans would think of as, cathedral style services. Lubeck under Buxtehude probably had a pretty hot musical tradition, and the North German tradition, as exemplified by Hamburg, Lubeck and Hannover, was on the High end of things. Rationalism and the Prussians put a stop to all that.

PD

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0