I've made no secret for years that my preference would have been for the trajectory set by our Synod's Worship Supplement to have been followed when it came to praying eucharistically. I do not agree with those who think that the Words of the Lord are so weak that they can be taken captive by merely human words and buried by them.
Setting three of LSB has followed the Common Service tradition. In many ways it is "the Latin Mass" of Lutheranism - the most faithful rendering in English of the prose liturgy of the Roman Mass. This is the regular service we use at St. Paul's. And this order follows the overwhelming majority of Lutheran Church orders in producing only the Our Father and the Verba at the heart of eucharistic praying. This is tempered in LSB somewhat by the expanded prefaces (far more in number than previously), especially Common II, which is a miniaturized version of Hippolytus' canon. If I can put it this way, even with Divine Service Three there is simply more thanksgiving going on in LSB than in our previous books - though, of course, this is true for all those orders that USE a proper preface.
Setting four lacks proper prefaces (using instead a preface that owes much to the 1531 Petri order from Sweden, which was truly a eucharistic prayer in its own right), but allows for seasonal post-Sanctus prayers, which (if taken together) approach something of the fullness of rejoicing in salvation that one finds in the Anaphora of St. Basil (which, I suspect, was largely their inspiration).
Setting five also lacks proper prefaces, and has transformed Luther's admonition to communicants into a post-sanctus prayer all on its own.
Which brings us to the first two settings: LSB does offer in these a bit fuller form of eucharistic praying than any LCMS book since Worship Supplement. We used it this morning for our spoken Divine Service for Pentecost Monday. It runs like this:
Blessed are You, Lord of heaven and earth, for You have had mercy on those whom You created and sent Your only-begotten Son into the flesh to bear our sin and be our Savior. With repentant joy we receive the salvation accomplished for us by the all-availing sacrifice of His body and blood on the cross.
Gathered in the name and the remembrance of Jesus, we beg you, O Lord, to forgive, renew, and strengthen us with Your Word and Spirit. Grant us faithfully to eat His body and drink His blood as He bids us do in His own testament. Gather us together, we pray, from the ends of the earth to celebrate with all the faithful the marriage feast of the Lamb in His kingdom, which has no end. Graciously receive our prayers, deliver and preserve us, for to You alone, O Father, we give all glory, honor, and worship, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.
People: Amen.
Our Lord Jesus Christ...
As often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
People: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
O Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, in giving us Your body and blood to eat and to drink, You lead us to remember and confess Your holy cross and passion, Your blessed death, Your rest in the tomb, Your resurrection from the dead, Your ascension into heaven, and Your coming for the final judgment. So remember us in Your kingdom and teach us to pray:
People: Our Father...
It is not hard to see in this prayer several elements that the great 4th century anaphoras made standard. There is praise to the Father for the gift of the Son into our flesh. There is an epiclesis, at least upon the people: "forgive, renew, and strengthen us by Your Word and Spirit." There are the holy words of institution themselves, which unambiguously in LSB's rites stand as consecratory and the very heart and center of all eucharistia. There is an intercession for the whole Church with a doxology (placed at the end of the post-sanctus prayer, and of course the Lord's Prayer also functions this way). There is an anamnesis.
Whether what is presented here is really an improvement on the German prayer upon which it was based (and which exists in dismembered form in LW) is perhaps up for grabs. But I will say this: it works well. Just praying it is a joy, and the way it is constructed leads you up to and invites you into the quiet hush where our Lord Himself speaks and blesses the bread and wine with His own divine words and causes them to be what He promises. And the anamnesis prayer addressed to the One who is now present in His body and blood cannot be missed!
I know there are those who protest that even these short prayers are too much here, that they detract from the Verba. Two things must be said to that. First, in all kindness, balderdash! "It is indeed meet, right, and salutary that we should at all times and in all places give thanks." If THAT is true, then there IS no place where or time when thanksgiving to God through Christ our Lord is out of place. Second, the prayer should be experienced before one is ready to toss it.
Some rambling thoughts on a topic dear to my heart...
27 comments:
You note:
And this order follows the overwhelming majority of Lutheran Church orders in producing only the Our Father and the Verba at the heart of eucharistic praying.
Why do you think it is that the overwhelming majority of our Lutheran fathers did not include a Eucharistic Prayer as part of the Divine Service?
The answer, I believe, is far more complicated than the notion that they objected to the words of the Lord being encased in a prayer - an objection that I have never read in any 16th or 17th century document (only in the 20th century did that argument arise among Lutherans). But since you asked, here is my surmise:
We think in terms of the normal 16th century practice being Our Father and Verba (or vice versa), but there was another element in the 16th century liturgies that was vital: the admonition or exhortation. In the Examen, Chemnitz appears to refer to this as a "prayer form" which he says is "better suited to our times." But an examination of this "prayer form" - an address to the people made in the presence of God - reveals that it contains with remarkable fullness the elements associated with historic eucharistic praying.
Further, and this might interest you especially, it thus contained a complete and full recapitulation of the kerygma. One thing that has puzzled some folks is why the 16th century sermons didn't contain more explicit kergyma. Well, if you are reading an exhortation to the people such as the one that I'll print below, you'll see that the full presentation of the Gospel is quite explicit in it. And so are many elements of the Eucharistic praying. This is from Martin Chemnitz' Braunschweig order, and contains numerous similarities to the 1531 Petri Prayer (which was a prayer of thanksgiving which flowed directly into the Verba):
Since from the fall and trespass of our first parents, Adam and Eve, we have all fallen into sin and are guilty of everlasting death, and through such sin have grown weak and corrupted in both body and soul, so that we of ourselves can do no good thing, much less keep the commandments and will of God, and since according to the Law we are cursed and ought to be eternally damned, as it is written in the book of the Law, and though neither we ourselves nor any other creature in heaven or on earth could help us out of such sorrow and condemnation, God the Almighty has had mercy upon us.
Out of his inexpressible love, he has sent his own Son, Jesus Christ, into this world to take our nature upon Him, taking flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary. On Him were laid our sins and those of the whole world. He bore them for us as on the gallows of the cross He died, and on the third day he rose again, having atoned for our sin and that of our parents, again reconciling us to God the Almighty, so that we are now justified, made children of God, and will have eternal life and salvation.
That we may be sure of this and never forget His great, inexpressible love and kindness, Jesus Christ, as He was about to begin his sufferings, instituted His Supper, giving to His beloved disciples His own body to eat and His blood to drink and said to them - and to all Christians - that it is His body given for them and His blood shed for them, for the forgiveness of sins, and that as often as they eat and drink of it, they should do so for His remembrance and, as St. Paul says, to proclaim His death until He comes again on the Last Day as judge of the living and the dead.
Therefore we are to do as he has commanded us, that is, to eat his body and drink his blood, remembering and giving thanks for His great kindness in reconciling us to God the heavenly Father, and rescuing us from sin, death, and eternal damnation. We ought also believe what He has said. Namely, "This is My body, given for you; This is My blood, shed for you, for the forgiveness of sins." When we do as He bids us and believe, we receive according to His word His true body with the bread and His true blood with the wine, and with them all His merits and righteousness: that is, forgiveness of sins, deliverance from death, the adoption as children, and eternal salvation.
But let only those who who hunger and thirst for righteousness go to this most holy sacrament; that is, those who confess their sins, are sorry for them, and who have the intention to do better, and as far as possible live according to God's will. Therefore, let a man examine himself, and if he finds such a disposition go the sacrament boldly, for he receives it worthily. And though he is weak, yet still believing, let him go to the sacrament. God will have patience. "A bruised reed he will not break and a dimly burning wick he will not quench." He is pleased with but the beginning of faith. Yet we should pray as in the Gospel: "Lord, I believe! Help thou mine unbelief." But whoever is not sorry for his sins and has no intention of bettering himself, but plans to continue in open sin and lust, let him stay away from the sacrament, for he receives it to his judgment, as St. Paul says.
Now then, as we are gathered together to observe the Supper of our Lord and to receive His body and blood, in order that we may do so worthily, that our faith may be strengthened, that we might live more according to God's will, that we might forgive our enemies and love our neighbors and do good to all, let us call on God our Father through Jesus Christ and pray together the holy Our Father.
It's been my impression that the removal of a eucharistic prayer was in reaction -- one could argue over-reaction -- to the language in the eucharistic prayers, specifically the Roman Canon, that would speak of a sacrifice or a work on our part. And, that a re-introduction of a eucharistic prayer would be a step back in that direction.
I understand those who argue for a eucharistic prayer -- that the problem isn't a prayer itself, but its contents. I can understand those too who argue that the Verba do not need anything else, as the words of Christ and the only part of the mass directly established by Christ himself.
So myself, I'm not settled on the question, and am happy to see both offered in the present service book. DS One, in its LW version, is used exclusively in my parish. When I was in WELS, we used in that parish the CW version of the Common Service on the first Communion Sunday of the month and the Service of Word and Sacrament, IMHO a ridiculous piece of Vatican II wannabeism, on the other. I think I would almost pay somebody to use the LSB version of the Common Service!
One of the reasons for a eucharistic prayer and an established order of mass was to insure that the celebrant would indeed do and say what the Church intends to do and say. And for Lutherans, that full and complete presentation of the Gospel as you say surely is not out of place.
I've actually never heard it argued that the reason for dropping the eucharistic prayer is that the verba are weak. The argument I've already heard is that the Verba are strong and don't need the help.
I know that you would never argue that the prayer helps the Verba. The point is simply that the Verba can stand by themselves and that they convey the Lord's Words very well because that's what they are.
The way that I would express the argument that you express as the Verba being weak is that we are weak, and we can be distracted from the Verba by extra :-) verbiage.
I've heard the arguments for the Eucharistic Prayer for years from folks I respect, and folks I have no respect for. The best arguments for it run along the lines that Pr. Weedon provides, or at least, the better arguments for it I find in some of his comments, such as, if not now, when better to pray with great thanksgiving? However, I still do not find any of these argument persuasive and I believe there is every very good and pressing reason to let the full spotlight fall on our Lord's words without any additional verbiage around them. Let them stand as the true highlight and centerpiece of the Divine Service, the great "for you" resounding forth to the congregation.
I sense in all the arguments made for the Eucharistic Prayer a sort of sentimentalism and romanticism over against the 4th century liturgies.
I believe that Pastor-soon-to-be Lehmann's points to be very well taken. The Verba stand gloriously and powerfully alone and are in need of no additional words or prayers to make them more special or meaningful.
I see no reason to depart from the practice of our Lutheran fathers in this matter and every good reason to remain with the Lutheran Divine Service as it is, without putting the Verba into a Eucharistic prayer.
Pastor to be Lehmann's concern, however, has a simple expedient:
CHANT the Verba; SPEAK the prayer.
Ta, da! No confusion. The Verba shine like they should.
Hey, Mikey, try it; you'll like it. ;)
Oh, and let's not leave off this historical fact that continually is glossed over:
In FM Luther included the Verba in a prayer of thanksgiving (brief as it was!) that was to be chanted in the Lord's Prayer tone. In the intro to DM, he tells folks that he's no intention of changing the Latin form he published earlier. So, in the one, the words were in a prayer and sung to the tone for the Lord's prayer. In the other they were not and sung to the tone for the Gospel.
It would be hard to understand how our Lutheran fathers, much closer to Luther, could have so terribly "blown it" by not including a Eucharistic Prayer in the Lutheran Divine Service.
I still do not believe you have a compelling case for the Eucharistic Prayer and in fact, given the present context of how the E.P. is used, and by whom, it would be, in my opinion, precisely the wrong time to bother with it.
But, my main objection is simply that no matter how well done it might be and for no matter how mnay good and well-intentioned reasons it is done, I believe it would only obscure the Verba and not allow them to have pride of place in the Divine Service.
I've listened carefully to those, like you, who have such love for the E.P. and I still don't hear any really clear Biblical case for it. It still appears to me that a very large part of the interest in the E.P. is based on early church practice. And, to me, we can be very comfortable following the lead of our Lutheran fathers and not dismissing nearly 500 years of good, solid practice in the specific Lutheran Church Orders, from whom our specific Church derives its liturgical practice.
Don't have time to rehash the whole argument again. Reread the essay I wrote in *Through the Church* - I believe that its arguments speak for themselves.
But the point of this piece was not to dwell on what might have been, but to comment on what IS: the form of eucharistic praying that appears in the first and second settings of the Divine Service in Lutheran Service Book.
The best apologia for the Eucharistic prayer from a Lutheran perspective is Peter Brunner's Worship in the Name of Jesus (CPH, 1968).
Part of the reticence of some Lutherans to embrace the Eucharistic prayer is a rigid distinction of sacrament and sacrifice as dogmatic categories. This is not the understanding of the Psalms (which proclaim and pray at the same time) and Apology XXIV: "We are perfectly willing for the Mass to be udnerstood as a daily sacrifice, provided this means the whole Mass, the ceremony and also the proclamation of the Gospel, faith, prayer, and thanksgiving." (Ap XXIV.35).
I think LSB has provided a suitable middle way that surrounds the Word of our Lord with prayer and yet makes clear the distinction. I greatly appreciate the rhythm of DS I and II's left column optiion with the exception of the final Pax Domini. Since I have an "east altar" I must turn around for the final bestowal of peace, which is a little disconnected from what comes before and after. A free-standing altar would work much better for this, in my opinion.
My reticence is what I've already indicated here. I just really so no point in it and there is a great danger and risk in leaving people with the impression that the celebration of the Lord's Supper sans a Eucharistic prayer is somehow something "less" or "not quite as nice" or perhaps even "not as good as it could be."
I like the "Eucharistic prayer that isn't" approach of the LSB, but I know there are dear brothers out there who want to have a "real" Eucharistic prayer.
I think Oliver Olson has done a magnificent job demonstrating why the Eucharistic Prayer simply is not something that would be wise for Lutherans to embrace as part of our celebration of the Lord's Prayer.
I have great respect for Brother Weedon, and I've heard him and others make the case for the E.P. for years, but...finally...it sounds more like aesthetics and a certain sentimentality toward the Early Church.
I believe that the E.P. effectively "buries" the Verba in a stream of words and the focus is taken off the Lord's Words and put on to our words, pious and true as they may be.
Paul,
You're just wrong. Get over it. ;)
William,
The way for it not to come disconnected is to make sure that you pick up our Lord's body and blood and hold them out toward the people as you say the Pax. After all, it was when the Risen One showed them His wounds that He said "Peace" and their joy overflowed.
And Brunner is GREAT. Charity forbids me from commenting upon the Norwegian...
As liturgical and as much of an evangelical catholic that Kenneth Korby was he was set against eucharistic prayers that incorporated the verba. I believe he would say that we need to clearly distinguish between what Christ is saying to you and what you are saying to Him. And as much as prayer is saying back His Words, there is still a difference between your speaking and His. Communion is not the same as a Buddhistic monism where we evaporate. Korby was much like Sasse in that regard, I think.
With that said, I think LSB has provided a good way of handling things. It has thanksgiving but keeps the Verba distinct and from God to us over the bread and wine.
William,
I think Korby's take on the eucharistic prayer also relates to what you have quoted from him or others on the precedence and priority of the Word of Christ in the Church as constitutive, and the church as confessing what is received. The Church is a creation of the Word. The Church is the interpretive context for the Word and yet the Church is not the origin of the Word. The Gospel is not the Church talking to herself.
I've seen pastors have the congregation read the Gospel lection in unison. But this is bad ecclesiology and bad Christology and a bad view of the office.
Let me see, a John who knows Korby well and doesn't care for Eucharistic prayer. Is that you, John Pless?
What I agree with whole-heartedly is that the middle ground approach of LSB does a fine job, and simply avoids the difficulties that can arise. However, I do think that it would have been even better had the Verba been noted for chanting, even further lifting them up.
Bill,
I may be wrong. That's always a very distinct possibility, yea, probability, but as John Adams said, "I do thank God for making me stubborn when I know I'm right."
: )
Who is this mystery "John"? Seems to know his stuff and his Korby and his anti-EP prayer position.
For the record, I too have no problem with the "Eucharistic Prayer that isn't" in the new hymnal, that's EPTI, for short.
Now, Paul, you'll notice that I didn't speak about Eucharistic prayer, but about praying eucharistically. That a page from Dr. Stuckwisch's play book - and a fine term to cover the variety of ways that the Church in thanksgiving receives the Verba and the gifts our Lord word's impart.
I'm not one much for weasle-word games. I got a belly full of it working at the International Center for ten years. And, I've never been accused of subtlety.
"never been accused of subtlety" ROTFLOL!
But this is not a word game. It recognizes that the 4th century anaphoras represent ONE way that the Church has prayed eucharistically over the years, but not the only way. "Praying eucharistically" is a handy term for covering practices as various as the Didache to St. Basil, the Mozarabic anaphoras to the Roman Canon, the Petri prayer in Sweden to the Kanz mass in Germany, the DM and FM and the Book of Common Prayer, right on down to LSB.
Well, then, all is well. I'm happy with the "Eucharistic-prayer-that-isn't" in LSB, and you are happy praying Eucharistically with it.
Of course, I would be hard pressed to identify any non-eucharistically praying prayer, but...that's a conversation for another time.
I realize I'm jumping into this rather late, but this last weekend I read Luther Reed's The Lutheran Liturgy. It had a pretty fair treatment of Eucharistic prayer. What I found most interesting is a quote that he cites to the effect of "in eliminating the Eucharistic Prayer, Lutherans are more Roman than Rome." In other-words, the stand alone Verba promotes the ex opera operato belief that many Lutherans (myself up until this last year included) have. It is precisely why we have the whole consecrationist/receptionist argument, which ultimately is the wrong argument to have in the first place.
It strikes me as though Verba-bookending prayers of a Eucharistic nature (I just wanted to throw a new term in) are somewhat ornamental in nature. Think on what an ornament is - something that is not required but is added on to enhance.
If they enhance and point out the wonders of the Sacrament - fantastic. And various places can use the ornamentation as much as they desire. IF they go beyond ornamentation and draw attention unto themselves - they become theologically and liturigically gaudy, which is to be avoided.
Also - quick interesting thought - referring to the admonition which Chemnitz had -- hasn't the introductory confessional service basically taken that proclamatory task -- and one can see the movement and consoldation from the full confessional services to the tiny one that is part of our typical Divine service today. Or in other words - is what elements of Eucharisitic prayer taught or accomplished in "good old days" now accomplished by Corporate Confession and Absolution?
Hmmmm....Mr. Lorfeld just opened up an interesting can of worms. Care to elaborate on your comment that without a E.P. Lutheranism is guilty of an ex opere operato view of the Verba? Please explain what you mean when you refer to the Verba and use the phrase ex opere operato. Thanks.
The point is simply that Lutheranism realized and recognized that the Verba are THE words to be given the full spotlight. They neither need, nor require, any "ornamentation" to "make them more special" or "highlight them." They stand at the very center and heart of the Divine Service as the full, powerful Gospel to be heard without piles of verbiage burying them amidst pious thoughts and statements.
Rev. McCain,
Two questions:
1. Is the Reformation-era Swedish Lutheran liturgy, then, with its EP, actually less authentically Lutheran than its contemporary German service and the 20th-century Common Service, or is it more a matter of us in the LCMS conserving the faithful liturgy we received, since we're organizationally descended from the German churches and not the Swedish?
2. You assert that the Verba doesn't need any ornamentation, but I wonder to what extent the other ornamentation in the service is more necessary than EP justifying keeping it (e.g. the Gradual, the Allelua, the responses before and after the Gospel). I completely understand the arguments against confusing the nature of the Verba, but I guess I haven't heard a satisfactory definition of what makes EP more fundamentally ornamentation than, say, the Collect.
Phil Dunker
Oh don't go all Karlstadt and knock all oramentation. We don't need a liturgical whitewashing. There can be extra things of beauty in the Church - including beautifully worded prayers. It's a question of how much is too much - and to simply say, "Anything is too much" is just. . . well, too much. I write this being a pastor who uses simple LSB 184 and is content with it - and would use the non-additional prayer options in the other services -- but there's nothing freaky wrong with having a few more prayers in a service.
Just because something doesn't need ornamentation doesn't mean that it is wrong to have ornamentation. But it can be nice on occassion or in some places.
Post a Comment