Certain ex-Lutherans who happen to be good friends of mine, argue that it is inaccurate to speak of LSB as the Synod's official liturgy. I think they have a vested answer to the question. But let's let the LSB itself answer:
The Preface to LSB notes:
"Officially accepted at the Synod's 2004 convention, Lutheran Service Book is a careful blending of the best of The Lutheran Hymnal and Lutheran Worship. It offers treasured melodies and texts that have nourished God's people for generations.... Lutheran Service Book is offered with the prayer that it may be used in all its fullness to give voice to the prayer, praise, and thanksgiving of God's holy people as they are graciously served by Him through Word and Sacrament."
From the Preface to the Altar Book:
"There are two levels of rubrics that are used in the Altar Book.
* Rubrics - Rubrics are italicized directions in red that are used throughout the service to describe how the rite is to be conducted....
* 'May' rubrics - Rubrics that contain the word 'may' are optional and may or may not be followed accoording to the needs of the particular circumstances or according to pastoral judgment."
And that's precisely how St. Paul's has received LSB - a great resource that guides us into giving fuller voice to the prayer, praise, and thanksgiving of God's holy people as He serves us in Word and Sacrament. It is "ordo" or "use" precisely as Lutherans use such things - freed from the burden of "law" and received and rejoiced in as Gospel-bearing, that is, Christ-bearing. We live within the structure it provides in the freedom afforded with the "may" rubrics.
28 comments:
I guess it depends on what one means by "official." It is official in the sense that it has been endorsed by the Synod in convention. But so far as I know there is no requirement that congregations actually use it, nor any constitutional means in the Synod for there to be any such requirement. Thus, in reality it is only a collection of liturgical materials provided by the Synod to its congregations to use if they so desire. Each congregation remains free to order its worship in any manner it sees fit (with or without the LSB or any other hymnal or agenda).
That extremely wide degree of freedom for congregations may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on one's point of view. But whatever it is, it certainly cannot be called a lex orandi, because there is in fact no lex by which any congregation feels bound.
The value of a real lex orandi, at the very least, is that no matter what parish one finds oneself in, one can rely on worship that has the same purpose, structure, and essential content. And that, in turn, means that one can be sure that it is the ministry of Word and Sacrament of the Apostolic Church that is taking place. In an environment of total liturgical freedom, there is nothing in the structure of worship that the faithful can rely on.
And in that environment, the availability of a suite of liturgical materials (however excellent) that is entirely optional changes nothing.
I would agree, except in my experience in a church that does have a lex for its orandi, that made no difference either. If I were to show up at the RC parish two blocks away to which I am "supposed" to belong, I have no idea what exactly I would find, despite having watched the novus ordo, now the "ordinary" form of the Roman rite, from its inception and despite a considerable familiarity with what is now the "extraordinary" form.
Speaking of which, that's my problem with the LSB. So much of what it offers is just excellent. And right alongside it is Vatican II for Lutherans. The liturgy and its lectionary were a deliberate distancing from the "historic" liturgy, and if you don't think so you should have had some of its framers for professors. I did.
DS3, 4 and 5. the version of the "one-year" lectionary, the selection of hymns, the major hours -- fabulous. But the other stuff, it is no more "historic" liturgy than a praise service with CCM and attempts to graft it on to our message no more appropriate than attempts to graft other types of worship designed to serve a different message, say a praise service, to our message.
Dear Bill,
I think your post may be a playing-with-words, arising from the vested interest of him who wrote it.
If by "official" liturgy you mean "accepted at the 2004 convention," then, as I've pointed out elsewhere, so in principle is worship not done according to this or any other hymnal, since in its very next resolution, the 2004 convention directed the COW to offer guidance in the preparation of alternative worship materials. (That resolution was re-affirmed this year.) This is all the "official-ness" alternative forms could possibly have, since by definition they change weekly and convention only happens once a triennium.
You certainly can't mean by "official" a lex orandi, as Chris Jones has pointed out.
The problem isn't that the LSB isn't "official"--whatever that "law-term" might mean in such a "gospel-centered" confession. The problem is that it's not the only "official" worship. "Alternative" forms have the exact same sanction as LSB: a resolution in convention by a legal, not-for-profit corporation.
And that's ok with me. I have no vested interest in whether you have one ordo or ten thousand of them. I do have a vested interest in urging you to let your verba conform to the res of the situation. That vested interest is the duty of true friendship.
Of course, Christopher (and Robb) you are right that it is contrary to the very nature of the Synodical fellowship for Synod to REQUIRE use of a given Ordo within any congregation - which would assume the top-down structure that we do not have at all. The most the Synod can do as Synod is to prepare and commend the use the of the LSB for her parishes, and this she has done. The fact that she also asked the Commission to prepare alternative worship resources does not alter the fact that the LCMS commends to ALL her parishes the use of LSB.
As for Lex orandi... the phrase is most often used to convey the truth that how people pray shapes how they believe. The force isn't on the "lex" as binding law at all, is it?
If I can put it this way - vested interest and all! - a parish that uses the LSB faithfully will indeed pray and so believe (or come to believe) in a manner congruent with the Lutheran Symbols. When the Synod commends it to the parishes as her official liturgy, that's the force of the commendation: "it's faithful." It was her fear that such could not be said of much current alternative worship material that was the impulse behind the move to provide for that - admittedly, I think that's like trying to fix a gaping flesh wound with a band aid, rather than the more drastic but beneficial surgery of saying: "come home to your own liturgy!"
Past Elder, I really WANT to agree with you on this, but cannot. I don't particularly care for DS I or II, but clearly the Mass is there too. I just describe it as the Mass for folks who grew up in the 1960's - at least as far as the music goes. ;) I do, however, appreciate the fuller Eucharistia present in those two orders.
Oh, I blew it. I should have written: "with a [praise] band aid." ;)
Ah, you know, I don't think anyone captured the force of the "lex" for Lutherans better than these words from The Lutheran Hymnal:
"Congregations are urged to let the basic structure of the Service remain intact. The wide choice permitted in the Rubrics makes it possible to have the Service as simple or as elaborate as the circumstances of each Congregation may indicate."
I do, however, appreciate the fuller Eucharistia present in those two orders.
And therein, I'm afraid, lies my problem with Lutheran worship, LCMS or otherwise.
It always strikes me whenever I attend a Lutheran service with my Lutheran family members how much I miss the full Eucharistic canon of the Roman liturgy. I just can't get around that.
I don't know what the situation is in Past Elder's neck of the woods but in the ten years I have been Catholic I have attended Mass at many parishes other than my own. Never did I feel that I was a stranger in strange land.
I appreciate all that is good and beautiful about Lutheran worship but when holy orders are separated from the liturgy itself its historicity and universality has been impaired.
Good reply, William! Your observations and exhortations regarding LSB contribute much more toward a free embrace of the forms it offers than any top down lex.
I am a bit puzzled, though. What is wrong with the settings of DS I and II? Are not these recognizably the western catholic rite? Why is DS 3 to be preferred over them? If anything, one might object to DS 4's paraphrases of the ordinaries, though I find them refreshing.
Christine,
It leads us down yet another pleasant by-way of history, but I have wanted for some time to write a paper on what was lost with the Exhortations to Communicants. Weird as it may sound, I would hypothesize that that those old Exhortations preserved the heart of the old Eucharistias: the telling aloud of the great things God has done for His people.
Here's just one example. It's the third exhortation from Braunschweig-Wölfenbüttel, 1569. Check out what is confessed here about God's actions and compare with the great 4th century anaphorae:
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.
Bill,
I have no desire to keep on discussing a matter completely internal to the LCMS. I get no joy--whether anyone believes it or not--from talking about issues like this. But commitment to the truth compels me to speak. I will make my point as clearly and simply as I can, and then be silent.
I do understand that the LSB is Synodically approved. I was, after all, a doctrinal reviewer for that book, and won some battles (the fixing of Ambrose's morning hymn) and lost other battles (the inclusion of the exorcisms in the baptismal rite).
But the fact that the same body (the Synod in convention), by the same means (a resolution), also authorized the development of "alternative worship forms," demonstrates conclusively that the book and the projection screen are on equal footing.
"Look at the bill," you're saying, "the man bought his wife a diamond ring." "Yes," I reply, "but on the same bill he bought his mistress a pair of diamond earrings."
I would hypothesize that that those old Exhortations preserved the heart of the old Eucharistias: the telling aloud of the great things God has done for His people.
To an extent they do, Pastor and they are very beautiful.
But in the Eucharistic prayers of the Orthodox East and the Catholic West I get a stronger sense of the anamnesis -- that the veils of time and space have been peeled back and the once-for-all holy sacrifice of Calvary is being made present for me, here, right now.
I have a stronger sense that my life is being offered as a living sacrifice along with the bread and wine that have become the true Body and Blood, that Christ has caught me and all His people up with himself and presents me to the Father purely on His merits.
Standing with the angels and saints of all time, with all of God's holy people of every age.
I have attended LCMS services where the Pastor abruptly spoke the verba right after the Sanctus. Yes, it may be Biblical -- but it's not catholic.
Because of our unusual decentralized polity, there really is no difference between "shall" and "may" rubrics in any hymnal. I really don't know why the distinction is made at all. The entire LSB is a "may" rubric - especially when the synod is in the process of endorsing "creative" worship materials.
There are 5 settings of the Divine Service (and I do understand why) - thus even among the "liturgical" congregations, there is no uniformity. It's more like a "pentaformity" at best.
It isn't necessarily a "Lutheran" thing to allow congregations to do anything they want. In the Church of Sweden, for example, all parishes are bound to use the official Psalmboken.
I do think the fracturing of our worship materials and "styles" is the inevitable result of a pseudo-democratic polity. And I don't think Humpty Dumpty is on his way to catholic wholeness any time soon.
Since the English speaking Roman Catholic Church is in the process of restoring "And with your spirit" to the salutation, I wonder if we will eventually become the only English speaking Christians still using this 1960s innovation.
Having said all that, I do think LSB is far better than what we could have hoped for coming from a committee from within a terribly divided politically-laden synod.
Of course, it will be interesting to see what other "official worship resources" come out of the COW. Or should that be "udder resources" from the COW. Hopefully, it won't be "udder destruction."
Kyrie eleison.
It isn't necessarily a "Lutheran" thing to allow congregations to do anything they want. In the Church of Sweden, for example, all parishes are bound to use the official Psalmboken.
Not surprising since the Church of Sweden is far more hierarchical than the Lutheran Church in America.
William,
What I don't like about those two settings is mostly just the music. But there is also the sort of odd revision of the Gloria's text. And I'm just an old fogey when it comes to the Anglican chant. I think it works better. So my preference really is for DS 3, though I recognize the value in each of the other liturgies too. I just don't think they have the same "staying power" as it does.
Robb,
I understand the point you raise, and you know I have no sympathy with the dropping of the Lutheran liturgy for the praise band nonsense. As I said at our pastoral conference, I don't think it's sinful per se, but it is foolish to throw away the rich gems and adornment of our Churches for the costume jewelry and glitterly rhinestones of American evangelicalism.
Christine,
In our usual liturgy (DS 3) we go from the Sanctus to the Our Father to the Verba, but I don't think it comes across as being neglectful of anamnesis. What helps in that some way is the stronger Prefaces in LSB - stronger than in TLH at any rate, I would argue. And when you combine that with chanting, it does serve to remind that we do indeed stand with the whole company of heaven and earth as we receive from the Lamb of God His life-giving Body and Blood and as our very lives are offered up to Him as a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise.
Reverend Dean,
You remind me of Fr. Fenton's infamous rubric #1! ;) "Shall" perhaps ought read "should" rubrics!
Being a Southron, I know you're familiar with the double-linking verb construction: "might could."
Maybe we should make the distinction between "might could" rubrics and "might should" rubrics.
The other Southern rubric involves the third person plural for the salutation: "The Lord be with y'all" (which Fritz the Grammarian would point out is already in the King James "you".).
Deo vindice,
Reverend Dean,
Dang! You nailed it! Might could and might should. I LOVE it!
What helps in that some way is the stronger Prefaces in LSB - stronger than in TLH at any rate, I would argue.
No doubt.
But I would still maintain that the preparation of the gifts, the Eucharistic prayers and the Communion rite are a universal construct in the Roman Rite in a way they are not in Lutheran worship. There is simply too much variation in various congregations not to mention in various Lutheran bodies.
Fr. Weedon, what do you mean when you say that the prefaces in LSB are stronger than they are in TLH? Now if only they had included them in the hymnal . . .
Brian,
Well, for example, here is common preface number 2:
"It is truly good, right, and salutary that we should at all times and in all places give thanks to You, holy Lord, almighty Father, everlasting God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who, having created all things, took on human flesh and was born of the virgin Mary. For our sake He died on the cross and rose from the dead to put an end to death, thus fulfilling Your will and gaining for You a holy people. Therefore with angels and archangels..."
Extra brownie points if you can identify the source from which this Preface lifts and condenses its thanksgiving!
Further hint: Past Elder's not gonna like it :) :)
The promotional materials for the Synod's other new hymnal, QSB, include the following:
Ribbons and Ribrics™:
One of the ingenious features of the QSB is a pair of ribbons added to the binding, which allows one to mark his place in the liturgy, the psalmody, or the hymnody.
Of course, along with the new ribbons are appropriate rubrics to enrich one’s devotional life. Rubrics pertaining to the ribbons will be designated as Ribrics™.
1. Two ribbons were chosen rather than three so that the number of ribbons would not be understood as Trinitarian. The ribbons should not be construed to have ANY theological significance.
2. Two ribbons should never be used to mark the same page because this offends the order of creation.
3. It is appropriate to change the colors of the ribbons throughout the church year to match the paraments.
4. During Advent and Lent (and Pre-Lent, where observed), only one ribbon should be used.
5. No ribbons may be used from the stripping of the altar on Maundy Thursday through the first Alleluia of Easter Vigil.
6. During Eastertide, both ribbons must be used to signify our joy.
7. The hymnal may not be opened to a place marked by a ribbon while one is kneeling (The Black Ribric™).
Are not DS1 & 2 recognisably the Western Catholic rite? No, they are not. The Novus Ordo models from which they are crafted were specifically intended to de-westernise worship by the re-introduction of Eastern elements. At least that's what the guys who put it to-gether said.
But, like all things Roman, as opposed to catholic, they screwed it up. For example, instead of restoring the petitionary antecedents to Lord, have mercy, it became penitential, a substitute for the confiteor.
For the times we have (here fill in with the sin of your choice, preferably a social one), Lord have mercy.
At least DS1 & 2, in line from even the LBW, got it right, keeping confession and absolution one thing, then the Eastern In peace let us pray to the Lord with the first three or so petitions from the Eastern liturgy.
That's for openers (literally!).
Actually I did once attend "Mass" in the RC parish to which I am "supposed" to belong. The funeral of an elderly friend of my wife's. Having served dozens of RC funerals as a kid, and been in the chant choir for dozens more (we school kids were the schola) it struck me as an utterly shallow and pathetic shell of what RC funerals once were. I would rather be put in a bag and buried in the back yard than have such slop done for me. Not even Siegfrieds Tod could have saved it!
But back to the originals for DS1 & 2, I've often thought that if you really want to re-Greekify the western liturgy, why not put the confession and absolution to where it is in the Eastern liturgy -- not in the mass of the catechumens, open to all, but at the start of the mass of the faithful, since only a believer can truly confess his sins?
Or better yet just go Eastern and use the liturgy of St John Chrysostom or one of the others? When I was in WELS, I put the parts of the Service of Word and Sacrament -- WELS' hymn of adoration to Vatican II -- in the Eastern order and gave it to my pastor, who was also on the WELS version of COW. No doubt they said Christian Freedom! and adiaphora! antiphonally, puked, and went on about their day.
Chalk it up to being a convert if you will, but I have come to dearly love the Common Service, and think the version in LSB is almost a miracle, although in my parish I will probably never hear it since we seem to stick to the Vatican II for Lutherans stuff.
And hey, can a Ribrics Cube not be far behind!
"In the Church of Sweden, for example, all parishes are bound to use the official Psalmboken."
This is a more-or-less meaningless statement, albeit true; for ever since the 1986 Liturgy replaced the previous 1942 Liturgy, so many exceptions and variations have been allowed that any pastor can do just about what he (or she) pleases. For instance, when I was staying with Folke Olofsson in 2005, when he was still Rector of Rasbo & Rasbokils, he showed me the "Nessio Missal" which he used in his parish. This is a version of the 1986 Church Order with "Catholic additions" -- additional Eucharistic Prayers, epicleses inserted into the 1986 Eucharistic Prayers, a stronger "absolution" in the Confession Rite than the official one, an anointing with oil added to the Confirmation Rite, etc. This "Nessio Missal" was essentially a private initiative, but it was published by one of the major Swedish Lutheran publishing houses (rather sumptuously, I might add), and everything it contains can be squeezed in under the broad provisions of the 1986 Church Order -- as indeed can (and are) "inclusive language" rites of the most bizarre and extreme sort for those that like that sort of thing, as well as "Wedding Masses" for homosexual "partners" and the like. No wonder Dr. Olofsson, when last I visited him, had resigned his benefice and was beginning seriously to consider Orthodoxy.
as well as "Wedding Masses" for homosexual "partners" and the like.
Kyrie eleison! And how my Lutheran mother used to beam when she recalled how she learned in school about how Gustavus Vasa saved the Lutherans from the onslaught of the Catholic hordes.
Guess the Reformation has run its course in Sweden, even as the Catholic Church has planted new parishes staffed by a native Swedish bishop.
Dr. Tighe's point about the death of the Reformation in Sweden is but a testimony to the victory of liberalism in the Church where the Word of God, the Sacred Scripture, is set aside so that we may be guided by the Zeitgeist, a rather demonic fellow inevitably.
Pr. Weedon, your last comment is absolutely true. And it is a sobering thought to consider that no amount of fine liturgy, or episcipal polity, no amount of vestment finery or "wonderful tradition" prevented that Church from going haywire.
Ditto, Pastor McCain!
I posted on my blog about this, in part inspired by watching a local ELCA service on one of our community access cable channels, along with Congregational and Baptist (thought they hide the word pretty well) ones.
For another example of same, one could look at Rome itself.
And it is a sobering thought to consider that no amount of fine liturgy, or episcipal polity, no amount of vestment finery or "wonderful tradition" prevented that Church from going haywire.
Nor did sola scriptura.
When the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Lord is removed, everything else follows right behind.
Post a Comment