...inevitably the question arose of authority. I suggested again, as I have before, that there should be submission to the Liturgy adopted by our Synod. I did not mean particularly that one must use Lutheran Service Book. But if one uses Lutheran Worship, it should be governed by the rubrics contained in Lutheran Worship Altar Book; similarly, if one uses The Lutheran Hymnal, according to the rubrics in The Lutheran Liturgy; and of course, if Lutheran Service Book, according to the rubrics in the Altar Book.
Now, I was challenged on this and it was pointed out that I do not observe these rites as they are printed. The point being that I elevate, I genuflect, I sign myself with the cross on forehead, lips and heart before the Gospel, I kiss the Gospel book and the altar, and so on. In short, I do ceremonies that are neither prescribed nor suggested.
I would respond, though, that there is a great difference between adding ceremonies (especially historic ones) and dropping ceremonies or parts of the rite which are explicitly prescribed. Certainly in the rubrics of all three books, there are ceremonies that are suggested but not prescribed ("may" rubrics). The worth of any ceremony is in what it confesses. And above all, I'd argue, the text and the ordering of the text in each rite should be respected precisely as it stands.
I maintain that we ought, as Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod clerics, to submit ourselves to the "shall" rubrics of the rite our parish employs because of what these rubrics end up confessing and confessing clearly. Other ceremonies beyond those prescribed or suggested may indeed be used if these aid in confessing the faith, and this in no way undermines the general principle: "Read the black, do the red." In fact, it recognizes that many customs that grow up and spread from the grass roots, if you will, end up being "may" rubrics in the next generation. I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen with the elevation, which has spread like wildfire in the Synod in my own life-time, though it is not (yet) so much as mentioned in our rubrics.
So while additional ceremonies may be used without prejudice, I think it utterly fitting that we all learn the humility of DOING the ceremony as prescribed in the rite used within our parish.
This is a straw man argument -- is genuflecting where it is neither prescribed nor proscribed the same as eliminating the majority of the liturgy or distorting the pattern so that it is unrecognizable? I hate it when people point to things added (things with history and stature)and then insist it is the same as their reworking the entire liturgy to become something unrecognizable as the same thing. Everyone knows it is not.
ReplyDeleteWe use the word catholic in the creed -- is that the same as writing your own creed? Of course not -- not even close to the same. While some might argue for using the word with lesser history but the authority of the printing on the page (Christian), catholic has the history and the footnote.
Pr. Peters,
ReplyDeleteI understood the challenge to Pr. Weedon's suggestion to be exactly along the lines you express here, namely that whether we use the same book or stick to the rubrics in whatever synodically approved book we use, the vital thing is that we share a common confession of the faith and adhere to the same theology of worship. Far from a straw man, the argument against the "use the same book or stick to the rubrics within the book you're using" argument is that differences in ceremony are precisely NOT the same thing as distorting the pattern so that it is unrecognizable.
In Christ,
Tom
Pr. Weeden,
ReplyDeleteI have no personal problems with what you add, but the interpretive maxim is "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" -- i.e., the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.
So I suspect you need to develop your argument as to why you conclude that the rubrics establish a minimum set of practices that cannot be subtracted from, but do not also set a maximal set of practices.
FWIW.
This is a very old controversy. Lege rubrum si vis intelligere nigrum is the maxim: read the red if you would understand the black.
ReplyDeleteWhich poses three, at least, problems.
1. Who writes the red, which means, who has that authority? In Rome, no problem, the pope promulgates them, they exist by his authority, and missals are known by the pope and date of their promulgation officially. There is literally no such thing as the "Tridentine Rite" for example; there is the Mass of Pius V of 1570, the Mass of John XXIII of 1962, and others too. We do not recognise that authority. So does a synodical action replace it, at least regarding worship?
2. Which leads to the second problem: are rubrics prescriptive or descriptive or some one and some the other? This is a false distinction, as if one may not subtract from but one may add to, or as if one may observe some but not others, based on misunderstanding statements regarding the relative seriousness of infractions or circumstances under which infractions may be made as defining infraction itself. Rubrics are rubrics and by definition define infraction, and places where choice is allowed are clearly marked ad libitum and the range of choice is specified.
3. Which brings up that originally there were no rubrics, but there were directions, which were passed on orally rather than written in red in the texts themselves. Which indicates a not to be messed with nature to the texts. A general pattern or order is independent of specific rubrics, which I think is Pastor Messer's point.
4. Which leads to our modern anomaly of not only varying rubrics but varying texts -- from say the Our Father this way, or say it that way, to say the gloria or this too, to use this eucharistic prayer or that one or none at all and Verba only, to use this set of readings or use that set of readings within this or that calendar -- in which case we have "contemporary" rather than "traditional" worship, the only difference being whether the local pastor or some other authority (vide point one) makes the choice of sources, and whether the sources are this or that committee's work, Willow Creek or whatever.
Actually, I think the LSB offers a very fine help on the rubrical questions. For right in the Preface of the Altar Book we are told: "Rubrics are never to be seen as ends in themselves. Their purpose is not to call attention either to themselves or to those leading the service. The purpose of the rubrics is to promote reverence toward God, thus freeing the worshipper to receive God's gifts offered through His means of grace and to offer to Him the sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. A genuine and authentic use of the rubrics allows the focus of the service to be on the grace and mercy of the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
ReplyDeleteFurther, the LSB does not have "shall" rubrics, but uses the simple declarative (this is actually the pattern of the old Lutheran Church Orders), "they describe how the rite is to be conducted.... identify what is ordinarily done." In Lutheranism rubrics always ran historically in the indicative not the imperative. "The priest turns to the altar and chants the collect."
Jim,
Why I conclude that the rubrics are not the SOLE ceremonies to be used is because this has always been the practice of Lutheranism. Let me give a concrete example. You can search the texts of the Saxon Church Orders up and down and you'd NEVER find reference to the Church practices which Christian Gerber in his little monograph on Saxon Church practices witnesses to. The use of the sacring bell is an example - it's simply not mentioned anywhere. But it was used in many places at the consecration. What's in the book was what they did, and usually followed rather carefully, but it never stopped them from ADDING other ceremonies. For a really hysterical read, you need to check out the description of Christmas Matins in Paul Gerhardt's parish that Schalk details!!!
I don't think a distinction in grammatical mood explains it or addresses it. "The priest turns to the altar" is indicative realis mood correctly only if priests actually turn to the altar; it indicates nothing if priests feel free to turn to the altar or not as they see it serving or not serving the grace and mercy of God.
ReplyDeleteIn the General Rubrics of TLH -- which following tradition in this as it does in all things are placed apart from the texts themselves and their specific rubrics -- the very first statement is a distinction between shall and may rubrics to distinguish what is obligatory from what is optional, and if any would mistake this for "legalism", the penultimate statement speaks of a general structure to remain intact, speaks of a "wide choice permitted in the Rubrics" and leaves such matters "as the circumstances of each congregation may indicate."
Thus does TLH earn the definite article in its name more with each passing day, a solid example of what rubrics and worship is all about and not all about as distinct from the This, That and The Other comedy emanating from the 1960s.
But the "shall" and "may" rubrics show up *for the first time* when they Englished the service. Before that, the Agenda ran indicatively. Now, a Kraut has the ability to make any indicative imperative -
ReplyDeleteYou VILL eat that zoup und you VILL enjoy it!
Now, a Kraut has the ability to make any indicative imperative -
ReplyDeleteYou VILL eat that zoup und you VILL enjoy it!
Er, you mean meine Mutter was wrong to tell me that?
DieKrautKristine
Now, Christine, not wrong; just, um, GERMAN. :) I hope you know that I use the word Kraut with all due affection. I really do love the Germans even when they drive me crazy...
ReplyDeleteI have to come clean, Pastor Weedon. My genteel East Prussian mother would never have said such a thing.
ReplyDeleteNow, my Bavarian relatives might have (now I need to duck because Past Elder may lob a Sauerbraten at me; I think he has real appreciation for Bavarian "gemeutlichkeit").
I really do love the Germans even when they drive me crazy...
Even one who was a rascal named Martin Luther. He drove some people crazy too! :)
Where else but the Church would we find such a motley crew!
Christine
Great flying Judas H Priest at Offut, my point about the indicative/descriptuve mood stands along with, apparently, the stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, every single one of the rubrics in the 1950 dated missal (that would be Roman) that I used as a youngster is in present tense indicative, not imperative.
Therefore grammatical mood is not indicative (pun intended, Nietzschean word dance here) of where you can jack around and where you can't, which places are indicated in various ways, in TLH by the distinction between shall and may.
Therefore does TLH among many other ways reveal itself as the work of reverent men intending to uphold the ceremonies previously in use, omitting only what contradicts the Gospel, as opposed to 20th century scholars cutting and pasting from here and there to create new entities to toss in the liturgical bong and see what gives the best hits.
Last, it would be "zat zoup" not "that soup", as any survivor, er rather veteran, of a refectory staffed by descendants of 48ers and Franco-Prussian War Bavarian draft dodgers can tell you -- like me, who is not a real German, I just play one on the Internet.
I am an Angle though, which was originally from Angeln in what is now Schleswig-Holstein, before the Brythons graciously invited us to come live in the lands recently vacated from the Iceni.
I am an Angle though, which was originally from Angeln in what is now Schleswig-Holstein, before the Brythons graciously invited us to come live in the lands recently vacated from the Iceni.
ReplyDeleteWell, remember what Pope Gregory said:
"They are not Angles but angels."
Now please don't let that go to your head.
Franco-Prussian War Bavarian draft dodgers indeed.
Hey, there's quite a bit of evidence in Bavaria of Celtic settlements, not to mention that the Romans hung out there for quite a while. No wonder my paternal grandmother looked so dang Italian!
Christine
Wirklich, that was the second wave of immigration -- Bavarians not wanting to fight for Bismarck and Prussia against France!
ReplyDeleteYes Gregory is reputed to have said that, but I think it more likely that he was referring to the angelic nature of our peronalities, so even and calm, irenic and placid, avoiding both controversy and mirth as detracting from the pacific vision.
I have a question about the "challenge" that you do not observe the rites as printed, that you do things like elevate and genuflect and cross yourself.
ReplyDeleteMy pastor has said on a few occasions that he has been questioned (and sometimes chastised) for the amount of "ceremony" he observes. But he explained that he wasn't doing anything new; he said it was all in the book. Not in the pew edition of TLH, but in the handbook or some other book of rubrics which accompanied TLH. (I'm sorry; I can't remember the name of the book.) He said the genuflecting and elevation and sign of the cross and all that was in the book. He said we just didn't know it because (synod-wide) we didn't pay attention unless it was in the pew edition of the hymnal.