Altar Bells

[ViaCrucis]

Just as a point of reference, that what you attribute to Roman Catholicism, in my opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, my Lutheran friends, represents the organic traditional expression of faith of the Lutherans, at least during the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy as it is known, before the ascendancy of the Pietist and Rationalist movements of the late 18th century, except they believe the sacrifice is purely a divine sacrifice and the bread and wine remain physically united with the body and blood. But the theology of the mass is extremely similiar and Martin Luther vehemently denied having abolished the mass or having departed in any radical away from RC eucharistic doctrine concerning what the Eucharist actually is.

What is specifically rejected is the idea of the "Sacrifice of the Mass", namely that the priest offers or re-presents, in an unbloody manner, the sacrifice of Christ to the Father. This rejection stems, as I understand it, from a couple points:

The Confessions explicitly reject the idea of offering the Mass for the dead, this itself an extension of our rejection of Purgatory and the complex medieval ideas of merit. Namely that there exists a "treasury of merits" which can be dispensed to aid the Christian, especially to aid the Christian in their time spent in Purgatory--such merits were accrued by the Saints who, by their good works in their earthly lives had a surplus of merits and we can become benefactors of these. Additionally that the Sacraments were efficacious ex opere operato--of the work itself; so that Mass for the dead could improve the condition of those in Purgatory to lessen their time there. In addition to this, the Eucharist is not a sacrificial act which we offer to God, it is a sacramental act, what God does for us; we are the benefactors of the Eucharist because there is, here, the very body and blood of Christ broken and shed for us. The direction is downward not upward.

(as a parenthetical, I think it is only fair to say that I think that much of what is rejected in the Confessions was not so much formal teaching from Rome so much as popular theology, a symptom of uneducated clergy, misinformed laity, and viperous individuals such as Johann Teztel--contemporary Roman Catholic teaching, while not necessarily fully acceptable, is certainly a lot less problematic from the POV of the Confessions than the popular Catholicism of the 16th century)

That said, that doesn't mean the Eucharist isn't connected to the language of sacrifice, Christ's sacrifice, because after all it is the very body and blood of Christ broken and shed for us.

I don't know to what degree this exactly conforms with Lutheran confessional language, but personally I've really appreciated the Orthodox idea of anamnesis here; that this Supper for the remembrance of our Lord is not a "memorial" but a living, dynamic participation in what our Lord has done. The past and the present are brought together in the Supper, and we are participants, sharers, in the very body and blood of Christ in His death on the cross.

In some ways the differences between Roman teaching and Lutheran teaching is subtle, or rather there is certainly a great deal of similarity, but the nuances and minute details are significant, and stem from larger differences of theology. Unremarkably the distinctiveness of Lutheran theology can almost always come back to the Law-Gospel dichotomy, and an emphatic insistence on the Theology of the Cross over and against theologies of glory. In short Lutheran theology asserts time and again, God comes down, we don't go up, God always comes down.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

The local ELCA Lutheran church has an altar bell on the floor that is struck with a mallet but it is not always used. They also have a sanctuary lamp that is always lit.

I agree with VC, the differences between Lutheran and Catholic theology of the Eucharist seem to be down to emphasis more than substance. But since Lutheran theology is more pastoral in nature, emphasis makes all the difference.

 

[Archivist]

I'm glad that I was able to get some interesting discussion going with this thread.

I did learn that the ELCA church that I visited only uses alter bells during the season of Easter.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

What is specifically rejected is the idea of the "Sacrifice of the Mass", namely that the priest offers or re-presents, in an unbloody manner, the sacrifice of Christ to the Father. This rejection stems, as I understand it, from a couple points:

The Confessions explicitly reject the idea of offering the Mass for the dead, this itself an extension of our rejection of Purgatory and the complex medieval ideas of merit. Namely that there exists a "treasury of merits" which can be dispensed to aid the Christian, especially to aid the Christian in their time spent in Purgatory--such merits were accrued by the Saints who, by their good works in their earthly lives had a surplus of merits and we can become benefactors of these. Additionally that the Sacraments were efficacious ex opere operato--of the work itself; so that Mass for the dead could improve the condition of those in Purgatory to lessen their time there. In addition to this, the Eucharist is not a sacrificial act which we offer to God, it is a sacramental act, what God does for us; we are the benefactors of the Eucharist because there is, here, the very body and blood of Christ broken and shed for us. The direction is downward not upward.

(as a parenthetical, I think it is only fair to say that I think that much of what is rejected in the Confessions was not so much formal teaching from Rome so much as popular theology, a symptom of uneducated clergy, misinformed laity, and viperous individuals such as Johann Teztel--contemporary Roman Catholic teaching, while not necessarily fully acceptable, is certainly a lot less problematic from the POV of the Confessions than the popular Catholicism of the 16th century)

That said, that doesn't mean the Eucharist isn't connected to the language of sacrifice, Christ's sacrifice, because after all it is the very body and blood of Christ broken and shed for us.

I don't know to what degree this exactly conforms with Lutheran confessional language, but personally I've really appreciated the Orthodox idea of anamnesis here; that this Supper for the remembrance of our Lord is not a "memorial" but a living, dynamic participation in what our Lord has done. The past and the present are brought together in the Supper, and we are participants, sharers, in the very body and blood of Christ in His death on the cross.

In some ways the differences between Roman teaching and Lutheran teaching is subtle, or rather there is certainly a great deal of similarity, but the nuances and minute details are significant, and stem from larger differences of theology. Unremarkably the distinctiveness of Lutheran theology can almost always come back to the Law-Gospel dichotomy, and an emphatic insistence on the Theology of the Cross over and against theologies of glory. In short Lutheran theology asserts time and again, God comes down, we don't go up, God always comes down.

-CryptoLutheran

Right, the idea of the Orthodox is that the Eucharist is a direct participation in the actual Lord's Supper, and I believe Inhave read Orthodox theologians write that there is only one Eucharist, and we participate in it.

However, the anaphorae do have the priest describe offering a "rational and bloodless sacrifice," and then there is the hymn, "a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise." However, we might well be able to reconcile this with Lutheranism.

One reason why such a reconciliation appeals to me personally more than Anglican-Orthodox reconciliation, for example (where with the Anglo Catholics we kind of already have done as much as we can, and with the rest of the communion, it has sort of become academic), is because I really like LCMS, WELS, the North American Lutheran Church, and also, especially Swedish Lutheranism.

Though I am mostly Greek, my maternal grandmothernwas Swedish and her cousin was a priesr in the Augustana synod.

So, here is an idea: Martin Luther describes the Eucharist as something God does for us. I am not sure the Orthodox disagree. If we can develop a way to understand the sacrificial language in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy that is mutually acceptable, there is a major part of the liturgy that directly agrees with what Martin Luther taught:

At the end of the liturgy of Preparation, the Deacon says to the Priest, "It is time for the Lord to Act." Which implies a divine action.

However, I think we would have to say there is a human component to it, that is to say, that the divine liturgy is a meeting of God and Man, a synergy of human and divine effort in accordance with the idea of theosis. I don't know if this is entirely compatible with Lutheranism or not, because of the different ways of interpreting sola fide.

One interesting question: whereas Martin Luther disliked the epistle of St. James, he left it in as part of the antilegomenna. How have Lutheran theologians since Martin Luther understood and worked with this epistle?

I believe the Church of Sweden at one time had a holy unction service which quoted it, so I assume there has been some degree of Lutheran exegesis of that book.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Epistles of St. James is considered Sacred Scriptures. And Luther left in the Bible.

When Luther said the epistle was of "straw", what he meant was that it doesn't clearly proclaim the Gospel, it's not something you build on top of as a foundation. It's more Law, guidelines on Christian living. Which has its place, but in Lutheranism the Gospel is usually emphasized more than Law.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Right, the idea of the Orthodox is that the Eucharist is a direct participation in the actual Lord's Supper, and I believe Inhave read Orthodox theologians write that there is only one Eucharist, and we participate in it.

However, the anaphorae do have the priest describe offering a "rational and bloodless sacrifice," and then there is the hymn, "a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise." However, we might well be able to reconcile this with Lutheranism.

One reason why such a reconciliation appeals to me personally more than Anglican-Orthodox reconciliation, for example (where with the Anglo Catholics we kind of already have done as much as we can, and with the rest of the communion, it has sort of become academic), is because I really like LCMS, WELS, the North American Lutheran Church, and also, especially Swedish Lutheranism.

Though I am mostly Greek, my maternal grandmothernwas Swedish and her cousin was a priesr in the Augustana synod.

So, here is an idea: Martin Luther describes the Eucharist as something God does for us. I am not sure the Orthodox disagree. If we can develop a way to understand the sacrificial language in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy that is mutually acceptable, there is a major part of the liturgy that directly agrees with what Martin Luther taught:

At the end of the liturgy of Preparation, the Deacon says to the Priest, "It is time for the Lord to Act." Which implies a divine action.

However, I think we would have to say there is a human component to it, that is to say, that the divine liturgy is a meeting of God and Man, a synergy of human and divine effort in accordance with the idea of theosis. I don't know if this is entirely compatible with Lutheranism or not, because of the different ways of interpreting sola fide.

One interesting question: whereas Martin Luther disliked the epistle of St. James, he left it in as part of the antilegomenna. How have Lutheran theologians since Martin Luther understood and worked with this epistle?

I believe the Church of Sweden at one time had a holy unction service which quoted it, so I assume there has been some degree of Lutheran exegesis of that book.

I think the best place to understand the meeting place of the Eucharist and sacrificial language is in 1 Corinthians 10, the Apostle in speaking of the cup which we share is a participation in Christ's blood, and the bread a participation in Christ's flesh; he then turns to speak of those who consumed the food of the altar as participating in the sacrifice of the altar,

"Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?"

Of course Paul is arguing for why one ought not to partake of sacrificial food which has been done for idols/false gods, since one cannot sit at both Christ's table and the table of demons. But it seems clear here that Paul is understanding the Eucharist in light of the old sacrificial system, because the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ. When we come to the Lord's Table and receive His broken body and shed blood we are participating in His sacrifice.

Also, I wouldn't think there any problem in saying, "a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise." The Eucharist itself is a sacramental act, something God does for us; but our response of praise is a sacrificial act.

What would be of most concern to me is that we do not understand the Eucharist as something we do, as though we offer anything that can improve our place before God; but to always understand the Eucharist as something God does, and which He does for us--that the Holy Supper is grace, always grace; it's Gospel, not Law. The Eucharist is not we ourselves lifting ourselves up to the heights of glory, but the Incarnate God condescending to meet us, helpless sinners, in and under this bread and wine.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Commander Xenophon]

What would be of most concern to me is that we do not understand the Eucharist as something we do, as though we offer anything that can improve our place before God; but to always understand the Eucharist as something God does, and which He does for us--that the Holy Supper is grace, always grace; it's Gospel, not Law. The Eucharist is not we ourselves lifting ourselves up to the heights of glory, but the Incarnate God condescending to meet us, helpless sinners, in and under this bread and wine.

And here, I think we might be able to agree on this point, based on the important statement of the deacon to the priest at the end of the prothesis: it is time for the Lord to act, which I think suggests harmony with the Lutheran idea of the Eucharist as Gottsdienst.

Perhaps we could then understand the human aspects of the service as simply us going to the place appointed, our going to meet God to receive His sacrifice. Sometimes He comes to us, as in the Incarnation, but if we are fit, we should ascend the mountain like Moses, to meet Him, as an act of love on our part, and thus the human aspects of the Eucharist like the hymns and prayers are understood as liturgical devotion.

Does that sound agreeable?

 

[Kalevalatar]

Interesting! What I like about the Christian Forums: I learn new, unexpected things.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (an offshoot of the Church of Sweden, if you like), dating back to 11th century, doesn't have this tradition. I'd think that had altar bells been present at the time of Reformation, the tradition would have survived. To wit: altar bells never made it here up the European Far North periphery from the continental Europe (German states) or the Orthodox East (Russia).

I'd assume the ELCA church you visited doesn't have historical Scandinavian/Nordic ties? If it does -- well, that would be interesting. Then again, Norway-Finland-Sweden kind of tie together historically, whereas Denmark is the bridge between Scandinavian Nordic and German.

 

[Albion]

I'd assume the ELCA church you visited doesn't have historical Scandinavian/Nordic ties?

Quite the contrary. The ELCA was produced through a merger of several existing Lutheran bodies and one of them incorporated the former Augustana Lutheran Church, which had been the main body in this country of Swedish Lutherans. Smaller bodies of Danish and Finnish Lutherans were also absorbed into the ELCA.

 

[Kalevalatar]

[QUOTE="Albion, post: 69697913, member: 93831"]Quite the contrary. The ELCA was produced through a merger of several existing Lutheran bodies and one of them incorporated the former Augustana Lutheran Church, which had been the main body in this country of Swedish Lutherans. Smaller bodies of Danish and Finnish Lutherans were also absorbed into the ELCA.[/QUOTE]

Of course, it is a very interesting micro-history with all the NA/USA split/(re)merged Lutheran "acronym" bodies and the why these individual Lutheran sub-groups felt the need to/were forced to emigrate (re: pietist Simon Freund in AD 1790). But as far as we are talking about the mainstream millions-strong official or de facto official Nordic Lutheran Churches, one way or the other tied to the Church of (then) Empire of Sweden, no altar bells, except maybe for the Church of Denmark, a rival power and closer to the Continental European (15/16/17th century) power struggles, and one of which I really don't feel I can say much of anything.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Interesting! What I like about the Christian Forums: I learn new, unexpected things.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (an offshoot of the Church of Sweden, if you like), dating back to 11th century, doesn't have this tradition. I'd think that had altar bells been present at the time of Reformation, the tradition would have survived. To wit: altar bells never made it here up the European Far North periphery from the continental Europe (German states) or the Orthodox East (Russia).

I'd assume the ELCA church you visited doesn't have historical Scandinavian/Nordic ties? If it does -- well, that would be interesting. Then again, Norway-Finland-Sweden kind of tie together historically, whereas Denmark is the bridge between Scandinavian Nordic and German.

AFAIK, Orthodox don't use altar bells. The only bells are on the censor, and those are silenced during Lent.

My husband's ACC (Anglican Catholic Church) parish uses the bells at the consecration.

Mary

 

[Kalevalatar]

AFAIK, Orthodox don't use altar bells. The only bells are on the censor, and those are silenced during Lent.

My husband's ACC (Anglican Catholic Church) parish uses the bells at the consecration.

Mary

My apologies if I'm wrong. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Orthodox Church of Finland (in turn, an offshoot of the ROC) closely co-operate and it is my impression that the Orthodox Church of Finland uses altar bells ("tiu'ut" in Finnish) unlike us Lutherans. Maybe I misunderstand that whole concept of "altar bells".

 

[Mary of Bethany]

My apologies if I'm wrong. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Orthodox Church of Finland (in turn, an offshoot of the ROC) closely co-operate and it is my impression that the Orthodox Church of Finland uses altar bells ("tiu'ut" in Finnish) unlike us Lutherans. Maybe I misunderstand that whole concept of "altar bells".

Or maybe I do. I was thinking of the use during the consecration as is done in my husband's Anglican Catholic parish. And I've never heard that during an Orthodox liturgy, but I'm not exactly well-traveled so it's possible that it happens somewhere - maybe?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

[QUOTE="Albion, post: 69697913, member: 93831"]Quite the contrary. The ELCA was produced through a merger of several existing Lutheran bodies and one of them incorporated the former Augustana Lutheran Church, which had been the main body in this country of Swedish Lutherans. Smaller bodies of Danish and Finnish Lutherans were also absorbed into the ELCA.

Of course, it is a very interesting micro-history with all the NA/USA split/(re)merged Lutheran "acronym" bodies and the why these individual Lutheran sub-groups felt the need to/were forced to emigrate (re: pietist Simon Freund in AD 1790). But as far as we are talking about the mainstream millions-strong official or de facto official Nordic Lutheran Churches, one way or the other tied to the Church of (then) Empire of Sweden, no altar bells, except maybe for the Church of Denmark, a rival power and closer to the Continental European (15/16/17th century) power struggles, and one of which I really don't feel I can say much of anything.[/QUOTE]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Altar Bells in the older Latin Mass (Catholic); always tower bells. I wonder if they were used though in Churches that did not have bells and bell towers at that time. As I have posted before, it's not uncommon for tower bells to be rung during the Our Father in the Service of the Sacrament, and this does have a distinct tie to the tower bells being rung at the consecration in the Catholic Mass.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Altar Bells in the older Latin Mass (Catholic); always tower bells. I wonder if they were used though in Churches that did not have bells and bell towers at that time. As I have posted before, it's not uncommon for tower bells to be rung during the Our Father in the Service of the Sacrament, and this does have a distinct tie to the tower bells being rung at the consecration in the Catholic Mass.

Here in Finland, church architecture would indicate that tower bells were always the norm as church towers are the norm even in the oldest medieval stone churches. Parishes were willing to go bankrupt rather than go without big bells and the country is full of war-time stories of church bells being hidden in bogs and evacuated to Stockholm via ice or by boats because they were valuable loot for the enemy. When Russian troops stole 70 bells from Ostrobothnia region alone, substitute bells were carved out of wood. Even during the wars of 1939-1945 and the mass evacuation of Finnish Karelia, church bells were tried to be saved and carted to safety.

After the Reformation, bells were rung to remind the living and no longer to commemorate God, Mary, or the dead. The Turku Cathedral bells still call the time every fifteen minutes: once = fifteen minutes past, twice = half past, thrice = fifteen to, and then the full hours. Only exception is the so called "confession bell" to gather parishioners to Holy Communion, a holdover of the Our Father in the Service of the Sacrament bells you mention. One of the reasons why those big tower bells were no longer used as extensively as before is a practical one: there's a fear that those hundred years old stone towers can't take the load.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Of course, it is a very interesting micro-history with all the NA/USA split/(re)merged Lutheran "acronym" bodies and the why these individual Lutheran sub-groups felt the need to/were forced to emigrate (re: pietist Simon Freund in AD 1790). But as far as we are talking about the mainstream millions-strong official or de facto official Nordic Lutheran Churches, one way or the other tied to the Church of (then) Empire of Sweden, no altar bells, except maybe for the Church of Denmark, a rival power and closer to the Continental European (15/16/17th century) power struggles, and one of which I really don't feel I can say much of anything.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Altar Bells in the older Latin Mass (Catholic); always tower bells. I wonder if they were used though in Churches that did not have bells and bell towers at that time. As I have posted before, it's not uncommon for tower bells to be rung during the Our Father in the Service of the Sacrament, and this does have a distinct tie to the tower bells being rung at the consecration in the Catholic Mass.

Reading this about bell towers jogged my memory about reading something about bell towers in Russia. Turns out that there is a prescribed bell ringing that is still followed in Russian monasteries and some parishes. Mostly they announce the beginning of services and other important times, but I did find this mention of their use during the Divine Liturgy:

(blagovest is the type of bell used, and zvon refers to the type of peal)

"During the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or St Basil the Great, at the beginning of the Eucharistic Canon, beginning from the words “It is meet and right” and until the singing of the Hymn to the Theotokos, that is, during the most important part of the Liturgy, to announce the time of the blessing and consecration of the Holy Gifts, blagovest should be rung continuously (the name of this blagovest is the Dostoino or ‘Meet and right’ zvon). Sometimes this peal might be performed not by time, but by number of peals— twelve, twenty five, thirty, or otherwise, as the Superior instructs. If there are difficulties in synchronizing the peal, it is allowed, at the Superior’s blessing, to perform the “Meet and right” zvon before the commencement of the Eucharistic Canon, during the singing of the Creed (twelve peals— one for each clause of the Creed)."

 

[Kalevalatar]

Sunday morning at Valaam Monastery in former Finnish Karelia: