Differences between Lutheran and Episcopal

i must i am a bit envyous! they seem to do a lot, and do it well. i had emailed them about their vespers service, wondering what liturgy they used. i was hoping to do something like that here, but no response. do you know?

black coffee said:

i must i am a bit envyous! they seem to do a lot, and do it well. i had emailed them about their vespers service, wondering what liturgy they used. i was hoping to do something like that here, but no response. do you know?

Click to expand...

I've only been to one vespers service, but as I remember the liturgy was one they cobbled together themselves based on Franciscan materials.

black coffee said:

while I do love me some metal, can I get a punk-mass?

Click to expand...

LOL. Well, the same Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland parish that is known for the Metal Masses, St. Michael in Turku, also gave the first ever Punk Mass last year (as well a Dance Mass). Here's a (bad quality) 45 sec vimeo clip of it:

Mikaelinkirkon Punkmessu 21.10.2011 on Vimeo

Kalevalatar said:

LOL. Well, the same Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland parish that is known for the Metal Masses, St. Michael in Turku, also gave the first ever Punk Mass last year (as well a Dance Mass). Here's a (bad quality) 45 sec vimeo clip of it:

Mikaelinkirkon Punkmessu 21.10.2011 on Vimeo

Click to expand...

You're right, the sound quality is horrible, so I can't tell how well they did it. But it's a cool idea!

(duplicate post)

Episcopalianism is much more like Eastern Orthodoxy than Lutheranism in some ways. There are Episcopalians, for instance, that have the belief in the intercession of saints, "purgatory", and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, though the way these beliefs may be different from Roman Catholicism. Episcopalians are more likely to believe that when a person dies that they will not necessarily leave this world fit for eternity with God, and yet, they do not believe in purgatory as a place of temporal punishment or satisfaction - this is distinct from the Roman Catholic teaching. Episcopalians do pray for the dead, this is part of the liturgies in most Episcopalian churches, unlike the intercession of saints or veneration of saints ,which is much less common in public worship.

I've attended an Episcopal Church for four years and attended my first ELCA service yesterday. Since the music director was leaving, the service had many hymns that the norm for that church (fine for our family). The service was great.

I have a couple of thoughts.

I would really be surprised if there is more diversity in liturgical style in ELCA than TEC. I would also note that there are great differences within TEC (and worldwide Anglicanism) with regard to many elements of the faith. On the Anglican board, we often say that there is almost nothing that is true for all Anglicans or even the vast majority.

Clearly, Anglicanism and TEC are not confessional churches. I understand that some Lutherans and some are not. How does this affect ELCA? How do the relationships with Europe work when they have AS and you choose not to?

With regard to the churches joining together beyond full communion agreements, I am not sure of the point. As has been pointed out, you have your high church and AS folks as the TEC does. You also have low-church folks, as the TEC does. I see no harm in union. I just am asking about the gain. I suppose the more overriding question would be how missions and relationships with worldwide bodies would work.

Kalevalatar said:

A side note here:

Doulos_tou_kuriou refers to the American/US Lutheran churches when talking about "the Lutheran church". The European Lutheran churches -- the Evangelical-Lutheran Churches of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden -- have never stopped believing in the Apostolic Succession, signified in the ordination/consecration of a bishop, and the episcope, as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church's unity and continuity as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In the Lutheran diversity in worship, my Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is squarely in the traditional/"high church" end of the spectrum. Our liturgy follows the 16th century Mass, no improvisations -- not even for the Metal Mass.

Click to expand...

Thanks that's something we probably forget being in the USA

If the churches of Scandinavia believe in AS in the same manner as the ECUSA, then there is a fundamental departure from Lutheran theology.

Based even on Kalevalatar's words of AS as a visible sign expressing unity my guess is they don't. AS is not simply ordaining of bishops and ordination by bishops, it is a belief that ordination from a bishop effects ontological change that makes one a priest. Thus ordination and pastoral ministry is reliant upon the historic episcopate and ordinations or the start of the church or calling of a pastor apart from that would not be the church, for the church is reliant on the hierarchy.

Choosing the historic form of ordination as a polity to express unity or simply out of preference is not unLutheran (by and large the ELCA practices much of that today), but it is also not the same as the traditional theology associated with Apostolic Succession (which the Lutheran Confessions challenge in regards to the nature of the church, the power of the bishop, and the office of ministry and the power of a church to call a pastor).

black coffee said:

izzdari, are you referring to Church of the Apostles in Seattle?

Doulous, I appriciate your post on AS, as a Roman who became Anglican the issue of AS has always been one of the factors that has kept me in an AS church. BUT, I never thought of it in regards to limiting God's power. My uncle is a former LCMS priest and had explained this to many times, but it never made sense until now.

I guess what is attractive about it is it's link to the early church.

But, if a group of Christians met in a "house church" and had a Eucharist of their own and word and sacrament were celebrated properly and with dignity, why would it not be vailid?

That limits God's gift.

I am a high-churchy, bishop loving, smells and bells kinda guy, but the Eucharist is ALL THAT MATTERS for me in a church, really my only requirement for a parish is that it is served with dignity, respect, and freely given.

Click to expand...

OK- Gotta chip in here. I'm an Anglican Minister who was trained in a hyper-Conservative Lutheran setting and served in a Lutheran church for some years as assistant before moving into the Anglican tradition (currently serving a unique congregation in a tough inner city mission, with many differing churches/denoms supporting the work).

I think the AS discussion has not truly reflected the Anglican position here. AS is not considered essential to the ministry in 90% of the old Anglican texts and Articles. During the Reformation, the AS was retained for good order and for the good of the Church, but the notion of AS making sacraments "valid" is something that (re)entered the Church after the Catholic revival known as the Oxford (or Tractarian) movement during the 1800's. It gathered steam over the years but is only the position of Anglo-Catholics and others. Interesting to note that the use of the term "valid" is not a judgment on efficacy. It's more of a judgment on order, and many understand it as merely removing any doubt about the minister having a valid and scriptural call. This is not that different to the Lutheran position as presented in the Treatise.

The main polity difference between the Anglican and Lutheran position is that the Lutheran position allows many forms of Church government (and this is a cause of many schisms in Lutheranism- the doctrine of Church and Ministry) and the Church of England and the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden merely maintained the AS to keep good order and identity with the Catholic Faith. However, neither of those two churches have historically judged the efficacy of the sacraments in churches that rejected or lost the AS. It's really only after the Catholic revivals in both those churches that this topic re-emerged, and neither has ever made any formal statements to say that the sacraments are limited or ineffective without AS.

So, yeah, you can have the eucharist in your home church- but both the Lutheran and the Anglican will both agree and tell you that God has called and ordained ministers to preside over the sacraments for that purpose. It's not about how your minister was ordained or who did the ordaining, but whether or not he is ordained to begin with. Either way, God does honour His word. It's about whether or not we do.

doulos_tou_kuriou said:

If the churches of Scandinavia believe in AS in the same manner as the ECUSA, then there is a fundamental departure from Lutheran theology.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, from what I have read. My understanding of the AS position of the Scandinavians is that they do not depart from the notion that AS is for the "bene esse" of the church, and nothing more. This is in agreement with historic Reformation Anglicanism and not a divergence with or contradiction to the Lutheran Confessions. Of course there is the matter of interpreting the Confessions and varying degrees of shade in the understanding of AS, so there will always be arguments in Lutheranism about this (see my post above). I've even seen arguments put forward by Lutherans saying the Confessions assume Episcopal polity and AS as the preferred polity! Big difference from the immigration Lutheranism of the USA!

The issue of apostolic succession is essentially decided in much of Lutheranism since the majority of Lutherans follow apostolic succession in Europe, Africa, the Americas'. But Lutherans also believe that AS is not necessary but a good order. Lutherans were forced to use historic precedent of pastors ordaining fellow presbyters when a bishop was not available or refused to ordain Lutheran priests during the early Reformation.

In the ELCA all clergy [both pastors and bishops] must have the laying on of hands from a bishop in apostolic succession; same with the ELCIC since beginning full communion with the Episcopal/ Anglican church.

Many churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox) deny that ordination causes an ontological change. The notion of ontological change is unique to Roman Catholicism and perhaps some Anglo-Catholics.

I do know the local Episcopalians do not recognize my Methodist confirmation because I wasn't confirmed by a bishop. At the same time, they seem to devalue confirmation in general, it is only a barrier to official parish membership, not to receiving the sacraments. They are not Anglo-Catholic, more like conservative Broad Church. So... perhaps in fact they do believe in an ontological change in practice?

"Ontological change", that was big with me.
RC believe in seven sacraments including Holy Orders (that applies just to priests, not nuns and monks, though one would think these latter two would be more likely in the "holiness" business, particularly--from my experience--the men).
The breaking of the pedophile scandal was one of the three things that made me leave RC in 1993. That sacrament does not work to make men holy, not even in comfortable "enlightened" countries. And it's not just the perpetrators, but that the Church continued (and still does, less so maybe as of the papacy of Francis) to coddle these monsters (along with the related, but not obscenely criminal, secret homosexuality of priests who "naturally" constitute a great number of those who sign on for celibacy that is no sacrifice for them, the giving up of sex with WOMEN).
For real "Ontological Change" I would recommend the Charismatic Renewal, though it's obvious with me that the very real effects of my 1977 Baptism in the Spirit are no longer very active. It changed me so much, in fact, that trying to live the holy life embodied in The Prayer of St. Francis toppled me after two years of it into such a severe depression I could not work (or even think without being in motion) for several months.