Receptionism within the Lutheran church

[chevyontheriver]

Even if our Churches never reach a full fellowship agreement, our relations are very friendly, and have been for some time.

Nice. And given the growing craziness of the world we may need each other.

It does seem to me that we may have been a bit closer when Benedict was Pope; Francis seems a bit "liberal" in ways that seem at odds with our theology.

I miss Benedict SO MUCH. Enough said for now.

I do consider you a friend; we do seem to be on the same page most of the time; and when we are not, we are in the same book.

Thank you. Indeed the same book. Usually the same chapter. Often the same page.

 

[The Liturgist]

am not sure if this is still a thing or not, but it was my understanding that a Catholic Priest was restricted to the number of Masses he could celebrate per day; which explains employing pre-consecrated elements.

In Roman Catholicism some priests have permission to say up to four masses per day, but all are required to say at least one. In Orthodoxy a requirement to serve the Divine Liturgy does not exist except insofar as pastorally required, so for example, retired priests aren’t serving private liturgies (which are forbidden) although many frequently concelebrate if they are physically able - concelebration historically being prohibited in the Roman Rite with some extremely rare and unusual exceptions.

In Orthodoxy, the rule is one Eucharist per priest per altar per day. So any church which has more than one liturgy per day must have more than one altar. For this reason one occasionally sees Orthodox cathedrals that have smaller chapels attached, or multiple altars attached to one massive iconostasis. An example of the former is St. Nicholas Antiochian Orthodox Cathedral in Los Angeles, which has a smaller chapel used for a Spanish language Divine Liturgy. Also St. Ephrem’s Syrian Orthodox Church in Burbank, California, has a small chapel off the Narthex but as far as I am aware they do not use it. Two examples of the latter would be a large Russian Orthodox church in Russia, I think in St. Petersburg, the name of which I forget, which has multiple altars attached to a single iconostasis, the effect being there are multiple Royal Doors and sets of Deacon’s Doors. Also at St. Anthony’s Coptic Orthodox monastery in Yermo, California, the iconostasis has at least one side chapel next to the main altar; the doors which correspond to deacon’s doors in a Coptic parish lead to spaces where the faithful pass through the iconostasis and receive the Eucharist from the side of the altar, rather than facing it, the men using the door on the left and the women on the right, but at St. Anthony’s, the space to the left of the altar is a smaller side altar I have seen used for training newly ordained priests during supplemental liturgies, and as for what is behind the door to the right of the altar, I have no idea. That might be the basis for an interesting gameshow, actually.

One interesting side effect of this rule is what happens to the parish schedule on days where there is a Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, such as Christmas Eve; the liturgical day ends and a new one begins at the end of the liturgy. This means on the morning of Christmas Eve there can be a Typika service, which is analogous to the Anglican service of ante-communion, although interestingly, the Typika can be said as a reader service, whereas as far as I am aware Ante-Communion in Anglicanism requires a priest (unlike Mattins and Evensong, but perhaps I am wrong; @Jipsah or @Shaner might know) but no Divine Liturgy. We see this again on Holy Wednesday, where the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory, which is a vesperal liturgy, is served for the last time that year, usually in the morning, but this does not clash with the Vesperal Divine Liturgy on Maundy Thursday (which, like the Vesperal Divine Liturgy on Holy Saturday, or the pre-1955 Paschal Vigil Mass in the Roman Catholic Church, served in the monring), since the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory is a Vesperal Liturgy. And indeed, this also explains how the Mass of the Presanctified in the Roman, Anglo-Catholic and Lutheran churches does not interfere with the Paschal Vigils, since the words used at the Mass of the Presanctified are the same as those used in the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory, and both the Roman and Orthodox church attribute them to Pope St. Gregory the Great. The Orthodox Church does not serve a Presanctified Liturgy on Good Friday, but perhaps it did, or perhaps the Roman Church used to follow the one liturgy per altar per celebrant per day rule, not allowing multiple priests to celebrate successive masses on the same altar, or perhaps both are the case, since this would explain why the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory is Vesperal.

This is in contrast by the way to the older Pre-sanctified liturgies, such as the Pre-sanctified liturgy of St. James, which is usually dated to the fifth century. The practice of the Presanctified Liturgy, like so much else, can be traced to the Syriac Orthodox St. Severus of Antioch, who was until recently widely regarded in the West as an anathematized monophysite heretic, which is nonsense, since he was not a monophysite, and he had a massive influence on Chalcedonian theology, particularly the areas of Christology that relate to Theopaschitism and Communicatio Idiomatum, and on liturgy, for he also wrote* the Christological hymn par excellence, Ho Monogenes “Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God, Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary; Who without change didst become man and was crucified; Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit: O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!“

I am a fan of the Orthodox approach because it increases the piety surrounding the liturgy, that there can only be one of them, or perhaps two, in a twenty four hour period (if one of them is a vesperal divine liturgy).

*Some argue this hymn was written by Emperor Justinian but this notion is absurd, since the Syriac Orthodox Divine Liturgy actually opens with this hymn, and there is no Chalcedonian more reviled in the Syriac Orthodox Church than Justinian, because of his arrest and execution of most of the bishops of Antioch, with only St. Jacob bar Addai escaping, allegedly due to being warned by the emperor’s wife Theodora, who actually was Syriac Orthodox; so as to ensure the survival of the Syriac Orthodox Church St. Jacob “Baraddaeus” as he is known in the West ordained, acting sola, which is permissible in emergency circumstances, hundreds of bishops, making it impossible for Justinian to round them all up. It is for this reason that the Syriac Orthodox are sometimes called Jacobites, and not, as one ignorant of history might erroneously suppose, because the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was in any sense a supporter of Bonnie Prince Charlie or the pro-Stuart faction opposed to the Hannoverians.

 

[The Liturgist]

Even if our Churches never reach a full fellowship agreement, our relations are very friendly, and have been for some time. It does seem to me that we may have been a bit closer when Benedict was Pope; Francis seems a bit "liberal" in ways that seem at odds with our theology.

I do consider you a friend; we do seem to be on the same page most of the time; and when we are not, we are in the same book.

That said I pray that full communion is as a matter of urgency re-established between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, at least those who are doctrinally orthodox, the Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, the Anglo Catholic and related conservative High Church Anglicans, especially the Continuing Anglicans in the US who are not a part of the Anglican Communion and which in some cases have gone so far as to enumerate seven sacraments rather than two, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and certain other traditional churches such as some of the traditional liturgical Methodists and the Old Orthodox of the Union of Scranton (but not of Utrecht, due to their extreme liberalism). I would also note that the continuing need for a separation between Lutherans and Roman Catholics seems diminished given that the majority of Martin Luther’s complains, including nearly all of the 95 Theses, have been addressed by Rome; indeed some of his complaints, including the one which prompted the schism, that being the sale of indulgences, which was an appalling abuse, were corrected at the Council of Trent.

That said I am not calling for a union of polity but rather merely the restoration of communion, so the LCMS and LCC and the continuing Anglican jurisdictions would, for example, have the status of autocephalous churches, as would Rome and each autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church (indeed the autocephaly of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem is guaranteed by Canons VI and VII of Nicaea).*

* On this point I feel we should also stress the importance of following the canons of the ecumenical councils. For example Canon I of Nicaea, which prohibits any man who has castrated himself from receiving Holy Orders, and deposes anyone in Holy Orders who castrates themselves, couples with other ancient canons in such a way so that the grievous sin committed by transexuals when they mutilate themselves would disqualify them from ordination to even the role of Doorkeeper or Exorcist**

**These were the two lowest ranking of the Minor Orders during the Early Church I find it interesting that at present, Exorcists are an elite, mysterious group of priests who have a certain cachet, whereas in the early church, exorcism was so routine that it was being done, in effect, by acolytes. It is also frightening to consider that apparently our faith has declined to the point where only elite and highly trained priests are entrusted with doing exorcisms; this reminds me of a dream reported by one of the early monastic figures of the Church, one of the Desert Fathers, wherein they and one of their brethren were soaring with ease at great speed and altitude, whereas another monk was seen struggling to keep aloft and moving very slowly; it was explained that as time passed it would be harder and harder for Christians to remain pious, and signs of this were abundant in the 19th century when St. Ignatius Brianchaninov quoted that incident in his text on monasticism and mystical theology, The Arena, and are even more evident today. So I am by no means suggesting that we send our young altar boys to do exorcisms; God forbid! That would be an unthinkable act of cruelty. Rather the fact that their fourth century counterparts were part of a faith community that existed with purity, strengthened by the Roman persecutions and contending against an Adversary still reeling from his unexpected defeat by Christ on the Cross, but also still possessing a very large number of people owing to the relatively small size of the Christian community, was in a position where the demand for exorcisms was such, and the devils weak enough, so that the most inexperienced and youthful persons in Holy Orders, who were not yet trusted to guard the doors of the church, were nonetheless consecrated to perform exorcisms, and did so in extremely large numbers.

Now we face a frightening scenario where the Christian faith, thanks to the decline of the liberal mainline churches and the superficial nature of the evangelical and fundamentalist megachurches, is shrinking relative to the population of the planet, and therefore possessions will increase, and at the same time it apparently requires only very trusted and professional clergy holding at least the rank of presbyter to effectively perform exorcisms. And in the case of the Roman Church, it also worries me that there were some people who even the celebrated Fr. Gabriel Amorth had to continually exorcise, and these were Christians who had become possessed despite having in most cases the seal of the Holy Spirit.

I am also, on the basis of some disturbing experiences, nearing a point where prudence will require us to view apostates and infidels as potentially possessed, in particular, those who are atheists or who adhere to Paganism or some heretical offshoots of Christianity. Based on how people react to our wearing of a cross or the concealing of a cross on our person, it might reach a point where anyone not known to be Christian must be regarded as probably demoniac. As it is, the Church already takes this approach with baptisms, which contain a simple prayer of exorcism (what the Roman Catholics call a "minor exorcism"); I cannot recall if Chrismations in the Orthodox Church contain this or not.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That said I pray that full communion is as a matter of urgency re-established between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, at least those who are doctrinally orthodox, the Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, the Anglo Catholic and related conservative High Church Anglicans, especially the Continuing Anglicans in the US who are not a part of the Anglican Communion and which in some cases have gone so far as to enumerate seven sacraments rather than two, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and certain other traditional churches such as some of the traditional liturgical Methodists and the Old Orthodox of the Union of Scranton (but not of Utrecht, due to their extreme liberalism). I would also note that the continuing need for a separation between Lutherans and Roman Catholics seems diminished given that the majority of Martin Luther’s complains, including nearly all of the 95 Theses, have been addressed by Rome; indeed some of his complaints, including the one which prompted the schism, that being the sale of indulgences, which was an appalling abuse, were corrected at the Council of Trent.

That said I am not calling for a union of polity but rather merely the restoration of communion, so the LCMS and LCC and the continuing Anglican jurisdictions would, for example, have the status of autocephalous churches, as would Rome and each autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church (indeed the autocephaly of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem is guaranteed by Canons VI and VII of Nicaea).*

* On this point I feel we should also stress the importance of following the canons of the ecumenical councils. For example Canon I of Nicaea, which prohibits any man who has castrated himself from receiving Holy Orders, and deposes anyone in Holy Orders who castrates themselves, couples with other ancient canons in such a way so that the grievous sin committed by transexuals when they mutilate themselves would disqualify them from ordination to even the role of Doorkeeper or Exorcist**

**These were the two lowest ranking of the Minor Orders during the Early Church I find it interesting that at present, Exorcists are an elite, mysterious group of priests who have a certain cachet, whereas in the early church, exorcism was so routine that it was being done, in effect, by acolytes. It is also frightening to consider that apparently our faith has declined to the point where only elite and highly trained priests are entrusted with doing exorcisms; this reminds me of a dream reported by one of the early monastic figures of the Church, one of the Desert Fathers, wherein they and one of their brethren were soaring with ease at great speed and altitude, whereas another monk was seen struggling to keep aloft and moving very slowly; it was explained that as time passed it would be harder and harder for Christians to remain pious, and signs of this were abundant in the 19th century when St. Ignatius Brianchaninov quoted that incident in his text on monasticism and mystical theology, The Arena, and are even more evident today. So I am by no means suggesting that we send our young altar boys to do exorcisms; God forbid! That would be an unthinkable act of cruelty. Rather the fact that their fourth century counterparts were part of a faith community that existed with purity, strengthened by the Roman persecutions and contending against an Adversary still reeling from his unexpected defeat by Christ on the Cross, but also still possessing a very large number of people owing to the relatively small size of the Christian community, was in a position where the demand for exorcisms was such, and the devils weak enough, so that the most inexperienced and youthful persons in Holy Orders, who were not yet trusted to guard the doors of the church, were nonetheless consecrated to perform exorcisms, and did so in extremely large numbers.

Now we face a frightening scenario where the Christian faith, thanks to the decline of the liberal mainline churches and the superficial nature of the evangelical and fundamentalist megachurches, is shrinking relative to the population of the planet, and therefore possessions will increase, and at the same time it apparently requires only very trusted and professional clergy holding at least the rank of presbyter to effectively perform exorcisms. And in the case of the Roman Church, it also worries me that there were some people who even the celebrated Fr. Gabriel Amorth had to continually exorcise, and these were Christians who had become possessed despite having in most cases the seal of the Holy Spirit.

I am also, on the basis of some disturbing experiences, nearing a point where prudence will require us to view apostates and infidels as potentially possessed, in particular, those who are atheists or who adhere to Paganism or some heretical offshoots of Christianity. Based on how people react to our wearing of a cross or the concealing of a cross on our person, it might reach a point where anyone not known to be Christian must be regarded as probably demoniac. As it is, the Church already takes this approach with baptisms, which contain a simple prayer of exorcism (what the Roman Catholics call a "minor exorcism"); I cannot recall if Chrismations in the Orthodox Church contain this or not.

Maybe not "possessed" but "repressed"

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Nice. And given the growing craziness of the world we may need each other.

Truly, I think we need each other now; even now there is much we took for granted that is already lost.

I miss Benedict SO MUCH. Enough said for now.

May he rest in eternal peace.

Thank you. Indeed the same book. Usually the same chapter. Often the same page.

Amen!

 

[Jipsah]

That said I pray that full communion is as a matter of urgency re-established between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, at least those who are doctrinally orthodox, the Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, the Anglo Catholic and related conservative High Church Anglicans, especially the Continuing Anglicans in the US who are not a part of the Anglican Communion and which in some cases have gone so far as to enumerate seven sacraments rather than two, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and certain other traditional churches

Amen!

That said I am not calling for a union of polity but rather merely the restoration of communion

Yes.

 

[zippy2006]

And if all you have is ad hominem attacks, then please present me with specific statements from the LCMS that I am wrong.

Aye, ad hominem and no sources beyond personal opinion. Unfortunate.

There is an Orthodox pastor named Josiah Trenham who wrote a book called, "Rock and Sand." It is in large part about his conversion from Protestantism, and the sandy foundations of Protestantism (which shift quickly with the passage of time, like the tides). One of the reasons he left Protestantism is because a professor at his seminary noted with regret that their children would have women pastors, and that in Protestantism these sorts of historical reversals were not avoidable.

It is certain that those who attack you with ad hominem instead of real arguments will be attacked in the same way by their children in the following generation. These older Lutherans will protest against the newest "receptionism" but will be met only with hubris and ad hominem. "The measure you give is the measure you will receive."

 

[The Liturgist]

Aye, ad hominem and no sources beyond personal opinion. Unfortunate.

There is an Orthodox pastor named Josiah Trenham who wrote a book called, "Rock and Sand." It is in large part about his conversion from Protestantism, and the sandy foundations of Protestantism (which shift quickly with the passage of time, like the tides). One of the reasons he left Protestantism is because a professor at his seminary noted with regret that their children would have women pastors, and that in Protestantism these sorts of historical reversals were not avoidable.

It is certain that those who attack you with ad hominem instead of real arguments will be attacked in the same way by their children in the following generation. These older Lutherans will protest against the newest "receptionism" but will be met only with hubris and ad hominem. "The measure you give is the measure you will receive."

I think you are misreading the controversy. The LCMS is not receptionist, but the question was as to whether or not it had some clergy during the Seminex era who were receptionist, and my beloved friend @PsaltiChrysostom inadvertently entered into a debate with my beloved friend @MarkRohfrietsch in the Confessional Lutheran forum, and also @JM was involved, who I am not acquainted with, but at any rate, the issue is that receptionism represents a divergence from the Lutheran orthodoxy of the LCC/LCMS, but it may well have been taught by some radicals in the Seminex years when the LCMS was actively working with the LCA and the ALC on the Lutheran Book of Worship and many wanted the LCMS to merge with them into the very liberal denomination that is the ELCA. Additionally, a statement from the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which is primarily ethnically Norwegian, did appear Receptionist, and was disappointing, and I hope that is not their official doctrine, but I don’t know much about them or about the AALC, which is a communion partner of the LCMS.

At any rate I hate to see my beloved friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom in disagreement, since neither of them are receptionists, and both of them are pillars of Orthodoxy on Christian forums, Mark representing the Evangelical Catholic tradition of high church Lutheranism, which is among the most Orthodox parts of the Western Church, and @PsaltiChrysostom the Eastern Orthodox tradition, one of the three great Eastern communions, along with the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox. As it happens, I regard the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Evangelical Catholic Lutherans like the LCMS and its Canadian sister church the LCC, and the Continuing Anglicans such as the jurisdiction of my friend @Shane R , and also the Assyrians now that they have formally rejected Nestorian doctrine under the tenure of Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV, as the most Orthodox denominations in the world. The Roman Catholics likewise, on a theoretical level, but on a practical level, the RCC is dealing with the problem of liberal bishops and cardinals and liberation theology such as that advocated by Pope Francis. If Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, had not resigned and had been succeeded by a traditionalist bishop such as Raymond Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, Bishop Athanasius Schnieder, Archbishop Cordileone, or someone of that calibre, it would still be on my list, and the conservative, traditional Catholics, especially the beleaguered Traditional Latin Mass communities which Pope Francis has been restricting contrary to the policies of Pope Benedict XVI on with what I regard as a totally unwarranted and baseless concern, as among the most Orthodox Christians, insofar as they represent the Orthodox membership of the Roman Catholic church that stands in opposition to the defiant liberal bishops of Latin America, Italy, Ireland and especially Germany.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think you are misreading the controversy. The LCMS is not receptionist, but the question was as to whether or not it had some clergy during the Seminex era who were receptionist, and my beloved friend @PsaltiChrysostom inadvertently entered into a debate with my beloved friend @MarkRohfrietsch in the Confessional Lutheran forum, and also @JM was involved, who I am not acquainted with, but at any rate, the issue is that receptionism represents a divergence from the Lutheran orthodoxy of the LCC/LCMS, but it may well have been taught by some radicals in the Seminex years when the LCMS was actively working with the LCA and the ALC on the Lutheran Book of Worship and many wanted the LCMS to merge with them into the very liberal denomination that is the ELCA. Additionally, a statement from the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which is primarily ethnically Norwegian, did appear Receptionist, and was disappointing, and I hope that is not their official doctrine, but I don’t know much about them or about the AALC, which is a communion partner of the LCMS.

I remember Seminex (seminary in exile) and the LCMS row in St. Louis. At the time I had a dorm room at Washington University that was closer to their seminary than it was to my own quad. And Seminex got temporary space from St. Louis University. I thought that was rather backwards for SLU to do.

At any rate I hate to see my beloved friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom in disagreement, since neither of them are receptionists, and both of them are pillars of Orthodoxy on Christian forums, Mark representing the Evangelical Catholic tradition of high church Lutheranism, which is among the most Orthodox parts of the Western Church, and @PsaltiChrysostom the Eastern Orthodox tradition, one of the three great Eastern communions, along with the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox. As it happens, I regard the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Evangelical Catholic Lutherans like the LCMS and its Canadian sister church the LCC, and the Continuing Anglicans such as the jurisdiction of my friend @Shane R , and also the Assyrians now that they have formally rejected Nestorian doctrine under the tenure of Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV, as the most Orthodox denominations in the world.

Lots of non-receptionists.

The Roman Catholics likewise, on a theoretical level, but on a practical level, the RCC is dealing with the problem of liberal bishops and cardinals and liberation theology such as that advocated by Pope Francis. If Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, had not resigned and had been succeeded by a traditionalist bishop such as Raymond Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, Bishop Athanasius Schnieder, Archbishop Cordileone, or someone of that calibre, it would still be on my list, and the conservative, traditional Catholics, especially the beleaguered Traditional Latin Mass communities which Pope Francis has been restricting contrary to the policies of Pope Benedict XVI on with what I regard as a totally unwarranted and baseless concern, as among the most Orthodox Christians, insofar as they represent the Orthodox membership of the Roman Catholic church that stands in opposition to the defiant liberal bishops of Latin America, Italy, Ireland and especially Germany.

Pray for us in our hour of need. Our month of need with this 'synod' which has just started, which has put us in the Episcopalian trajectory. The whole mess ("Hagan lio!") of pope Francis will take decades to repair.

 

[The Liturgist]

I remember Seminex (seminary in exile) and the LCMS row in St. Louis. At the time I had a dorm room at Washington University that was closer to their seminary than it was to my own quad. And Seminex got temporary space from St. Louis University. I thought that was rather backwards for SLU to do.

Lots of non-receptionists.

Pray for us in our hour of need. Our month of need with this 'synod' which has just started, which has put us in the Episcopalian trajectory. The whole mess ("Hagan lio!") of pope Francis will take decades to repair.

Almighty God, our Heavenly Father,

We, thy Humble servants, beseech that Thou should, according to Thy most perfect plan for the economy of our salvation, should preserve the Truth of Thy Faith in Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and most especially, in this dire hour, where that faith is threatened, that Thou wouldst Vouchsafe to preserve Thy most Holy and Apostolic Faith in the splendor of Orthodoxy in Thy Church in Rome and in all her patriarchates, metropoli, archdioceses and dioceses, eparchies, parish churches, chapels, religious orders, convents and monasteries throughout the world, ensuring that the bishops of said church continue to rightly divide the word of Thy truth, and resist the temptation to capitulate to worldly pressure and concede to the wicked demands of our fallen society, but rather preach truth through love in all tradition. Grant them, we beseech Thee, humility, piety and reverence for the Holy Tradition they have received from their predecessors in the faith, especially those received from Pope St. Pius X, Pope St. Pius V, St. Dominic Guzman, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bruno, St. Bernard and most especially Pope St. Celestine, Pope St. Sixtus the Martyr, Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pope St. Damasus, Pope St. Victor, and the three founding hierarchs of the Church in Rome, Pope St. Linus and Pope St. Clement, and St. Peter first among the Apostles, who was aided in Rome by his friend and fellow worker the Holy Apostle and founder of churches St. Paul, who ministered to the Gentiles as St. Peter ministered to the Jews, and St. Thomas to the Syrians, Mesopotamians and Indians, with great success in expanding Thy Church from its foundations in Jerusalem and Antioch to the West and the East, and St. Peter’s beloved co-disciples St. John the Theologian and his brother St. James the Great, and St. Mark, the disciple of St. Peter and founder of Thy Church in Alexandria, whose successors St. Alexander, St. Athanasius the Pillar of Orthodoxy and St. Cyril the Great did so valiantly defend the Holy Orthodox faith, all of whose intercessions we seek, together with those of Our most glorious and immaculate Lady Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary, and all Thy Saints.

This we pray to you in the name of our beloved Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, Thine only begotten Son and Word, who together with Thy Holy Spirit, livest and reignest with Thee in the union of eternal love Thou hast taught us to emulate, now and always and unto the Ages of all Ages.

Amen.

 

[Shane R]

Pray for us in our hour of need. Our month of need with this 'synod' which has just started, which has put us in the Episcopalian trajectory. The whole mess ("Hagan lio!") of pope Francis will take decades to repair.

I'll make a point of dusting off the long (Leonine) form of St. Michael the Archangel this month.

 

[zippy2006]

...but at any rate, the issue is that receptionism represents a divergence from the Lutheran orthodoxy of the LCC/LCMS, but it may well have been taught by some radicals in the Seminex years...

I think you are the one misreading the controversy. You seem to be taking @JM at his word that @PsaltiChrysostom's catechesis was hopelessly flawed. My point is that (1) it is highly doubtful that @PsaltiChrysostom's catechesis was a product of "some radicals in the Seminex years" given what he has presented, (2) @PsaltiChrysostom has produced actual quotes and sources, whereas @JM and @MarkRohfrietsch have produced none, and (3) It would be no great surprise if Lutheranism has simply vacillated on this issue, as with so many others.

FYI
You have absolutely no idea what my Lutheran education was. I grew up during the Seminex years and I was taught by Concordia Ft. Wayne students, graduates and faculty. If you are going to start leveling charges at a poor catechesis then you'd better get your credentials in line.

Given that this issue seems to have contributed to @PsaltiChrysostom's departure from the LCMS, what @JM is doing is effectively a form of gaslighting. And he is managing it without any sources or quotes. Silliness, to put it mildly.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think you are the one misreading the controversy. You seem to be taking @JM at his word that @PsaltiChrysostom's catechesis was hopelessly flawed. My point is that (1) it is highly doubtful that @PsaltiChrysostom's catechesis was a product of "some radicals in the Seminex years" given what he has presented, (2) @PsaltiChrysostom has produced actual quotes and sources, whereas @JM and @MarkRohfrietsch have produced none, and (3) It would be no great surprise if Lutheranism has simply vacillated on this issue, as with so many others.

On the contrary, I think it is quite possible there was some confusion during the Seminex era; I trust the word of my beloved friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom equally. I think the point of concord here is that Receptionism is not LCMS/LCC doctrine, but perhaps in the 1970s when there were still a few liberal clergy around in the LCMS/LCC, particularly in, if I recall, the English Districts, and also perhaps some low church refugees from a more liberal LCA or ALC church who were jumping ship but themselves had not benefitted from training at Concordia or another LCMS/LCC seminary but rather carried with them Pietistic, crypto-Calvinist ideas, and this was likely later corrected. For it is obvious that in the LCMS and LCC at present, receptionism is not regarded as correct.

 

[zippy2006]

On the contrary, I think it is quite possible there was some confusion during the Seminex era; I trust the word of my beloved friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom equally.

No you don't. You're simply agreeing with Mark and disagreeing with Psalti. Are you truly unable to see this obvious fact?

I think the point of concord here is that Receptionism is not LCMS/LCC doctrine...

No, that is precisely what Mark holds and Psalti denies. Have you read the posts here?

For it is obvious that in the LCMS and LCC at present, receptionism is not regarded as correct.

Supra.

The very fact that Mark and JM can produce no sources for their thesis is prima facie evidence that Psalti is correct, especially given the way these debates go within churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

No you don't. You're simply agreeing with Mark and disagreeing with Psalti. Are you truly unable to see this obvious fact?


No, that is precisely what Mark holds and Psalti denies. Have you read the posts here?


Supra.

The very fact that Mark and JM can produce no sources for their thesis is prima facie evidence that Psalti is correct, especially given the way these debates go within churches.

Please kindly show me the respect of not telling me what I am doing in my dialogue with my beloved friends. What I am doing is seeking to reach the truth through the dialectical process so that my two friends and I will be mutually edified, and in this respect I am seeking to be a peacemaker, because I love @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom and I trust what they say completely.

You should not, in my frank opinion, presume to question that I trust them both, or presume that I am agreeing with one and disagreeing with the other, because that is not the case. I believe what both of them have said about the issue, and I believe that the truth of the matter requires us to research in order to reconcile the disparity between their reconciliations, and in doing that, we can all learn and benefit from an example of how the LCMS may well have eliminated a problem.

What frustrates me a bit is that you seem to be critical of the fact that I am engaged in attempting an edifying reconciliation between my two friends and you seem determined to force me into agreeing with one or the other, when in fact I believe both of them are telling me the truth, and this is one of those complex areas of ecclesiastical history where we have an apparent contradiction, and if we can resolve that, which we can, using the Socratic method of dialogue for edification, which I would note that my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom do with me all the time, and i daresay the three of us are very good at it.

So, I am going to continue on in this dialogue and I would urge you to join in. Also I don’t know @JM at all and would greatly enjoy making his acquaintance. And let us remember what St. Paul said about the importance of charity. I refuse categorically to accuse anyone in this conversation of being uncharitable or misleading. I refuse to take sides. For this kind of dialogue to work, we have to love one another.

I am reminded of something the deacon says in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as used by both the Eastern Orthodox, and the Ukrainian Lutherans, and that is before the Eucharistic Prayer begins, the deacon or in his absence the priest intones “Let us love one another, so that we may confess with one accord…” to which the people respond in singing “Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Trinity consubstantial and undivided.” It is through loving each other that we make ourselves into an icon of the Holy Trinity which is what God desires us to do, so that we resemble Him as much as possible, including the fact that he has three persons and three hypostases united in one divine essence, with Jesus Christ in hypostatic union with humanity, so He is consubstantial both with the other persons of the Trinity, which is to say with His Father and the Holy Ghost, and with us

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No you don't. You're simply agreeing with Mark and disagreeing with Psalti. Are you truly unable to see this obvious fact?


No, that is precisely what Mark holds and Psalti denies. Have you read the posts here?


Supra.

The very fact that Mark and JM can produce no sources for their thesis is prima facie evidence that Psalti is correct, especially given the way these debates go within churches.

It is so sad that you are willing to take the word of an anti-Lutheran regarding the teaching of our Church. I don't recall the Latin quote about practicing what we preach but regarding the Eucharist our practices tell the tale of what is actually believed.

Our Catechism says nothing about belief being a key ingredient for efficacy in the sacrament. Christ's body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine.

If it remains only bread and wine until consumed, why do we bow and or Genuflect before the Altar; why do we elevate the consecrated bread and wine; why does the celebrant turn towards the congregation and present the consecrated elements to the congregation with the words "behold the lamb of God? Why do we make sure to consume all of the consecrated elements, or in some Churches reserve it separate from unconsecrated elements; why do others dispose of them on Consecrated ground. All of these thing's are the norm; those who hold receptionism would have no use for any of these practices. The biggest reason that we are not considering communion with continuing Anglicans is not their faith in Christ, but their receptionism.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'll make a point of dusting off the long (Leonine) form of St. Michael the Archangel this month.

It's been in just the last eight to ten years that the prayer to St. Michael has made a BIG comeback in Catholic churches. Maybe not all, but in so many of them now. The sense in many congregations is that Satan is on the prowl and we need our defenses up.

I brought the longer version to a men's study group in my parish several years ago and one of the other people there was on the parish council. Not many weeks later the short version became a regular feature at our parish. Then I moved, and I see it almost everywhere now.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is so sad that you are willing to take the word of an anti-Lutheran regarding the teaching of our Church. I don't recall the Latin quote about practicing what we preach but regarding the Eucharist our practices tell the tale of what is actually believed.

Our Catechism says nothing about belief being a key ingredient for efficacy in the sacrament. Christ's body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine.

If it remains only bread and wine until consumed, why do we bow and or Genuflect before the Altar; why do we elevate the consecrated bread and wine; why does the celebrant turn towards the congregation and present the consecrated elements to the congregation with the words "behold the lamb of God? Why do we make sure to consume all of the consecrated elements, or in some Churches reserve it separate from unconsecrated elements; why do others dispose of them on Consecrated ground. All of these thing's are the norm; those who hold receptionism would have no use for any of these practices. The biggest reason that we are not considering communion with continuing Anglicans is not their faith in Christ, but their receptionism.

I am tired of whiny sucks that need to score brownie points by spreading lies about others. Truly shameful.

View attachment 337295View attachment 337296View attachment 337297

Third picture I noticed the candle at the top of the picture. Under what circumstances is that lit? And what does it signal to you?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Our Catechism says nothing about belief being a key ingredient for efficacy in the sacrament.

Correct. If Christ is objectively present in the Sacrament, then He is there regardless of a person's belief. The fact the unworthy receive our Lord's body and blood (to their condemnation) is a very strong argument one's faith does not make the efficaciousness of the Sacrament.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is so sad that you are willing to take the word of an anti-Lutheran regarding the teaching of our Church. I don't recall the Latin quote about practicing what we preach but regarding the Eucharist our practices tell the tale of what is actually believed.

Our Catechism says nothing about belief being a key ingredient for efficacy in the sacrament. Christ's body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine.

If it remains only bread and wine until consumed, why do we bow and or Genuflect before the Altar; why do we elevate the consecrated bread and wine; why does the celebrant turn towards the congregation and present the consecrated elements to the congregation with the words "behold the lamb of God? Why do we make sure to consume all of the consecrated elements, or in some Churches reserve it separate from unconsecrated elements; why do others dispose of them on Consecrated ground. All of these thing's are the norm; those who hold receptionism would have no use for any of these practices. The biggest reason that we are not considering communion with continuing Anglicans is not their faith in Christ, but their receptionism.

I am tired of whiny sucks that need to score brownie points by spreading lies about others. Truly shameful.

View attachment 337295View attachment 337296View attachment 337297

Indeed, and our friend @PsaltiChrysostom for his part is a good friend who is not anti-Lutheran, but I suspect he encountered a liberal idiot of the sort who were trying to wriggle their way into churches in the 1970s in the case of the LCC and LCMS.

In the case of the ELS it is possible they have some erroneous ideas about the Eucharist; I simply don’t know much about them, and if I recall you don’t either, as we have discussed them a few times without forming much of an opinion, in contrast to our view of WELS. It would disappoint me if either the ELS or WELS believed in receptionism.

By the way, what is WELS called in Canada? Perhaps the Winnipeg Evangelical Lutheran Synod?

I joked with a friend the other day that considering Manitoba is analogous to Missouri in terms of their places in the Canadian and US economy respectively, the LCC could alternately call itself the Lutheran Church Manitoba Synod, since both states are heavy grain producers in the great plains, with Saskatchewan being more like Nebraska or especially North Dakota. And Alberta comes across as the Texas of Canada, British Columbia, the Canadian California, with Vancouver Island being like the Canadian version of Oregon and Washington (which is amusing because these were all one territory which the US and Canada agreed to split along the parallel, except for Vancouver Island, the tip of which dips below the latitude of the main border, much like Ontario; in an odd twist, the peninsula Vancouver is built on has a tip which is an American territory which can only be accessed by boat from the US, otherwise one has to drive through Canada, not unlike Montebello, home to the only International Park of the US National Park Service, that is, our only national park on Canadian soil, the Montebello estate of the Roosevelt family. Everyone on that island has to travel through 20 miles of American territory to get to the rest of Canada, except in the summer when there is a car ferry. The International Park at the Roosevelt estate is run by a British man amusingly enough. Situations were miserable for the people in these two exclaves when the border was closed during the pandemic.