What synod are you?

[Lotar]

good question Flipper. Bible has the Word of God in it, but so does Liturgy in that is uses the word of God within it. but I would put the word above liturgy in the sense that it can stand on it's own. The liturgy without the word can not stand alone.

Scott,

Could the Bible without the Word of God stand alone?

 

[Protoevangel]

good question Flipper. Bible has the Word of God in it, but so does Liturgy in that is uses the word of God within it. but I would put the word above liturgy in the sense that it can stand on it's own. The liturgy without the word can not stand alone.

The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration.

 

[Protoevangel]

Scott,

Could the Bible without the Word of God stand alone?

Catigorical fallacy. Scripture was written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it has God for it's author. Without the Word there is no Bible to stand or fall.

 

[theologia crucis]

This is a categorical fallacy (erroneous and wrong) as well:

O most holy Theotokos, save us.

That is outright scary. And I write this in all seriousness...

SAVE us?! She can't! And she doesn't!

 

[Protoevangel]

This is a categorical fallacy (erroneous and wrong) as well:

O most holy Theotokos, save us.

That is outright scary. And I write this in all seriousness...

SAVE us?! She can't! And she doesn't!

Where did you dig that one out? Did I miss that in here?

 

[Lotar]

It's in my sig

 

[Protoevangel]

It's in my sig

How did I miss that?

It was because of your powerful magic!

 

[Lotar]

I hypnotize you with my animated gifs

 

[BigNorsk]

What, more time for the pastor to show his qualities??

Mindless chanting, is this like mindless "praise music"?

This all sounds very anti-Lutheran, as we are a very Liturgical church.


Well, what else of our Lutheran faith and practice can we toss to the curb?

Q

Real strange for someone who calls himself preacher to make fun of the sermon.

I should have spelled it out that we are low church versus the high church form of worship. It isn't really correct to say there is no liturgy since we do have an order for such things as the Lord's supper, but for most of the service we follow a simplified service based on the Bible. If things get moved around or we sing an extra hymn or so some weeks so be it.

Now preacher gets all bent out of shape at that because he seems to think everyone should have a mass. I don't want to misstate your position Q so if you want to condemn the mass speak up and I will apologize, but you've defended the mass before so I believe that is your real "problem" with my post. Noone would mistake our service for a mass, how about yours?

Marv

 

[Qoheleth]

Now preacher gets all bent out of shape at that because he seems to think everyone should have a mass. I don't want to misstate your position Q so if you want to condemn the mass speak up and I will apologize, but you've defended the mass before so I believe that is your real "problem" with my post. Noone would mistake our service for a mass, how about yours?

How much more transparent can I be??

Are you still confused as to my position or do I have to spell it out also?

Q

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Noone would mistake our service for a mass, how about yours?

BigNorsk...you are Lutheran Brethren, right? Does the Lutheran Brethren subscribe to the Augsberg Confessions? From what I read in the confessions...there ought to be some huge similarities between our services and the mass....in fact our services should be the Mass.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article XXIV: Of the Mass.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1] Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among 2] us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved...[/font]

If the Lutheran Brethern subscribe to the AC, the please help me understand your objection with the Mass when our Confessions claime we celebrate it. If y'all don't subscribe to the AC then...that may be the reason why some of us celebrate the Mass and your church does not?

Peace

Rose

 

[BigNorsk]

Yes we agree with the Augsberg Confession, but recognize that one needs to understand what is being actually said and done.

If you read Martin Luther's earlier works, he praises the Mass. Later, he sees what is clearly wrong with the Mass and calls for it's complete abolishment. That doesn't mean that he called to abolish liturgy, but he and other early Lutherans clearly abolished the Mass.

In 1930 you have the Augsberg Confession, given to royalty in answer to the papist's complaints. Basically the complaint was that the Lutherans had abolished the proper worship service-the Mass. The Lutherans anwered that they had not abolished the proper worship and still called it the Mass. Their lives were at stake, and they needed to explain their position to a ruler who didn't spend much time understanding "church things." So they explained it to him as best they could, if it is a bit like the explanation of where babies come from to a 3 year old, it was the best that could be done without tieing the reformers to the burning stake. Later in the Smalcald Articles, they dared be much clearer and so they said,

[Article I: Christ and Faith]

The first and chief article is this, That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4, 25. And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1, 29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53, 6. Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3, 23 f. Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3, 28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise v. 26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ.

Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4, 12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53, 5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.

They said this to lay down the understanding of how we are saved, which was in direct opposition to Rome. Then,

Article II: Of the Mass.

That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it. If, perchance, there were reasonable Papists we might speak moderately and in a friendly way, thus: first, why they so rigidly uphold the Mass. res, For it is but a pure invention of men, and has not been commanded by God; and every invention of man we may [safely] discard, as Christ declaMatt. 15, 9: In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Secondly. It is an unnecessary thing, which can be omitted without sin and danger.

Thirdly. The Sacrament can be received in a better and more blessed way [more acceptable to God], (yea, the only blessed way), according to the institution of Christ. Why, then, do they drive the world to woe and [extreme] misery on account of a fictitious, unnecessary matter, which can be well obtained in another and more blessed way?

Let [care be taken that] it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass as men's twaddle [commentitious affair or human figment] can be omitted without sin, and that no one will be condemned who does not observe it, but that he can be saved in a better way without the Mass. I wager [Thus it will come to pass] that the Mass will then collapse of itself, not only among the insane [rude] common people, but also among all pious, Christian, reasonable, God-fearing hearts; and that the more, when they would hear that the Mass is a [very] dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without the will and Word of God.

Fourthly. Since such innumerable and unspeakable abuses have arisen in the whole world from the buying and selling of masses, the Mass should by right be relinquished, if for no other purpose than to prevent abuses, even though in itself it had something advantageous and good. How much more ought we to relinquish it, so as to prevent [escape] forever these horrible abuses, since it is altogether unnecessary, useless, and dangerous, and we can obtain everything by a more necessary, profitable, and certain way without the Mass.

Fifthly. But since the Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else (as the Canon and all books declare), than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels), by which one attempts to reconcile himself and others to God, and to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace (for thus the Mass is observed when it is observed at the very best; otherwise what purpose would it serve ?), for this very reason it must and should [certainly] be condemned and rejected. For this directly conflicts with the chief article, which says that it is not a wicked or a godly hireling of the Mass with his own work, but the Lamb of God and the Son of God, that taketh away our sins.

But if any one should advance the pretext that as an act of devotion he wishes to administer the Sacrament, or Communion, to himself, he is not in earnest [he would commit a great mistake, and would not be speaking seriously and sincerely]. For if he wishes to commune in sincerity, the surest and best way for him is in the Sacrament administered according to Christ's institution. But that one administer communion to himself is a human notion, uncertain, unnecessary, yea, even prohibited. And he does not know what he is doing, because without the Word of God he obeys a false human opinion and invention. So, too, it is not right (even though the matter were otherwise correct) for one to use the common Sacrament of [belonging to] the Church according to his own private devotion, and without God s Word and apart from the communion of the Church to trifle therewith.

This article concerning the Mass will be the whole business of the Council. [The Council will perspire most over, and be occupied with this article concerning the Mass.] For if it were [although it would be] possible for them to concede to us all the other articles, yet they could not concede this. As Campegius said at Augsburg that he would be torn to pieces before he would relinquish the Mass, so, by the help of God, I, too, would suffer myself to be reduced to ashes before I would allow a hireling of the Mass, be he good or bad, to be made equal to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, or to be exalted above Him. Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one another. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies in ruins. Before they will permit this to occur, they will put us all to death if they can.

In addition to all this, this dragon's tail, [I mean] the Mass, has begotten a numerous vermin-brood of manifold idolatries.

It goes on to other abominations.


It doesn't get much plainer than that. Even though parts of the Mass were okay, even good, it was abandoned and condemned due to the things which grow out of it.


They finish with this summary:

In short, the Mass itself and anything that proceeds from it, and anything that is attached to it, we cannot tolerate, but must condemn, in order that we may retain the holy Sacrament pure and certain, according to the institution of Christ, employed and received through faith.

See, the Mass is in direct conflict with the Sacrament.


Now to understand this, we must understand the Mass. The fundamental differences are that the Mass has a priest, a class of person different from the congregants, who has the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus at the altar. Included in the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus, a denial of the sufficiency of the cross. The congregants receive grace by attendance and by partaking of the Eucharist.


Contrast this with the Lutheran worship service, the pastor, called to be a pastor, but not a special class of person. After all, he is standing in front of a congregation of priests. He may say words quite similar, but he has no special power, those attending and partaking receive grace but not just because they are there, they receive grace through faith. Nothing in the service is dependant on the people, all is performed by God.


Every time a Mass is performed a sacrifice is performed as well. Now some Lutherans would say no such thing occurs in their Mass, but then why call it by a name guaranteed to confuse others. It is my contention that a Lutheran service should be clearly different from a Catholic Mass in order that seekers coming in would not be confused that they are the same. It is my contention that many a potential parishoner has been deprived when they attended a Lutheran worship service and went away saying it is nothing other than a Catholic Mass. Has anyone here ever heard anyone say such a thing?


Marv

 

[Qoheleth]

Article II: Of the Mass.

That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article

You see Marv, the problem here is that this is only referencing the ROMAN Catholic Mass. Not the Mass as celebrated by the Evangelical Lutherans. Your claim falls to pieces now. You have made the confessions null and void by inserting a twisted interpretation and claim that the BoC is ambiguous. You have completely misinterpreted the Article.

What is incomprehensible then, is that the Lutheran Mass (historic Liturgy) was the celebrated norm well into the 1800's.

Go figure. After all that, the Lutherans ignored the article and went on to celebrate the Divine Service (just as the Mass) for 300+ years.

The fundamental differences are that the Mass has a priest, a class of person different from the congregants, who has the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus at the altar. Included in the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus, a denial of the sufficiency of the cross.

All you are doing is describing the RC Mass, not the form and content of the Lutheran Mass. Keep it straight.

The congregants receive grace by attendance and by partaking of the Eucharist.

The Parishoners receive the Real Body and Blood of Christ for life and forgiveness and communion with God. Lets keep this Confessional now.

Every time a Mass is performed a sacrifice is performed as well. Now some Lutherans would say no such thing occurs in their Mass, but then why call it by a name guaranteed to confuse others.

The entire Mass is considered a sacrifice, by Confessional Lutheranism that is. You are the only one confused here.

It is my contention that a Lutheran service should be clearly different from a Catholic Mass in order that seekers coming in would not be confused that they are the same.

"Romaphobia" Not a good reason.

It is my contention that many a potential parishoner has been deprived when they attended a Lutheran worship service and went away saying it is nothing other than a Catholic Mass. Has anyone here ever heard anyone say such a thing?

Never. Your contention no doubt is based on a limited control group in a blind experiment.

Q

 

[Qoheleth]

That doesn't mean that he called to abolish liturgy, but he and other early Lutherans clearly abolished the Mass.

Nonsense. The proper context is the Mass celebrated correctly as witnessed below.


"We gladly keep the old traditions set up in the church because they are useful and promote tranquillity, and we interpret them in an evangelical way, excluding the opinion that they justify. Our enemies falsely accuse us of abolishing good ordinances and church discipline. We can truthfully claim that in our churches the public liturgy is more decent than in theirs, and if you look at it correctly we are more faithful to the canons than our opponents are. (Apology XV:38-39)
On holy days, and at other times when communicants are present, Mass is held and those who desire it are communicated. Thus the Mass is preserved among us in its proper use, the use which was formerly observed in the church and which can be proved by St. Paul’s statement in I Cor. 11:20 ff. and by many statements of the Fathers. (Augsburg Confession XXIV:34-35 [German])

...let all good men understand that we most zealously preserve the dignity of the Mass... (Apology XXIV:99)

Among us the ancient rites are for the most part diligently observed, for it is false and malicious to charge that all ceremonies and all old ordinances are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that certain abuses were connected with ordinary rites. Because these could not be approved with a good conscience, they have to some extent been corrected. (Augsburg Confession, epilogue to XXI, 4,5 [Latin])

Q

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Sorry Marv, I just don't understand your vehement objection to the use of the term. I have to say that on the surface it does look like Romaphobia. Among orthodox, confessional, Lutherans the term, Mass, continues to be used. (Qoheleth addressed the confessional suitability of this.) I could point you to several websites as proof. So somewhere between your understandings and the understandings of other Lutherans there may be a disconnect.

As Lutheran Bretheran you may look at things differently. You may disagree with some of the orthodox confessionals in the LCMS but I think you'd have a hard time convincing them they were misinterpreting the confessions. :o

I can't remember, did you ever read this article, Is Your Church Catholic Enough? I think it somewhat reflects this orthodox position.

Peace

Rose

 

[BigNorsk]

We are catholic, much more catholic than the LCMS is, for you see we actively recognize that there are true christians in synods and denominations other than our own. We even do recognize that there are true christians in the Roman Catholic church. We commune with any adult believer, Christ decides who is christian, not us. Explain to me what could be more catholic than that.

Now many think that Roman Catholism is the rituals and pagentry, but that isn't the place of error, that isn't the foundation. The Roman Catholics place the church and the priest over God himself. The priest changes the wine and bread into the body and blood, the priest sacrifices Jesus again for the remission of sins. The church decides what is right and wrong, not the Word of God. Even while recognizing the Word, they explain that the congregants can't possibly understand it, only they the higher more holy people can tell the true meaning. The Roman Catholic church puts themselves over God.

Why must we be careful? Well Q presents the perfect example, so in love with the ritual, the pagentry, that he has crossed over. He is not catholic for he condemns anyone not exactly like himself, but he has become fundamentally Roman Catholic, not Lutheran. Notice how he claims the worship service is indeed a Mass, a sacrifice of Jesus. Put your faith in the Mass, put your faith in the Eucharist, put your faith in the priest. Call the Pope and your pastor your father, for your faith comes from them not from Jesus. It is not Romanphobia to speak out against such things. That word is just used to try and win a debate without any actual debate. If they want everything just like Rome, then at least be honest and become a Roman Catholic in word as well as deed.

Q makes an interesting point about the number of Sacraments, but to understand it we must look at what bestows grace in the Sacrament. Does the ritual bestow grace or does receiving the Word of God in faith? It is the Word of God that is important, not the ritual. Any way we receive God's Word in faith gives us grace, but Q wants to reduce each way to a ritual and another Sacrament. Must we take away all Lutheran freedom in order to do things properly? I say no.

To say that orthodox Lutheranism must include all the rituals of Rome is not orthodoxy at all. Orthodox Lutheranism recognizes that the rituals are not important that there is freedom in how to worship God as long as it is done orderly and the focus is on God and his Word. To claim a low church style is wrong, that a high church style is the only way, is wrong. It is wrong for the reason that it would again put us in charge, but we aren't in charge, God is. To require rituals be performed a certain way in order to be correct, rituals which aren't spelled out in the Bible, denies the sufficiency of Scripture. Orthodox Lutheranism rests solidly on the sufficiency of Scripture.

Marv

 

[Rod B]

Well said Marv.

I myself, don't understand this apparent need of some people to be accepted by the RC church. Why would they want their services to mistaken as RC??? Why the need for deception?? How far are they willing to go to in order to be accepted once again?? My own christianity was apparantly called into question on another thread just because I refused to actively encourage the practice of crossing oneself.

I was also struck by the Romaphobia accusation. Such a politically correct way of attacking anothers viewpoint. (ie. oh he's speaking out against homosexuality, he must be a bigot and a homophobe). Political correctness is all about being accepted by the public.

My vote for best quote of the day is "Orthodox Lutheranism rests solidly on the sufficiency of Scripture." I agree wholeheartedly.

Rod

 

[ByzantineDixie]

We are catholic, much more catholic than the LCMS is,

Well, I guess that is your opinion.

for you see we actively recognize that there are true christians in synods and denominations other than our own. We even do recognize that there are true christians in the Roman Catholic church.

Ummm....so does the LCMS.

We commune with any adult believer, Christ decides who is christian, not us. Explain to me what could be more catholic than that.

Ya...the LCMS doesn't do that or at least it's churches shouldn't. And it is completely not catholic to have an open table. Since her beginnings the catholic church has never held an open table to include those outside of the fellowship to commune. What your church practices is an innovation.

Now many think that Roman Catholism is the rituals and pagentry, but that isn't the place of error, that isn't the foundation. The Roman Catholics place the church and the priest over God himself. The priest changes the wine and bread into the body and blood, the priest sacrifices Jesus again for the remission of sins. The church decides what is right and wrong, not the Word of God. Even while recognizing the Word, they explain that the congregants can't possibly understand it, only they the higher more holy people can tell the true meaning. The Roman Catholic church puts themselves over God.

Don't see how this plays into the conversation?

Why must we be careful? Well Q presents the perfect example, so in love with the ritual, the pagentry, that he has crossed over. He is not catholic for he condemns anyone not exactly like himself, but he has become fundamentally Roman Catholic, not Lutheran. Notice how he claims the worship service is indeed a Mass, a sacrifice of Jesus. Put your faith in the Mass, put your faith in the Eucharist, put your faith in the priest. Call the Pope and your pastor your father, for your faith comes from them not from Jesus.

I don't want to speak for Qoheleth but I think you seriously misjudge what he has written. Actually...I do put my faith in the Eucharist...Christ Himself...the forgiveness of sin, life and salvation per our catechism. This is a bad thing? And isn't the Mass the vehicle by which this forgiveness of sins, life and salvation is offered? I do rely on spiritual guidance from a pastor. Don't you??? Isn't that why God has given us shepherds? I struggle understanding your objections here.

Marv, no one is saying you must call your pastor "father"...however some have chosen to follow the historic practice of the church and call their shepherd "father". They have put no restrictions on you...why are you wanting to restrict them?

It is not Romanphobia to speak out against such things. That word is just used to try and win a debate without any actual debate. If they want everything just like Rome, then at least be honest and become a Roman Catholic in word as well as deed.

Wow...how to cross this divide? I think "they" really just want the opportunity to be "Lutheran" the way our fathers were Lutheran...not some made over American Evangelical Protestant version. Our Lutheran practices have historically looked very similar to the practices of Rome; our mass, our private confessions, our baptisms, our confirmations, our catechism...but its our understandings that mark the difference, not so much our practices. Practice with right understandings is nothing to fear. And these right understandings are wonderfully Lutheran.

Q makes an interesting point about the number of Sacraments, but to understand it we must look at what bestows grace in the Sacrament. Does the ritual bestow grace or does receiving the Word of God in faith? It is the Word of God that is important, not the ritual. Any way we receive God's Word in faith gives us grace, but Q wants to reduce each way to a ritual and another Sacrament. Must we take away all Lutheran freedom in order to do things properly? I say no.

Then darn it, don't take the freedom of those who chose to practice as our Lutheran fathers practiced away from us either! No one is saying you must do this...we may try to convince you it is a better way but no one says your salvation has been taken away because you don't.

To say that orthodox Lutheranism must include all the rituals of Rome is not orthodoxy at all. Orthodox Lutheranism recognizes that the rituals are not important that there is freedom in how to worship God as long as it is done orderly and the focus is on God and his Word. To claim a low church style is wrong, that a high church style is the only way, is wrong. It is wrong for the reason that it would again put us in charge, but we aren't in charge, God is. To require rituals be performed a certain way in order to be correct, rituals which aren't spelled out in the Bible, denies the sufficiency of Scripture. Orthodox Lutheranism rests solidly on the sufficiency of Scripture.

Marv

There is some truth to what you write here...I think the frustration those of us who encourage the return to the original practices face is the blanket rejection on the basis of "we don't have to" or "that's too Roman Catholic". We see this as a "we get to". Even our confessions say while these rites are not required to be the same the preference is for universal rites practiced by all the faithful in time and through time.

I think ChiRho's explanation in the lex ordandi, lex credendi liturgy thread about the house, the barn and the swine best represents my take on all of this. You have your liberties...most definitely. But they are your liberties. I have liberties as well, and I will embrace mine while I sleep warm and comfortable in my father's house. I may stop trying to convince you to come into the warmth and comfort of the house and join me...but I will still encourage others.

Peace

Rose

 

[Qoheleth]

Now many think that Roman Catholism is the rituals and pagentry, but that isn't the place of error, that isn't the foundation. The Roman Catholics place the church and the priest over God himself.

You seem to have forgotten that it is the theology and tradition that drives the ritual, custom, habit or practice.

As far as the second half of this statement, straw and falsehood. In fact its demonstrates a near total ignorance of RC doctrine.

The Roman Catholic church puts themselves over God.

Unbelievable. Prove this--specifically

Well Q presents the perfect example, so in love with the ritual, the pagentry, that he has crossed over. He is not catholic for he condemns anyone not exactly like himself, but he has become fundamentally Roman Catholic, not Lutheran.

Indeed, I bow my head to the name of our Lord Jesus during the Mass as His name is above all others and every head shall bow to Him.

I Kneel during prayer in reverence to my God and His gracious love towards my petitions.

I crosss my self everytime the trinity is invoke and spoken as to remind myself that our God is one and ever before me.

I genuflect before the the blessed Body and Blood of Christ as it is life giving communion with God.

What sin or heresy is there in these practices?

Why do you equivocate this with believeing in Roman Catholic doctrine and theology??

I could go on. Marv, you say that Im Roman Catholic for these customs, why not call me an Anglican or Eastern Orthodox. They all practice these common rituals, as you say.

I condemn no one for not practicing these customs. But you would prevent me from them and condemn me by labeling me as RC, in your mind.

Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Loehe, Sasse and others gave their approval to these customs as "laudable" and "edifying" in the spirit of freedom. None of them are necessary to our salvation but play a part (in my opinion) in our attitude toward our restored communion and vocation in and with God.

Notice how he claims the worship service is indeed a Mass, a sacrifice of Jesus.

False. I said that the entire Mass should be considered a sacrifice. This is in keeping with Luther and the Confessions. Look it up.

Put your faith in the Mass, put your faith in the Eucharist, put your faith in the priest.

Of course I put my faith in the Triune God coming to me in the Divine Service for life and forgiveness and communion. Dont you?

It is not Romanphobia to speak out against such things. That word is just used to try and win a debate without any actual debate. If they want everything just like Rome, then at least be honest and become a Roman Catholic in word as well as deed.

No matter how you cut it, you have a fear (phobia) of appearing to "Roman" or else you would not have such issues with these "laudable" customs (so called by the Lutheran "fathers") in the Divine Liturgy.

How (and why) should I become RC if I do not agree and have issue with Rome's doctines and theology??

Q makes an interesting point about the number of Sacraments, but to understand it we must look at what bestows grace in the Sacrament. Does the ritual bestow grace or does receiving the Word of God in faith? It is the Word of God that is important, not the ritual. Any way we receive God's Word in faith gives us grace,

Shall we discuss the direct quotations from the BoC, and the Lutheran "father's" understanding of the number of sacraments? Which by the way, is the exact same rationale as the Eastern Orthodox. Hey, did that make them Eastren Orthodox.

Do you want to discuss the issues of Ex Opere Operato and Ex Opere Operantis?? Ritual itself does not make a sacrament valid, there are many reasons for this.

but Q wants to reduce each way to a ritual and another Sacrament. Must we take away all Lutheran freedom in order to do things properly? I say no.

Your arguement here is fallacious and without substance or warrant. I am in accord with the Confessions regarding the sacraments (their administration, efficacy and number).

To say that orthodox Lutheranism must include all the rituals of Rome is not orthodoxy at all.

I never said it did. Another baseless complaint.

To claim a low church style is wrong, that a high church style is the only way, is wrong.

I didnt, you on the other hand have claimed the reverse. I simply have defended my right to practice my faith as Confessional Lutheran in accord with the BoC.

Orthodox Lutheranism rests solidly on the sufficiency of Scripture.

Oh, the Sola Scriptura battle cry again. Another day.

Q

 

[Qoheleth]

I myself, don't understand this apparent need of some people to be accepted by the RC church. Why would they want their services to mistaken as RC??? Why the need for deception??

Deception, really??

Well, would it be ok if our services were mistaken as being Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian instead??

Would that be ok with you, Rod? What should they look like without being deceptive, according to you???

I was also struck by the Romaphobia accusation. Such a politically correct way of attacking anothers viewpoint

Rod, look back and tell me, who's viewpoint is being called into question and assailed with accusations.

Q