What synod are you?

[BigNorsk]

Rev. Daniel Preus, gives an excellent Lutheran view on the issue of the mass vs. the Lord's Supper. I give one quote:

Lutherans tempted to use "mass" as a synonym for the Lord's Supper should take seriously Luther's observations on the difference between "mass" and "sacrament." The same confusion may very well result today when a term frequently used in reference to a sacrificial act performed by a priest is used carelessly by Lutherans in reference to the Lord's Supper. It is not without justification that a charge of "Roman Catholic" is brought against those who refer to the Lord's Supper as "the mass." Luther's own example after 1533 and that of the orthodox theologians such as Chemnitz who followed him ought to be instructive in this regard. They do not use the term "mass" to speak of the Lord's Supper. It is ill advised for Lutherans to do so today. Confusion will almost necessarily result unless Rome reforms its doctrine on the mass, which is hardly likely. Luther conceded that if the papists adhere to the ordinance of Christ in their celebration of the sacrament; the body and blood of Christ are truly present and received.33 On the other hand, the mass, which is celebrated by the priest at the same time that the sacrament is administered, is a misuse of the sacrament and an abomination. Luther declared,

The entire article can be read at: http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar92.htm

Marv

 

[Rod B]

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???

Sorry, perhaps deception is not the right wording here, as it implies that I know your motives, which I do not. Please forgive me for judging you unfairly.
I do not think it would be ok to have our services resemble those of other denominations. The reason all these denominations exist are because of significant theological differences between them. I see no reason to confuse the casual worshipper into thinking it doesn't matter what church he attends, because on the surface they all appear the same. If the services develop independantly and still wind up being similar I see no problem. But why change your practice to emulate the services of a denomination with which you disagree?? I have a hard time seeing how the confusion and doubt that would surely follow could be considered positive?

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

Ok, let's see:
6th April 2005, 03:11 AM - Big Norsk tells us why he is a member of the Lutheran Brethren
8th April 2005, 09:25 AM - Qoheleth responds and states that Big Norsk's church sounds very anti-Lutheran and wonders what other Lutheran practices can be tossed to the curb
9th April 2005, 12:04 AM - Big Norsk responds and asks for a clarification of Qoheleth's position concerning the mass
9th April 2005, 12:13 AM - Qoheleth responds but offers no clarification
9th April 2005, 01:26 AM - Big Norsk responds to Luthers Rose, explaining his position on why the Lutheran service should not resemble the Catholic mass
9th April 2005, 02:01 AM - Qoheleth responds describing Big Norsk's view as 'romaphobia'
9th April 2005, 08:02 AM - Luthers Rose responds and also describes Big Norsk's view as 'romaphobia'
9th April 2005, 08:57 AM - Big Norsk responds to Rose and questions Qoheleth's viewpoint

From my point of view, Qoheleth clearly attack Big Norsk's viewpoint first with his accusation of anti-Lutheran. Qoheleth and Luthers Rose then attack Big Norsk's viewpoint with accusations of 'Romaphobia'. It would then appear to me that Qoheleth and Luthers Rose are the ones calling Big Norsk's viewpoint into question and levelling accusations.
But that's just how I read it. Your point of view may differ.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Rev. Daniel Preus, gives an excellent Lutheran view on the issue of the mass vs. the Lord's Supper. I give one quote:

The entire article can be read at: http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar92.htm

Marv

Yes, there appears to be no common agreement in the LCMS on the use of the term. If you are interested in seeing the different viewpoints held on the topic though do a search on LutherQuest for "mass" and check out the February 2005 discussion. I would put a link here but LQ doesn't allow me to do that.

One thing is clear in the LQ discussion...the average Lutheran will bristle at the term without proper catechesis. The pastors there are more attuned than I to that need...and therein probably lies the source of contention on this board regarding the subject.

Peace

Rose

 

[Qoheleth]

Rev. Daniel Preus, gives an excellent Lutheran view on the issue of the mass vs. the Lord's Supper. I give one quote:

Only a few points to be made here.

This is only opinion and doesnt offer substantial resolution. It says we should change so that we do not look like others. How far should that be taken???

Also, defining what Mass means and what the Mass is should be known through proper catechesis without fear.

I am not advocating that the word "Mass" is the only descripitve term to define our Divine Service.

Q

 

[revjpw]

Only a few points to be made here.

This is only opinion and doesnt offer substantial resolution. It says we should change so that we do not look like others. How far should that be taken???

Also, defining what Mass means and what the Mass is should be known through proper catechesis without fear.

I am not advocating that the word "Mass" is the only descripitve term to define our Divine Service.

Q

Another thing to consider in all of this is the modern day connotation of the Mass as opposed to what it was in Luther's day.

Out of Vatican II came an understanding of the Mass heavily influenced by the writings of Odo Casel, a Benedictine monk from Germany, who basically contended that participation in the Mass was a means by which the congregation participated in the salvific work of Christ. In other words, the very act of participating in the Mass was one's own personal participation in their work of salvation. This notion is also now in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So in todays undersatnding, the "Mass" is not what we do in the Lutheran Church. It is, rather, the Divine Service - the "work of God," done wholly by Him for us. Our "participation" is not in His salvific work but is our response, our reaction to His salvific work. That being our sacrificial acts of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, all in response to His work for our justification.

And that is why I prefer the term "Divine Service." Because that is what it is.

 

[Qoheleth]

Ok, let's see:
6th April 2005, 03:11 AM - Big Norsk tells us why he is a member of the Lutheran Brethren

No, he did not. BN said he prefers the low church service to the High church service and feels that High church becomes "mindless" chanting in light of their "Liturgical" nature.

Qoheleth responds and states that Big Norsk's church sounds very anti-Lutheran and wonders what other Lutheran practices can be tossed to the curb

I challenged his meaning of his description of the Confessional Lutheran service which is "Liturgical"

"Anti-Lutheran" was said due to his anti-liturgical response. ARE we not a Liturgical church??

Isnt it ok for me to wonder what we are to keep and throw out to remain Orthodox Lutheran?? What does it mean to be Lutheran in totality of the Confessions.

9th April 2005, 12:04 AM - Big Norsk responds and asks for a clarification of Qoheleth's position concerning the mass

Completely false, Rod. BN only made assertions about the Mass and never asked me to clarify to him what I meant by the term "Mass". His statement is baiting and convoluted.

9th April 2005, 12:13 AM - Qoheleth responds but offers no clarification/QUOTE]

BN asked for no clarification on my use of the word "Mass". I asked if he were confused as to my position and meaning. Is this not true??

9th April 2005, 01:26 AM - Big Norsk responds to Luthers Rose, explaining his position on why the Lutheran service should not resemble the Catholic mass

OK

9th April 2005, 02:01 AM - Qoheleth responds describing Big Norsk's view as 'romaphobia'

OK. The word was used as a description of BN's assessment of why the term Mass should not be used. The reason that BN gives is that we should not be confused with or mistaken as Roman Catholic. This sounds like a fear (phobia) to me, in fact avoidance.

9th April 2005, 08:02 AM - Luthers Rose responds and also describes Big Norsk's view as 'romaphobia'

OK, the reason is the same. Is this term really an attack. What term should we use to describe someone that wants to do anything and everything to avoid "looking" to Roman Catholic.

9th April 2005, 08:57 AM - Big Norsk responds to Rose and questions Qoheleth's viewpoint

OK??

From my point of view, Qoheleth clearly attack Big Norsk's viewpoint first with his accusation of anti-Lutheran.

Yes, your point of view, mistaken and without warrant, but it is yours. Are we not a Liturgical communion that defends its liturgical purpose and reasons??

Qoheleth and Luthers Rose then attack Big Norsk's viewpoint with accusations of 'Romaphobia'

Straw. This is a descriptive term and was used to define a frame of mind put into action.

It would then appear to me that Qoheleth and Luthers Rose are the ones calling Big Norsk's viewpoint into question and levelling accusations.

Call into question, ok. Accusations of what, Rod. I was the first to be called, in so many words, Roman Catholic or at least that I should just go ahead and become one since I act as one. Yet another distortion of the facts by you.




Let me ask you this Rod.

Should the Lutheran church change every term and practice that it holds if that practice or term in any way, shape or form resembles Roman Catholicism??

Should we always be afraid of "looking" like other communions?

RC priests are "ordained", so are Lutheran pastors. Should we get rid of the term "ordained".

The RCC has Private confession as a sacrament, So does the Lutheran church. Should the Lutheran church get rid of Private confession.

The RCC understands the Holy communion as being defined and for a specific reason, the Lutheran church celebrates Holy communion for different reasons. Should the Lutheran church change this term and or practice also.

Also, many terms and practices of the Lutheran church resemble many protestant churches. Should we avoid all practices and terms of these churches.

Anglicans have High-Church (smells and bells) and Low-Church services (devoid of any litugy essentially) with no real condemnation or accusations of being "To Roman Catholic" .

Why cant I and many others have this same freedom in the Lutheran church and defend our Liturgical heritage??? To throw away Liturgy to the extent that liturgy is unrecognizable, is to deny our Lutheranism and is essentially anti-Lutheran.


Q

 

[Qoheleth]

Another thing to consider in all of this is the modern day connotation of the Mass as opposed to what it was in Luther's day.

I agree.

Our "participation" is not in His salvific work but is our response, our reaction to His salvific work. .

But Rev, we do co-operate with our Lord in working out our salvation. This is participation in the life of Christ (Theosis) and not simply a reaction.

"From this, then, it follows that as soon as the Holy Ghost, as has been said, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness." (BoC)

Synergy does exist in our sanctification and this per scripture and our Confessions.

That being our sacrificial acts of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, all in response to His work for our justification.

Yes, and this is the proper way in which "Mass" should be employed.

And that is why I prefer the term "Divine Service." Because that is what it is.

It is indeed.

Q

 

[Rod B]

Accusations of what, Rod. I was the first to be called, in so many words, Roman Catholic or at least that I should just go ahead and become one since I act as one. Yet another distortion of the facts by you.

OK, let's end the spitting contest. I disagree that I intentionally distorted the facts, as this was my honest perception of the progression of the conversation. In my view, the charges of anti-Lutheran, romaphobia, and roma-adoration(???) were all unfair and led to a degradation of the conversation (myself included among the guilty).

Let me ask you this Rod.
Should the Lutheran church change every term and practice that it holds if that practice or term in any way, shape or form resembles Roman Catholicism??
Should we always be afraid of "looking" like other communions?
RC priests are "ordained", so are Lutheran pastors. Should we get rid of the term "ordained".
The RCC has Private confession as a sacrament, So does the Lutheran church. Should the Lutheran church get rid of Private confession.
The RCC understands the Holy communion as being defined and for a specific reason, the Lutheran church celebrates Holy communion for different reasons. Should the Lutheran church change this term and or practice also.
Also, many terms and practices of the Lutheran church resemble many protestant churches. Should we avoid all practices and terms of these churches.

My answer to all these questions are no. Our services have developed independantly into what they are. I see no problem with similarities developed in such a manner. All I ask is why would we want to change our services or terminology to closer emulate those of a denomination with which we disagree?? I think this would only serve to confuse the general public and lessen the unique identity of our denominations / synods / churches. This is not a fear of being too RC, it is a desire to keep intact our own uniquely developed practices.

Why cant I and many others have this same freedom in the Lutheran church and defend our Liturgical heritage??? To throw away Liturgy to the extent that liturgy is unrecognizable, is to deny our Lutheranism and is essentially anti-Lutheran.

Indeed why not?? I never advocated denying you your freedom, nor tossing the liturgy. What I question is the wisdom / reason of changing our present liturgy / terminology to closer emulate someone else's?

 

[BigNorsk]

I want to go back to my original post since it seems to be the "root" of the discussion.

I like the low-church service, I know that a liturgical service becomes mindless chanting to me after awhile, I am not accussing others of mindlessly chanting their liturgy, it is a sin that I commit if I constantly attend liturgical services.

Marv

Now I would like to make some points about it. First I did misspeak a bit in that a low-church service is still liturgical, but many people do use the terms high-church and liturgical as synonymous. They aren't. Now it's been said that I want to get rid of the liturgy or claim others should and that's not the case at all. I in no way am saying that a high-church service is wrong or that others are sinning. I was explaining why I liked the low-church style. In the past, while attending church in which all the services were high-church I often drifted off, daydreaming, and just mindlessly going through it. This is sinful, it is easy to say, "Don't daydream" but it happens to me. I am not saying there is anything wrong in the service, it is in me. I am not saying others sin on account of attending that type of service, but it repeatedly happened to me. Now God tells me to pluck out my eye if it causes me to sin. Let's say that I look at a beautiful woman with lust. Better to rip out my eye than continue to sin. Is there something wrong with the woman, no it is my eye. So too the service in Lutheran churches are beautiful services, I have never attended one that I can say has anything wrong about the service. As a matter of fact, I really enjoy, and get a lot out of an occassional high-church service. But if I go to such a service all the time, the repetition weighs on me and the service rather than bringing me closer to God, becomes a sinful act on my part, and so what should bring me closer to God separates me. I do not want this to happen and I try very hard to stay involved, but it does become mindless chanting from me.

Now Lutheranism gives freedom in the form of service. Should I go to a service in which I repeatedly sin, or should I go to a service of a different liturgical style in which I manage to stay fully engaged in worshipping God?

So let me just say again that I never said anything against any liturgy.

What I did object to was the use of the term "Mass" for a Lutheran service. Lutherans do retain the essential parts of the Catholic Mass as per the Augsberg Confession, but we rejected the unessential, even heretical parts. These parts were things such as transubstantiation, and an actual sacrifice of Jesus. In the end, we rejected the very use of the term "Mass" as is very clear from the Smalcald Articles. There is no disagreement between the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles on the matter, the use of the term "Mass" is abolished while the Lutheran church retains the essentials from the Mass. The problem comes in trying to follow the Augsburg Confession too literally.

Now before anyone jumps up and says we must follow the Augsburg Confession literally word for word let me save that person from embarrassment because the very next sentence after saying we retain the Mass is this:

Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added to teach the people.

If any wonder of the Catholic understanding of the Mass, here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry "Sacrifice of the Mass".

Should we discard something just because the Roman Catholic church uses it. No, I would use the example of the Trinity. We would agree on the use of the term and the understanding of scripture which is involved in the term so why not use it? No confusion results, as Lutherans we don't have to come up with a different term.

But now we get to the concept of the Mass. The Roman Catholics understand the Mass as a Sacrifice, they condemned at the Council of Trent all who did not recognize the Mass as a sacrifice. Why at the Council of Trent? Because the Council of Trent was to deal with the "problem" of the Reformation, and Martin Luther and others did not agree with the concept of the Mass as a sacrifice, so the Roman Catholic church comdemned them.

So why use a term defined first by the Roman Catholic church to which we disagree as to the meaning when there are better terms available?

1 Corinthians 11:20 NASB Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,

I again recommend reading the whole article by Rev. Preus. I quoted but one paragraph which was pertinent to our discussion, but the whole article really applies well and clearly lays out why we don't have a Mass.

Marv

 

[ByzantineDixie]

What I did object to was the use of the term "Mass" for a Lutheran service. Lutherans do retain the essential parts of the Catholic Mass as per the Augsberg Confession, but we rejected the unessential, even heretical parts. These parts were things such as transubstantiation, and an actual sacrifice of Jesus. In the end, we rejected the very use of the term "Mass" as is very clear from the Smalcald Articles. There is no disagreement between the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles on the matter, the use of the term "Mass" is abolished while the Lutheran church retains the essentials from the Mass. The problem comes in trying to follow the Augsburg Confession too literally.

Thank you, Marv, for clarifying your position.

I am going to just make one point...regarding the statement "we rejected the unessential, even heretical parts. These parts were things such as transubstantiation, and an actual sacrifice of Jesus." You know what we really rejected? The bad theology that was linked to the liturgy that had served Christendom well through the centuries, not the liturgy itself.

We did not drop the Words of Institution because they were linked to the Roman metaphysical notion of transubstantiation, rather, we catechised our people to understand what is actually meant by the verba. And this is my point...we needn't fear the word "mass". We merely need to educate when we use it. And I would venture to say that just about all of the Lutheran pastors who have retained the term do a good job of that.

Even the use of the term sacrifice is not inappropriate...surely we do not understand the term sacrifice in the way the Romans have applied it! But Luther did see the mass as a Eucharistic Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving--well in keeping with the understandings of the ancient church.

Instead of avoiding the terms which have fallen into misuse, why not use them properly? Why give up our historical language, our continuity and connection with the ancient, catholic church because others have inappropriately used the terms? You say it causes confusion but I say not if people are properly instructed.

I also think it is important that we live the spirit of the Confessions. Note how frequently the reformers commented on how their beliefs and practices aligned with the early church--that nothing they did was innovation. Let's not let the abuses of Rome take our language, take the historic liturgy of Christendom and render these things unusable...let's take them back and dispel the improper understandings.

I have some reasons why these things are important to me but duty calls and I have to go to work. Perhaps later if the discussion goes that way.

Peace

Rose

 

[SPALATIN]

I want to go back to my original post since it seems to be the "root" of the discussion.



Now I would like to make some points about it. First I did misspeak a bit in that a low-church service is still liturgical, but many people do use the terms high-church and liturgical as synonymous. They aren't. Now it's been said that I want to get rid of the liturgy or claim others should and that's not the case at all. I in no way am saying that a high-church service is wrong or that others are sinning. I was explaining why I liked the low-church style. In the past, while attending church in which all the services were high-church I often drifted off, daydreaming, and just mindlessly going through it. This is sinful, it is easy to say, "Don't daydream" but it happens to me. I am not saying there is anything wrong in the service, it is in me. I am not saying others sin on account of attending that type of service, but it repeatedly happened to me. Now God tells me to pluck out my eye if it causes me to sin. Let's say that I look at a beautiful woman with lust. Better to rip out my eye than continue to sin. Is there something wrong with the woman, no it is my eye. So too the service in Lutheran churches are beautiful services, I have never attended one that I can say has anything wrong about the service. As a matter of fact, I really enjoy, and get a lot out of an occassional high-church service. But if I go to such a service all the time, the repetition weighs on me and the service rather than bringing me closer to God, becomes a sinful act on my part, and so what should bring me closer to God separates me. I do not want this to happen and I try very hard to stay involved, but it does become mindless chanting from me.

Now Lutheranism gives freedom in the form of service. Should I go to a service in which I repeatedly sin, or should I go to a service of a different liturgical style in which I manage to stay fully engaged in worshipping God?

So let me just say again that I never said anything against any liturgy.

What I did object to was the use of the term "Mass" for a Lutheran service. Lutherans do retain the essential parts of the Catholic Mass as per the Augsberg Confession, but we rejected the unessential, even heretical parts. These parts were things such as transubstantiation, and an actual sacrifice of Jesus. In the end, we rejected the very use of the term "Mass" as is very clear from the Smalcald Articles. There is no disagreement between the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles on the matter, the use of the term "Mass" is abolished while the Lutheran church retains the essentials from the Mass. The problem comes in trying to follow the Augsburg Confession too literally.

Now before anyone jumps up and says we must follow the Augsburg Confession literally word for word let me save that person from embarrassment because the very next sentence after saying we retain the Mass is this:


If any wonder of the Catholic understanding of the Mass, here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry "Sacrifice of the Mass".

Should we discard something just because the Roman Catholic church uses it. No, I would use the example of the Trinity. We would agree on the use of the term and the understanding of scripture which is involved in the term so why not use it? No confusion results, as Lutherans we don't have to come up with a different term.

But now we get to the concept of the Mass. The Roman Catholics understand the Mass as a Sacrifice, they condemned at the Council of Trent all who did not recognize the Mass as a sacrifice. Why at the Council of Trent? Because the Council of Trent was to deal with the "problem" of the Reformation, and Martin Luther and others did not agree with the concept of the Mass as a sacrifice, so the Roman Catholic church comdemned them.

So why use a term defined first by the Roman Catholic church to which we disagree as to the meaning when there are better terms available?

1 Corinthians 11:20 NASB Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,

I again recommend reading the whole article by Rev. Preus. I quoted but one paragraph which was pertinent to our discussion, but the whole article really applies well and clearly lays out why we don't have a Mass.

Marv

I guess that my question to you is this. Just how are you defining "High Church Liturgy"? or "Low Church Liturgy"?

yesterday the church I attend had their monthly "Praise and Worship" service to which I don't enjoy because it is too informal and the music is too shallow in meaning and is more about me than about God. My wife and children, however, enjoy it and feel more comfortable with that kind of service. What I had to rely on is the scripture readings, Sermon and Sacrament. All the rest was for me non-essential. Last week we used the more formal liturgy for which I am accustomed and feel is more scriptural than Contemporary Praise and worship.

I may not prefer the Contemporary Praise music but I still can receive God's word and Sacrament during the service.

So please tell me what High Church and Low Church means to you.

 

[BigNorsk]

Rose,

If the confessional Lutherans did not so tightly hold that the Book of Concord is a true interpretation of the Word of God, maybe one could in some way justify the continued use of the term and add that with education it could be rightly understood.

Please explain to me how a confessional Lutheran Church could teach new and prospective members that they must agree with the Book of Concord, and then have the service call a Mass.

Read again the the Smalcald Article on the Mass which ends with the conclusion:

29] 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.

Now please explain to me how the person can be told they must believe the Smalcald Articles to be correct and then have the service called the Mass. Notice how it says "anything that is attached" to the Mass is wrong. How can someone believe that anything that proceeds from the Mass, including the Mass itself cannot be tolerated, but must be condemned and then turn around and say "Let's go to Sunday Mass." At the very least it would be unnecessarily confusing. At the worst, it goes against the Bible and becomes again idolatry. Explain to me why it is wise to take parishoners there.

Let me make one last point about terminology. If we can retain terms and just educate parishoners as to their proper meaning, why not retain the term transubstantiation? Would it be more difficult to teach properly what happens during the Lord's Supper if the same term was being used both for proper and improper understandings. How many others would look at the Roman Catholics and Lutherans and say that they must believe the same thing because we would use the same terms. I notice that non-Lutherans have trouble understanding there is a difference between a Lutheran Lord's Supper and a Catholic Mass when we use different terms. How much more difficult would it be if we used the same? I can see no good reason to add confusion where it is not necessary, can you?

Frankly, I'm a bit miffed that confessional Lutherans would throw the term Romaphobe at me for speaking against the use of the Mass. The claim has been clearly made in this thread that use of the Mass is orthodox Lutheranism. It really seems clear to me that the Smalcald Articles condemn the Mass. Now if you can explain how the terms "cannot tolerate" and "must condemn", along with the rest of the part of the Smalcald Articles pertaining to the Mass mean go ahead and have the Mass, I am, as they say, all ears.

Marv

 

[Qoheleth]

All I ask is why would we want to change our services or terminology to closer emulate those of a denomination with which we disagree??

Change?? This is the way it was for 300+ years.

I think this would only serve to confuse the general public and lessen the unique identity of our denominations / synods / churches. This is not a fear of being too RC, it is a desire to keep intact our own uniquely developed practices.

IMO, this is an unfounded fear, but I understand your line of thinking. What should the High-church Anglicans do in your opinion so that they do not seem to Roman Catholic or "high" church Lutheran? Should they also forsake their heritage?

Rod, do you know that the Lutherans celebrated Mass this way

http://members.aol.com/frnicholas/liturgy.htm

Luthers reformed Mass differs in the exclusion of certain practices (prayers for the dead...) introduced different tones and chants and so on. The Two Masses would not be easily distinguished by a visitor who might have been able to attend both.

Now, this is the Mass (reformed) that Luther accepted (with his innovations). Change the term Mass to Divine Service, OK-no problem.

What I question is the wisdom / reason of changing our present liturgy / terminology to closer emulate someone else's?

Who said that we must change it. Im saying that we can safely use it (per scripture, Confessions, Luther). No one is trying to emulate anyone, this to me is your misunderstanding here.

Q

http://www.ulcmn.org/Bookstore/aboutourliturgysample.PDF

 

[Qoheleth]

Now please explain to me how the person can be told they must believe the Smalcald Articles to be correct and then have the service called the Mass. Notice how it says "anything that is attached" to the Mass is wrong. How can someone believe that anything that proceeds from the Mass, including the Mass itself cannot be tolerated, but must be condemned and then turn around and say "Let's go to Sunday Mass." At the very least it would be unnecessarily confusing. At the worst, it goes against the Bible and becomes again idolatry. Explain to me why it is wise to take parishoners there.

Marv, the SA article is in reference to the RC Mass.

1] 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.(SA)

Everything that Luther says here is in relation to the Mass as the Roman Catholics celebrated it along with certain unacceptable practices and theology or "anything that is attached to it"

It is not condemning the Mass that Luther himself introduced (1525) with the corrected theology and practices (New chants, yes chants). Luther did not condemn his own Mass.

Again, change the name to the Divine Service so that a visitor would realize that they are in an Evangelical catholic Mass not an RC Mass is not objectionable.

Luther corrected the abuses as he saw it in the RC Mass. Luther also said that if his corrections became abusive, then those changes may also be corrected. Many would be hard pressed to pick up the differences unless they already were instructed one way or the other.

There exists absolutely no conflict in the Apology and the Smalcald article. Your interpretation of the Smalcald article over against the Apology article is in error.

Let me make one last point about terminology. If we can retain terms and just educate parishoners as to their proper meaning, why not retain the term transubstantiation? Would it be more difficult to teach properly what happens during the Lord's Supper if the same term was being used both for proper and improper understandings. How many others would look at the Roman Catholics and Lutherans and say that they must believe the same thing because we would use the same terms. I notice that non-Lutherans have trouble understanding there is a difference between a Lutheran Lord's Supper and a Catholic Mass when we use different terms. How much more difficult would it be if we used the same? I can see no good reason to add confusion where it is not necessary, can you?

And this is the problem with a catechumen not being properly instructed (catechesis). Lutherans say that in relation to our Lords Blessed Body and Precious Blood and the Bread and wine, the change is "In, With and Under" Or properly understood as transubstantial, consubstantial, and mystically attached. The fact is, any one term used to define the change of the elements is insufficient. It is indeed a mystery.

Marv, what happens if we use terms and expressions that are similar to Anglicans? Do we have to retreat from them also? Where does it stop??

Frankly, I'm a bit miffed that confessional Lutherans would throw the term Romaphobe at me for speaking against the use of the Mass. The claim has been clearly made in this thread that use of the Mass is orthodox Lutheranism. It really seems clear to me that the Smalcald Articles condemn the Mass. Now if you can explain how the terms "cannot tolerate" and "must condemn", along with the rest of the part of the Smalcald Articles pertaining to the Mass mean go ahead and have the Mass, I am, as they say, all ears.

The Smalcald article condemns the Roman Catholic Mass and its uses. That is the primary reason why Luther reformed the Mass and instituted his Mass with corrections and innovations.


Is the only issue for you, the use of the term Mass? If Lutherans have a service which is nearly the same as the RCC but call it "Divine Service", are you ok with that?

Q

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Now please explain to me how the person can be told they must believe the Smalcald Articles to be correct and then have the service called the Mass. Notice how it says "anything that is attached" to the Mass is wrong.

Nothin' left to say here. Q ablely reconciled the Smallcald Articles with the Augsberg Confessions. (And really Marv...taken to such an unintended interpretation as offered here our services wouldn't even have the Eucharist!)

How can someone believe that anything that proceeds from the Mass, including the Mass itself cannot be tolerated, but must be condemned and then turn around and say "Let's go to Sunday Mass." At the very least it would be unnecessarily confusing. At the worst, it goes against the Bible and becomes again idolatry. Explain to me why it is wise to take parishoners there.

Unnecessarily confusing? This fear doesn't hold water...let me give you a few examples of where we share common terms with the Roman Catholic Church and easily live with uncommon understandings with no confusion for the flocks whatsoever.

Holy Communion--RCC says transubstantiation Lutherans say its a mystery "in, with and under".

Private Confession--RCC requires full listing of all sins, fully enumerated as well. Penance is give to make atonement for those sins. Lutherans confess those sins which weigh heavy on our hearts and receive absolution...atonement of sins is Christ's work, no penance.

Confirmation--RCC says it's a sacrament where the Holy Spirit is imparted. Lutherans say it is merely a rite.

Lenten Fast--RCC says it's a sin if not maintained, a sacrifice offered to God. Not a sin in the Lutheran church yet it is practiced, a good Christian discipline.

There are a host of other terms.

Let me make one last point about terminology. If we can retain terms and just educate parishoners as to their proper meaning, why not retain the term transubstantiation? Would it be more difficult to teach properly what happens during the Lord's Supper if the same term was being used both for proper and improper understandings.

This actually could have been a pretty good point but transubstantiation isn't a catholic term in the sense that it is a novelty and not a belief of the orthodox church. It was first conceived in what...the 9th or 10th century? Anyway...no need for us to pick up terms founded in unorthodox theologies. Not so with the mass...it was a proper term representing an orthodox understanding that ultimately was tainted by its misuse.

How many others would look at the Roman Catholics and Lutherans and say that they must believe the same thing because we would use the same terms. I notice that non-Lutherans have trouble understanding there is a difference between a Lutheran Lord's Supper and a Catholic Mass when we use different terms. How much more difficult would it be if we used the same? I can see no good reason to add confusion where it is not necessary, can you?

You may think this odd...but I absolutely do not care what those on the outside think. The Divine Service, the Mass, is for the faithful. Those on the outside are just as capable of learning the differences as those on the inside. Refer back to the list of common terms above.

Frankly, I'm a bit miffed that confessional Lutherans would throw the term Romaphobe at me for speaking against the use of the Mass. The claim has been clearly made in this thread that use of the Mass is orthodox Lutheranism. It really seems clear to me that the Smalcald Articles condemn the Mass. Now if you can explain how the terms "cannot tolerate" and "must condemn", along with the rest of the part of the Smalcald Articles pertaining to the Mass mean go ahead and have the Mass, I am, as they say, all ears.

Marv

Wait a minute...does the Smallcald articles condemn "the Mass", the theology behind the Mass, the abuses of the Mass or the term "the Mass"? I suggest based on what we have discussed the issue is the faulty theology and related abuses. Our Divine Service pretty much mimics the Mass...so we surely didn't reject it's form. And no where do I read that we have rejected the term. But we do reject the theology of the Roman Mass and its related abuses. So based on your concerns all we really have to deal with is the fear of the term...and frankly we share too much terminology with the rest of Christendom to make term avoidance where theologies are not aligned an even reasonable objective.

You say potato and I say po-tah-to. OK?

Peace

Rose

 

[revjpw]

But Rev, we do co-operate with our Lord in working out our salvation. This is participation in the life of Christ (Theosis) and not simply a reaction.

"From this, then, it follows that as soon as the Holy Ghost, as has been said, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness." (BoC)

No,No,No,No,No.. We cannot cooperate with God because we in and of ourselves are dead to sin. How can a dead man help himself? It is only God who has already worked our salvation. We react and respond to what He has already done.Your quote of the BoC clearly states in: "the Holy Ghost...has begun His work..." Besides, that passage is speaking on sanctification.
See below.

Synergy does exist in our sanctification and this per scripture and our Confessions.

You are making the classic Roman Catholic mistake here and confusing sanctification with justification. While we do cooperate with our sanctification, even then it is only through the fruits of faith, which are from God in the first place.
Our justification comes wholly and only from God. We have no cooperation in that at all. There is NO synergism there at all. That is semi-Pelagianism which is heresy!

 

[BigNorsk]

Rose, I think what is missing from people understanding the Lutheran position on the Mass properly is the aspect of timeline.

Early on, Luther talked glowingly about the Mass. Later he came to realize the abuses the Catholic Mass made on the Gospel and started to attack it. By the time of the Augsberg Confession (1530) many changes had been made in the Mass, but the Lutherans did indeed still use the term mass.

If you noted the article from Preus and the quote I used, part of the reason for using that quote is that he says 1533 is the year the use of the term Mass ended. Preus wrote:

By 1533, however, Luther came to the conclusion that "mass" should no longer be used in reference to the sacrament of the altar. Luther's Letter Concerning His Book on the Private Mass is very illuminating in regard to his distinction between the two.

The Smalcald articles were written in 1537, and they do indeed condemn even using the term Mass for the Holy Service.

Now there is plenty of things out there to use to dispute the Smalcald position on the Mass, but you will find that they come from times before 1533.

So the Lutheran position on the Mass was a progressive thing.

Remember, Martin Luther himself cautioned people about his earlier writings, see here.

May I also suggest reading through Article X of the Formula of Concord-Solid Declaration. It is on page 438 of the Triglota Book of Concord available in pdf here.

It says in part:

5]

​

​

Namely, when under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God’s Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In likemanner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel].

You really need to read the whole section to get the feel.

Marv


​

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Rose, I think what is missing from people understanding the Lutheran position on the Mass properly is the aspect of timeline.

Early on, Luther talked glowingly about the Mass. Later he came to realize the abuses the Catholic Mass made on the Gospel and started to attack it. By the time of the Augsberg Confession (1530) many changes had been made in the Mass, but the Lutherans did indeed still use the term mass.

Marv, what changes were made to the mass? All the research I have done indicates that Luther was extremely cautious and made "surprisingly" few changes. Yes, some changes were made, but they were limited. (I would add Luther's few changes are crticized by many Lutherans for many reasons for reasons that range from his weaknesses and lack of skills in the specific area of liturgy as well to the understanding there was no need for revision, catechesis could have been used...but there is another thread on this specific topic.)

If you noted the article from Preus and the quote I used, part of the reason for using that quote is that he says 1533 is the year the use of the term Mass ended. Preus wrote:

Even if I concede that Luther may have become dissatisfied with the term at some point, it is not true that use of the term ended in 1533. The term Mass was used well after that including in published works. There is a published Lutheran Mass of 1615. I just ran into this yesterday.

The Smalcald articles were written in 1537, and they do indeed condemn even using the term Mass for the Holy Service.

Show me exactly and precisely how the SA villifies "the term"? Because I have yet to see it...and neither have a whole host of confessional Lutheran pastors, far more educated in these things than I, who use the term today. If you rest on the opinions of Preus then at best we are at an impasse here and will have to rely on other issues to help us judge.

Now there is plenty of things out there to use to dispute the Smalcald position on the Mass, but you will find that they come from times before 1533.

So the Lutheran position on the Mass was a progressive thing.

Remember, Martin Luther himself cautioned people about his earlier writings, see here.

I understand your point here, Marv, but I can show you where the term was used in Lutheranism long after Luther's death...so this makes me wonder whether the interpretation you and Preus have put on the SA is accurate?

Now about your reference to the Solid D. You are going to have to show me how the terms I identified in my prevous response do not violate the spirit of the SD in the same manner as you seem to believe the term "mass" does. they are very Roman Catholic terms as well yet they are not ejected?

And this remains my big question. Why the term "mass"...why not the other terms? What makes the term "mass" so unpalatable where there were abuses associated with all of the terms I mentioned earlier yet we did not change these?

Now one last thing that is very important to reiterate. I am not saying we must use the term...I am saying we can. I don't want any vexed consciences out there over this deal!

Peace

Rose

 

[SPALATIN]

Marv, what changes were made to the mass? All the research I have done indicates that Luther was extremely cautious and made "surprisingly" few changes. Yes, some changes were made, but they were limited. (I would add Luther's few changes are crticized by many Lutherans for many reasons for reasons that range from his weaknesses and lack of skills in the specific area of liturgy as well to the understanding there was no need for revision, catechesis could have been used...but there is another thread on this specific topic.)



Even if I concede that Luther may have become dissatisfied with the term at some point, it is not true that use of the term ended in 1533. The term Mass was used well after that including in published works. There is a published Lutheran Mass of 1615. I just ran into this yesterday.



Show me exactly and precisely how the SA villifies "the term"? Because I have yet to see it...and neither have a whole host of confessional Lutheran pastors, far more educated in these things than I, who use the term today. If you rest on the opinions of Preus then at best we are at an impasse here and will have to rely on other issues to help us judge.

Rose you may have to read the whole article on The Mass in the SA. Here is a LINK for you to access it. It may just be the context in which this is read that is putting a bad spin on The MASS.

I understand your point here, Marv, but I can show you where the term was used in Lutheranism long after Luther's death...so this makes me wonder whether the interpretation you and Preus have put on the SA is accurate?

Now about your reference to the Solid D. You are going to have to show me how the terms I identified in my prevous response do not violate the spirit of the SD in the same manner as you seem to believe the term "mass" does. they are very Roman Catholic terms as well yet they are not ejected?

And this remains my big question. Why the term "mass"...why not the other terms? What makes the term "mass" so unpalatable where there were abuses associated with all of the terms I mentioned earlier yet we did not change these?

Now one last thing that is very important to reiterate. I am not saying we must use the term...I am saying we can. I don't want any vexed consciences out there over this deal!

Peace

Rose

Go get em' Rose

 

[Qoheleth]

No,No,No,No,No.. We cannot cooperate with God because we in and of ourselves are dead to sin. How can a dead man help himself? It is only God who has already worked our salvation. We react and respond to what He has already done.Your quote of the BoC clearly states in: "the Holy Ghost...has begun His work..." Besides, that passage is speaking on sanctification.
See below.

Rev, sorry for the confusion. As to the issue of sanctification, per the Confessions and scripture, we are given the ability to, yes enabled to participate in our restored life with Christ as He indwells us and is present in our faith. Sanctfication is not monergistic, we live and work out our new life and faith with "fear and trembling"

So yes, synergy does exists in sanctification. "Denying" ourself and "taking up our cross" requires action on our part as we are enabled by grace to grow in Christ. We can see that our sanctification is not forced but cooperative by grace through faith.




2 Cor. 7:1 - "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us
*cleanse ourselves* from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in the fear of God."

"In baptism we are given the grace, Spirit, and strength to suppress the old creature so that the new may come forth and grow strong" (V:76)

"Now, when we enter Christ's kingdom, this corruption must daily decrease so that the longer we live the more gentle, patient, and meek we become, and the more we break away from greed, hatred, envy and pride." (V:67)

The Formula forwards the same understanding: "It has been sufficiently explained above how God makes willing people out of rebellious and unwilling people through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, and how after this conversion of the human being the reborn will is not idle in the daily practice of repentance but cooperates in all works of the Holy Spirit that He accomplishes through us." (SD FC II:88)


Q