I
IowaJay
Guest
We do not use it during Sunday worship, but use it during our Advent and Lent evening prayer services when we sing Psalm 141 (Let my prayer rise up as incense before you . . . )
- Status
J
jessep28
Guest
It might be viewed as “too Roman Catholic” of a practice like making the sign of the cross in some Lutheran churches.
Goodness, one should hope that making the sign of the cross would not be viewed that way in any truly Lutheran Church.
As for incense, it is rarely practiced, but there is nothing un-Lutheran about it.
If Lutherans today are worried about looking too Catholic, they only need to look at our divine service and try to change that.
Oh, wait!! Some people are! :bigyikes:
Jon
J
jessep28
Guest
I’m concerned with the direction we’re going where I worship. Even at the traditional service, we practice some sort of hybrid version of the Divine Liturgy. The chief components are still there but some liberties are taken with the wording. For instance, we’ve been reciting parts of the Catechism as statements of faith for over a month now. I don’t think our statement during Confession has jived with anything in the LSB either.
Maybe I should put something on the “Pillars of Prayer” outside of our Sanctuary, I mean Worship Center, to have the prayer teams pray that we return to some sort of Divine Service, paying attention to the Western tradition.
[/end rant]
J
jessep28
Guest
If I had not been a member of where I worship for over 10 years and loved the people so much, I would jump ship. There are quite a few more Conservative congregations here where I live.
And I think we can make a connection between the mega-church / worship center / evangelical Protestantism that is making inroads in the synod, and the “too Catholic” sentiment. Have we forgotten that we are not evangelical Protestants, we are evangelical Catholic?
Jon
J
James1982
Guest
Agreed on the concern.
My church and other congregations in my synod have effectively altered the Nicene Creed on their own - instead of “one holy catholic and apostolic church,” it’s been altered to read “one holy christian and apostolic church.”
Catholic does not mean the same thing as christian.
There needs to be some kind of significant movement against this type of thing- most people just accept it because it’s what their pastor says, and because the worship folder represents that it’s been “said this way since the 300’s.”
I shall borrow a phrase from Catholics and brand this type of thing liturgical abuse. And that’s being generous.
N
Nyarlathotep
Guest
I’ve always wondered about the use of the term “evangelical”. What does it mean exactly? Specifically, what’s the difference between an “Evangelical Protestant” and an “Evangelical Catholic”?
N
Nominefili
Guest
Evangelical comes from the greek ‘euangelion’ (anglicized), It literally means ‘good news,’ i.e. it’s the anglicized version of the greek word for Gospel.
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
Actually, the word, “Evangelical” has something different to Lutherans than it does to almost everyone else (especially in the United States.) Literally, your definigion is correct, but among Lutherans it is a synonym for “Lutheran.” In Germany for instance, a person is a member of the “Evangelical Church” as, for example, the “Evangelical Church of Saxony” or the “The Evangelical Church Schaumburg-Lippe,” etc., etc.
Generally, in Germany, “Evangelical” equals “Lutheran.” This is also the same for American Lutherans. Here, when speaking among ourselves, we know what “Evangelical” means for and among us, but this can cause real etymological problems in the U.S. when a Lutheran calls him or herself an “Evangelical Lutheran” to a non-Lutheran, most of which consider “Evangelical” is a synonym for theologically and socially conservative Evangelical Protestantism, which Lutheranism is anything but.
Blessings,
Irl
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
Ummm . . . In most Lutheran Churches, if it were a Mass / Communion Service you would know you were not in a Catholic Church when you sawt that the Canon of the Mass consisted only of the "Words of Institution which followed the Sanctus and was itself immediately followed by the Agnus Dei . . .
(That does not apply to the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, which uses the Ordinary Rite (Novus Ordo) or the Roman Catholic Anglican Use Book of Divine Worship with no additions or omissions.)
Blessings,
Irl
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
That was done in the Missouri Synod (LCMS) “blue hymnal,” and was / is one expression (there are others) of an anti-Catholicism which seems to be pretty much “hard-wired” into the LCMS (and some other Lutheran Churches/Synods. (Not mine, of course.)
Blessings,
Irl
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
Please keep in mind that nobody can speak for “Lutheranism” as a whole. There is no Lutheran equivalent to the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury and its associations are not in any real sense “Communions of Churches” no matter how much they wish they were. They are “associations.”
The late Gettysburg Theological Seminary (ELCA) professor, Dr. Abden Wentz considered Lutheranism to be a third form of Western Christianity separate from and distinct from Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. He wrote that Lutheranism was “an inadequate name to give a movement that is not limited to a person or an era, but is as ecumenical and abiding as Christianity itself.”
Lutheranism is an incredibly diverse collection of Churches ranging from the almost Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant Lutheran Bretheren Church to the essentially Catholic (though not under Papal authority just yet - but it is working hard on it, and believes, teaches, and worships as if it were already Catholic) Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, to the not-quite-as-Catholic-but-in-the-ballpark Church of Sweden, to almost-Presbyterian/Reformed (Calvinist) Pietistic Synods; you have the extremely theologically and socially liberal ELCA and the other ultra-liberal Churches of the Lutheran World Federation overseas which have been ordaining women and GLBT people and marrying them as well for decades; there are “almost Eastern Orthodox” Lutherans in Finland and the Baltic nations, a wide variety of conservative Churches/Synods which have their own characteristics like the LCMS. WELS, ELS and many others. The LCMS has sometimes been considered to be “crypto-calvlinist,” and it also has its “high church” Evangelical Catholic wing. Many if not most Lutheran Synods consider themselves to be the only real Lutherans and the others only barely Lutheran or Lutheran in no way at all except by name and heritage.
So when “asking a Lutheran” something, please keep in mind that your answer will very much depend on which Synod and which variety of Lutheranism in general as well as which variety of Lutheran within his Synod to which that individual Lutheran happens to belong.
Hope this helps some.
Blessings,
Irl
The late Gettysburg Theological Seminary (ELCA) professor, Dr. Abden Wentz considered Lutheranism to be a third form of Western Christianity separate from and distinct from Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. He wrote that Lutheranism was “an inadequate name to give a movement that is not limited to a person or an era, but is as ecumenical and abiding as Christianity itself.”
Lutheranism is an incredibly diverse collection of Churches ranging from the almost Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant Lutheran Bretheren Church to the essentially Catholic (though not under Papal authority just yet - but it is working hard on it, and believes, teaches, and worships as if it were already Catholic) Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, to the not-quite-as-Catholic-but-in-the-ballpark Church of Sweden, to almost-Presbyterian/Reformed (Calvinist) Pietistic Synods; you have the extremely theologically and socially liberal ELCA and the other ultra-liberal Churches of the Lutheran World Federation overseas which have been ordaining women and GLBT people and marrying them as well for decades; there are “almost Eastern Orthodox” Lutherans in Finland and the Baltic nations, a wide variety of conservative Churches/Synods which have their own characteristics like the LCMS. WELS, ELS and many others. The LCMS has sometimes been considered to be “crypto-calvlinist,” and it also has its “high church” Evangelical Catholic wing. Many if not most Lutheran Synods consider themselves to be the only real Lutherans and the others only barely Lutheran or Lutheran in no way at all except by name and heritage.
So when “asking a Lutheran” something, please keep in mind that your answer will very much depend on which Synod and which variety of Lutheranism in general as well as which variety of Lutheran within his Synod to which that individual Lutheran happens to belong.
Hope this helps some.
Blessings,
Irl
N
Nyarlathotep
Guest
Ah, okay, I think I’ve got it. I’m glad you cleared that up; to me, the term “Evangelical” had conjured up images of mega-churches, faith-healers, snake-handlers, TV preachers, lots of shouting and clapping – that sort of thing.
But, from reading this thread, it seems that “Evangelical” Lutherans are actually quite liturgical.
Terms of art can be confusing – ask me why you can go into a “Greek Catholic” church and find yourself surrounded by Ukranians or Ruthenians!
N
Nominefili
Guest
Indeed, there is the Lutheran definition of Evangelical and the works-righteousness feel-good experiential nonscriptural Joel Osteen evangelical. And probably lots of stuff in between.
L
linusmom
Guest
Since there seems to be no (name removed by moderator)ut here from any Lutheran women, let me add my two cents as a member of the LCMS. I do not feel as though I am unable to participate fully in the life of the church, and I wonder exactly what it is you mean here. I don’t think that having the ministry closed to me makes me any less a participant than I would be if I were a man and simply not called to the ministry.
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
The problem with the ordination of women in the LCMS (and WELS, ELS, and other theologically conservative Lutheran Synods) goes to the Synod’s view of the nature and authority of Scripture as the word of God, backed up with their principle of “Sola Scriptura” which rules out interpretations based on considerations of reason, experience, current insights of sociology, psychology, and political “civil rights.”
Since Scripture - all of it - is believed by them to be literally the word of God (they believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, and that it is inerrant and infallible in the autographs. The concept of Bultmann and others that Scripture contains “kernels of truth” enclosed in husks of myth," and that the current state of knowledge in the area of reason, experience, the hard sciences, psychology, sociology, and civil rights etc., are "thrown into the shreader "and are never permitted to “trump” the literal reading of Scripture. The LCMS (and other similarly biblically and socially conservative Churches/Synods believe that they simply do not have the authority to over-ride any of Scripture based on the current understanding of “gender equality” and “civil rights.”
The passage, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16) is taken literally as are his prohibitions of women “speaking” and/or "teaching in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11-13.)
There is also the matter of the larger relationship of men to women according to the “order of creation” in Genesis. As noted above, no one or no thing is understood as being able to “trump” scripture anytime, ever. Ergo no ordinations for women can even be considered in those Churches/Synods, any time, under any circumstances, for any reasons, ever.
In a nutshell, those Churches/Synods believe that when a woman gets up before the church to preach, teach and or lead prayer in groups which include men and boys over a certain age, she is in violation of what God has commanded and in a sense is perverting the worship of God. As a result of her rebellion, God is not worshipped in spirit and in truth. So the worship she leads (except for and among women only) becomes vain or useless because she is following the desires of men instead of what God wants. To ignore what God has said has horrible consequences.
On the other hand, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and other liberal Churches/Synods accept the concept of the nature and authority of scripture of Bultmann’s (others of his school and related schools of theology, as well as Contextual Theology/Exegesis.) For them, the Bible is a human book, no more (and no less) inspired than the carefully and prayerfully written works of pastors and theologians. Besides, to those schools of Theology, God is more of a concept (not A being, but "being, itself, or a sort of nebulous “ground of being,” but certainly not a living, self-aware entity from beyond the (evolved) order of space and time.
Therefore the ordination of women is required as a matter of gender equality and civil rights to the degree that it is no longer even up for discussion, period. So the ordination of women is hard-wired into their polity.
I personally know many "evengelical catholic (the Lutheran equivalent of the Anglican term, "high-church) who are highly “Romanized” who would happily convert to Roman Catholicism, but refuse solely because the Catholic Church does not ordain women, and they consider women’s ordination to be mandated by civil rights and a matter of "gender equality.
All of this said, (speaking as former LCMS) while not ordained, LCMS women are absolutely involved “up to their eye teeth” in lay ministries, especially in the areas of Christian Education, Social Services, and Ministries to Women and the Family, etc. Further, the overwhelming majority of LCMS women I have known do not feel discriminated against at all. (The very few who do, seem to eventually leave the LCMS (mostly for the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, or the United Church of Christ.)
(For the record, my own Church (ALCC) also does not ordain women, and never has, but for a different set of reasons: It does not ordain women for exactly the same reasons as the Roman Catholic Church, and cites the pertainent Catholic magisterial documents on this issue on many of our websites. The ALCC teaches that we do not get to change things just because we want to. There is a process to follow: Authorization by a full Ecumenical Council followed by the promulgation of documents by that Ecumenical Council bearing the signature of a Pope. If and when the Catholic Church authorizes the authorization of women’s ordination that way, the ALCC will act in “lock-step” with Rome. In other words, unlike other Lutherans, for us it is a matter of “Roma loquit, casua finis” - “Rome has spoken, case closed.”)
Hope this helps. As usual, please excuse the typos. Proofreading is not my long suit.
Blessings,
Irl
Since Scripture - all of it - is believed by them to be literally the word of God (they believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, and that it is inerrant and infallible in the autographs. The concept of Bultmann and others that Scripture contains “kernels of truth” enclosed in husks of myth," and that the current state of knowledge in the area of reason, experience, the hard sciences, psychology, sociology, and civil rights etc., are "thrown into the shreader "and are never permitted to “trump” the literal reading of Scripture. The LCMS (and other similarly biblically and socially conservative Churches/Synods believe that they simply do not have the authority to over-ride any of Scripture based on the current understanding of “gender equality” and “civil rights.”
The passage, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16) is taken literally as are his prohibitions of women “speaking” and/or "teaching in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11-13.)
There is also the matter of the larger relationship of men to women according to the “order of creation” in Genesis. As noted above, no one or no thing is understood as being able to “trump” scripture anytime, ever. Ergo no ordinations for women can even be considered in those Churches/Synods, any time, under any circumstances, for any reasons, ever.
In a nutshell, those Churches/Synods believe that when a woman gets up before the church to preach, teach and or lead prayer in groups which include men and boys over a certain age, she is in violation of what God has commanded and in a sense is perverting the worship of God. As a result of her rebellion, God is not worshipped in spirit and in truth. So the worship she leads (except for and among women only) becomes vain or useless because she is following the desires of men instead of what God wants. To ignore what God has said has horrible consequences.
On the other hand, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and other liberal Churches/Synods accept the concept of the nature and authority of scripture of Bultmann’s (others of his school and related schools of theology, as well as Contextual Theology/Exegesis.) For them, the Bible is a human book, no more (and no less) inspired than the carefully and prayerfully written works of pastors and theologians. Besides, to those schools of Theology, God is more of a concept (not A being, but "being, itself, or a sort of nebulous “ground of being,” but certainly not a living, self-aware entity from beyond the (evolved) order of space and time.
Therefore the ordination of women is required as a matter of gender equality and civil rights to the degree that it is no longer even up for discussion, period. So the ordination of women is hard-wired into their polity.
I personally know many "evengelical catholic (the Lutheran equivalent of the Anglican term, "high-church) who are highly “Romanized” who would happily convert to Roman Catholicism, but refuse solely because the Catholic Church does not ordain women, and they consider women’s ordination to be mandated by civil rights and a matter of "gender equality.
All of this said, (speaking as former LCMS) while not ordained, LCMS women are absolutely involved “up to their eye teeth” in lay ministries, especially in the areas of Christian Education, Social Services, and Ministries to Women and the Family, etc. Further, the overwhelming majority of LCMS women I have known do not feel discriminated against at all. (The very few who do, seem to eventually leave the LCMS (mostly for the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, or the United Church of Christ.)
(For the record, my own Church (ALCC) also does not ordain women, and never has, but for a different set of reasons: It does not ordain women for exactly the same reasons as the Roman Catholic Church, and cites the pertainent Catholic magisterial documents on this issue on many of our websites. The ALCC teaches that we do not get to change things just because we want to. There is a process to follow: Authorization by a full Ecumenical Council followed by the promulgation of documents by that Ecumenical Council bearing the signature of a Pope. If and when the Catholic Church authorizes the authorization of women’s ordination that way, the ALCC will act in “lock-step” with Rome. In other words, unlike other Lutherans, for us it is a matter of “Roma loquit, casua finis” - “Rome has spoken, case closed.”)
Hope this helps. As usual, please excuse the typos. Proofreading is not my long suit.
Blessings,
Irl
Irl,
You say the grounds upon which the LCMS limits ordination to men is different from the grounds used by Rome. What, in fact, is the reason then, if not scripture? I suspect it isn’t “we havent done so, therefore we won’t do so.” There must be more to the tradition than that.
In addition, is Rome’s reasoning here different from the reasons for the discipline of a celibate clergy, considering that not all Churches in communion with Rome practice the discipline?
As usual, I appreciate your contribution and your unique insight.
Jon
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
I hope I am not misunderstanding your question, but the LCMS bases its limitation on the ordination on Scripture alone (it is that Sola Scriptura thing) and on the Confessional Documents in the Book of Concord, which it accepts "because (quia) it is a trustworthy witness to scripture.
The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church doesn’t take that approach. First of all, Jon, the ALCC rejected the “Sola” part of “Sola Scriptura” (as well as the “Sola” part of “Sola Fide” and Sola Gratia") years ago in favor Scripture + Grace + Faith + works + the Ordinary and Sacred Magesterium + Papal guidance and interpretation (we accept the infallibility of the Magisterium and Papal infallibility) and all of the Roman Catholic standards.
As far as the various Lutheran confessional documents in the Book of Concord are concerned, the ALCC completely rejected the entire document, “The Formula of Concord” back in 1997. As for the rest of the documents in the Book of Concord, the ALCC accepts them in the same manner as Johann Eck accepted the teachings of Martin Luther in their famous debate: Where Luther agreed with Roman Catholic doctrines of that time, Eck agreed with him. Where Luther disagreed with them, Eck disagreed with Luther. The ALCC agrees with Eck. We accept the various Lutheran confessional documents in the Book of Concord when they are in full agreement with the Catholic Magisterium and reject them when they do not.
As you can imagine, the LCMS, WELS, ELS, and other conservative Lutheran bodies, when writing about the ALCC, put quotes on either side of the word, Lutheran. as in, "the ALCC is a “Lutheran” Church which . . . whatever. The ELCA, though, as a very liberal Ecclesial Community, also rejects much of the Book of Concord though for different reasons.
As for the ALCC’s rejection of the ordination of women, please read the following documents which the ALCC officially accepts as full and adequate statements of its own doctrinal statements: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Pope John Paul II, 1994) - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...i_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html , and Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1995) Responsum ad Dubium - 10/28/1995 .
Comparing the prohibition against the ordination of women with clerical celibacy is like comparing apples to oranges. Clerical celibacy is a completely separate matter. The ALCC does ordain married men to the clergy (as does the Roman Catholic Church - mostly former Anglicans/Episcopalians by way of the Anglican Use Pastoral Provision; and outside the U.S. priests of the various sui juris (Uniate) Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.) While clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma - yet - there is an impressive amount of excellent theology, especially recently, supporting it, with the ALCC does, in fact accept in principle - as must those married priests serving in the Catholic Anglican Use Pastoral Provision.
If and when the ALCC enters the Roman Catholic Church (it has filed a petition for that which is working its way through the appropriate Vatican dicastries) our clergy - myself included - are prepared to sign the celibacy vow in advance to go into effect immediately upon the death of our spouses, and immediately in the case of our one celibate archbishop - as part of the legal preliminaries leading to the date of the official entry into the Catholic Church.
Once admitted to the Catholic Church in whichever form the Holy Father deems appropriate, we will require that all those going through the discernment process (who have not been previously ordained as Lutheran pastors) for entry into Seminary (we plan to use existing Roman Catholic Seminaries to be celibate, and take the normal celibacy vow upon their ordination as transitional deacons. We also expect the time to eventually come when all clergy in our prelacy / priestly society / ordinariate will be required to be celibate. We absolutely will not be advocating a change from celibacy as the norm for clergy.
Hope this helps.
Blessings,
Irl
The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church doesn’t take that approach. First of all, Jon, the ALCC rejected the “Sola” part of “Sola Scriptura” (as well as the “Sola” part of “Sola Fide” and Sola Gratia") years ago in favor Scripture + Grace + Faith + works + the Ordinary and Sacred Magesterium + Papal guidance and interpretation (we accept the infallibility of the Magisterium and Papal infallibility) and all of the Roman Catholic standards.
As far as the various Lutheran confessional documents in the Book of Concord are concerned, the ALCC completely rejected the entire document, “The Formula of Concord” back in 1997. As for the rest of the documents in the Book of Concord, the ALCC accepts them in the same manner as Johann Eck accepted the teachings of Martin Luther in their famous debate: Where Luther agreed with Roman Catholic doctrines of that time, Eck agreed with him. Where Luther disagreed with them, Eck disagreed with Luther. The ALCC agrees with Eck. We accept the various Lutheran confessional documents in the Book of Concord when they are in full agreement with the Catholic Magisterium and reject them when they do not.
As you can imagine, the LCMS, WELS, ELS, and other conservative Lutheran bodies, when writing about the ALCC, put quotes on either side of the word, Lutheran. as in, "the ALCC is a “Lutheran” Church which . . . whatever. The ELCA, though, as a very liberal Ecclesial Community, also rejects much of the Book of Concord though for different reasons.
As for the ALCC’s rejection of the ordination of women, please read the following documents which the ALCC officially accepts as full and adequate statements of its own doctrinal statements: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Pope John Paul II, 1994) - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...i_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html , and Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1995) Responsum ad Dubium - 10/28/1995 .
Comparing the prohibition against the ordination of women with clerical celibacy is like comparing apples to oranges. Clerical celibacy is a completely separate matter. The ALCC does ordain married men to the clergy (as does the Roman Catholic Church - mostly former Anglicans/Episcopalians by way of the Anglican Use Pastoral Provision; and outside the U.S. priests of the various sui juris (Uniate) Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.) While clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma - yet - there is an impressive amount of excellent theology, especially recently, supporting it, with the ALCC does, in fact accept in principle - as must those married priests serving in the Catholic Anglican Use Pastoral Provision.
If and when the ALCC enters the Roman Catholic Church (it has filed a petition for that which is working its way through the appropriate Vatican dicastries) our clergy - myself included - are prepared to sign the celibacy vow in advance to go into effect immediately upon the death of our spouses, and immediately in the case of our one celibate archbishop - as part of the legal preliminaries leading to the date of the official entry into the Catholic Church.
Once admitted to the Catholic Church in whichever form the Holy Father deems appropriate, we will require that all those going through the discernment process (who have not been previously ordained as Lutheran pastors) for entry into Seminary (we plan to use existing Roman Catholic Seminaries to be celibate, and take the normal celibacy vow upon their ordination as transitional deacons. We also expect the time to eventually come when all clergy in our prelacy / priestly society / ordinariate will be required to be celibate. We absolutely will not be advocating a change from celibacy as the norm for clergy.
Hope this helps.
Blessings,
Irl
- Status