In my introductory post, I expressed my disagreement with the excerpt I quoted from "Optional Orandi." I neglected, however, to clarify the nature of my disagreement.
"Lutheranism has a lex credendi (rule of faith) (Book of Concord) but no lex orandi (rule of prayer)."
There is no disagreement here; because we do not have a pan-Lutheran document such as the Book of Common Prayer or the Roman Missal to codify our rite. The AC XXIV clearly states that we (Lutherans) have retained the Mass and nearly all the usual ceremonies.
The primary cause of my disagreement lies in the following:
Anonymous [the first] suggests that Lutheranism has no defined lex orandi, because there is no definitive Liturgy. Anonymous [the second] states that Lutheranism fails to dogmatically define its rule of worship in the way of a received "holy tradition."
A reader of the introductory post reminded me that "While we do have Article XXIV, we do not have a more clearly defined rule of worship. This is not to blame the Confessions, however, as there was no real controversy as to this question in its day. AC XXIV would seem to prescribe the need for more definition in our day."
I fully agree with this understanding; but the lack of a dogmatically defined rule does not indicate that Lutheranism lacks a Liturgy "...in the way of a received 'holy tradition'."
I am not familiar with many non-American Lutheran service books; but the evidence from American service books would contradict this opinion. In all cases, the Mass/Holy Communion liturgy follows pattern of the historic Western Rite. The Sunday propers, except for a few minor adjustments, are the same as those of the Roman Rite.
Then there are those who fault Lutheranism for not including (or rejecting) a Eucharistic Prayer. In this context Eucharistic Prayer and Roman Canon are usually synonymous. If one contends that "received holy tradition" is something that has been handed down from apostolic times, the Eucharistic Prayer does not fall under this heading. The Roman Canon originated in the fourth century, and has remained basically unchanged since the eighth century. Thus it does not seem to be apostolic in origin.
It could possibly be argued that a Eucharistic Prayer should be viewed as ceremonial in nature. The Confessions state that "Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved,..." Ceremonies are not required; but "ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ]."
When the remarks of the Anonymous member of the Commission on Worship, LCMS, are added to the those above; the view that "AC XXIV would seem to prescribe the need for more definition in our day" is a remarkable understatement.