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.
1 comment:
Father Deacon,
You wrote:
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.
As one of "those who fault Lutheranism for not including (or rejecting) a Eucharistic Prayer," permit me gently to disagree with you here. First of all, it is not true that Eucharistic Prayer and Roman Canon are usually synonymous; and suggesting that it is, is shifting the terms of the debate. You are right that the Roman Canon as we have it today is not "apostolic in origin". But that does not mean that having a Eucharistic prayer of some kind at that place in the Mass (even if it is not specifically the Roman Canon) is not "apostolic in origin". I would contend that the history of the various liturgical traditions strongly suggests that a full anaphora (rather than simply the bare Verba) is indeed of apostolic origin.
Thus, the fact that the Roman Canon itself is not of apostolic origin, but is the product of the development of the liturgical tradition, is not sufficient to show that an anaphora is not part of the apostolic lex orandi.
It may well be true that the Roman Canon had become too closely associated with errors that had to be rejected at the time of the Reformation. But it does not follow from that, that the Church of the Augsburg Confession ought to have cut out the anaphora entirely. Cranmer's 1549 canon showed that a Eucharistic prayer could be composed which was faithful in general to the Church's liturgical tradition, but which also clearly rejected any notion of a distinct sacrifice of the Mass offered by the priest. If Cranmer could compose a canon which excluded the errors that the Roman Canon was patient of, surely our Lutheran fathers could have done so also.
Post a Comment