Of course, the oddity is that Vatican II did none of that. Paul VI did, or perhaps those who pressed this liturgical disruption upon the Roman Church did that in his name. I have no idea if Paul VI was a true believer of Bugnini and his cohort or a duped accomplice. It does not matter much any more. What the Council actually said about liturgical change is not exactly what ended up being the liturgical change propagated in his name and in the name of the Council. It was a coup. Everyone knows this whether you welcomed the change or abhorred it. But Rome is funny -- not completely rare in that sense but odd. Rome cannot bring itself to say it was wrong in anything. Even Francis was careful to issue a convenient lie to explain Benedict XVI away from actually having permitted the Latin Mass without boundaries or presumed the Latin Mass stands still on equal footing with Novus Ordo. For Francis, Benedict was right in the desire but wrong in the method but he could not even say that plainly. Rome keeps its mistakes and holds them up with its presumed accomplishments. Yet hidden there is clearly the realization that rites matter even if you cannot exactly admit that.
Father Zuhlsdorf takes pains to defend the idea that the Extraordinary Form and the Novus Order are not two rites. To admit that would be to admit that there are two faiths -- one prior to Vatican II and one following the Council. And this is the guy who insists that rites matter, that we are our rites. He, with Francis, cannot allow Rome to disagree with Rome and so he must explain or invent an explanation to find a way out of it. I have only been to a few Latin masses in my life and I can tell you that it does not take a genius to compare this with the typical Novus Ordo in your average parish with band and cantor diva to see that these rites do encapsule different faiths. The NO is not simply some loosey goosey form of the EO in the vernacular. It is a different faith at work in the silence of sotto voce of the priest versus the urgent need to be heard, understood, appreciated, participate in, and found meaningful and relevant. The texts themselves explicitly betray this -- if nothing else the radical difference in the collects (especially in the earlier form of those collects post-Vatican II).
Not that anybody cares but I agree. Rites matter. Rites are the public display of and confession of what we really believe. Is that not what lex ordandi lex credendi means? Both ways of that expression are profound. I have no horse in the race between Francis and Benedict except to say Francis is either a snake oil salesman trying to deceive or too dense to understand what he is doing and saying -- and this is not good for such a prominent figure and voice in the Christian world addressing a secular one. But I do have a horse in the idea that our rites matter. That is true whether you are Roman, Eastern, or Lutheran. For us as Lutherans, it is the honesty that we seldom admit. The difference between the parishes of the liturgy and hymnal and those of casual banter, praise band, worship diva, the big screen, and the cult of pastor and sermon series is not incidental. It is the most profound thing of all. If we are our rites, then when those rites conflict, we are different churches preaching different gospels holding different doctrines.
Maybe I am presuming but I wonder if the division between the Latin Mass piety and Novus Ordo piety in Rome may be fostered not simply by what the Latin Mass is but what the Novus Ordo is not. I wonder what might have happened if the NO had come incrementally and without its egregious foolishness (chancel dancers, music with a beat, celebrity priests, and irreverence in general). If Gregorian Chant had continued and predominated and reverence and awe had been manifestly observed in those who presided and those who attended, perhaps the division would not have been so great. In the end the only refuge for the causes of reverence, mystery, and transcendence ended up being the Latin Mass. The NO was typically defined by all the things that agitated against taking seriously you are in the presence of God -- foot tapping music, humor, casual dress, goofy vestments, priests who pay no attention to the words in the missal, and the like. That is not the aberration but the norm in Rome for most folks. At least it was. Perhaps it is changing but the damage has already been done.
Is not the same thing true of Lutherans who eschew the Divine Service to be evangelical wannabes on Sunday morning against those who in rite, rubric, and ritual take most seriously that Christ is here in the awesome mysteries of the Word that speaks and accomplishes that which the Word says and water that bubbles with new life and absolution which speaks away the sins of the penitent sinner and bread and wine that feed and taste the real Body and Blood of Christ. Long sentence. I know. But that is how I write. Trying to be judged meaningful or relevant is radically different that trying to be faithful to the Word, promise, and command of Christ. We are our rites. Even in the absence of a rite. Rites matter whether you have an agenda that presumes God is either too slow or too unreliable to be trusted to grow His Church and sanctify His people or whether your only agenda is to be faithful to the God who alone can be trusted. This is true of Rome, Constantinople, Geneva, and Wittenberg. Don't lie or play the fool. Francis knows this and so did Benedict and every person in the pews knows it. I just wish we admitted this truth and acted accordingly.
14 comments:
Was speaking with an Episcopal neighbor yesterday, who had a family member marry into the Baptists. She was amazed and said, “Thjey have no theology.”
Well, yes, they do, but not our theology. Their problem is an historical issue. The evangelical churches, especially the non-denominational, see church history as starting with the denomination to which they belong. Even worse, some see church history as beginning with their current pastor. Therefore, theology and doctrine become plastic.
Rites and liturgy are scorned mainly by people who have never been to a liturgical service or Mass. Education and familiarity are looked down upon. Peoples’ feelings determine the presence of God (not God’s promise via the invocation), and therefore Rites and Liturgy demonstrate deadness, since they feel nothing.
I am of the firm opinion that one feels exactly what they want. The old example: Husband screaming in anger at his wife, the phone rings, he picks it up and calmly says, “hello,” then has a quiet conversation with his mother before hanging up and continuing to harangue his wife. This indicates the point is true. For those who feel better without the Latin, the rites, the chanting, etc., it’s more about what they WANT to feel.
Here’s a thoughtful quote from J.A. Waddell in 2009:
“It is curious that the theological principle of Liturgical Theology, lex orandi lex credendi, sprung from the soil of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, is held by Lutheran pastors and theologians. If it is true that a liturgical form grows only in the soil of the confession which begets and nurtures it, then it must be even more true that a theological principle grows only in the soil of the confession which begets and nurtures it. If it is not possible for Lutheran congregations to adopt contemporary forms because these forms do not have their origins in the soil of our confession, then why is it not even more impossible for Lutheran pastors and theologians to adopt a theological principle born and nurtured in a soil that is not Lutheran?
“The use of the lex orandi lex credendi principle today in the Lutheran Church must be recognized for what it is, a theological innovation that has no grounding in the hard data of the sources of Lutheran tradition. It has, in fact, been explicitly opposed by such a prominent theologian as Hermann Sasse. All of this should cast a shadow of substantial doubt on the future of lex orandi lex credendi as a theological locus of liturgy in the Lutheran Church, and return us to the solid and positive theological grounding of sola scriptura and the fullness of the confession this entails—evangelical, catholic, missional, consensual.”
I am not all that familiar with Waddell but surely it must be a joke for a Lutheran to say that lex orandi lex credendi is alien to Lutheranism. Lex orandi lex credendi is no enemy of Scripture and its unique place as the norming norm of doctrine and practice. Just the opposite, the ancient axiom supports it. Furthermore, where do Lutherans pretend to have their own liturgy or liturgical theology? Not in our Confessions. There we insist that we do not depart from catholic doctrine or practice and this is clearly the liturgical principle that flows throughout the rest of the Book of Concord. Lutherans did not invent a liturgy but claimed the liturgical tradition of the West with careful and judicious return to earlier practice. Lex orandi lex credendi says that what we believe is reflected in how we worship and how we worship will reflect how we believe. No thinking Lutheran would have a quarrel with such a statement.
Pastor Waddell was a classmate of Pastor Weedon.
https://weedon.blogspot.com/2009/08/some-thoughts-on-lex-orandi-lex.html
While a classmate of Pastor Weedon, it is clear that they disagree. I have not read his work but from some of his comments and from the things quoted here, I would echo this disagreement. Quite frankly, he is either grinding an ax or he is barking down an empty hole. It just does not make sense. There is no way that lex orandi lex credendi is opposed to Scripture. You can and most do reverse the order with equal poignant effect. If something becomes part of our liturgy and prayer (and hymns, I might add) long enough, it will silence Scripture and shape our belief. Everyone knows this. In the same way, what we believe is confessed before the world most profoundly in the words and work of worship. Waddell sets up a straw man in presuming that the ancient axiom makes Scripture a secondary authority and that doctrine is secondary to liturgy. What he insists can make a case for Lutheran practice that bears little resemblance to either Scripture or Confession and seems to justify the old style vs substance perspective of those enamored with evangelical style seeker worship. I have not met James Waddell nor do I have any idea about who he is or why he writes but the snippets you have posted and from Weedon's blog suggest he has indeed misunderstood many things both about liturgy and our Confessions. I do not have a whole lot of familiarity with and not a great deal of confidence in the WorshipConcord blog either. Quite frankly, I am happy that I have not heard about him because it seems to suggest that his sphere of influence has not been great.
LEX ORANDI REVISITED (LOGIA, Epiphany 1995, 4-1)
In presenting the Augsburg Confession the reformers were
keen on demonstrating that they had not abandoned the
catholic faith, but were in fact maintaining it more faithfully
than their Roman opponents—whose errors, according to the
reformers, made them sectarian! Likewise, the framers of the
Book of Concord included the earlier confessions, as well as the
three Creeds and the Catalogue of Testimonies, to show that we
believe, teach, and confess what the church has always held. Sola
scriptura is not nominative (“Scripture alone”), but ablative (“by
Scripture alone”)—for in confessing the faith Scripture is never
alone. It is this confessional principle which, I believe, LOGIA
serves so well.
As interest in the apostolic and catholic context of the
Lutheran confession grows, two ancient and popular patristic
adages are repeatedly adduced: the Vincentian Canon, and the
rule lex orandi—lex credendi (usually understood: “the rule of
worship is the rule of faith”). As a result of the nineteenth- and
twentieth-century liturgical movements, research has made clear
the sources of these proverbs, research that demonstrates how
inaccurately these clichés are thrown about.
First, one must realize that the aforementioned adages were
originally coined in opposition to one another, that is, expressing
the positions of opposing parties in a theological dispute! Let me
explain. Vincent of Lérins (d. 435/450?), a monk on an island off
the south coast of France, wrote his Commonitorium (not extant) as a guide in determining what the true catholic faith is. In it he
asserted that the truth is quod ubique, quod semper, quod omnibus
creditum est, “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by
all.” What is not always understood is that Vincent was a Semi-
Pelagian, and that in this writing he was asserting that the majority
of Christians have taught and believed Semi-Pelagianism! This
was a bold attempt to use Augustine’s own “catholicity” arguments
(the appeal to the teaching of the whole church) in favor
of heresy. Just as at the opening of the Council of Constantinople
AD 381 the majority of the church was to a degree Arian, so also
Semi-Pelagianism repeatedly had the ascendancy.
As the Semi-Pelagian controversy began to set all of Gaul in
turmoil, Prosper of Aquitaine, a monk living in Marseilles,
appealed to Augustine of Hippo for help. Augustine wrote back to
Prosper, and the two became fast friends and allies. After Augustine’s
death, with the fight still raging, Prosper traveled to Rome to
seek an official papal denunciation of Vincent’s teachings. Prosper
endeared himself to Pope Celestine and remained in Rome for a
number of years, using the time to write at length against Vincent.
Finally Celestine was persuaded to issue an official letter to the
bishops of Gaul, to which was appended a “catalogue of testimonies,”
containing statements of previous popes and other arguments
that reject Semi-Pelagianism. Recent scholarship has
demonstrated that Prosper himself authored this work.
This last document is the source of the expression lex
orandi—lex credendi, as it is popularly known. In fact, the original
statement is rather fuller: ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi,
literally, “that the law of praying may establish the law
of believing.” In context, Prosper is attacking Semi-Pelagianism
by drawing proof from the liturgical prayers of the whole
church. He quotes a litany from the Roman rite in which the
church prays for the conversion of unbelievers, idolaters, persecutors,
Jews, heretics and schismatics. If we pray for their conversion,
their conversion must be entirely God’s work, Prosper
reasons. In a ground-breaking work, however, Karl Federer
demonstrated that Prosper’s dictum has been commonly misunderstood,
as if he were saying that whatever the church does
in worship (lex orandi “the way of praying”) does (and should)
establish her confession. Neither does it mean simply that the
liturgy gives evidence to her confession, nor is it even a plain
appeal to tradition and universality of belief, for this would play
right into Vincent’s hands.
Rather, Federer shows that lex orandi was a commonly
understood technical term referring to 1 Timothy 2:1–4—
St. Paul’s mandate that the church should pray for all men. Prosper
reasoned that God’s command through the apostle teaches us
the true nature of conversion. If we are given the divine mandate
to pray for the conversion of all nations, then conversion is God’s
work and not man’s. To paraphrase Prosper: “God’s mandate
given through Paul that the church should pray for all men, a
mandate the church has indeed always carried out, resolves the
question of what we should believe in this matter.” Thus, the lex
orandi—lex credendi rule was actually a Scriptural argument, to
which was added the witness of the church’s continual faithfulness
to the apostolic mandate.
In light of this explanation, it is intriguing to see how Martin
Chemnitz responded to Vincent’s canon, for among Lutherans
Chemnitz was certainly the champion of patristic citation!
Though he may not have understood the history behind it, he
certainly grasped the theological problem when he modified the
Vincentian canon in the direction of Prosper’s argument: quod
semper, quod ubique et ab omnibus fidelibus ex Scriptura constanter
receptum fuit, “what has been received consistently from
Scripture, always, everywhere, and by all believers” [Ex. Conc.
Trid. III, 331, 51; Kramer trans. vol. 3, p. 466; see Elert, Structure of Lutheranism, p. 288]. We too should be careful not to throw out
these two mottoes indiscriminately.
For further information see: Paul De Clerck, “‘Lex orandi,
lex credendi’. Sens originel et avatars historiques d’un adage
équivoque,” Questions Liturgique 59.4 (Sept.-Dec. 1978), pp.
193–212. My translation of this most important study will appear
in Studia Liturgica in late 1994. Also see Karl Federer, Liturgie und
Glaube: «Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi» (Tiro Prosper von
Aquitanien), eine theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung (Freiburg
in der Schweiz: Paulusverlag, 1950).
The Reverend Tom Winger
Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
Well, that was my error in not including the link to the quoted revised and lengthened article:
https://lexcredendilexorandi.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/lex-orandi-lex-credendi-as-a-theological-locus-for-lutheran-liturgy/
I don’t think you can just say, “Well, he’s just a Michigan District “Evangelical style, Lutheran substance” guy, so we’ve been over that already forever ago and his side lost.”
He’s saying that forms are not substance, and whenever the confessions speak of rites or ceremonies, they are invariably referring to adiaphora. I once did a study to see if Chemnitz ever refers to the Sacrament as a “rite” (vs a dominical command) in the Formula, and surprise, he never does. A lex credendi position, however, would lump the Sacrament in with the rest of the liturgical rites and ceremonies, which the Lutherans did not do.
He’s also saying that the phrase itself is the product of a 19th century French priest who was influential in the birth of the 20th century liturgical movement.
So what does it mean then when the confession say we are falsely accused of having abolish the mass? Or when they insist that they have held to the mass was more reference and devotion then their opponents? Is this mass in some vague generic sense or is it the mass the right the liturgy and all that it be holes in the body and blood of Christ given and shared for us for the forgiveness of our sins and now given to us is food for the meal?
While the issuance of the latest document of Francis church is mind boggling, nevertheless it is fully in character with this pontificate. Since the days of Vatiicn Ii and long before all churches have had to face the crisis of the heresy called modernism. In face it is the by product of the philosophy of the age of Enlightenment. Trends and fancies of thought seem to be more important to some than the preservation of the Faith once delivered. Liturgical studies have been no exception. I have seen over the years liturgical forms change in various Christian groups, most of which tends to reflect more of the passing culture than it does proper liturgical form. Language, music, gimmicks were all brought about to encourage the youth to remain in our churches. Hasn't worked out so well or so it seems. I think Pope Benedict stated it quite well when he said the church of the future will be much smaller but hopefully more faithful to the original kerygma of the apostolic age. Time has come to return to sound principle of hermeneutics in all fields of church life and move away from the glitzy and return to sound liturgical form that truly reflect what we believe and not what we feel we should believe. Liturgy is not a play thing. You want toys, go to the local toy store.
I think you already know the answer but seem unwilling to see it plainly. The Imperial Free cities that were the earliest adopters of the Reformation generally arranged a debate before the city councils. The councils would vote to adopt the reformed teachings in their churches, which always invariably meant abolishing the Mass. The Mass, properly speaking, was the Canon. The churches of Strasbourg, Constance, Basel, and Zurich did not abolish the entire liturgy. Lutheran territories, the first of which was Electoral Saxony in 1527, adopted the same reforms. So the charge that the Lutherans had abolished the Mass was based on the reality that reformed cities and territories had in fact abolished the Canon of the Mass as a matter of course during the early Reformation. Luther called the Mass a dragon’s tail of pernicious error as late as the Smalcald Articles.
So what is Melanchthon saying here in the AC, that in the face of this reality the Lutherans actually uphold the Mass and celebrate it more reverently than their adversaries? How can this be? Melanchthon is doing several things very diplomatically. He is appealing to the Erasmian ad fontes spirit of the times in shifting the definition of the Mass from a set medieval sacrificial rite to a definition of the Mass as Christ’s institution as found in the original texts of Scripture itself. Lutherans are trumping antique tradition with the ultimate antique tradition, which is Scripture itself. So when we read “the Mass,” here Phillip is really referring to an “Evangelical Mass,” which is normed by Scripture. Faithfulness to scriptural revelation means greater reverence in observation, since the Lutherans perceived the accretions of the Canon as just that, namely traditions of men that led the faithful away from the biblical purpose of the true Mass.
So Melanchthon and the Lutherans were being deceptive and duplicitous in saying this about the mass among the articles in which they agreed and were speaking theoretically instead of reality? Mass as referring to the canon was well past Augustana. There is no reason or cause to read canon into mass especially at this point. Melanchthon was talking about the whole thing — rite that confesses and Sacrament that feeds.
I do not have the time to keep this up. Suffice it to say, there are some Lutherans who think that Lutherans have a distinctly Lutheran identity in doctrine and practice (liturgy for those who do not get it) and those who think that our guiding liturgical principle is from the Augustana where we insist we do not and have not and will not depart from catholic doctrine and practice. As you can see, there are many Lutherans who believe that what happens on Sunday morning is a free thing, decided by and determined by preference and local congregation. Then there are those who believe that what happens on Sunday morning is ordered by the doctrine we confess and by the catholic principle of the CA. I think you know where I stand. Luther is not our guide in things liturgical though he is not without influence. Though he reluctantly put forth two forms, the Formula Missae which is less a liturgy than rubrics designed to attach to a missal (Luther's preferred form) and the Deutche Messe, which was an option specifically for places where Latin was not known and where the limited resources of the parish required a simpler form. Strange how this has become the form Lutherans against the fuller ceremonial have used to justify their own versions of or departure from the form of the mass. Quite frankly, I am tired of the whole need to justify the fuller form as if it were the odd thing. Modern Lutherans seem to want to be Lutheran in worship and then use being Lutheran (and adiaphora) to justify whatever they do. Others, more confessional in theology and in practice, seem under the gun and on a necessarily defensive posture against those who say "it is not Lutheran to. . . fill in the blank). The truth is that Lutheran lite on Sunday morning is only a brief walk from the abandonment of what Lutherans confessed, under the threat of death, they believed. So I will keep on agitating against those who say Lutherans should be Lutheran on Sunday morning and not catholic; this is one of the most sectarian things any Lutheran could say and do.
Post a Comment