tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post3191906983920260375..comments2023-10-16T08:12:13.145-05:00Comments on Four and Twenty+ Blackbirds: Take 3 or I Repent (sort of)Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-41891361848314743862008-09-15T12:24:00.000-05:002008-09-15T12:24:00.000-05:00Rev BrownI'm not really settled yet in my own mind...Rev Brown<BR/><BR/>I'm not really settled yet in my own mind on just what a new canon law coming out of a new 'jurisdiction' among us would be, or how used.<BR/><BR/>That said, I can envision some kind of a meeting of the pastors who voluntarily subscribe to the canons on which we agree.<BR/><BR/>For instance, let's say we all frame an agreement (in writing) that we must confess against receptionism; so we come up with a canon among ourselves, a rubric something like this: <BR/><BR/><I>after the verba are said over each kind, the celebrant shall elevate it.</I><BR/><BR/>Such a rubric would not condemn people outside our association who do not elevate, but by it we who are in our 'jurisdiction' of sorts would all voluntarily agree to do so.<BR/><BR/>If you look at the proceedings of the ecumenical councils, I believe the assembled bishops did something like this. They discussed, debated, and worked together until they came up with their canons.Fr BFEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554699361739289492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-598205199604506812008-09-15T10:24:00.000-05:002008-09-15T10:24:00.000-05:00By the way, having a tabernacle does not mean that...By the way, having a tabernacle <I>does not</I> mean that you pine for Rome or Constantinople. <BR/><BR/>Have two or three if you want.<BR/><BR/>Just so I'm not misunderstood.<BR/><BR/>TWTodd Wilkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17470378774431406044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-59904876512298808392008-09-15T09:24:00.000-05:002008-09-15T09:24:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Pr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-72373512292167159242008-09-15T09:20:00.000-05:002008-09-15T09:20:00.000-05:00Someone (I've lost track) wrote:"Speaking of memor...Someone (I've lost track) wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"Speaking of memory, if memory serves me right, didn't this whole "reservation vs. non-reserve" go across the blogging world weeks ago? Did it need to come up here again?"</I><BR/><BR/>No, it didn't. <BR/><BR/>And, if it did, then Heath's noble suggestion is going to die right here.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the first line of the "canon of concord" should read:<BR/><BR/>"WE the undersigned do not pine for Rome or Constantinople. We wish to be and remain Lutheran, nothing more, nothing less. We wish to conduct our teaching and practice in accord with the Scripture and Lutheran Confessions (as we all vowed to do at our ordinations) --period."<BR/><BR/>If you can't sign that, you have bigger things to worry about than a rubrics and canons. <BR/><BR/>Please, someone, start a blog <I>dedicated</I> to tabernacles, reliquiae, reservation or non-reservation, etc. So that the subject doesn't highjack another innocent thread.<BR/><BR/>This isn't Lutherquest after all.<BR/><BR/>TWTodd Wilkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17470378774431406044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-39152620256747568082008-09-15T06:32:00.000-05:002008-09-15T06:32:00.000-05:00Pastor Eckhardt,As pertains to the discussion of c...Pastor Eckhardt,<BR/><BR/>As pertains to the discussion of canon law and confessing the faith - do you think that this set up should simply determine what is allowable practice, or rank in order of preference what is allowable, or establish just a single "This is how we will do it." Also, would you envision the order containing reasons within it (basically "whereas" clauses)?<BR/><BR/>I ask this because the intent of what one confesses through a practice is not always obvious and apparent, and it can often be misinterpreted. The simple fact is that most people, even (sadly enough) among the clergy don't think about the theological implications of what occurs in the Church as simple, common practice.<BR/><BR/>Granted - any time we confess, we teach - but would this order be mainly a tool of setting a standard for we ourselves to follow voluntarily, or would it be primarily a teaching tool/ apology for use by those who already have these practices?<BR/><BR/>Or I guess, would the order be directed inwardly and outwardly -- and I know it is both at the same time, but there would be a primary focus on one of the two. Which do you (or anyone else - Pastor Curtis?) envision?Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-33888934895552485712008-09-14T21:59:00.000-05:002008-09-14T21:59:00.000-05:00Well, as usual, Rev. Stuckwisch has his finger on ...Well, as usual, Rev. Stuckwisch has his finger on a problem we are going to have to dispatch before getting into the meat of this conversation, viz., <BR/><BR/><I>If we cannot fraternally discuss and debate such matters [of adiaphora], then we are not likely to arrive at any mutually agreeable "canon law."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I believe "fraternally" is necessary, and that if we are going to have such discussions, they ought to be free of childish ad hominem insults like subtly implying that there's something mischievous about contributing only occasionally to a conversation, or worse, that the size of a contributor's congregation has anything remotely to do with the subject at hand, or even worse, like descending to the equivalent of gutter language on the matter ("Jesus in a box," etc., which everyone here ought to find an entirely offensive and unbecoming manner of speaking).<BR/><BR/>The subject at hand is, as I understand it, the question of canon law. I am addressing the matter of what it is <I>for</I>, which is why I refer to the matter of the tabernacle.<BR/><BR/>Simply put, canon law ought to be put primarily into the service of confessing the faith, particularly against error.<BR/><BR/>The discussion on the tabernacle which followed my first comment on this thread is one which needs to be seen within this context.<BR/><BR/>What I mean is that while my immediate reason for having a tabernacle is to keep the elements consecrated at the altar which I will carry to the sick, that is not the only reason. <BR/><BR/>What the tabernacle does is provides a silent confession that those who discard the reliquae, or who otherwise treat them as common, are committing sacrilege.<BR/><BR/>We must confess the body of Christ when the body of Christ is present.<BR/><BR/>This is a confession we must find a way universally to make, and this is where canon law can be most helpful.<BR/><BR/>One who consumes all the elements may be doing so to make this confession, though I would say not necessarily, for there are receptionists who do the same thing, for reasons simply of good order. There is no way a person with a tabernacle can be confused with a receptionist. But I digress.<BR/><BR/>And lest we get sidetracked into another discussion on the sheer merits of tabernacles, I'd like to repeat what I believe is germane to this thread:<BR/><BR/>The matter of canon law should be addressed primarily from the standpoint of confessing the faith.Fr BFEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554699361739289492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-45940010155587505362008-09-14T17:25:00.000-05:002008-09-14T17:25:00.000-05:00We have Bingo at ours. . . and if I were to be in,...We have Bingo at ours. . . and if I were to be in, I'd need an exception. My Elder's eyes bulged out when I mentioned Consuming the elements -- I'm in Oklahoma and consuming more than a sip of wine would be. . . scandalous? Shocking?<BR/><BR/>I think (in my opinion) that if we wanted to nail something like this we could present a preferred practice and perhaps standard variations - that way the dean/bishop/abbot/costello wouldn't be over burdened with exceptions - simply inform which one you use.<BR/><BR/>It's the balance of detail driven uniformity verses flexibility of use. Orders were rather regional, if I recall. Besides, there were plethora of bishops - for this to be a national order, a certain amount of flexibility would have to be built in - simply because we all live in so many different regions of the country.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-12010471206554162742008-09-14T15:16:00.000-05:002008-09-14T15:16:00.000-05:00Rev. McCain,A) Because the church's life is more t...Rev. McCain,<BR/><BR/>A) Because the church's life is more than just Sunday morning. The "canons" and "church orders" deal with matters that go beyond worship.<BR/><BR/>B) Because some parishes that have TLH and LW really can't justify the cost of a new hymnal. LSB DS 1 and 3 are already in LW and TLH - so we don't really all need the same book to be on the same page (and recall that I'm a big LSB fan and was quick to push the two parishes I serve to embrace it). <BR/><BR/>C)And most importantly: Because the rubrics in LSB, while very good, are oftentimes simply incomplete - and that is not a matter of opinion, but is objectively true. For example, just look at the rubric for the reliquae: "At the conclusion of the Distribution or during the Post-Communion Canticle, the remaining consecrated elements are set in order on the altar and covered with a veil." (LSB Altar Book p. 168, and repeated at the end of each setting of the Divine Service)<BR/><BR/>That's it. That's the LSB rubric for the reliquae: set them in order and veil them on the altar. What to do with them after that is simply not discussed and not even alluded to. (At least I haven't found that any of the LSB volumes go beyond this. . . )<BR/><BR/>So that's why I think we need something more: this Evangelical Order, or Canon of Concord, or Society of Let's-try-to-actually-live-in-harmony. <BR/><BR/>And here's what I might propose as a canon for this contentious point: "In accord with the Lord's own Word and Bl. Martin's advice, all the consecrated elements are consumed at the altar at each celebration. Parishes and pastors seeking an exception to this canon shall present their reasons and procedures to the dean/bishop/abbot for his approval." <BR/><BR/>That's how I see this Canon of Concord working: laying out the best practice, but then allowing for evangelically granted exceptions to bring the most people along in the best time and way possible: and entrusting the granting of those exceptions to the judgment of a wise, godly, and experienced man (who must also be held accountable to God's Word by canons dealing with his removal from his post, etc.). <BR/><BR/>Again, there is a lesson to be learned here from the modern day papists. There is One Mass for the papists - but a priest can get an exception to celebrate the old Latin Mass. This allows for both harmony and unity, while also allowing (evangelically, as it were) for local custom. That's the sort of thing we can learn from papists. <BR/><BR/>That and raffles. Why can't we have raffles? Isn't railing against raffles the biggest much of pietistic bu. . . . but I digress. <BR/><BR/>+HRCPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-24301647006507499372008-09-14T14:09:00.000-05:002008-09-14T14:09:00.000-05:00I'm still trying to understand how, or why, there ...I'm still trying to understand how, or why, there would be anything necessary beyond agreeing to use the same hymnal and the rubrics contained therein.<BR/><BR/>Why isn't that good enough?Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-89514972179884953252008-09-14T13:56:00.000-05:002008-09-14T13:56:00.000-05:00I agree that the use of a tabernacle, accompanied ...I agree that the use of a tabernacle, accompanied by catechesis (as I am sure that Brother Eckardt provides), may also be a way of confessing that the reliquae are the Body and Blood of Christ, according to His own Word. In my opinion, it is not as clear a confession as eating and drinking, but I've offered that as fraternal counsel and nothing more.<BR/><BR/>I also agree, rather stongly, that genuine evangelical freedom in matters neither commanded nor forbidden by God must be respected. That certainly doesn't mean "anything goes," but I'm not too worried that anyone participating in this discussion would fall into that ditch. All of us are seriously intent upon faithfully serving and confessing the Gospel. That faithfulness includes both discipline and love; and it also necessarily includes a respect for freedom in adiaphora.<BR/><BR/>I don't wish to belabor either of those points, but I trust that they are clear and forthright enough.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, then, I'd like to return to Brother Curtis' suggestion and intention. It seems to me that the use or non-use of a tabernacle would properly belong to this conversation, as a matter of freedom that we would voluntarily agree to regulate according to a common rule. Or, maybe it is the sort of practice that we would contemplate, and then opt not to address one way or the other. I don't know. And while I do have strong feelings that eating and drinking the reliquae is the best practice, I don't have strong feelings against the use of tabernacles. Certainly, much worse is done with the Body and Blood of Christ on a weekly basis in many congregations. But my point is that the purpose of this thread is the consideration of a mutual rule for the way in which adipahora are used among us, for the sake of our common confession, and for the sake of all the meet, right and salutary benefits that derive from a clear, consistent and harmonious practice.<BR/><BR/>If we are going to contemplate such a rule of prayer, a canon of concord, or whatever we may call it, then do we not have to engage in conversations in which we do in fact express our opinions and preferences concerning practices that are, in themselves, neither commanded nor forbidden by God? If we cannot fraternally discuss and debate such matters, then we are not likely to arrive at any mutually agreeable "canon law."<BR/><BR/>Rigorous and real arguments, when pursued with humility and respect, can be one of the most helpful ways of clarifying our confession and improving our practice. Iron sharpens steel. I do hope, though, that we don't get bogged down in debating the details of any one point to such an extent that we lose sight of the larger context.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that Brother Brown's summary of the tabernacle debate offers an example of a helpful, evangelical approach to such topics; even though it may be a little too open-ended, if it were taken outside of this context in which it was made.<BR/><BR/>But perhaps the more compelling questions should be: "Would such a practice as this be addressed in the sort of rule or canon law that has been proposed?" "If so, how might that be handled?" "What would the specific rule be?" And if we should arrive at such-n-such a rule, would we be able to agree upon it, and voluntarily submit to it, without relinquishing the doctrine of genuine adiaphora? That was the pressing question and concern at the time of the interims, and I suspect that we are (or will be) faced with similar questions and concerns in our own day, as well.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-36600187058298891022008-09-14T13:42:00.000-05:002008-09-14T13:42:00.000-05:00Actually, Paul, I'd imagine that would be under ot...Actually, Paul, I'd imagine that would be under other aspects of a proposed order (specifically AC VII and XIV sections). . . not the specific question of Tabernacles/Consumption/Recycling.<BR/><BR/>But you are right, I'm sure any order that comes out would be quite clear on AC XIV and that it would hold those who join to a nice high and clear standard - one that would probably be violated there.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-48108383223340112782008-09-14T11:36:00.000-05:002008-09-14T11:36:00.000-05:00Therefore - let whatever practice you use be focus...<I>Therefore - let whatever practice you use be focused on eliminating the doubts of the people whom you serve. If you can defend your practice - and it does not cause consternation in your congregation - do so - only do not try to assert the dominance of your practice in all times and in all places.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, well then, with this wonderfully typical example of American individualism thinking in place, there is no way we should demur when we run across the following either. The following meets the "litmus" text outlined in the italicized quote:<BR/><BR/>http://www.ideateblog.com/2008/09/crank-it-up-ends-with-communion-nights.htmlRev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-5403934636241591332008-09-14T08:11:00.000-05:002008-09-14T08:11:00.000-05:00To brother Eric's summation I gladly say, "Amen!"To brother Eric's summation I gladly say, "Amen!"Reformationalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404684305562246478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-18282275069737718032008-09-14T08:02:00.000-05:002008-09-14T08:02:00.000-05:00So to sum.We agree that the Supper is defined and ...So to sum.<BR/><BR/>We agree that the Supper is defined and made what it is by the Words of our Lord.<BR/><BR/>We agree that the Supper is only rightly practiced when it is done according to our Lord's Command (that there is no consecration apart from a distribution - i.e. no consecrating simply to reserve or adore).<BR/><BR/>We agree that our actions as regards the Supper ought demonstrate the primacy and focus on Christ's Words which proclaim the Real, Bodily presence, given for us.<BR/><BR/>Therefore - let whatever practice you use be focused on eliminating the doubts of the people whom you serve. If you can defend your practice - and it does not cause consternation in your congregation - do so - only do not try to assert the dominance of your practice in all times and in all places.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-22098295156914313442008-09-14T07:49:00.000-05:002008-09-14T07:49:00.000-05:00While I, too, agree with the positive side of this...While I, too, agree with the positive side of this assertion about confessing the true presence of Christ in His body and blood by complete consumption, I do not believe that the presumed negative side is true, namely, reserving the unconsumed elements is not a confession of the real presence. It most certainly does confess that by the nature of the care given to how the consecrated host and cup are treated -- just like many a sad, misled LCMS pastor confesses the "real departure" by taking the consecrated wine home to be guzzled down at dinner (which one of my childhood pastors gloated in so doing).<BR/><BR/>The fact is that reservation has a long history in the Western and Lutheran churches, both Pre- and Post-Reformation eras. It exists precisely as a refutation of the heresy of receptionism, which I, with Friz, suspect is behind some of this grave concern over how some brothers and their congregations handle the reliquae.<BR/><BR/>And frankly, brothers, the direction of this present line of discussion is becoming ever more disgusting to me. It is allowed, by some, that such things as tabernacles and eucharistic prayers (as brought up by some), are adiaphora, yet the argument seems to say that they aren't! No guts, no glory, guys! Be clear -- what is it?<BR/><BR/>I hear the whispers of sainted Pr. Flacius! It's nearly time to adopt what hasn't been adopted in order to confess the reality of adiaphora. Falcius' and his fellow Magdaburgians were (for lack of a better word) "high church" Lutherans, right up to the promulgation of the Interim(s), with its demand that Roman vestments be adopted. This, since it is an adiaphora, compelled Flacius to take them off!<BR/><BR/>And so, I'm fearful that this discussion may force me to go looking for a tabernacle and even using eucharistic prayers, though I now neither have nor desire either. Help me -- let's not go there!<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I plead with my brothers and other participants, please stop the personal attacks, subtle though they may be! I speak of "average of 72 communicants." Stop picking on Fritz! Pick on Hein and me, instead -- we only have an average of 42 communicants! 'Course, maybe a tabernacle would add another thirty, eh?<BR/><BR/>Robert.<BR/>Fr. Robert W. Schaibley<BR/>reformationalist@gmail.comReformationalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404684305562246478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-68529394052662372442008-09-14T05:39:00.000-05:002008-09-14T05:39:00.000-05:00Ditto.Ditto.Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-9330996312054072302008-09-13T22:03:00.000-05:002008-09-13T22:03:00.000-05:00Eating and drinking all that remains is intimately...<I> Eating and drinking all that remains is intimately connected to the Word of Christ by which the elements are what they are; and as such, in my opinion, it more clearly confesses the very point you have raised and rightly insist upon.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with that.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-60057635660502485502008-09-13T21:59:00.000-05:002008-09-13T21:59:00.000-05:00If you start to make nice with the Swiss, Brother ...If you start to make nice with the Swiss, Brother Brown, we'll fill you full of holes.<BR/><BR/>Brother Eckardt, I agree with you that our practice ought to confess what is true concerning the body and blood of Christ. May I suggest that eating and drinking whatever has been consecrated with His Word is the best way to do so? For the same Lord Jesus Christ who says, "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood," also says: "Eat," and "Drink." I don't have the same concerns about a tabernacle that Brother McCain does, but I do believe that consuming all of the elements is a better way of confessing what is so: They are what Jesus says they are, and we therefore do with them what Jesus says to do.<BR/><BR/>Storing the consecrated elements against the next distribution, whether in a tabernacle or elswhere, does not, in itself, confess that they are the very Body and Blood of Christ; but only that what has been consecrated is treated differently than what has not been conscrectated. Eating and drinking all that remains is intimately connected to the Word of Christ by which the elements are what they are; and as such, in my opinion, it more clearly confesses the very point you have raised and rightly insist upon.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-38261096333816390242008-09-13T21:41:00.000-05:002008-09-13T21:41:00.000-05:00There are lots of "bigger" thans.There's "my litur...There are lots of "bigger" thans.<BR/><BR/>There's "my liturgy's bigger than yours." There's "my blog is bigger than yours." There's "my empty pews are bigger than yours." There's "my history is bigger than yours." There's "my canon is bigger than yours" and the oft related "my cannon is bigger than yours." There's "my library of Baier is bigger than yours." I suppose we even have, "my celebration of the Sacrament is bigger than yours" as well. And there is, of course, the ever popular but never openly stated, "my straw man is bigger than yours." And of course, "my memory is bigger than yours."<BR/><BR/>Speaking of memory, if memory serves me right, didn't this whole "reservation vs. non-reserve" go across the blogging world weeks ago? Did it need to come up here again? And didn't it come down that what Eckhardt does isn't idolatrous and what McCain states doesn't deny the power of Christ's Words - and beyond that there is disagreement as to ideal practice?<BR/><BR/>Gentlemen - will anything constructive go on, or do we have to wait for the LCMS to start appointing female bishops to make us play nicely? <BR/><BR/>Personally, I'm fine with both of you - I just wish you'd be fine with each other.<BR/><BR/>(P.S. I almost feel like Melanchthon - if I start trying to make nice with the Swiss, somebody shoot me)Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-23094890171461313782008-09-13T20:54:00.000-05:002008-09-13T20:54:00.000-05:00Fritz, you always come late to these parties, I wo...Fritz, you always come late to these parties, I wonder why? Odd that.<BR/><BR/>I am curious why it is so difficult in a congregation that has 72 people attending worship, on average, to make sure you do not consecrate so much of the elements that you are tempted to put into place a very bad practice of claiming to be shutting Jesus away in a box after the service.<BR/><BR/>Why are you not more concerned to be faithful to His command: which is to "take and eat...and drink" not...take this all of you and eat of it, and then what remains gather and store Me away for next time.<BR/><BR/>Seems we need more than some romanticizing and pining around after "canon laws" rummaging around in the Roman Medieval basement for such things.<BR/><BR/>I know it is tempting to try to be more Lutheran than Lutheranism as the old game of "my liturgy is bigger than your liturgy" gambit is played out, but I can find no justification, nor sanctification for such things.Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-34224468689458983772008-09-13T20:42:00.000-05:002008-09-13T20:42:00.000-05:00Time to enter the fray, I guess.Rev. McCain, you s...Time to enter the fray, I guess.<BR/><BR/>Rev. McCain, you seem to be intent on smoking out and at least ostracizing folks like me who have tabernacles.<BR/><BR/>Actually, a tabernacle has a lot to do with what a 21st century canon law might promote, but not, I surmise, in the way you might guess.<BR/><BR/>For I believe that one of the the greatest heresies afflicting the church today is the one for which many of us are struggling to find a name. It used to be called "Receptionism," but now many are coming to an agreement that the name isn't quite correct.<BR/><BR/>It is, at the root, the error which holds that it is something other than the word and command of Christ that makes the elements into His body and blood; the idea that since He said "take eat," somehow the consecration is not in effect until the elements are eaten, and not at all for those elements left over, etc.<BR/><BR/>Against this we must confess the truth, and if we can be bound to do so by some agreed canon law, so much the better.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I would not insist that everyone build a tabernacle, but you must not insist that no one build one.<BR/><BR/>I would, however, argue that we must all find a liturgical way to confess our faith, in this matter; and I am not at all decided on just what that would be.<BR/><BR/>One idea which springs to mind, just as an example, is a rubric which instructs the communicant to affirm "amen" at the altar after the celebrant holds the host and says "the Body of Christ" and before the communicant receives.<BR/><BR/>These matters need to be discussed at some length before an agreement be arrived at. <BR/><BR/>In short, a 21st century canon ought to address and respond to 21st century confessional matters.Fr BFEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554699361739289492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-2762512122081592332008-09-13T19:59:00.000-05:002008-09-13T19:59:00.000-05:00Over the years I have wondered why it was that Lut...Over the years I have wondered why it was that Luther and the Lutheran church fathers were familiar with the fathers and their theology, often quoting those who preceded them with approval, while we are discouraged from looking at anything beyond the 3 Rs (the Scripture, the Reformation, today).<BR/><BR/>These last two comments are encouraging in that they support and allow faith to look at and examine the wealth of that which has been handed down through the centuries. Such study can be beneficial in providing something as simple as extra fodder for the homily or adult study or in coming to understand why we hold to a certain doctrine or liturgical practice.<BR/><BR/>At the least we can be protected from seeking pride in any one period in church history, including today.Timothy Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11869105787715732917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-10963435970887722032008-09-13T19:39:00.000-05:002008-09-13T19:39:00.000-05:00Brother McCain, I appreciate your concerns, and I ...Brother McCain, I appreciate your concerns, and I think I understand where you are coming from. However, it seems somewhat unfair to interpret Brother Curtis' remark as a desire or intention to go on a "snipe hunt," as though he were looking for something to put upon the Church. Knowing Heath fairly well, I'm confident that he simply wants to be well-informed and well-grounded in a knowledge of the Church's history and heritage. As Lutherans, I don't think we are, nor should we be, afraid to study the past, examine it, and evaluate it in light of the Word of God and the rule of faith. Surely our forefathers did so, but that does not alleviate us of the responsibility to do the same.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, your questions suggest that you may not be all that well-versed in or familiar with the Roman Canons. I'm not, either. So how should we conclude that there is nothing there to be learned? I'm not to what extent the Roman Canons are parallel or analagous to the Lutheran church orders, though I assume there are some real similarities involved. That invites comparison and contrast.<BR/><BR/>I don't think the Roman Canons are primarily about such things as eucharistic prayers, but rather about the ordering of the Church's larger life and ministry in the world; relations beteween bishops and their bishoprics; etc. How would it hurt or threaten any of us to examine and consider such things? Perhaps the fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh centuries, when the canons were being formulated, have greater similarity to our twenty-first century American context than the sixteenth century German territories do. From what I gather, the Lutheran church orders differ rather widely in their scope and their details (as I said earlier). Some are very detailed; others rather general. Some deal at length with liturgical matters; others do so very little. They address themselves to particular concerns that raised themselves at the time, some of which may be of different or no interest to us now.<BR/><BR/>My inclination is to study things carefully. To examine and challenge everything rigorously, and to allow such matters to be an opportunity for correction and/or growth in my own presuppositions and thinking. That seems like a good and healthy thing to me, not something to be feared or rejected.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-55600420924392284912008-09-13T19:22:00.000-05:002008-09-13T19:22:00.000-05:00The liturgical history of the Middle Ages goes bey...The liturgical history of the Middle Ages goes beyond the scope of my knowledge, but I would imagine that there probably would be some excellent stuff prior to 1215 and the 4th Lateran Council - be it either definition of the Cannons. <BR/><BR/>I also think various regulations involving the secular clergy up until the mid 11th century (when marriage was forbidden) might also have some interesting information.<BR/><BR/>Whatever is good, right, and salutary, be it from the 6th, 11th, or 16th Century is part of our heritage, and we are right to draw from it.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-52257830449144244892008-09-13T11:00:00.000-05:002008-09-13T11:00:00.000-05:00Bob, you ask if I really want to know? Answer: Yes...Bob, you ask if I really want to know? Answer: Yes.<BR/><BR/>You ask if I'm saying you do not know what you are talking about? Answer: No, I'm not saying that.<BR/><BR/>I'm asking for some specific details in light of some rather sweeping claims being made. You still don't seem to be offering too many specifics, other than, "Read the Didache and move forward."<BR/><BR/>However you do mention the Church Orders and ironically make my point. They were the way our Lutheran fathers cleansed and purged the Roman Canons concerning worship and liturgy, so I'm still wondering why we would not use that material as primary resource, rather than setting off on a sort of snipe hunt in the murky Roman Canons.<BR/><BR/>Wilken said it correctly, the reference to the Canons in the Confessions is not by way of: "For more of what we want to do, refer to them" but ... "We know them well and we can assure you that what we do in our worship/liturgy is much better than that."<BR/><BR/>So, I'm still looking for a good reason why we would want to go mucking about in the Roman Canons for our Evangelical Lutheran church order.Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.com