tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post4864273346068728033..comments2024-01-02T16:09:57.364-07:00Comments on Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 1Intrepid Lutheranshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-82929429876764191432010-06-14T00:49:18.388-07:002010-06-14T00:49:18.388-07:00Mr. Gorman,
This is the last of these comments we...Mr. Gorman,<br /><br />This is the last of these comments we will be taking for awhile. We have no way of verifying all your claims about who worked with whom, so to continue to post them would not be responsible on our part.<br /><br />As for your issues with the Nicene Creed, you make the wild and ridiculous claim that "The Historic Nicene Creed was replaced with a new creed that was invented by Papists, Feminists, and various Protestant sects." The "historic" Nicene Creed was written in Greek, not in Latin, German or English. It was written long before the Confessions were written. The Confessions contain a translation of the Creed into Latin and German. The CW translation of the Greek is a valid translation. As in most works of translation, there may be more than one right way to translate a phrase.<br /><br />Nowhere in the Greek Creed does it emphasize Christ's maleness, but rather his humanity. No doubt he was a male. But that's not the point of the Creed.<br /><br />Of the whole list of changes to the Creed you list, only one has been noted as an omission, "for us" instead of "for us men." "For us" is certainly not wrong. It means "For us human beings." But it could be clearer.<br /><br />So no, the CW Nicene Creed does not contain doctrinal errors. And as a simple translation of a historic text, it does not represent any group, be it Lutheran or sectarian.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-87191975285818629162010-06-13T22:25:34.639-07:002010-06-13T22:25:34.639-07:006. The Historic Nicene Creed was replaced with a n...6. The Historic Nicene Creed was replaced with a new creed that was invented by Papists, Feminists, and various Protestant sects.<br /><br />WELS and LCMS were members of the CCT international committee that prepared the ELLC Nicene Creed text found in CW, page 18. However, the committee was actually dominated by the Papists (See “Proclaiming the Gospel Through the Liturgy” by Peter Toon) and controlled by ultra-liberal Reformed denominations (http://www.commontexts.org/history/members.html). The ELLC text reflects their sectarian agenda.<br /><br />The Papists furthered their agenda with “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” The Feminists and the Protestant sectarians furthered their agenda with “For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.” An offensive confession of Christ’s essential manhood was removed. An offensive confession that the incarnation of Christ is for all men, not just those who confess the Creed (Calvinism), was removed.<br /><br />After using the ELLC Nicene Creed in a joint LCMS/ELCA hymnal project (LBW, 1978), the LCMS repudiated the ELLC text and returned to the historical Lutheran text found in the BOC, 1584; BCP, 1549; and Common Service, 1888 (LW, 1982; LBW, 2006). Regarding the ELLC Nicene Creed, the Special Hymnal Review Committee of the LCMS opines,<br /><br />These alterations are not new translations but changes which cannot be harmonized with the Latin, German, and English texts as they are given in the Book of Concord to which every Lutheran pastor and congregation subscribes without reservation. . .<br />The following changes have been made:<br />"Seen and unseen" replaces "visible and invisible." the former is an attribute of the person; the latter is an attribute of the thing, or object. The difference may be better understood if we think of a table in the next room. It is not seen by us now but it is visible.<br />"Eternally begotten of the Father" replaces "begotten of the Father before all worlds." The new word "eternally" is subject to the misinterpretation of an ongoing process.<br />"The only Son of God" replaces "the only-begotten Son of God." While "begotten" is used in the next phrases, the deletion of this word is both arbitrary and unnecessary.<br />"God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," replaces "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God." The word "from" introduces a foreign concept.<br />"Of one being with the Father" replaces "Of one substance with the Father." "Substance" and "essence" are used synonymously; neither are accurate synonyms for "being."<br />"For us and for our salvation" replaces "Who for us men and for our salvation." The deletion of "men" is both arbitrary and unnecessary.<br />"Became incarnate from the Virgin Mary" replaces "Was incarnate of the Virgin Mary." These words, "from" and "of," are not synonyms.<br />"For our sake" replaces "For us." This is an inaccurate translation which weakens the meaning. <br />"He suffered death and was buried" replaces "He suffered and was buried." Whatever the reason, an extra textual addition has been arbitrarily made. "Is seated at the right hand of the Father" replaces "Sitteth on the right hand of the Father." This change is not supported in the original text.<br />"With. the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified" replaces "With the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified." This is an arbitrary and unnecessary deletion of a word.<br /><br />Does CW, page 18, Nicene Creed, contain doctrinal errors? Do the CW, page 18, changes to the Nicene Creed text of the BOC, 1584, make it appear that the religion of the sectarians is similar to our own? Is the CW, page 18, Nicene Creed, true or false adiaphora?Dan Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-18750941477110316942010-06-13T00:26:13.547-07:002010-06-13T00:26:13.547-07:00Dear Intrepid Lutherans: In the days of active pu...Dear Intrepid Lutherans: In the days of active public ministry before retirement, I wrote a small tract or booklet explaining the traditional Lutheran Liturgy. It was specificalluy aimed at new converts to the faith who had no understanding or grasp of why we do what we do in worship with Holy Communion/Eucharist. If anyone is interested I would mail you a copy. Yours Truly, Roger Ph. Drews ret.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-90561155544779074122010-06-11T20:49:15.203-07:002010-06-11T20:49:15.203-07:001. Lutheran Declaration of Grace was replaced with...1. Lutheran Declaration of Grace was replaced with a non-Lutheran corporate confession/absolution.<br /><br />The corporate confession/absolution found in CW, pages 15 and 16, has no historical precedent within the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The liturgical form originates in the TLH, 1941.<br /><br />The Lutheran Church has traditionally restricted unconditional absolution of sins to private confession. Public absolutions were either conditional or individual. For example: 1580 revision of the Herzog Heinrich Agenda (Corporate Conditional Remittal); Braunschweig-Woelfenbuettel Church Order prepared by concordists Chemnitz and Andrea (Corporate Conditional Remittal and Retention); Danish Norwegian Rite of 1685 (Individual Remittal). <br /><br />In Holy Absolution we receive the forgiveness of sins as we return to our baptism in repentance (Augburg Confession, XII). Many visitors to public services have never been baptized. How do they return to a baptism they have never received?<br /><br />Members of Christian sects believe that forgiveness is received through the outward act or covenant of absolution rather than through faith alone (Gal. 3:22). Should absolution be pronounced to those who deny justification by faith alone?<br /><br />Members banned from the supper for public or private sins attend divine services. Should they, indiscriminately, have their sins remitted to them without repentance?<br /><br />Unworthy guests at the supper eat and drink judgment not discerning the Lord’s body. Scripture says the steward should restrict the supper to those holding the catholic confession (1 Cor. 11:18-20). Should the steward pronounce absolution to all men (e.g., the unbaptized, the unbelieving, the excommunicate, etc.) or should absolution be restricted like the supper?Mr. Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-33139804134753418462010-06-10T14:17:43.477-07:002010-06-10T14:17:43.477-07:00Thank you for your research Mr. Gorman, and everyo...Thank you for your research Mr. Gorman, and everyone else for the discussion in general. I would like to compile as much information on the CW as possible since I also find the hymnal problematic. I'm trying to be patient, however, and I would like to hear defenses of CW too, because I have something of an "instinctive" negative reaction to what I call the jingling, non-harmonic settings of the CW liturgies and psalms (having long been used to TLH and the richly harmonic ELH). For any fans of the CW, please forgive me if I sound too harsh; I'm trying to understand all sides on this.<br /><br />As for potential improvement, the only way that I see the WELS adopting a different hymnal is with a new hymnal project altogether, which, as I have heard, is slated to be produced in the early-mid 2020s. That is still a long way off, yes, but it could be a wonderful opportunity for liturgical improvement in the WELS. My real wish would be for the WELS to adopt ELH (the ELS hymnal), but I somehow don't see that happening. <br /><br />Daniel J. JohnsonDaniel Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087914132195245406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-1367791276870159782010-06-10T08:47:46.306-07:002010-06-10T08:47:46.306-07:00Mr. Gorman,
(Sorry the comment thread got messed ...Mr. Gorman,<br /><br />(Sorry the comment thread got messed up, it might have been our fault. I'm copying here my comment from the other thread.)<br /><br />I do thank you for making out that list and will try to comment on portions of it later on.<br /><br />But I want to make it clear that Intrepid Lutherans does not endorse any single version of the liturgy as inalterable and sacrosanct, nor do our Confessions speak of any rites or ceremonies in this way.<br /><br />If we lose our balance on either side of this, we're in trouble. If we take the "freedom to change rites" sections of the Confessions to their extreme and abandon liturgical worship entirely, we stray from the spirit of the Confessions. If we take the "traditional rites should be used" sections to their extreme and condemn any change anyone makes, we also stray from the spirit of the Confessions.<br /><br />Love for the pure truth of Christ and for the people of Christ (past and present) will keep us from losing balance on either side. Trust in the power of the Means of Grace will keep us from depending on any manmade rite to gather, enlighten and sanctify the Church.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-48217897093585552112010-06-10T08:43:21.216-07:002010-06-10T08:43:21.216-07:00Joel Lillo asks, "How was the Common Service ...Joel Lillo asks, "How was the Common Service "altered altered almost beyod recognition" in CW? Aside from updating the language a little, moving "Lord have mercy" to before the absolution, and substituting a congregational psalm for an introit spoken by the pastor, what changes were made?" <br /><br />CW, page 15, has at least 20 unnecessary and/or harmful deviations from the Common Service of 1888:<br /><br />1. Lutheran Declaration of Grace was replaced with a non-Lutheran corporate confession/absolution.<br />2. Introit and Gloria Patri were removed.<br />3. Traditional Gloria in Excelsis was replaced with a modernized version.<br />4. Rubrics for Epistle, Gradual, Gospel were removed.<br />5. Lenten song in place of Hallelujah was omitted.<br />6. The Historic Nicene Creed was replaced with a new creed that was invented by Papists, Feminists, and various Protestant sects. <br />7. Peace of God was omitted.<br />8. First verse of the Offertory was omitted.<br />9. Rubric for the Offertory was omitted.<br />10. General Prayer and prayer rubrics were omitted.<br />11. Traditional Proper Prefaces were replaced with new prefaces.<br />12. Traditional Santus was replaced with a modernized version.<br />13. Lord's Prayer after the Santus and before the Words of Institution was omitted.<br />14. Words of Institution rubrics were omitted.<br />15. Traditional Agnus Dei was replaced with a modernized version.<br />16. Administration of the Holy Sacrament was omitted.<br />17, Traditional Nunc Dimittis was replaced with a modernized version.<br />18. Nunc Dimittis Gloria Patri was omitted.<br />19. Traditional ministerial thanksgiving was replaced with a new version.<br />20. Final Salutation was omitted.<br /><br />Not all of these deviations were initiated in CW, 1993. Some were initiated in the TLH, 1941.Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-15885949593736297972010-06-09T21:04:37.073-07:002010-06-09T21:04:37.073-07:00Rev. Paul A. Rydecki opines, "I love the Comm...Rev. Paul A. Rydecki opines, "I love the Common Service, but I would never say it's the only version of the liturgy that may be used in the English-speaking world, or that Satan was behind any of the changes made to it. Why do you make this assertion?"<br /> <br />There are many non-English orthodox versions of the liturgy. Lutheran synods are free to translate any orthodox version of the liturgy into English. However, in order to establish universal rites, Lutheran synods rejected their own historic non-English liturgies in favor of the Common Service (See Explanation, Question 22). <br /><br />Having established universal English rites, Lutheran synods incurred an obligation to maintain those universal English ceremonies for the reasons outlined in your "Nevertheless we confess." Deviations from traditional English ceremonies contrary to your "Nevertheless we confess" are satanic in origin.Mr. Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-60842260823449966912010-06-09T07:47:04.874-07:002010-06-09T07:47:04.874-07:00Sorry, didn't even notice that my last name wa...Sorry, didn't even notice that my last name wasn't there. Not trying to hide my identity.<br /><br />Joel LilloJoel Lillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13932613418526752293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-84643322715323404142010-06-09T07:18:52.849-07:002010-06-09T07:18:52.849-07:00Mr. Gorman,
I love the Common Service, but I would...Mr. Gorman,<br />I love the Common Service, but I would never say it's the only version of the liturgy that may be used in the English-speaking world, or that Satan was behind any of the changes made to it. Why do you make this assertion?<br /><br />(And "Joel," please add your last name next time you comment.)Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-31968880109759277732010-06-09T07:09:44.791-07:002010-06-09T07:09:44.791-07:00Mr. Gorman,
How was the Common Service "alte...Mr. Gorman,<br /><br />How was the Common Service "altered altered almost beyod recognition" in CW? Aside from updating the language a little, moving "Lord have mercy" to before the absolution, and substituting a congregational psalm for an introit spoken by the pastor, what changes were made?Joel Lillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13932613418526752293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-89323933248973255102010-06-09T03:27:12.508-07:002010-06-09T03:27:12.508-07:00Thanks for posting the excerpt and link to "A...Thanks for posting the excerpt and link to "An Explanation of the Common Service." It is good for Lutherans to learn what they have lost.<br /><br />Back in 72, I was still a young man. For years, I had attended a variety of Protestant churches with little or no effect. The very first time I attended a Common Service I knew God was speaking to me. I would never return to the man-centered worship of the Protestants.<br /><br />Why have so many Lutheran congregations traded in the inestimable treasure of God's Word for the worthless pottage of man-centered worship? For many decades, by the grace of God, English-speaking Lutherans throughout the world had only one liturgy, the Common Service of 1888. But Satan was active among the Lutherans sowing division in order to promote his theology of glory.<br /><br />Satan encouraged minor liturgical innovations (TLH, 1941) which, in turn, led to major innovations (LBW, 1978). The Common Service was altered almost beyond recognition (CW, 1993) and then abandoned altogether in favor of completely man-centered forms of worship.Mr. Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-50822907725816912222010-06-08T16:05:55.268-07:002010-06-08T16:05:55.268-07:00I am amazed at the intelligence and wisdom and ins...I am amazed at the intelligence and wisdom and insight our Pastor's must have in order to serve their sheep. Really, think about it- this is only Part 1. We should never take for granted how patient our Pastor's must be towards their sheep when we at times frankly, are just plain stupid in comparison to their studies and knowledge. We should never complain against them and say things like, "Don't you have anything better to do?!" <br /> I am thanking God for these Pastors He sends out to us. God is working for a purpose and he is definitely guiding and attempting, through these pastors, to teach us, protect us and watch out for the church. <br /> This they do with so little in return. Shame on any Pastors who might, in my mind, be playing around and testing God. A very foolish mistake...Lisette Anne Lopezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17937652817511406106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-77092249684354374102010-06-08T13:58:41.776-07:002010-06-08T13:58:41.776-07:00I have this magnificent book in the sixth edition,...I have this magnificent book in the sixth edition, published in 1941. This book may also be purchased from Emmanuel Press:<br /><br />http://www.emmanuelpress.us/Rev. David M. Juhlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05319689931375689421noreply@blogger.com