Pastor E. asked the following, and I think it deserves a new topic:
Although not technically the focus of your article, I did pick up on the mention of the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar on Good Friday. Until I arrived at my present parish I had never celebrated the Supper on this day. The previous comment, however, notes that "The liturgy of Good Friday therefore celebrates no mass..." Although rubrics and liturgy are included in LW for the celebration of the mass on Good Friday, is this a novel idea of recent origin? What, to your recollection, is the historic Lutheran practice here?
Let me start by saying that usually the study of "historic" practices is usually pretty nubilous. Practices change over time. Different things took place in different areas, and so on. My recollection is that German Lutheran congregations generally included the Lord's Supper on Good Friday at least until the age of pietism. If you wish to look at the Traditional Tridentine Rite, you may do so at http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/. Both versions for Good Friday include communion with "presantified" species.
And, as Pr. E., adeptly pointed out, the propers in LW are mass propers as are the ones in TLH, and LSB. The LW agenda, however, says that the "older and more primitive custom is that Holy Communion not be celebrated on Good Friday." (But I don't find this very credible--"Older and more primitive" than what? 1980?)
If our goal is to find and imitate what is the oldest and most primitive, we would be left with practically no liturgy at all. Everything that we do was preceeded by something else. It's like saying we shouldn't celebrate Christmas because Epiphany came first.
I bet that both sides could find some history upon which to base their claims. But does it matter which is the most ancient practice? Jesus tells us "Do this in remembrance of me." St. Paul tells us that we proclaim the Lord's death in the Sacrament. What better day to proclaim the Lord's death than Good Friday?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
1. There simply is no mass/divine liturgy on Good Friday in either the Western (Latin) or the Eastern Rites. The reason being, the institution of the Eucharist is celebrated the day before, and the focus of Friday is exclusively the Crucifixion.
2. The Tridentine Rite historically did not have a Communion service on Good Friday. That was added in the years before Vatican II by the pope. When I was a kid in the 50s, an altar boy for these services, the older people still groused about it -- that it diminished Maundy Thursday for what it is and took away from the focus of Good Friday.
3. Communion, as distinct from the Mass itself, on Good Friday does have ancient roots in liturgical sources, and it was on that basis that it was restored it to the Tridentine Rite toward the end of its general use by the Roman church. It presents at least two difficulties for Lutheran usage. One, since Mass itself is not celebrated, and is actually forbidden, the hosts distributed on Good Friday are consecrated the day before during the Holy Thursday service, which for us brings up the usus controversy, since a continuing presence of the body is assumed in using as it were day old hosts. Also, of course this is communion in one kind. However, in non Reformation observance Communion and Mass are not the same, so what is observed in the Roman Rite is communion, but not a Mass. LW is exactly right on this. What is observed is part of the mass, hence some of its propers, but not mass per se. The complication for us is the idea of Communion apart from consecration.
4. Lutheranism never did observe this, and Communion on Good Friday was a big deal. The St Matthew Passion was written for such a service! In Lutheranism celebrating Communion (in our sense implying consecration too)on Thursday but not Friday is relatively recent.
5. So you can have it either way, in sum. The centuries long practice West and East is no Communion on Good Friday. Early liturgical souces and original Lutheran practice do support Communion on Good Friday. "Do this ... " as an argument for doing this on Good Friday as distinct from any other time strikes me as a stretch as rubrics do not seem to be particularly on Jesus' mind at the time.
6. My main point on the previous post was that our Confessions regarding rites and ceremonies seem to argue for a position of retaining whatever is possible rejecting only what is contradicted by, which is not to say absent from, Scipture, not to revise tradition according to one's personal piety.
7. As to the blog protocol:
a) I am a member of an LCMS parish and I'm not swimming anywhere having made it out of the Tiber to Lake Superior to the Mississippi (let the reader understand),
b) I used the word which cannot be used as a pre-emptive strike to state that I have no illusion that apart from the words of institution any of the liturgy exists by the command of Christ, and not at all to state or imply that therefore we can do what we what or that good order in the church counts for nothing or that therefore liturgy should not exist at all, but quite the opposite to indicate that there are good reasons other than the command of Christ for some things to be observed and others not,
c) I do not like the Vatican II for Lutherans bogus ordo that has infected our worship since LBW and think the LSB would be absolutely perfect if it did not offer that along with the church's actual historic liturgy/calendar/lectionary on an equal footing,
d) the reference about Willow Creek was to point out that at least their worship is consistent with their belief, whereas sometimes we call ourselves consistent with the historic faith and its liturgy while at the same time offering either liturgy refashioned after our personal piety or worse a Lutheran variation on the current Roman liturgy they designed to contain a different faith, either of which is at much at odds with the faith of our fathers as the happy clappy crowd.
If these sentiments make one not welcome to post here, then I shall not do it again. Sometimes the only thing harder for a confessional Lutheran than getting along with those who are not also confessional Lutherans is getting along with those who are.
Mr. Maher,
Thank-you for your introduction. I'm sure it would have been unnecessary if I paid more attention on other blogs.
First of all, whose not getting along?
Second, thanks for pointing out that for RCs the "Mass of the presanctified" is not really a mass, despite it's name. Goofy Romanists! Lutherans, as you point out, wouldn't differentiate between "mass" and "communion." And I doubt the question that was posed here cared about such a distinction.
Finally, you did I fine job in explaining your point of view. I know others agree with you. But your way of thinking is alien to me. It is beyond my grasp of comprehension to say that celebrating the Lord's Supper distracts our focus off of the crucifixion. Should we not have communion on Easter so as not to be distracted from our Lord's resurrection. I can't think of one, without thinking of the other. And without the Lord's Supper, the crucifixion of Jesus is, well, out of focus.
Two notes; 1) from Pius Parsch, "Since the earliest times the Sacrifice of Mass has been omitted on Good Friday, but Christians remained unwilling to forego the reception of holy Communion. Therefore at yesterday's Mass, sufficient Hosts were consecrated and reserved for use today." This echoes "past elder's" comments. 2) Since Good Friday is part of the Triduum, which is considered one service (not 3), unless the particular Lutheran congregation has an understanding that the presence of Christ remains in the sacrament from the day before (which many do not) then it would seem to me that holy Communion should not happen on Good Friday, lest there be two consecrations in the 'one' service of the Triduum.
Great blog and I have to say that I am for the practice of celebrating the Eucharist on Good Friday. This simply came about by a young child in my parish asking a question about the liturgy of the Sacrament when I say "Whenver we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." After asking about this statement the young Christian then asked "Why don't we have Holy Communion on Good Friday?" I know its not Pious Parsch which I have and treasure, but it was sufficient for me to instill the practice here and it has been appreciated. Keep up the good work Pastor Woodring.
Woodring, love the blog. This will be the fifth year that I am offering the Sacrament on Good Friday and Easter Vigil, although I considered not doing it this year because it seems to be "tacked on" at the end of the service, sort of an afterthought. But theology got the better of me. I agree that it makes perfect sense to celebrate it on Good Friday. Perhaps we should have it every day.
My theory as to why it wasn't the practice for so long in our churches is that Good Friday for the laity was more about being sad for Jesus. I could be wrong, but that is how I remembered Good Friday growing up. I don't know why anyone would not want to consecrate on Good Friday.
I can't think of a better day to distribute the very means by which our salvation was won than on the day we set aside to praise God for the very means by which our salvation was won.
Could there be any better way for us to be connected to what what Christ nearly 2000 years ago on that first good Friday than to receive His body and blood in the Holy Supper?
I do wonder how one goes about celebrating the Eucharist on Good Friday. One poster says it felt "tacked on". I would have to say if I was part of any of the Lutheran Agenda Good Friday Services, which do not resemble the Divine Service liturgy, it would surely feel "tacked on" and inappropriate at the end of the service to all of a sudden jump to the preface or the sanctus or just throw in the words of institution. Where does the justification, liturgically, come for doing so? Do the words of institution stand alone in making the sacrament the sacrament? What is essential? What is appropriate? What is the Lutheran liturgical hermeneutic when tradition is appealed to when it comes to propers and lectionary but throws out another 'well attested' tradition in favor of sentiment? The Roman communing is a communing of the 'reserve' sacrament from the day before, not another consecration. Do you who commune on Good Friday commune the 'reserve' of Maundy Thursday or throw parts of the Divine Service on the end of Tenbrae, like some misplaced appendage?
Thank you, Pr. Woodring, for giving such attention to my question. And thank you to those who have posted in answer as well. It has been most instructive.
>>in favor of sentiment?
No, in favor of delivering the Lord's precious body and blood to His people.
McCain,
Instead of quoting four words out of blog and refuting them, please, assist in answering all of my other questions as well. Thank you.
In answer to Schmidt's question, I have a seperate Divine Service as part of our Good Friday services. We begin with the Tre Ore (from noon to 3 p.m) and then have a spoken Eucharist before we do the Tenebrae or Stations of the Cross (something not in the Agenda) for the evening service. I do not commune with the elements that are left over from Maundy Thursday, they have been consumed. Our congregation upholds the practice of consuming the remainder of the elements and this is something that the attending Elder and I do during the Nunc Dimittis. I don't believe in tacking on anything and I don't believe that is what the afforementioned poster meant, but I don't want to speak for him. To sum things up, for Good Friday Mass we have a seperate Divine Service with non-consecrated elements and forego the Benediction in the Eucharsitic Service for Good Friday...would that be considered "tacking on" or just plain tacky?
Mr. Schmidt,
How nice of you to quote Parsch at least until the point in the text where he disagrees with you on the appropriateness of communion on Good Friday.
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
With regard to Mr.Schmidt's second comment, and for those who may also be interested, I posted a new topic on what I do in my current parish. It shows how the Lord's Supper is incorporated into the service. The flow, at least for me, is pretty natural and doesn't feel "tacked on" at all. I also made a note on the use of "presanctified elements." Finally, I hardly think you can make the argument that not having communion on Good Friday is "well attested." While you can say that actually consecrating those elements on another day is well attested (an abuse that crept in from the Eastern Church), to take that to mean that communion is inappropriate is employing a lot of spin.
Look. It really comes down to this. A lot of people believe that receiving the Lord's Supper on Good Friday is helpful to their piety and devotion and love for Jesus. Are you really willing to tell them they can't? If you do not wish to receive it, you don't have to. I'm happy for you. But would you actually go so far as to withhold it from others?
Well fellas, a valedictory.
Really, have Communion all you want on Good Friday. It flies in the face of the consensus of two millenia of the church catholic's experience both East and West, it destroys the structural logic of Holy Week in general and the Triduum in particular, but that's OK. I'd say why it's OK but you can't mention it on this blog.
Nobody is witholding anything from anybody presenting what the church historically presents, in teaching why we present what we present and in being taught by what we present.
AC XV says Our churches teach that ceremonies ought to be observed that may be observed without sin -- the sin being thinking such observances are necessary for salvation or constitute actions on our part that merit grace or satisfy for sin -- and elsewhere that we keep the ceremonies previously used, rejecting only what contradicts the Gospel.
When this is not our criteria, when instead of handing on the authentic tradition one creates one's own based on personal piety or what others say they want out of a service based on their personal piety, then it really makes no difference whether one on that basis has Communion or hires a praise band, whether one on that basis fashions one's own tradition out of this and that from present or past official service books or downloads from Willow Creek or Maranatha! or wherever else one gets that stuff.
Mr. Schmidt, even if you do not like me personally, I am "Rev. McCain" or "Pastor McCain" not, "McCain." You are not disrespecting me, you are disrespecting the office. That is wrong.
As for your remark, what I quoted was the premise for everything you said. It stands refuted.
Mr. Maher, I'm trying to understand the logic of your remark.
Pastor Woodring's congregation receives Holy Communion on Good Friday and, if I'm tracking your thinking, this will open the door to their throwing out the Gospel and becoming like Willow Creek?
There is something not tracking here.
I would say it would be necessary to observe the Lord's Supper precisely to drive out the superstitious and legalistic ghosts of Rome on these points, if you really are wishing to press your point.
I said it felt "tacked on" because it is the very last thing we do and the liturgy is truncated a bit. Preface, Lord's Prayer, Verba, Communion. I do not think it is an invalid mass just because it is truncated. The Verba are there. But then, I thought, it's not that it is "tacked on" but it is the culmination of the Good Friday celebration. There were Lutheran Church orders, according to the LSB rubrics that did include the Sacrament as part of the regular observance of Good Friday as a Festival.
My only critique (and it is only a critique, because we use the rubrics from LSB) is that if we were celebrating the Tre Ore service in truth, we would not have the Sacrament three times (Maundy Thu., Good Fri., Easter Vigil). It would be the culmination of that service. There would be one communion. We have our chief Good Friday service in the evening still, because I honestly don't think anyone would come to church during the day, much less twice. And then we have communion on Saturday evening at the Easter Vigil. Any problems with that?
Just so I don't get too far into mudslinging, I will make this short and sweet...hopefully. First of all, Pastor McCain: I don't feel the need to call you Pastor or Rev. or anything the like since I too am ordained. How many professors walk around calling each professor all day long? ("Hi Professor." "Hi Professor Bob." "Hi Professor Jane.") It seems a bit overdone, huh? Second, Pr. Dan, I quoted the section of Pius Parcsh which I did to make the point that communing isn't the no-no. The no-no is having 2 consecrations in 1 service. A point that "past elder" has made once more so I won't go into it.
Ooops. Just saw Beisel remark about having communion on the Easter Vigil. The reason why it is ok to have a consecration and communion during the Vigil is because the Vigil makes the transition out of the Triduum to Easter day itself. Yet, Easter Eve, Easter Morning, Easter Day, and EAster Evening (if you celebrate all of those services) are seperate services, yet on the same day. Unlike the Triduum-1 service, 3 days.
Another thing to think about is this--Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday have (wonder of wonders) already happened! So, it's not like we can't have the Sacrament on Good Friday or Easter Eve "because Jesus isn't supposed to be raised yet." This is part of our "do this in remembrance of Me" remembrance. My point is simply, that if Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Vigil are supposed to be considered "one service" according to tradition, does consecrating elements on Maundy Thurs., Good Friday, and Easter Eve count as three consecrations in one service? Maybe its a silly question.
I found this quite interesting. From Frank Senn's book Christian Liturgy, here follows the 3 indexed references to the history of Good Friday celebrations.
1) Cited from Egeria's Holy Week oberservances in Jerusalem (380's), Senn writes, "The historical treatment of Holy Week in Jerusalem spread throughout the whole church. ...In the Western churches there developed the Palm Sundy procession, the washing of feet (in Milan) and the evening celebration of the Lord's Supper on Maundy Thursday, devotions before the cross on Good Friday, and the candlelight procession at the beginning of the Easter Vigil."
2) From the Franco-Roman Calendar. Here Senn writes, "In the Gelasian and in Ordo Romanus Primus a rubric directs the sacramental elements from the Chrism Mass to be reserved for communion on Good Friday. ...The Eucharist was not celebrated on Good Friday. In its absence emerged the paraliturgical veneration of the cross."
3) The Emergence of the Lutheran Liturgy, Senn writes, "Holy Communion was celebrated on both Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. In this way Good Friday was kept as a liturgical day and celebrated with less somberness in the Lutheran churches than in the Roman Church, in which the altars were stripped bare and the organs and bells silenced."
Now, I am not quite sure what this development says for AC XV, but sarcastically I might conclude, "Go ahead and do what you want. It appears the Lutherans have a history of doing so." ;)
Pr.Schmidt,
While I don't mind how people are addressed on this blog as long as it is done out of respect, I have decided that I would use a person's title and surname. In doing so, I referred to you as "Mr. Schmidt", not realizing that you are a pastor. I meant no disrespect, and I want you and our readers to know this.
The idea that the three services of the Triduum constitute a single service is fairly recent novelty, not popular among Lutherans until LBW.
I think it has been clearly established that the Western Rite included the mass of the presanctified, which was not technically considered a mass since it did not involve a new bloodless sacrifice.
For Lutheran, consecration and distribution go together. Some therefore omitted the distribution, others included the consecration.
While there is a difference of opinion on which is most profitable for the Church, the fact is that both traditions exist in the Lutheran Church. Anyone who would suggest that one tradition is more authentic that the other is simply an example of people seeing only what they want to see, and recognizing only the history that already conforms to their point of view.
Pr. Woodring, just for discussions' sake, do you think it at all inappropriate *not* to have the Sacrament for Good Friday and Easter Eve?
Pastor Schmidt, your failure clearly to identify yourself is the source of some confusion here. I am sorry I took your use of my last name only to be a sign of disrespect. Perhaps I was assuming your behavior toward me on other blogs was being continued here. I thank you for your explanation.
What congregation do you serve, and where?
All right, I'll jump back in the ring. You guys are too much fun. Back in WELS somebody would have shouted the Word Which Cannot Be Said On This Blog long ago and ruined all the fun! One of the reasons I am in LCMS these days.
Now that further rubrics have been announced for this blog, I am not now nor have I ever been ordained by anybody, I'm not presently and elder, and I'm not a professor any more either. When I was, actually I did go around all day addressing other professors as "Professor" in public, unless they held the doctorate, in which case it was "Doctor" -- and being of a rather heavy German acculturation, "Professor Doctor" if they were both, but nobody else did that -- and reserved the use of other names for private conversation if we were friends. However, as the only time these days I am addressed as "Dr Maher" is when the alumni office sends me stuff or calls wanting money, or lately when Dr Tighe, observing academic protocol, sends me books, I'll sit still for the title and surname thing, but Terry will do just fine too. Pastors are pastors and should be called Pastor. Heck, even as a pre Vatican II RC kid, we were taught to call Episcopal clergy Father as a sign of respect even though they aren't real priests!
Now I'm sure Pastor Woodring and his flock aren't about to have Communion on Good Friday one day and abandon the Gospel the next. I'm sure they'll all walk right in! (Note to lifelong Lutherans: this is a joke. "Walk right in" is an old RC expression for someone leading a good Christian life and faith -- who consequently will spend no time in Purgatory and walk right in. I know one either walks right in or doesn't get in at all, I'm just having fun.)
My point, in nuce, is that tradition is one thing when reverently received and changed only when it must be to eliminate something contradictory to the Gospel that shouldn't have crept in anyway, which seems to me the mind of our Lutheran fathers, and quite another when it is something to be cut and pasted according to one's own piety and preferences, which is also how the non liturgical among us prepare their services, only differing in what they source.
Mass is forbidden on Good Friday, and the only way to have Communion on Good Friday depends on the distinction between Mass per se and Communion with the attendant separation of consecration from use, hence the Mass of the Presanctified, which would make a great name for a Wagner music drama but as liturgy only extends Roman error regarding both Mass and Communion. To try to retain Communion on Good Friday by retreating from what makes it possible in the first place by having, as it were, a Mass of the Sanctified, a Mass however truncated, not only rejects the logic of Holy Week East or West but far from driving out the superstitious and legalistic ghosts of Rome lets them in by the back door, preserving a practice they made possible.
I realise all of you are pastors so therefore time is at a premium right now, but if anyone is having difficulty tracking my argument or what it suggests, I've posted a treatment of Holy Week on my own blog (at the moment, the last two entries, one on Tenebrae and one on Pascha have yet to be posted) and you're welcome to stop by, leave a comment on how I'm turning Gospel into Law or burdening consciences or whatever, or just enjoy.
I have no idea what you just said Past Elder. I mean no disrespect, but I cannot even begin to figure out what you are arguing for (or against?).
Paul,
The AC principle is to retain all liturgical customs unless they are contradictory to the Gospel (ie. cause to find salvation in someone or something other than Christ). The liturgical custom in both the West and the East appears to have been no seperate Mass (ie. consecration, canon of the Mass, etc.) on Good Friday, but instead, if you so desire, a communing on the 'reserve' sacrament from Maundy Thursday. Hence, it would appear, if you wish not to commune the 'reserve' (since you don't have any), according to liturgical custom, and AC XV, communion on Good Friday for Lutherans would be a no-no.
I hope that represents "past elder's" remarks for they are also the sentiment contained in my earlier post.
I consecrated last night and had communion (with the two other people who came to Good Friday service) and it seemed really out of place actually. I just don't know why. It made for a REALLY long service. My thought is, if communion is going to be offered, have a Good Friday Eucharist during the day some time, and then have a Good Friday Vespers in the late afternoon or evening. But my thought is, don't try to lump it all together into one service.
Dr. Maher,
You brought up the topic of tradition, which I think does get to the core of much of this discussion. I would disagree that one only deviates from tradition when something is contrary to the Gospel. But as Alton Brown says, "That's another show." In other words, I'd like to wait until life is a little less hectic before we jump into that one. In the meantime, we can all beat our plowshares into swords in preparation.
If you wouldn't mind saying so, what is your blog address, and also, what and where did you teach, and in what field is your doctorate?
Pr. Beisel,
I definately believe that Holy Communion should be celebrated on Good Friday, but I would stop short before going so far as to say that it is inappriate to not celebrate communion.
I don't know what liturgy you use , but in our service, the flow into the Lord's Supper seemed very natural.
I think that the traditional elements of the solemn Good Friday Liturgy do a nice job of leading up and preparing us for communion. There is a hint of it in the Hosea reading, then the Exodus 12 passover reading, then John's passion climaxes in the pierced side, from which flows the sacrament. The bidding prayer bids us to pray as the community of believers united in the body of Christ. The adoration of the cross is worded to direct us to the fruit of the cross (on which was hung...), and I am fond of the "life-giving cross" over "wood of the cross". The cross gives us life through the sacrament. And the adoration of Christ, also links the cross and sacrament. "The fruit of the tree (Eden) seduced us. The Son of God (the fruit of the cross) has redeemed us." "Help us, O God, for you have redeemed us by Your cross and Blood." And the Pange Lingua also has strong sacramental references.
For me, to go through this liturgy and not have the sacrament would be very strange. It's like back in my Kantorei days we sang at a Church service during which the congregation sang "This is the Feast" at a non-communion service. A few of us said to ourselves after the service that we should have sang "Where is the Feast?"
It is a long service. At least my wife said so. It took us just short of two hours. But I preached longer than usually. And honestly, the whole thing flew by for me. You could have told me it took 45 minutes, and I would have believed you.
Question for George Schmidt.
Pastor Schmidt, what congregation do you serve, and where?
Thanks,
PTM
Young brother Bryce, that is just what I was trying to say. I would want to be clear though, that the no-no part should come from within, not be imposed from without. BTW, I enjoyed your site.
Do-it-yourself, build-your-own, have-it-your-way worship is do-it-yourself, build-your-own, have-it-your-way worship regardless of whether one turns to historical worship sources or Willow Creek or whatever else. It is true that those who turn to the one are not likely to turn to the other and vice versa, but it doesn't matter or make the slightest difference -- they are both doing exactly the same thing whether the product is a clown mass, a traditional looking thing, or the Easter production our local LCMS Willow Creek affiliate puts on every year packing them in by the thousands, literally.
Pastor W, my blog should be linkable by clicking on my screen name. As to the other questions, I'll answer them because you asked. However, I hold that arguments stand or fall on their own merit rather than the supposed credentials of whoever advanced them, so it really doesn't matter if I taught shop at a junior college. I'll never forget watching a car race with my dad, who was a PhD and MD and one of the pioneers in nuclear medicine at a famous institution, and when a car in trouble pulled in to the pit and the pit boss took over, he said "It must be something to know something like that man knows cars". I never forgot that.
So, FWIW, my doctorate is in music theory, my dissertation on musica in particular and the Liberal Arts in general in Boethius, not as an historical thing but a system for classification of knowledge and how it would classify present knowledge. My Master's thesis was on anarchism rather than socialism as the political model for the hero in the Wagnerian opus, with an analysis of that opus in that view. I taught underclassmen theory to majors and Jazz Appreciation and Music Appreciation to non majors at the University of Iowa. I taught the same plus music history to majors and held graduate seminars in Wagner's Ring and something else I can't remember but it involved Aristotle and Nietzsche at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Ancient history. Would you like fries with that? I work for a military credit union now.
Post a Comment