“Gottesdienst” not Romanizing? Neuhaus, Piepkorn, Benedict speak (Part 4-Liturgy/Vestments)

     This concludes from Part 3 in a short series on Liturgy and Vestments. — This blog has not focused on the well publicized para-LCMS organization called "Gottesdienst", mentioning it only a few times. They may not be an official Synod organization, but members occupy the office of Vice-President, Coordinator of LCMS Stewardship Ministry, Director of Worship and perhaps others. Years ago I distinctly recall searching the "Gottesdienst" materials for signs of real Lutheranism, but came away with the clear understanding that, apart from liturgics, here was a group with Romanizing doctrine, a clear departure from Lutheranism.  But my recent blog posts on matters of Liturgy and Vestments has made it more evident than ever that this group needs to be defended against because they are attempting to avoid this perception by deceptive means. They are educated, they know the Lutheran Confessions, they know theological languages, they keep up on church events worldwide, they are articulate, they can be persuasive because they mix in legitimate Lutheran teaching with their materials.  But their defense falls flat.

      Admittedly, the "Gottesdienst" founder The Rev. "Father" Burnell Eckhardt stated the following in a blog post defending against the charge of Romanizing:

"What’s especially amusing about this slight is that it presumes that we look to the Pope, or at least to the current Church of Rome, for “liturgical guidance.” We actually find that Christendom would have been better off if Vatican II had not been born, since it brought so much mischief into the ceremonies of Rome, mischief which always has an uncanny way of trickling into our churches [i.e. LCMS congregations]. For that matter, Vatican I was problematic [not blasphemous?] too, with its eye-rolling ["eye-rolling"?] declarations of papal infallibility. And, come to think of it, we haven’t much use ["haven’t much use"? What "use" do they have for Trent?] for the Council of Trent either, especially since it anathematizes people who believe like Lutherans ["like Lutherans"? not "as Christians"? Why no specifics of sola fide ("faith alone")?].

Yes, "Father" Eckhardt, in order to dispel the fears of his "weak brethren", could have been less tepid in his renunciation of Romanism. But let us be charitable towards him and say he sounds "like Lutherans". But…:

• that would ignore his praise of Father Richard John Neuhaus who left Missouri Synod Lutheranism for Catholicism (more below), 
• that would ignore his praise of Prof. A. C. Piepkorn who taught Neuhaus to do just that, and called Reformation Day a day of "ambivalence" (more below),
• that would ignore the praise expressed for Pope Benedict in the comment "the friendliest pope in memory" (also here) while Benedict explicitly contradicted the Gospel (more below),
• that would be ignoring that "Gottesdienst" (and the LCMS) publicly rejects the teaching that the person sitting as Pope is the "very Antichrist", and only teach that it is the office of the Papacy, thereby rejecting the wording of the Smalcald Articles. 

     Now we see what "Father" Eckhardt means, that when he calls papal infallibility "eye-rolling",  that when he says Vatican I was "problematic", that when he does not have "much use" for Trent ---- he is willing to overlook all of these as not church divisive by praising "Father" Richard John Neuhaus who left Lutheranism saying:

“The Church is not…formed by…formulas such as ‘justification by faith alone’”. — Father Richard John Neuhaus (Catholic Matters, p. 56) [2023-11-03: Internet Archive p. 56]

Now we see that when "Father" Eckhardt cries out "Romaphobia!" against "weak brothers", he is actually doing the same work as Prof. A. C. Piepkorn († 1973), as "Father" Neuhaus testified of him:

“Although he remained a Lutheran until his death, at age sixty-six, in 1973, Piepkorn gave me an understanding of Lutheranism that required my becoming Catholic.” (Catholic Matters, p. 55)

That is "Catholic", with a capital "C". Now if Eckhardt tries to downplay these quotes, that Neuhaus did not really believe what he said about "justification by faith alone", then Eckhardt would be detracting from a theologian that he, and others, regularly quote as praiseworthy, never criticizing him. They would be saying that Piepkorn taught a confusing doctrine of Lutheranism. If they do not try to downplay these quotes, they would be openly admitting that they are not Lutheran, no matter how correct on liturgical practice they were, no matter how devotional they were.  — What did Piepkorn teach that may have pushed Neuhaus over the edge?  Among other things, could it not have been that his attitude towards Reformation Day was

“…the annual ambivalence with which a Lutheran theologian normally faces the last day of October.”

We see that as "Father" Eckhardt has so far ignored the above published statements of Neuhaus, and uses the term "catholic" uncapitalized, he is using a "smokescreen vocabulary" to hide his very real Romanizing disguised as "Lutheranism". (As an aside, Walther's response to the  defection of associates Ed. Preuss and H. M. Baumstark to the Roman Catholic Church was poles apart from Gottesdienst's response to Catholic convert "Father" Richard John Neuhaus.)

      This is confirmed again as Eckhardt's "Gottesdienst" blog had several warm comments for Pope Benedict (e.g. here), but Pope Benedict stated that "on justification… Luther was right, so long as you don't exclude charity." How is that supposed to go along with Luther's "faith alone"? (It doesn't.)

      We see that when Eckhardt claims in the same blog post that "we respect the guidance of the Augsburg Confession", that it is a sham, that he is a charlatan, because his group does not warn against "Father" Neuhaus, but praises him, even in the face of Neuhaus's clear public testimony against the foundation of the Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification. Eckhardt may cry "Romaphobia!" against me all he wants, to which I would answer "Please do"! I would be honored by this, as I stand with the Smalcald Articles and Holy Scripture and… sola fide.

Not in "Gottesbibliothek"

      And any true Lutheran pastors who associate with "Gottesdienst" are partaking in their dreadful deception under the cover of Liturgics, and should depart from them and rather study Old German Missouri Synod's Friedrich Lochner's book on true Lutheran Liturgics, a book still not on the recommended list of books in the vaunted "Gottesbibliothek" after 1 year. Prof. Friedrich Lochner used source material that was far different from that of the Catholic sources of "Gottesbibliothek". Surely the educated "Father" Eckhardt understands the German language enough that he could have used only Lutheran sources, Lutheran sources that had already purified the Christian practices from the Roman Catholic Church?  But he does not use the excuse of a language barrier, he recommends Catholic sources. — Even the "liturgical" Berthold von Schenk had to leave his own St. James Society because of "too much emphasis on externals, ritual, and ceremonial."

      Today's LCMS cares nothing about sola fide, about by "faith alone".  And "Gottesdienst", instead of deserving the charge of having a "choke hold" on the LCMS, is only blythely following today's LCMS!… an LCMS that is falling headlong back, not to Luther, but to the Walkout Crowd.

      Is it any wonder that "Father" Burnell Eckhardt's "Gottesdienst" slogan of "The Divine Liturgy is not adiaphora [indifferent things]" is directly contradicted by Lochner. While deploring a misuse of Christian freedom, Lochner spoke of ("Preface", p. xix) [updated 2023-11-03]:

"a severe lack of precise liturgical understanding, … a diminished desire to retain the liturgical legacy … there will be an increasing tendency recklessly to dispose of the beautiful historic ceremonies, since as adiaphora they lie entirely in the area of Christian freedom."

But "Father" Burnell Eckhardt's "Gottesdienst" slogan says:  

"The Divine Liturgy  is not adiaphora." 

      Is it any wonder that "Father" Burnell Eckhardt's "Gottesbibliothek" still, after 1 year, has not added Lochner's book to his listing?  (Poor David S. of ctsfw.edu is still wondering why.) Because if or when Eckhardt does, he faces a direct contradiction between his slogan and the teaching of Prof. Friedrich Lochner. Lochner wants to defend, as an evangelical Lutheran teacher, against a misuse of Christian freedom, "Father" Burnell Eckhardt (not Romanizing!?) wants to remove Liturgy from God-given Christian freedom, he wants to remove a Christian freedom that every Christian possesses. "Father" Eckhardt does not want to have to deal with the difficult business of counseling against a misuse of Christian freedom, he wants to take away this God-given freedom. Oh, but he is NOT Romanizing…? While Lochner goes to Golgotha to convince his readers, Eckhardt goes to Sinai against his "weak brethren".

⇒> Could it be that today’s "Gottesdienst"-LCMS pastors do not have to follow in Neuhaus’s footsteps of converting to Catholicism because the LCMS is already Romanized? … because they can cry “Romaphobia!” [WB] at true Lutherans who still believe the Lutheran Confessions' warnings against the doctrines of the Pope? They can shout this not only without being disciplined, but can boast that one of their editors is now an LCMS Vice-President. No, they are not Romanists, but “true Lutherans”!

      In a crass blog post title of 2009, it was stated "It is Liturgy or it is nothing".  To that I would respond:

"It is sola fide or it is nothing!"