“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; Internet Archive 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!"

Freedom9: Reformed transform Germany with "Improvement Points"

      This continues from Part 8 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1876 essay "Religious Freedom." — This installment was most instructive in covering the details of what the Reformed objected to in the Lutheran Church, and how these were false assertions according to Scripture. It was the Lutherans who followed Scripture, not the Reformed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Freedom. 

[by J. C. W. Lindemann] (cont'd from Part 8) 

His son Frederick IV (1583-1610) was Reformed again. Even before he himself could take up the government, all Lutheran preachers and professors were forcibly removed from their offices by the administrator Johann Casimir. At first he had intended to tolerate both confessions side by side, but soon he decided that the Lutherans should give way completely. In the Upper Palatinate, Dr. Jakob Heilbrunner, Superintendent in Amberg, was forcibly expelled, although his congregation protested against it and was ready to protect him. Even the provincial estates took up his cause and said outright: "They only wanted to do away with Heilbrunner so that the Calvinist flock would easily gain the upper hand.”

The princely Commissarius Dr. Räuber, who had to carry out the removal of the Superintendent, assured "with many graceful words": "His most gracious Lord has found no lack of person, doctrine, and used diligence in the performance of the office with Dr. Heilbrunner, even praises his modesty used before others; but the pulpit on which he preaches is without the means (that is, direct) of his princely Graces responsible and I want to appoint them with their religious relatives". Men like Heilbrunner were thus driven from office by Reformed princes only for the sake of their Lutheran faith, and a Reformed preacher was then forced upon the Lutheran congregations. — What a terrible tyranny to want to force a conscience to be Lutheran or Reformed, since the two religions are so different! — 

The whole of Hesse had also accepted Luther's teaching. The famous Landgrave Philip (1509-67), however, leaned toward the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper and favored its spread. He also abolished only the grossest abuses of the old church, and in general had in mind only external things (e.g., the removal of images from the churches). But, he wanted to be a "Lutheran" and confessed the Augsburg Confession.

His son William (1567-92) leaned even more decisively toward Calvinism. Already in 1582 he abolished Latin Vespers and exorcism. Two years later he also forbade the wearing of choir robes and the singing of the words of institution during the administration of Holy Communion. Quite publicly he denied the omnipresence of the Body of Christ, claiming that this doctrine led to finally having to reject the true humanity of Christ. In his falsely called reform efforts he found little opposition in Lower Hesse, but more so in Upper Hesse and in Schmalkalden.

Landgrave Maurice [or Moritz; DE] (1592-1627) went even further. He considered himself, as he claimed, "bound in his conscience" to work against the diversity in the "church customs" (!), because these, as he claimed, disturbed the devotion and aroused doubts in conscience about the "meaning of the sacraments". As early as 1603 he issued a rather "reformed" and spiteful exhortation to the preachers at Schmalkalden: "Ceremonies which, for the sake of conscience, one could not consider indifferent, such as the adoration of the host, the making of the cross in front of the forehead, various blessings for the Lord's Supper, the bending of the knees of the communicants, the holding of a cloth, 6) pictures which were to represent God, the Trinity, Christ and the saints, the ringing with bells for the singing of the faith in the choir, Latin, unusual chants, the choral recitation of prayers and evangelical texts, to direct the hearts more to faith and divine things than to such outward customs, and on the other hand to introduce with modesty simple customs based on God's Word and the breaking of bread as a ceremony used by the founder of Holy Communion, without regard to human gossip".

6) At the reception of the Sacrament, in many places a little cloth was held out to the communicants. The papists wanted to prevent a crumb of the consecrated host, the body of Christ, from falling to the ground. In Protestant churches, too, this custom was retained here and there, partly out of habit and partly to show respect for the sacrament.

This "exhortation" was proclaimed from the pulpits in Schmalkalden, but met with the strongest opposition from preachers and congregations. Moritz, who formally converted to the Reformed Church in 1605, now appointed a mixed commission of court and state officials of secular and ecclesiastical status and submitted to it various questions concerning the ecclesiastical "improvement" to be made. The answer was as he wished. He was told: "Reluctant preachers would appear unworthy of their office and would be abandoned by their own congregations. He now came himself to Schmalkalden and had the introduction of his supposed improvements repeatedly proclaimed in his presence on September 25, 1605; but even now no one was willing to accept them.

Already before (on June 15, 1605) Moritz had presented his so-called "Improvement Points" to his theologians at Marburg for acceptance. In the same he demanded of the professors that they should:

"1. speak of the high mystery of the person of Christ and of the communion of the attributes of both natures in Christ with the Holy Scriptures alone and keep silent and abstain from new phrases and sayings  in abstracto; 7)

7) By the "new phrases and sayings" the Landgrave understood the words quite correctly chosen by the Lutheran teachers, by which they denoted, e. g., the union of the two natures in Christ, the omnipresence of His humanity etc. These words (e. g., "sharing of attributes," "omnipresence of Christ according to human nature," "sacramental union") are not in the Bible, but the thing signified by them is. The Landgrave had those words because he did not believe the divine truth expressed by them.

2. teach the Ten Commandments of God as they are found in the Bible, without omitting the second commandment, and consequently abolish those images which, being used for idolatry [Page 24] in popery, might cause offence and annoyance; 8)

8) The divine prohibition against making images in order to worship them (Ex. 20:4-5), which according to old church custom we count as the first commandment and usually omit completely in our catechism, is the second commandment for the Reformed, which they erroneously interpret to mean that according to God's will one may not have any images in the churches.

3. administer Holy Communion, as with common wine, so with common nourishing bread, and with the ceremony of breaking bread, as Christ kept it the night he was betrayed." 9)

 

9) If the foolish Landgrave wanted to command what Christ "kept," he should also have decreed that his Hessians must go to Jerusalem and partake of the Lord's Supper in the same vaulted hall and at the same time! — It is not a question of doing what Christ "kept," but of doing what he commanded at the institution of the sacrament. But the spirit of the spirit of enthusiasts must pervert everything. —

But in Marburg, these falsely called "Improvement Points" not only met with resistance, but even aroused an alarming uproar. When this was quieted, a general synod was summoned to Cassel in order to give the "Improvements" general validity. On this occasion, the blinded Landgrave declared that he could not approve of such "frightening rebellion of every Christian man against the clear content and letter of the Holy Scriptures, according to the calling received from God," and that, although he did not mean to disturb anyone in his conscience, "knowing well that no religion can and should be commanded," it was nevertheless his duty "by virtue of his high episcopal office" to order the churches in matters concerning doctrine and ceremonies "as God requires in His Word.” 10)

10) Here the Landgrave is really enthusiastically boasting, as if he only desired "what God required in His Word", and as if he was not willing to "disturb anyone in his conscience"; but the opposite is the truth. God had not given him a "bishop's office", indeed, had forbidden him to "take hold of a foreign office"; his "points of improvement" contained only false assertions and distortions, and his whole approach was a tyrannical one. 

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 10  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      The Reformed make the practice of "breaking bread" a command, but Jesus did not command this practice.  Lutherans follow what was commanded by Jesus in His Word, and so therefore will not follow the commandment of the Reformed of "breaking bread". — In the next Part 10…

Luther on Customs (CTM 1934 English translation) – Part 3-Liturgy/Vestments

"Missourian" Paul E. Kretzmann
quotes Luther on Liturgy/Vestments

     This continues from Part 2 and Part 1 in a series concerning Liturgy and Vestments in the Lutheran Church. — After Lochner and Walther, we now turn our attention to Luther in these matters.  The LCMS attempts to quote Luther in ways to justify their Romanizing stance, but in 1934, Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann published an extensive array of Luther quotes that deal directly with these matters and clarify Luther's position against those who try to Romanize him and the Formula of Concord.  The publication was in Concordia Theological Monthly, three years after Pieper's passing.  This publication was from the "Missourians" that LC-MS President Matthew Harrison explicitly chides in his recent writings (p. xxxii-xxxiii). — This essay was done in the German language, unassessable for most American Lutherans today.  So I took extensive time in getting this translated and adding many hyperlinks so that Luther can be given serious study on this. Let Luther explain what the Lutheran Confessions say about these matters.

Some excerpts: 

p. 45: "We must surrender everything that the eyes behold and that the senses suggest… until we first grasp and thoroughly ponder the words of Christ… He is more concerned about the Word than about the sign."

46: "There is nothing more holy on earth than God’s Word, for even the sacrament itself is constituted and sanctified and consecrated through God’s Word.… The Word sanctifies everything, and is above the sacrament."

47: “We have passed over the matter of vestments. But we think about these as we do about other forms. We permit them to be used in freedom, as long as people refrain from ostentation and pomp."

48: "Also all childish ceremonies, as incense, dealing in chancel caps, stationes [of the Cross?], salt and water consecration shall be abolished."

49: "For love and peace are far more important than all ceremonies."

50: "It is consequently fairer that one should agree with the churches that do not practice the elevation than, on the contrary, to agree with those that do practice it [i.e. Papists].”

The following is from CTM, vol. 5 (1934), p. 45-52, translation by BackToLuther. All underlining follows the emphasis in the original German article. Where available, quotes were taken from the American Edition (AE) with minor changes; almost half of the quotes had to be newly translated: 

(PDF download here; German text here)

I believe that Prof. Kretzmann included these quotes from Luther in the flagship publication Concordia Theological Monthly to defend against what he saw happening in the Missouri Synod even in 1934. There was interest among some pastors in the changing Missouri Synod to rely on Liturgy and Vestments, at the expense of Doctrine, for the promotion of their unionisic goals.  They were viewing the Romanizing opponent Iowa Synod more favorably. Is it any wonder that Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann had to leave the LCMS 16 years later? — It would seem almost impossible to reconcile the aims of "Gottesdienst", the band of LCMS pastors (Fathers?), with… Luther.  In the concluding Part 4, we examine in more detail the group calling itself "Gottesdienst".

Freedom8: Waldensians, Torquemada, Portugal, Ireland; REFORMED: Germany

      This continues from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1876 essay "Religious Freedom." — Lindemann first covers some fellowships who suffered for the Gospel's sake, then the countries of Portugal and Spain. Finally he shifts from Papist persecutions to those of the Reformed. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Freedom. 

[by J. C. W. Lindemann] (cont'd from Part 7) 

In the 12th and 13th centuries, 60,000 Albigensians were murdered in France on the orders of the popes, whose whole crime was that they refused to submit to Roman tyranny. Repeatedly the pope urged the king of France and his princes to exterminate the heretics with the sword, promising indulgences to each participant, even the kingdom of heaven itself.

And how did it happen, also in the 12th century, to the Waldensians! In the year 1252, in the county of Foix, 45 Waldensians were condemned to death at once, and 18 who had already died were torn from their graves and burned. At that time they were to be completely exterminated, and nameless atrocities were perpetrated by the Pope's servants in order to force them back into the fold of the "only saving church". Even he who protected the Waldenses only in his own territory was persecuted and banished. In Savoy, when they held services at night, they were attacked and then treated with inhuman cruelty. While the preachers were slowly roasted at a fire, the women had to carry wood to and maintain the fire. — From 1601-33 all the Waldensians were forcibly exterminated in the territory of Saluzzo, for which reason a jubilee celebration was held in Rome in 1650.

A number of Waldensians who had escaped to Calabria were killed in the most horrible manner. An eyewitness recounts: "The unfortunates were crammed into a large dungeon, from which the executioner took them one by one. When he had dragged them out into the open, he blindfolded them and plunged a knife into their hearts. That's how 88 were slaughtered. In the near future another 100 wenches are to be tortured and then executed." — "Several Calabrian heretics were strangled, others sawed through the middle, or plunged from the top of a rock into deep precipices. All died a cruel death.”  

From the year 1233 on, the heretic court raged in Spain, most terribly under Philip II From 1481 to 1498, under the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada, 10,000 persons were burned and 97,000 sentenced to imprisonment and confiscation of property in Spain alone. Up to the year 1808 32,282 Protestants were burned alive there 17,688 only in the picture. (Cont'd in Read more below; then in Part 9)

Walther on: Vestments (not his focus– like LCMS, Gottesdienst, Piepkorn) (Part 2)

      This continues from Part 1 in a short 4-part series on the subject of liturgy and vestments. This post is especially on vestments for ministers of the Word and Sacrament, a subject that can be quite confusing for me. The LC-MS congregation that I grew up in had two different pastors before my father retired and moved off the farm to town.  The earlier pastor had a black robe during services, the later one used a white robe.  When one researches the subject of vestments, one is met with a profusion of vestment pieces for Roman Catholic church officials – Choir Dress, Surplice, Cassock, Cope, Chasuble, Alb, Geneva Gowns and Bands, etc. I am not sure of exactly what were the customary vestments among the Old German Missourians, but they were working towards returning to the practices of the early Reformation.  The photo of Pastor Sieker in NYC showed a "Geneva Gown" with "Geneva Bands". Most other images of early Missourian vestments are like this: here, here, and here. Luther wore black robes in most paintings of him. 

      In Walther's Der Lutheraner, matters of liturgy were covered, but vestments as such were not taken up in any major essay. However he did make the following brief comment in a blurb about the Reformed practice of avoiding gowns or robes for pastors (Der Lutheraner vol. 27 (Dec. 15, 1870), p 61 [EN]: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chancel robe [Chorrock]. Until now, the Reformed in America have declared it to be a papal leaven that the preachers in the Lutheran church wear a so-called chancel robe [Chorrock] or priest's robe [Priesterrock] in the service. As in many such matters, the Reformed now seem to have come to a better conclusion, and to realize that a suitable dress for the preacher in the church, where everything is to be done properly and honestly, is a good thing (1 Cor. 14:40). The Reformed Evangelist at least reports that in New York several Presbyterian preachers, at the request of the congregation, are now preaching in Geneva gowns, claiming that this is the traditional dress of Presbyterian preachers. — W. [Walther]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      This blurb is the only direct comment by Walther that I could find in his Der Lutheraner, the publication to the widest audience in the Old Missouri Synod, on vestments. (There is one on chanting in 1853 here and Logia 8-1 p. 53) It demonstrates two things: (1) Walther defended the historic Lutheran practices against the Reformed, and (2) Walther did not build the Lutheran Church in America by focusing on Liturgy and Vestments, but by teaching, i.e. doctrine, pure Lutheran doctrine, contained in the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. These he would defend to the death.

      Unlike Walther and the Old German Missouri Synod, today's LC-MS is focused on both, especially Liturgy/Vestments.  Their doctrine is distinctly Romanizing, while hypocritically maintaining otherwise. And so their focus on Liturgy and Vestments, while ostensibly defending against America's Puritanism and Reformed sectarianism, is actually departing from Lutheranism.   

    This situation repeats that of Prof. Arthur Carl Piepkorn, the prominent leader of the LCMS "Walkout" crowd of the 1960s and 1970s. Piepkorn was an authority on vestments, Lutheran and otherwise, but showed his true doctrinal colors when he later spoke of “the annual ambivalence with which a Lutheran theologian normally faces the last day of October [i.e. Reformation Day].” He also promoted offensive vestment changes, things indifferent, where early Missouri fathers in America properly omitted them "for the sake of peace and other causes."

      The practice of Lutheran vestments was not Walther's main focus in his teaching, except when the Reformed taught against it.  In other words, doctrine ruled liturgy and vestments, not the other way around. Walther followed Luther in this matter. Liturgy and vestments were not Luther's focus in initiating the Reformation, it was Doctrine. The Old Missouri master liturgist Pastor Friedrich Lochner, in his magisterial book Der Hauptgottesdienst, p. 19 (English CPH 2020, p. 17), quoted Luther on this subject, who said [AE 53:31], (Lochner's emphasis): 

“We have not said anything about vestments, but we think of them as we do of other similar external gestures. We leave them to be used freely, provided pomp and other excess be avoided.”

      The leader of the LCMS band of pastors "Gottesdienst" certainly could be questioned about his "pomp and other excess", not so much because of his vestments, but because of his Romanizing doctrine. This is confirmed in his online library "Gottesbibliothek" where they unapologetically promote Roman Catholic Liturgics,  and well-known Catholic liturgists. I confess that I find some members of "Gottesdienst" to be sincerely devoted to Lutheran liturgics, yet they should not be in league with clearly Romanizing pastors and leaders. The LCMS can cry "Vatican II!" all they want, but Vatican II did not overturn the chief articles of the Council of Trent on sola fide.  All the fine LCMS liturgics and vestments without the right Doctrine of Justification are… nothing. (More on the "Gottesdienst" group in Part 4 of this short series.)

    Friedrich Bente, in his Preface to the Concordia Triglotta, said it best of the Lutheran Church:

"Not the great number of her adherents, not her organizations, not her charitable and other institutions, not her beautiful customs and liturgical forms, etc., but the precious truths confessed by her symbols in perfect agreement with the Holy Scriptures constitute the true beauty and rich treasures of our Church, as well as the never-failing source of her vitality and power."

In the next Part 3, we offer an English translation of Paul E. Kretzmann's collection of Martin Luther quotes on these matters, almost half of which have never before been published in the English language. All Lutherans should learn from Luther on matters of Liturgy and Vestments.

Lochner's "enormous gulf": Festivals, Customs in Lutheran, Catholic Churches (A BTL book) – Part 1

    The focus of today's LCMS is on liturgy and vestments, as if these can, by themselves, apart from the pure doctrine of Justification, restore and keep it "Lutheran" against Reformed tendencies. LCMS President Matthew Harrison even vents himself, making inflammatory charges against the Triglotta and thus "every well-meaning Missourian" on matters of liturgy,  à la Berthold von Schenk and A. C. Piepkorn, in a 2015 CPH book preface (p. xxxii-xxxiii). (President Harrison really came out of the closet with this comment!) 

      So I decided to investigate the Old German Missouri Synod's teaching on this.  The recognized authority on these matters among the Old Missourians was Pastor Friedrich Lochner, the author of the book recently translated by Matthew Carver and published by Concordia Publishing House in 2020, The Chief Divine Service.   Lochner is now being recognized in the LC-MS for his knowledge of liturgical matters. But Lochner also wrote the book, Feste und Gebräuche in der lutherischen und katholischen Kirche, for Lutherans "to understand the difference between the Lutheran and the Catholic Church" and to be shown 

"the enormous gulf that has opened up between his Church and the Catholic Church, especially since the Council of Trent." 

President Harrison omits this purpose of Lochner in his "Foreword" (p. xi) to the 2020 CPH book, only saying "The reader will constantly be surprised to find that practices long believed to be 'Roman Catholic' have actually been practiced by Lutherans for centuries—starting with, or mostly continued by, Luther." Harrison therefore misrepresents Lochner's theology (as he does Walther). And since Vatican II did not overturn the dividing anathemas of the Council of Trent, the judgments in Lochner's 1897 book would still be his judgment today, and… that of the Old German Missouri Synod. The "enormous gulf" remains, even if some Roman liturgical customs have changed. But this is not taught as such by the teachers and leaders of the LCMS, which remain culpably blind to the unchanged doctrinal divide.  Their justification is that Lochner's day was a "bygone day" so that we live in a "post-Vatican II world" (or "glasnost") where the Lutheran liturgy is "catholic", without distinction from Catholic. —  If you have questions about any of the following customs: 

• "movable" or "immovable" festivals (or feasts)  •  "Chasuble"  •  "Invocavit"  •  "Corpus Christi"
• "Rosary"  •  communion "wafers"  •  "Exorcism"  •  "Last Unction"  •  "Confirmation", etc., 

and many more like them, then this book gives the best brief summary of the customs of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Lutheran Church of Luther's Reformation. —  Several hours were spent on the following translation to polish and add navigational hyperlinks for the ease of American readers.  Although errors remain, yet I find it quite instructive as it is, and will be referring to it as needed:

Download PDF  >>  HERE  <<; DOCX download  >>  HERE  <<.

 

     True Lutherans need a better source of information and history than the LCMS on matters of liturgy and vestments.  The exception to this is that in the 2020 CPH English translation of Lochner's book on liturgy, Matthew Carver and associates did the laborious and much needed work of conforming an English version to Lochner's German hymn and chant lyrics and music. Wonderful! But Matthew Harrison's teaching is not that of Lochner's, who explicitly, and prominently, upheld the Lutheran teaching against the Roman Catholic Church, including the doctrine of the Antichrist (also here). (Lochner was published first for his doctrinal articles (e.g. here, here, etc.), sermons and sermon books in Der Lutheraner in 1859, 1867, 1872, etc. (Search "Lochner" here.)  Sorry President Harrison, but you have picked the wrong liturgist to praise, for "Missourian" Lochner also testifies against… you and your LCMS. Better to read from Lochner, not from the LCMS on liturgy and vestments. — In Part 2, we investigate how C. F. W. Walther viewed the importance of liturgy and vestments in the Lutheran Church. Then in Part 3, we are treated to an array of pertinent Luther quotes, many of which have never been translated into English. The concluding Part 4 will give a defense against a prominent LCMS group… (Gottesdienst)

[A PDF viewer of the above book is available below this break:]

Freedom7: England; Freedom's worst enemy: Popes (Gunpowder Plot, Popish Plot)

      This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1876 essay "Religious Freedom." — Now to England, a country that seems much more familiar to us Americans.  But the story is the same – Reformation, then persecution – Freedom, then lost Freedom. There is a segment below, on the "Popish Plot", that is completely overturned by Wikipedia articles sympathetic to Papists. Wikipedia articles hardly every highlight the heinous nature of Papal transgressions that even they acknowledge occurred. How then are we to trust them on those they will not acknowledge? Lindemann's German history sources are likely more credible than at least some of those found in Wikipedia.  And thank God that the First Amendment is clearly aimed at Papal power, even if Justice Joseph Story does not name it explicitly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Freedom. 

[by J. C. W. Lindemann] (cont'd from Part 6)

England can also tell of what a misfortune it is when the sovereign wants to rule over consciences as well. 

There, too, Luther's teaching had won many followers; but King Henry VIII (1509-47), who believed himself offended by Luther, had resolutely opposed the introduction of the Reformation. Until the year 1527 he had been a servant completely obedient to the Pope; but when Clement VII did not want to carry out the eagerly desired divorce from his wife, he gradually became an enemy of the Pope. As early as 1531 he assumed the title of "Head and Protector of the Church and Clergy in England," and in 1534 he was recognized by Parliament as "Head of the English Church," thus breaking with the Roman Pope completely and forever. But King Henry VIII had thus himself become Pope of the "Church of England" which he had made. The Parliament now allowed him and his successors: "to investigate arising errors, heresies and abuses and to use countermeasures against them.” The new king-pope knew how to make the most unrestricted use of this power. Monasteries were forcibly abolished, relics scattered, resisters imprisoned and killed.

In 1530, Henry had the parliament declare that he absolutely demanded that all differences of religious opinion in his kingdom be abolished. He also had six articles presented to it and demanded their adoption. In these articles it is taught: "that after the blessing of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, the substance (the essence) of both is no longer present; — that Scripture by no means demands the Lord's Supper in both forms; — that divine law does not permit a priest to marry; — that the salutary Masses of the soul, founded in Scripture, may not be abrogated; — and that auricular confession is as useful as it is necessary. 

So there was not a trace of evangelical doctrine in them; this mad fool extolled the old papal lies as divine truth. And the parliament — oh shame — not only thanked the king for these articles drafted by him, but also decreed that anyone who would deny the first of them should not only be deprived of his goods, but also suffer death by fire, — from which even abjuration should not save him; but he who would persist in preaching and disputing against the remaining articles should be sentenced to the penitentiary; the mere speaking against them should result in imprisonment and loss of property in the first case, and in death in the second. Already from this, everyone can see what similarity Henry VIII's "Reformation" (?) had with that of Luther. 

Bishops Shaxton and Latimer were soon after imprisoned for repudiating those articles; five hundred other persons had the same fate. Only their large numbers made it impossible to execute them all. — In 1540, Robert Barnes was burned for speaking Luther's doctrines; still others had the same fate.

During the reign of Edward VI (l547-53) reform continued in the manner begun; but biblical orthodoxy asserted itself somewhat more than before. 

(Continued in "Read more" below")