Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi in the News
After cracking down on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), Pope Francis created bitter division in the Roman Catholic Church that lingers even now with the accession of a new bishop of Rome, one who seems to have backed away from Bergolio’s obvious desire for the eventual and inevitable outright prohibition of the TLM.
The Roman Catholic bishop of Charlotte, North Carolina is in the news because of a leaked document revealing his desire and intention to continue and even go beyond Francis’s restrictions, not only on the Tridentine Mass, but even regarding other aspects of traditionalism, such as the placement of candles, the private use of vesting prayers by the clergy, and the the discouragement of feminine head-coverings for women involved in liturgical service. This last one is rather silly, given the fact that no woman who veils during worship would be caught dead reading the lessons or bidding the prayers - which have become common in the Novus Ordo Mass (sadly including our own Vatican-influenced Lutheran Divine Services).
This drive to increasing disunity is in the name of increasing unity (which makes me wonder if the bish has ever read Orwell). But then again, based on the big picture, maybe he considers it to be an instruction manual.
Worth a thousand words…
The arguments for and against the use of Latin in the Divine Service aside (obviously, we Lutherans support the use of the vernacular in parochial worship, AC 24:4 and we denounce the canon of the Roman Mass and do not include it in our own), it is interesting that the Tridentine Mass vs. the Novus Ordo has become a proxy within the Roman communion for the battle between traditionalists and modernists. Everyone understands that this issue is about far more than the liturgical form.
This is because they understand lex orandi, lex credendi. Those who want change in a church’s doctrine understand that it is necessary to change the practice. And the changed practice will serve to establish the changed doctrine.
The Roman Catholic Church understood this during the Reformation, and so did the reformers. The conflict that led to the Magdeburg Confession is historical proof of this reality. The Magdeburgers had two opponents in this controversy: the external enemies who sought to destroy the Reformation by force by implementing the Augsburg Interim, and the internal enemies (which sadly included both Philip Melanchthon and Johannes Bugenhagen) who offered to compromise Lutheran doctrine and practice by simply taking an “adiaphorist” position, i.e. arguing that since specific worship forms are not commanded or prohibited in Scripture, we can simply comply with the papal decrees on matters of ceremony (as goes the argument), declare these things “adiaphora,” and worship in whatever way keeps the peace.
This is admittedly an oversimplification of the conflict, but it is not an oversimplification to say that both sides understood that doctrine and ceremonies are inextricably linked, as each one confesses the other. The Magdeburgers were willing to die rather than consider the Lutheran liturgy to be a mere adiaphoron.
The Magdeburgers laid the groundwork for our beloved FC Article 10 nearly thirty years down the road. Formula 10 deals with what is truly an adiaphoron, and when even things that are ordinarily adiaphora become matters of confession. For when we are in a state of confession, nothing is an adiaphoron.
In the current controversy in the LCMS concerning pastoral formation, there is a telling liturgical correlation. I have not seen even one pastor or congregation that uses exclusively traditional liturgical forms support things like non-residential pastoral formation, and being in favor of forming our pastors, instead of in our residential seminaries (both of which have liturgical chapel services), to be placed under the auspices of a lady “pastor” and studying online with male and female aspirants for the pastoral office at Kairos University. I have yet to find any of the Gottesdienst crowd being in favor the quicker, cheaper, and easier path to ordination and call to pastoral ministry.
Isn’t that interesting?
Those who want change, those who claim worship is all adiaphora, do, in fact, desire to change the worship. It is clearly a priority for them. On the one hand, they say that worship forms are “indifferent,” but on the other hand, they are all in favor of “contemporary worship.” They never argue, “Worship is an adiaphoron, it’s just a matter of indifference, so let’s just use the traditional liturgy and focus on the doctrine instead.” At most, such pastors and congregations will offer a “traditional” service - usually bare-minimum vestments, no chanting, and weak hymns - alongside their touted “contemporary” service. But they always have a “contemporary” service. It just goes without saying.
So even they don’t really see it as an adiaphoron. It’s not really a matter of indifference. It is important enough for them to bring in a drum kit, guitars, and pop/rock music. It is a priority, even when they say that it isn’t.
Those who want change understand the mechanics of change. They need to change both the formation of our pastors and change the Divine Service itself. And like the adiaphorists of old, they make the same appeal to worship as adiaphora. So it doesn’t matter, but it does matter.
And they know perfectly well that it does.
I encourage everyone to read the Magdeburg Confession. The new CPH translation is outstanding, and includes great notes and annotations - but as of now, it is only available in hard-cover, and will cost you an arm and a leg (and with shipping, probably a couple of fingers or toes), though the Kindle is a bit cheaper.