Fewer and fewer congregations are even using the traditional Lutheran liturgy. The service has been watered down to fit on the bulletin that gets passed out when you enter the church. For the most part, the Lutheran church should no longer be called “liturgical”.
Not quite.
http://www.societyholytrinity.org/rule.htm
Read Chapter VII "Parish Practice"
3. Baptize with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and in no other name and with no other words.
4. Preside at the Holy Communion using bread and wine, leading the faithful in worship according to the orders and texts of the Church, as provided in her historic liturgy.
The altar was a very traditional Catholic one, in dark wood, against the east wall of the church, with a considerable baldacchino over it and large Crucifix veiled for Passiontide. Wow! I thought. This is more traditional than 90% of the Catholic churches in America.
Then I noticed the most interesting thing. Juxtaposed to this traditionalism was the celebrant at the altar. As with the traditional, pre-Second Vatican Council mass, he stood facing east with his back to the faithful. He was not standing in the center of the altar but on the "Gospel side" with his arms raised in the 'orans' posture. (The people were standing so it may have been the Gospel he was reading--the long one appointed for Passion Sunday.)
Interestingly, despite all this "traditionalism", he was not vested in chasuble and stole, he wasn't even wearing a cassock and surplice. He was dressed in a dark suit. I don't think he was wearing a clerical collar but a dark shirt and necktie.
I wondered if he was the pastor. In the absence of the pastor, would a layman have led worship in this manner? To my eye, it was very curious mix of "old and new."
Also, to the point of this post, bring back Latin. Begin with the Agnus Dei. It's short and to the point. Restore Greek at the Kyrie as well.