I have a friend asking questions about the Office of the Keys...

[Studeclunker]

I have a friend asking questions about the Office of the Keys. So that I don't stray (through ignorance) too far in my explanations, I'd like to reproduce the conversations here.

Please let me preface this with an explanation; I haven't taken communion in several years. This is due to being unable to attend an LCMS church. The cost of travelling to Redding is just too much for me on my own and I'm rarely able to get there Sundays for church. On the rare occasion I've made it, they have'nt been serving. I mentioned this to my friend and she was concerned and began to ask questions:

Another thing I have been thinking of is the Communion. I know the Lutherans do things differently for their reasons. When Gail and I were not able to have Communion at the church, we would do it at home or with leadership who would be in our home. Gail, being the head and priest of our home would do communion with me when we felt we needed to do so. What is your take on this? Have you ever done this for yourself? Or could you and I do it together? I do not know how the Lutheran's feel about this when a person cannot have the communion in the Church he or she belong to as in your case. I have no objection to it and have none if wine is used as well.


I responded:
In the Lutheran church, the Sacrament of Communion falls into the Office of the keys. This office is the perview of an ordained Minister of the Word only. IE: if one's pastor is not available, a congregation goes without till one is. I suppose it would be possible for me to contact the Pastor at the Lutheran church in Redding and request communion. He can do so at any time. There's a process involved that requires Pastoral care, and a statement of faith first, still it would be possible.

You have talked about the office of the Keys before. What exactly is it and why do you have it and it is not mentioned in the Bible as far as I know. Also, I am a true believer and am committed to the Lord. Do you recognize that? Or, since I am not a Lutheran, does that mean I am not in your eyes or your churches belief?

Do you have a book on Lutheran teaching? I am sure you have a set of doctrines you adhere to and are required by the members of your church.



Ah, that e-mail message... Office Of The Keys are the functions of the Church reserved for the Clergy only. For instance, Communion, Baptism, Marriage, Counseling, etc... The book you are looking for is the Book of Concord. As they're expensive, I don't have one. However, I can ask one of the posters on the Lutheran forum.

As to this: " Also, I am a true believer and am committed to the Lord. Do you recognize that? Or, since I am not a Lutheran, does that mean I am not in your eyes or your churches belief?" The only answer I can give is that Luther once said he didn't have all the answers. Yours is recognized as a valid Christian belief. However, yours is an incorrect practice, according to our church's belief. Otherwise, the Lutheran church would cease to exist. After all, if yours is a correct practice, we (Lutherans) would be obligated to join your congregation.

As to the term, "Office of the Keys," no, the term isn't Biblical. Neither is the term, "Trinity," in referrence to the 'Triune' God. They fall under the term adiaphora, or Church tradition. These terms are a shorthand used to describe a Biblical concept. Some of this (Office of the Keys) also is a way of the Church to avoid the excessess that were described in I & II Cor. They date back to the first century. Like the current Sacrament of Communion. Far back before the Roman Catholic or even Eastern Orthidox, or even any really organized Christian church.


Gail was ordained as a minister and I was his wife, and trained in the Bible and well equiped in ministry as well. Does that count at all that Gail could do communion? And he preached, taught Bible classes and baptized people. I was his right hand.



Yes, as Gail was an Ordained Minister, he had the Office of the Keys. He could sanctify the elements (the key) and administer the sacrament. You could administer the elements, if he had already blessed them, to him. Otherwise, an Ordained Minister could never take Communion. The operative working here is that the Officer of the Keys was presiding over the Sacrament. However, and this is very important, had Gail not been Ordained as a Minister, there would have been a problem. As Gail was Ordained into the service of the Lord, his actions were sanctified in a way that an ordinary man's wouldn't be. He was one of the sheep chosen to lead the flock. A sort of deputy of the Shepherd (Christ). The fact that he wasn't in charge of a congregation was beside the point. Gail was used in other ways.

Does any of this make sense? I hope it helped.


If I have erred in my responses, I would greatly appreciate it if one of the pastors here would be so kind as to correct me. I am after all, just an ignorant layman.

As to Gail, he was an Ordained Minister of the Pentacostal Church. He has gone to be with the Lord, lucky fellow.:angel: His wife, a dear friend of mine, is the one I'm speaking to in these messages. She was a Missionary's daughter and performed missionary work herself. Later, after she and Gail had been married, they returned for a few years and took over her father's mission after he had died. She may not be a Lutheran, but the woman practices what she preaches in a way I've rarely seen in any church.

[RadMan]

Well it is Biblical as in this passage which is the Keys of the Kingdom or the Office of the Keys.

Matthew 16:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&verse=19&version=50&context=verse)
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:18-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&verse=18&end_verse=20&version=50&context=context) (in Context)

There are differences of opinion even in the LCMS as who the Keys were given to but I'm not getting into that.

[DaRev]

Here's the issue I have:

Yes, as Gail was an Ordained Minister, he had the Office of the Keys. He could sanctify the elements (the key) and administer the sacrament. You could administer the elements, if he had already blessed them, to him. Otherwise, an Ordained Minister could never take Communion.

If the person you are talking to is a woman, she cannot administer the sacrament. That is reserved to men.

Also, an ordianed minister, in the context of the service of the scarament, can commune himself (although it is discouraged for some reason). It is private, personal communion that is taught against.

Also, keep in mind that since the Pentecostals reject the Real Presence (many also reject the Trinity), they do not have the sacrament.

[cerette]

This is from Luther's small catechism:

THE KEYS

First: What is the use of the Keys?
The use of the Keys is that special power and right which Christ gave to his church on earth, to forgive the sins of penitent sinners but to refuse forgiveness to the impenitent as long as they do not repent.
Where is this written?
The holy Evangelist John writes in chapter 20, "Jesus breathed on his disciples and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


THE PUBLIC USE OF THE KEYS



Second: How does a Christian congregation use the Keys?
A Christian congregation with its called servant of Christ uses the Keys in accordance with Christ's command by forgiving those who repent of their sin and are willing to amend, and by excluding from the congregation those who are plainly impenitent that they may repent. I believe that, when this is done, it is as valid and certain in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us himself.
Where is this written?
Jesus says in Matthew, chapter 1 8, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Let's not forget that all believers have received the keys, and can use them when needed. (Let's not confuse this with the public ministry in the congregation.)

[DaRev]

This from the Explanation of the Small Catechism:

How does the Church publicly exercise the Office of the Keys?
The Christian congregation by the command of Christ calls pastors to carry out the Office of the Keys publicly in His name and on behalf of the congregation. The pastoral office is of divine institution.

[Studeclunker]

Thank you Cerette for that quotation from the Small Catechism. I'd forgotten it was in there. However, my focus was on the Sacrament of Communion.

Revrand, perhaps you can explain why only a Pastor can dispense the elements of Holy Communion? Would it be appropriate for the "head and priest of the home" to dispense the elements of Communion to his family? How would you suggest answering the question explaining the Lutheran viewpoint?

[Edial]

...

Revrand, perhaps you can explain why only a Pastor can dispense the elements of Holy Communion? Would it be appropriate for the "head and priest of the home" to dispense the elements of Communion to his family? How would you suggest answering the question explaining the Lutheran viewpoint?
It is my understanding that the Lord is sovereign in dispensing His grace. (No, I did not turn Fundamentalist. :))

When there is no system in place, such as having a church to go to for Communion, the Lord provides.

There definitely is a huge difference in participating in Lutheran Communion and the Reformed one.

It is theologically different, of course.

But I am not talking about theological differences in themselves.

Theology attempts to explain, but it cannot "explain" one's preference of heart. A leaning of heart. :)

I lean towards the Communion that is "more" than just a rememberance.
It certainly is a rememberance, but, it is ... more than that.

That "more than that" is important to me personally.

Whether I am correct or not is not a point of contention to me personally.

The Lord saves and maintains the Reformed as well as Lutherans.
He looks at the heart, not the practices.

I do not undertand the Communion in the Lutheran sense. It is beyong my understanding.
Oh, I can recite the theology of it "in and under", but I do not understand it.

All the other communions one "understands".
The Reformed - one "understands" that it is symbolic.
The Catholic - one "understands" that bread and wine cease becoming bread and wine.

But ours - it is a mystery. That "in and under" does not help one to "understand" :)

And I believe it is appropriate not to understand it.
A do not plan wrapping my mind around it.

How can a "natural" mind understand "This is My body?".
So I leave it at that.

I participated and participate when the Reformed do communion. (I travel in Christendom).
To me, it is NOT the body and blood when they do communion, but exactly what they say it is - just a rememberance.

And, it is noble to rememeber the Lord.

But my heart yearns for more than just rememberance.

Christ said "This is My body" (Yes, I do realize I capitalize it against the rules of Greek).

I simply cannot prove that it is not so. :)
And I like it that way. :) It is the leaning of my heart.

Am I right, wrong? It does not matter in the context of eternity. It really does not.

Will I see that Penthecostal fellow in Heaven?
Why not?

Will I be better off than that Penthecostal fellow in Heaven because of my beliefs?
I do not think so.

Will I be happier here, on Earth with my belief?
I am.

To me, a matter of mystery is not a matter of theology.
And theology in itself, is not a mystery at all, but the reasoning of brain. :)

Without mystery one is secular. A liberal theologian. :)

We were given this small portion of mystery, just to keep us sane. So our brain does not explode from all this processing.

This is My body keeps one sane. Brain gives up. Belief takes over.

Why did I write all this? Oh, I don't know.
Just a holy rant. :holy:

Thanks, :)
Ed

[BigNorsk]

Let me start by saying of course we recognize that there are Christians in many denominations, one is not saved by going to a particular church, it is not that doctrine is unimportant, indeed some doctrines, the fundamental ones directly affect your salvation. For instance take a Mormon, he claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ but what he means when he says Jesus Christ is very different that what we mean. Since, even though he uses the name Jesus Christ, his god is a false god, it is difficult indeed to see how he can be saved.

This is why we do not recognize a Mormon baptism as a Christian baptism. Though they use the same words, they words as they use them mean entirely different things. Thus a person is not really receiving a Christian baptism.

Now we come to the office of the keys. Now I don't think it's really right to say it's exclusive to people in the ministry, the keys are held by the church, and they call someone to exercise the keys on behalf of the congregation.

We are all priests, any believer could institute and it would be a valid sacrament, but, we don't do that because of maintaining order in the church. Communion is by nature a corporate thing, indeed we are told we are one body because we partake of the one bread. Having Communion by yourself is a bit of an oxymoron.

Ideally, you would be able to get to that congregation on a time when they do have Communion. Check with the pastor, it's possible someone might even be driving from close to you and you can carpool.

Or maybe he would be so gracious as to visit you that you might have Communion. It's done all the time for elderly and sick, I don't know if he would do it for you, I think a lot would depend on the pastor. 30 miles isn't that far around here. Maybe it's just the fact of life out here on the open prairie but a lot of pastors travel a couple of hundred miles sometimes to visit parishioners, with the first hundred miles being pretty common. Maybe he says what's wrong with you you lazy Lutheran, I don't know. Hard for me to understand Germans sometimes.

Now as far as her departed husband instituting. I don't think that would have worked. It gets back to the meaning of the words. When he would say "This is my body" What he's actually saying is "This is not my body, but a piece of bread only." That's why many would conclude that many churches do not have Communion. Just like the Mormons do not have baptism. While they often speak the words, they have so changed the meaning that they do not really institute anything.

As for references. The Book of Concord is pretty good and you can read it online like at www.bookofconcord.org (http://www.bookofconcord.org) but it's not very systematic. And she's likely to not understand due to terminology. Like when it speaks of the Enthusiasts, it's unlikely she would even realize that it's probably talking about her.

I would say a systematics book would be better.

"The Christian Faith, a Lutheran Exposition" by Robert Kolb is a pretty good book, written at laymen's level. It would in my opinion be a good choice.

"A Summary of Christian Doctrine" by Ed Koehler is also very good. Which one of the two is better changes in my mind all the time so I really can't recommend one over the other.

But either of them would do a good job of explaining the Lutheran understanding. Koehler is a bit more overtly Lutheran.

I really like Mueller's "Christian Dogmatics" but there's enough Latin and such thrown in that most people's eyes just seem to roll back in their head when they try to read him. I wouldn't really recommend him for that reason, though he's great for someone who is seriously exploring Lutheranism.

Marv

[Edial]

Marv - off topic qustion.

A friend of mine asked concerning Luther's points of objections to the papacy ... besides the 95.

Once you posted something like 400 points of so.
I thought I saved it, but cannot find it.

Do you still have it?

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

Revrand, perhaps you can explain why only a Pastor can dispense the elements of Holy Communion? Would it be appropriate for the "head and priest of the home" to dispense the elements of Communion to his family? How would you suggest answering the question explaining the Lutheran viewpoint?

The pastor is the one who is called and ordained through the congregation to serve in the Office of the Public Ministry and to perform the sacramental functions of the Office under the authority of Christ. St. Paul in reference to the Apostles, the serevants of Christ, in 1 Corinthians 4, refers to the public ministers as "stewards of the mysteries", in other words, the keepers and administrators of the Sacraments ("musterion" in Greek). Those who are called and ordained to perform the functions of the Keys are given authority by Christ to speak and act on His behalf in the administration of the Keys, and specifically the Sacraments.

The Lord's Supper is a communal act to be done in the fellowship of the Church and in the context of the Divine Service (except in the cases of the sick and/or shut-ins, whereby the Divine Service is brought to them). It is not appropriate for someone who considers him or herself the "priest of the house" to administer the Sacrament as that would be outside the instituted office of the Public Ministry and outside the instituted practice of the Sacrament.


We are all priests, any believer could institute and it would be a valid sacrament, but, we don't do that because of maintaining order in the church.

Not really. The "priesthood of believers" is one of the most misunderstood doctrines. It refers to the ability of the laity to approach God directly without the need of an earthly mediator. as was the case in the OT Tabernacle/Temple. It does not, however, carry any authority to speak and act for the Church on behalf of Christ regarding His instituted Sacrament. This is why the Office of the Public Ministry was instituted by Christ. The one who is called and ordained to hold that office has the authority of the office to perform the Sacramental aspects of the office of the keys.

[cerette]

The pastor is the one who is called and ordained through the congregation to serve in the Office of the Public Ministry and to perform the sacramental functions of the Office under the authority of Christ. St. Paul in reference to the Apostles, the serevants of Christ, in 1 Corinthians 4, refers to the public ministers as "stewards of the mysteries", in other words, the keepers and administrators of the Sacraments ("musterion" in Greek). Those who are called and ordained to perform the functions of the Keys are given authority by Christ to speak and act on His behalf in the administration of the Keys, and specifically the Sacraments.

The Lord's Supper is a communal act to be done in the fellowship of the Church and in the context of the Divine Service (except in the cases of the sick and/or shut-ins, whereby the Divine Service is brought to them). It is not appropriate for someone who considers him or herself the "priest of the house" to administer the Sacrament as that would be outside the instituted office of the Public Ministry and outside the instituted practice of the Sacrament.



Not really. The "priesthood of believers" is one of the most misunderstood doctrines. It refers to the ability of the laity to approach God directly without the need of an earthly mediator. as was the case in the OT Tabernacle/Temple. It does not, however, carry any authority to speak and act for the Church on behalf of Christ regarding His instituted Sacrament. This is why the Office of the Public Ministry was instituted by Christ. The one who is called and ordained to hold that office has the authority of the office to perform the Sacramental aspects of the office of the keys.
DaRev.......... Would you say that emergency baptisms are valid? (When someone is baptized by a christian who isn't a pastor.)

If you say they are valid: How come one sacrament is valid but another one is not?

[DaRev]

DaRev.......... Would you say that emergency baptisms are valid? (When someone is baptized by a christian who isn't a pastor.)

Absolutely. In fact, there is a Rite of the Church to bless an emergency baptism in the church.

If you say they are valid: How come one sacrament is valid but another one is not?

Because the two sacraments are distinctly different. The simple answer is that while the element (water) used in baptism requires no special consecration, the elements of communion (bread and wine) do. Also, communion requires a special preparation for worthy reception, otherwise the unprepared recipient will be spiritually harmed. The two are distinctly different.

[cerette]

Absolutely. In fact, there is a Rite of the Church to bless an emergency baptism in the church.



Because the two sacraments are distinctly different. The simple answer is that while the element (water) used in baptism requires no special consecration, the elements of communion (bread and wine) do. Also, communion requires a special preparation for worthy reception, otherwise the unprepared recipient will be spiritually harmed. The two are distinctly different.
It is true that baptism and communion are two different sacraments.

You affirm that a person can validly pronounce the words of baptism (both the words and the water are required!) without being a pastor, but deny that a person can validly consecrate the elements of communion without being a pastor. What Biblical basis is there for this distinction?

[DaRev]

It is true that baptism and communion are two different sacraments.

You affirm that a person can validly pronounce the words of baptism (both the words and the water are required!) without being a pastor, but deny that a person can validly consecrate the elements of communion without being a pastor. What Biblical basis is there for this distinction?

It is true that anyone can baptize in an emergency situation, however, it should be by the called and ordained pastor. The Verba (words of institution) of the Lord's Supper are reserved for the ordained pastor because he, in the service of the sacrament, is speaking on behalf of Christ. The pastor is the one who is responsible for the administration of the sacrament and for determining who should and should not be admitted to the table. St. Paul refers to the ordained pastor as the "steward of the mysteries" (1 Cor 4:1) The Greek word "musterion" refers to the Sacraments. Because the Lord's Supper requires one to be worthy and prepared in order to receive the benefits of the Sacrament (otherwise they sin and bring judgement upon themselves) (1 Cor 11:27-29), it is the responsibility of the ordained pastor, the one who is called by God through the congregation, to administer the Sacrament to God's people. The 14th article of the Augsburg Confession states that "no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called."

[Edial]

... The 14th article of the Augsburg Confession states that "no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called."

Now, this is something new to me.

By "called", they mean "called" to be a pastor, or just a believer?

[DaRev]

Now, this is something new to me.

By "called", they mean "called" to be a pastor, or just a believer?

The term "publically teach" refers to preaching. The "regular call" refers to the one who is called and ordained through the congregation into the office of the public ministry.

[cerette]

It is true that anyone can baptize in an emergency situation, however, it should be by the called and ordained pastor. The Verba (words of institution) of the Lord's Supper are reserved for the ordained pastor because he, in the service of the sacrament, is speaking on behalf of Christ. The pastor is the one who is responsible for the administration of the sacrament and for determining who should and should not be admitted to the table. St. Paul refers to the ordained pastor as the "steward of the mysteries" (1 Cor 4:1) The Greek word "musterion" refers to the Sacraments. Because the Lord's Supper requires one to be worthy and prepared in order to receive the benefits of the Sacrament (otherwise they sin and bring judgement upon themselves) (1 Cor 11:27-29), it is the responsibility of the ordained pastor, the one who is called by God through the congregation, to administer the Sacrament to God's people. The 14th article of the Augsburg Confession states that "no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called."
DaRev...

What you are saying is that pastors are called to, responsible for, and under obligation to administer the sacrament. I completely agree.
However, the question wasn't about that. The question was: What Biblical ground do you have for saying that the administration of communion by a layperson is non-valid in the sense that there will then be no real communion?

(The fact that laypeople shouldn't administer the sacrament, does not mean that if they do it anyway, the sacrament isn't valid. [Laypeople shouldn't baptize either, but in an emergency they may and the baptism would be valid])

[DaRev]

DaRev...

What you are saying is that pastors are called to, responsible for, and under obligation to administer the sacrament. I completely agree.
However, the question wasn't about that. The question was: What Biblical ground do you have for saying that the administration of communion by a layperson is non-valid in the sense that there will then be no real communion?

(The fact that laypeople shouldn't administer the sacrament, does not mean that if they do it anyway, the sacrament isn't valid. [Laypeople shouldn't baptize either, but in an emergency they may and the baptism would be valid])

The Biblical basis lies in the divine insitiution of the Office of the Public Ministry and the one who holds that office in the congregation is called to preach and administer the sacrament. Also, the Lord's Supper does not exist outside the context of the Divine Service which is what the pastor is called to do (preach and administer the sacraments).

[cerette]

The Biblical basis lies in the divine insitiution of the Office of the Public Ministry and the one who holds that office in the congregation is called to preach and administer the sacrament. Also, the Lord's Supper does not exist outside the context of the Divine Service which is what the pastor is called to do (preach and administer the sacraments).
DaRev.. Seems to me that you are only repeating yourself. We have already seen that yes, God has instituted the Public office and the pastor should minister the sacraments and preach. This is true. However:
From the two statements

(1) God has instituted the public office, and
(2) God has called the holder of the public office to administer the sacraments,

it DOES NOT FOLLOW that:

(3) it is not possible for a layperson to administer the sacraments.

But clearly you are assuming this, i.e. that (3) follows from (1) and (2). But (3) doesn't follow. Hence you haven't made a convincing case for your claim. I accept (1) and (2) just like you, but this does not commit me to (3). What is needed is additional Biblical grounds for (3), and this you haven't provided.

Note: I know and agree that laypeople shouldn't administer the sacrament, but if they do it anyway, it is still valid. It isn't invalid just because they are laypeople and not pastors.

[Lupinus]

Also, an ordianed minister, in the context of the service of the scarament, can commune himself (although it is discouraged for some reason). It is private, personal communion that is taught against.
Are you speaking of administering communion to a single person who desires it for some reason outside of a service (illness, shut it, etc). Or just a Pastor who wishes to take communion when the mood strikes him?

[Lupinus]

cerette-

I would say that it is because the sacraments are more complicated then baptism. Firstly, the elements have to be properly blessed, unlike water used for baptism. Also, great harm can come from receiving communion when one should not, no harm comes from baptism.

So while it may be possible for a lay person to bless and administrate, it is certainly a very bad idea that should not be done. Also keep in mind being saved involves (outside of circumstances where there was no time) baptism. No where in the bible does it say one must partake communion to be saved. It helps save us, but is it not required as part of salvation.

So short of a literal absolute no way for an ordained properly trained Pastor to administer the sacrament, it shouldn't be done (in which case, I'd guess there would be no wine and bread handy either so it's a moot point I suppose).

[DaRev]

DaRev.. Seems to me that you are only repeating yourself. We have already seen that yes, God has instituted the Public office and the pastor should minister the sacraments and preach. This is true. However:
From the two statements

(1) God has instituted the public office, and
(2) God has called the holder of the public office to administer the sacraments,

it DOES NOT FOLLOW that:

(3) it is not possible for a layperson to administer the sacraments.

But clearly you are assuming this, i.e. that (3) follows from (1) and (2). But (3) doesn't follow. Hence you haven't made a convincing case for your claim. I accept (1) and (2) just like you, but this does not commit me to (3). What is needed is additional Biblical grounds for (3), and this you haven't provided.

Note: I know and agree that laypeople shouldn't administer the sacrament, but if they do it anyway, it is still valid. It isn't invalid just because they are laypeople and not pastors.

Well, if you believe that the pastoral office is divinely instituted and is Scriptural, there shouldn't be a problem. If you are asking me to prove that the pastoral is divinely instituted and Scriptural, it would take more time trhan I have to post every passage of Scripture for you.

In any case, like I said, the Lord's Supper does not exist outside the Divine Service which the pastor is called and ordained to do. It is not a function of the laity. If it were, why would the pastoral office even exist?

Besides, you said you accept number 2 above. Why then is number 3 so difficult for you? Is a lay person called by God to administer the Sacraments in the Divine Service, or is that what the pastoral office is for?

[DaRev]

Are you speaking of administering communion to a single person who desires it for some reason outside of a service (illness, shut it, etc). Or just a Pastor who wishes to take communion when the mood strikes him?

The latter.

[cerette]

cerette-

I would say that it is because the sacraments are more complicated then baptism. Firstly, the elements have to be properly blessed, unlike water used for baptism. Also, great harm can come from receiving communion when one should not, no harm comes from baptism.

So while it may be possible for a lay person to bless and administrate, it is certainly a very bad idea that should not be done. Also keep in mind being saved involves (outside of circumstances where there was no time) baptism. No where in the bible does it say one must partake communion to be saved. It helps save us, but is it not required as part of salvation.

So short of a literal absolute no way for an ordained properly trained Pastor to administer the sacrament, it shouldn't be done (in which case, I'd guess there would be no wine and bread handy either so it's a moot point I suppose).
Lupinus, thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, baptism and communion are two different sacraments. But keep in mind that baptism requires God's Word as well as the water. Water alone doesn't make baptism. It is the spoken Word (of God) and the water that make baptism.

In emergencies, any Christian may speak this word of God and apply water, in order to baptize. When done, it is a valid baptism.

So my question (to DaRev) remains...What Biblical ground is there for saying that the spoken word +water in baptism administered by a layperson is valid, but the spoken words of institution + bread & wine administered by a layperson is not valid?

NOTE: I do not think that any Christian should administer communion whenever he or she feels like doing it. I am just saying, that IF they do, the communion is a valid communion. Has it been done in a God pleasing and orderly manner? Nope. But is the communion still a valid communion?.... Why would it not be?
Let us keep in mind that the pastor in himself does not have any magical or divine power. He is the instrument God wants to use when administering the sacraments. But he in himself [the pastor] does not make the sacraments valid.

[cerette]

Well, if you believe that the pastoral office is divinely instituted and is Scriptural, there shouldn't be a problem. If you are asking me to prove that the pastoral is divinely instituted and Scriptural, it would take more time trhan I have to post every passage of Scripture for you.

In any case, like I said, the Lord's Supper does not exist outside the Divine Service which the pastor is called and ordained to do. It is not a function of the laity. If it were, why would the pastoral office even exist?

Besides, you said you accept number 2 above. Why then is number 3 so difficult for you? Is a lay person called by God to administer the Sacraments in the Divine Service, or is that what the pastoral office is for?

Dear DaRev,
It seems to me that either you do not understand my question, or you don't understand what I mean by 'valid'.

When I say valid I mean: If a layperson administers Communion, it is a true Lord's supper which is taking place. It is for real Jesus's Body and Blood and bread and wine.

(I do not mean, that it is "valid" in the sense that "it is okay to do it this way"/ "no problem, laypeople can do it whenever they feel like it"/ "it doesn't matter if the pastor does it or if a layperson does it".)

Yes, I believe that the pastoral office is scriptural and divinely instituted. I am not asking you to post all scripture verses proving this.

What I am asking though, is what Biblical grounds you have for saying that communion administered by a layperson is not valid (in the sense I explained above)?

I agree that communion is not a function of the laity. But from this it does not follow that IF laity would administer communion anyway, it isn't valid.

Yes, the pastoral office is called by God to administer the sacraments. I have no problem with that. I believe it is true and Biblical. But from this it does not follow that communion isn't communion if it is a layperson and not a pastor who administers it.
Nowhere am I saying that this means that all laypeople should administer communion. I am saying that pastors should administer commnunion, but IF a layperson does it, the communion is still a real communion. Was it then done according to how God wants it to be done? No. Was it done in orderly manner? Not really.

It is not the pastoral office that makes communion, it is God's promise and word and elements that make communion.

(Let me give a little example to show what I am saying:
God instituted sex to be within marriage. Is fornication not real sex then??)

[DaRev]

Dear DaRev,
It seems to me that either you do not understand my question, or you don't understand what I mean by 'valid'.

When I say valid I mean: If a layperson administers Communion, it is a true Lord's supper which is taking place. It is for real Jesus's Body and Blood and bread and wine.

But the lay person does not have the call into the pastoral office and thus does not have the authority to administer the sacrament. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that. If someone simply takes a piece of bread and a glass of wine and says the Verba over them at their kitchen table, it is not the sacrament because 1) they are not called into the office of the ministry and thus do not have the authority to administer the sacrament according to Christ's command, and 2) simply reciting the Verba at the kitchen table is not the Divine Service and the sacrament does not exist outside the Divine Service. So, no, it is not valid. It is not the sacrament.

As I said, I cannot explain it any clearer than that.

[cerette]

But the lay person does not have the call into the pastoral office and thus does not have the authority to administer the sacrament. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that. If someone simply takes a piece of bread and a glass of wine and says the Verba over them at their kitchen table, it is not the sacrament because 1) they are not called into the office of the ministry and thus do not have the authority to administer the sacrament according to Christ's command, and 2) simply reciting the Verba at the kitchen table is not the Divine Service and the sacrament does not exist outside the Divine Service. So, no, it is not valid. It is not the sacrament.

As I said, I cannot explain it any clearer than that.
Baptism is a sacrament also, given to the church just like communion is. The layperson does not have the call into the pastoral office, yet baptisms administered by laypeople are valid. So, what Biblical grounds do you have for saying that the one sacrament (baptism) is valid when administered by laypeople, but the other sacrament (communion) is not valid when administered by laypeople? Both sacraments are given to the church, and should be administered in an orderly manner by the called servant (the pastor).

When having communion, it is a divine service. Communion doesn’t become communion because it takes place during a liturgical service in a church. (If so, communion brought to sick people in hospital beds wouldn’t be real communion.) Perhaps I could word it like this: Communion is a divine service.

It is true that simply saying the words doesn’t make it real. (Mormons for example baptize & use the words, but it isn’t a true Christian baptism.The words lack their true meaning when said in a Mormon context.) If a Christian layperson, in a communion context, says the words of institution, the words have the same meaning as when a pastor says them in the same context.

Luther writes in his The Babylonian captivity of the church:
“ Let everyone, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian, be assured of this, that we are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior. (For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called.)” [Page 248 in the book Martin Luther: Three Treatises From the American edition of Luther’s Works. Fortress Press]

Francis Pieper writes about this, explaining the very view I have, but unfortunately my copy of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics is a non-English translation, so I cannot quote anything from it on here. I do strongly encourage you to look up what Pieper says though in the section about Communion.

[DaRev]

Baptism is a sacrament also, given to the church just like communion is. The layperson does not have the call into the pastoral office, yet baptisms administered by laypeople are valid. So, what Biblical grounds do you have for saying that the one sacrament (baptism) is valid when administered by laypeople, but the other sacrament (communion) is not valid when administered by laypeople? Both sacraments are given to the church, and should be administered in an orderly manner by the called servant (the pastor).

When having communion, it is a divine service. Communion doesn’t become communion because it takes place during a liturgical service in a church. (If so, communion brought to sick people in hospital beds wouldn’t be real communion.) Perhaps I could word it like this: Communion is a divine service.

It is true that simply saying the words doesn’t make it real. (Mormons for example baptize & use the words, but it isn’t a true Christian baptism.The words lack their true meaning when said in a Mormon context.) If a Christian layperson, in a communion context, says the words of institution, the words have the same meaning as when a pastor says them in the same context.

Luther writes in his The Babylonian captivity of the church:
“ Let everyone, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian, be assured of this, that we are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior. (For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called.)” [Page 248 in the book Martin Luther: Three Treatises From the American edition of Luther’s Works. Fortress Press]

Francis Pieper writes about this, explaining the very view I have, but unfortunately my copy of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics is a non-English translation, so I cannot quote anything from it on here. I do strongly encourage you to look up what Pieper says though in the section about Communion.

First, you forget that I'm a pastor and the study of Pieper and Luther and the Bible and the Confessions is required to be such.

Second, I've already addressed your question regarding the difference between baptism and the Lord's Supper and the requirements of each. I have also explained the role of the pastor as the steward of the mysteries, the keeper of the sacraments. I have already told you about the divine institution of the pastoral office and the authority to preach and administer the sacraments. You either are not reading what I'm saying or you simply want to perpetuate an argument, and I'm not going to do that. It has become very apparent to me that the WELS and the LCMS have vastly different views of the sacraments and the ministry. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

As to the Lord's Supper to shut-in and the hospitalized, there is indeed a version of the Divine Service that is part of home communion which is done by the ordained pastor duing the visitation. So, yes, the Divine Service is indeed present and thus, so is the Sacrament.

[cerette]

First, you forget that I'm a pastor and the study of Pieper and Luther and the Bible and the Confessions is required to be such.

Second, I've already addressed your question regarding the difference between baptism and the Lord's Supper and the requirements of each. I have also explained the role of the pastor as the steward of the mysteries, the keeper of the sacraments. I have already told you about the divine institution of the pastoral office and the authority to preach and administer the sacraments. You either are not reading what I'm saying or you simply want to perpetuate an argument, and I'm not going to do that. It has become very apparent to me that the WELS and the LCMS have vastly different views of the sacraments and the ministry. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

As to the Lord's Supper to shut-in and the hospitalized, there is indeed a version of the Divine Service that is part of home communion which is done by the ordained pastor duing the visitation. So, yes, the Divine Service is indeed present and thus, so is the Sacrament.
Dear DaRev,

First, I do not forget that you are a pastor. In fact, I remember it very well, and that is one reason why I have taken this discussion this far. I am surprised to see a pastor having the view you have in this matter.

I do not want to argue. That is not what i am here for. But I am here to discuss, and I thought that is what we were doing all along?

I think you are right when saying we seem to have different beliefs in this matter. I would be interested in hearing your comments on the Luther quotation in my last post.

I cannot see that you have showed me Biblical grounds for making the difference you do between the requirements of what makes baptism valid and what makes communion valid.

Thanks for your responses and taking the time to discuss this with me. Not all discussions end with all questions being answered, and I would say this is such a discussion. I have yet to see the Biblical grounds for your position.

(Do you disagree with Luther & Pieper when they claim the same thing I claim?)

[DaRev]

Dear DaRev,

First, I do not forget that you are a pastor. In fact, I remember it very well, and that is one reason why I have taken this discussion this far. I am surprised to see a pastor having the view you have in this matter.

I do not want to argue. That is not what i am here for. But I am here to discuss, and I thought that is what we were doing all along?

I think you are right when saying we seem to have different beliefs in this matter. I would be interested in hearing your comments on the Luther quotation in my last post.

I cannot see that you have showed me Biblical grounds for making the difference you do between the requirements of what makes baptism valid and what makes communion valid.

Thanks for your responses and taking the time to discuss this with me. Not all discussions end with all questions being answered, and I would say this is such a discussion. I have yet to see the Biblical grounds for your position.

(Do you disagree with Luther & Pieper when they claim the same thing I claim?)

The Luther quote you gave from the Babylonian Captivity supports exactly what I have been saying all along. It is the one who is called who is responsible for the administration of the Sacraments. "For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called."

As for the Biblical basis, I have explained that. You said you agreed that the pastoral office is divinely instituted. Thus, there is a clear difference between the pastoral office (which is responisble for the function of the keys) and the priesthood of believers. Being a member of the priesthood of believers does not make everyone a called and ordained pastor. There are things reserved for the one who is called in order to keep things orderly in the Church.
As I've said before, the pastor according to 1 Corinthians 4:1 is the "steward of the mysteries", the keeper of the sacraments. As the keeper of the sacraments and the holder of the office of the keys, it is the pastor who is responsible for the administration of the sacraments. A lay person who "consecrates" elements at their home may or may not be prepared or worthy to receive the sacrament, nor do they have the authority to admit or bar someone from the sacrament, which is the function of the keys (bind and loose).
This is also supported by the Lutheran Confessions in the Augustana article XIV which says "no one should teach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called," and this from the Solid Declaration article VII, "If the institution of Christ be not observed as He appointed it, there is no sacrament." These statements are based upon the Scriptural basis of the pastoral office and the authority it posseses (the function of the keys) given it by Christ.

[Studeclunker]

Thank you all! Your responses have been very helpful.:thumbsup:

Cerette, you seem to have acceptable and valid mixed up. However, if something is done in a manner not perscribed in scripture, it is un-acceptable to the Lord. Therefore, if communion is taken in an un-perscribed way, then it isn't acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. Then taking it one step further; if communion is taken in an unscripturally perscribed way than it is un-acceptable in the eyes of the Lord and is therefore invalid. Communion is just a memorial service to many other denominations. There is nothing going on, nothing in the elements. In that case (memorial service) I could see your point. However, and this is cruical to my original post and question, there is more going on (we as Lutherans believe) in our communion. Therefore, Communion must be approaced in a more careful manner. The precident was set in the early church by the Corinthians. People were sickening and dying from taking Communion. Paul cautioned them that the 'meal' must be taken with self-examination and due reverance. Therefore taking communion whenever one feels like it, without clergy, proper form, and outside the Church, seems risky to me.

[cerette]

The Luther quote you gave from the Babylonian Captivity supports exactly what I have been saying all along. It is the one who is called who is responsible for the administration of the Sacraments. "For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called."

As for the Biblical basis, I have explained that. You said you agreed that the pastoral office is divinely instituted. Thus, there is a clear difference between the pastoral office (which is responisble for the function of the keys) and the priesthood of believers. Being a member of the priesthood of believers does not make everyone a called and ordained pastor. There are things reserved for the one who is called in order to keep things orderly in the Church.
As I've said before, the pastor according to 1 Corinthians 4:1 is the "steward of the mysteries", the keeper of the sacraments. As the keeper of the sacraments and the holder of the office of the keys, it is the pastor who is responsible for the administration of the sacraments. A lay person who "consecrates" elements at their home may or may not be prepared or worthy to receive the sacrament, nor do they have the authority to admit or bar someone from the sacrament, which is the function of the keys (bind and loose).
This is also supported by the Lutheran Confessions in the Augustana article XIV which says "no one should teach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called," and this from the Solid Declaration article VII, "If the institution of Christ be not observed as He appointed it, there is no sacrament." These statements are based upon the Scriptural basis of the pastoral office and the authority it posseses (the function of the keys) given it by Christ.
I do not know how to express myself because you don't seem to understand what I am saying! Is my English that bad??!!!! *soon pulling her own hair* :P

DaRev, this discussion was never about "who is responsible for administering the sacrament" because we both agree on and know that it is the pastor's responsibility because he is the called servant of the church.

The question is and was about what Biblical grounds you have for saying that communion administered by a layperson is not valid (meaning "it is a real /true communion")?

We both agree that the pastor is RESPONSIBLE for and CALLED TO administer and SHOULD administer the sacraments (both baptism and communion).
But you say more than this: You also say that if a layperson administers communion (eventhough he shouldn't because he hasn't received a calling, and is not a pastor) it is not a valid communion in the sense that it is a real/true communion simply because this person is a layperson and not a called servant (pastor).
When saying this, it sounds to me like you are claiming that the "being a pastor" makes Communion valid. But communion isn't valid because of the pastoral office, but because of the promise of Christ & God's Word & the elements.

[cerette]

Thank you all! Your responses have been very helpful.:thumbsup:

Cerette, you seem to have acceptable and valid mixed up. However, if something is done in a manner not perscribed in scripture, it is un-acceptable to the Lord. Therefore, if communion is taken in an un-perscribed way, then it isn't acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. Then taking it one step further; if communion is taken in an unscripturally perscribed way than it is un-acceptable in the eyes of the Lord and is therefore invalid. Communion is just a memorial service to many other denominations. There is nothing going on, nothing in the elements. In that case (memorial service) I could see your point. However, and this is cruical to my original post and question, there is more going on (we as Lutherans believe) in our communion. Therefore, Communion must be approaced in a more careful manner. The precident was set in the early church by the Corinthians. People were sickening and dying from taking Communion. Paul cautioned them that the 'meal' must be taken with self-examination and due reverance. Therefore taking communion whenever one feels like it, without clergy, proper form, and outside the Church, seems risky to me.
Hello and thanks for your comments on what I have written!
I have tried several times to explain exactly what I mean when I say 'valid'. I do not say that just becuse something is valid it is also acceptable.

Example: If layperson John Jones invites some folks to church, and they decide to have a service, and then John administers communion to the other folks, it is a real & true communion, it is Christ's blood and body. BUT...just because it is a real communion, it isn't acceptable! I would say it was done in a very very un-orderly manner, and it was wrong of John to do what he did, yet..the communion was a communion.

[DaRev]

I do not know how to express myself because you don't seem to understand what I am saying! Is my English that bad??!!!! *soon pulling her own hair* :P

DaRev, this discussion was never about "who is responsible for administering the sacrament" because we both agree on and know that it is the pastor's responsibility because he is the called servant of the church.

The question is and was about what Biblical grounds you have for saying that communion administered by a layperson is not valid (meaning "it is a real /true communion")?

We both agree that the pastor is RESPONSIBLE for and CALLED TO administer and SHOULD administer the sacraments (both baptism and communion).
But you say more than this: You also say that if a layperson administers communion (eventhough he shouldn't because he hasn't received a calling, and is not a pastor) it is not a valid communion in the sense that it is a real/true communion simply because this person is a layperson and not a called servant (pastor).
When saying this, it sounds to me like you are claiming that the "being a pastor" makes Communion valid. But communion isn't valid because of the pastoral office, but because of the promise of Christ & God's Word & the elements.

Then we both must be speaking in different languages becaue it's a plain as the nose on your face. The pastor is the one called by Scripture to be the keeper of the sacraments. Therefore, the pastor is the one who has Christ's authority to administer the sacrament, to speak His words of the Verba, and to admit or deny someone to the table of the Lord, not a layperson. Thus, the lay person "doing communion" is not having a valid sacrament. This is both Scriptural and Confessional.

[Studeclunker]

Hello and thanks for your comments on what I have written!
I have tried several times to explain exactly what I mean when I say 'valid'. I do not say that just becuse something is valid it is also acceptable.

Example: If layperson John Jones invites some folks to church, and they decide to have a service, and then John administers communion to the other folks, it is a real & true communion, it is Christ's blood and body. BUT...just because it is a real communion, it isn't acceptable! I would say it was done in a very very un-orderly manner, and it was wrong of John to do what he did, yet..the communion was a communion.

Actually Cerette, you could'nt have illustrated my point better. My point is that you have it backwards (in regards to being Lutheran). If something is un-acceptable it is in-valid. In your example the communion is not real (by Lutheran standards) nor true. The Old Testament is very clear on this. If one approached God in any manner except how he prescribed, their sacrifice or petition were invalidated and unacceptable. Take for instance the situation Saul got himself into when Samuel didn't appear in time to officiate over the sacrifice (I Sam 13:8-14). This not only invalidated the sacrifice, but cost Saul his crown eventually. A layman administering the sacrament of Communion is like Saul attempting that sacrafice without Samuel, God's only servant and paraclete of the time. In the case of Communion, Sammuel, is a type of the Pastor of current times, and Saul is a type of the Layman overstepping his authority to administer the sacrament.
Have I got this right Reverand?


You know sometimes it amazes me.:scratch: I just opened my Bible to find the appropriate verse and it practically fell open to the right page. Spooky.:eek:

[cerette]

Then we both must be speaking in different languages becaue it's a plain as the nose on your face. The pastor is the one called by Scripture to be the keeper of the sacraments. Therefore, the pastor is the one who has Christ's authority to administer the sacrament, to speak His words of the Verba, and to admit or deny someone to the table of the Lord, not a layperson. Thus, the lay person "doing communion" is not having a valid sacrament. This is both Scriptural and Confessional.
Do you use the word "valid" in the same sense as I have explained I use it in this discussion?

Also, how come laypeople can "do baptism" and it's OK? Baptism too was given by God to the church and in the church to the pastor.

The Luther quote I posted earlier... What are your comments regarding him saying all believers have the same power in respect to the Word and sacraments? (Earlier you only commented on the second half of the Luther quote, which is the half we agreed on all along.)

[cerette]

Actually Cerette, you could'nt have illustrated my point better. My point is that you have it backwards (in regards to being Lutheran). If something is un-acceptable it is in-valid. In your example the communion is not real (by Lutheran standards) nor true. The Old Testament is very clear on this. If one approached God in any manner except how he prescribed, their sacrifice or petition were invalidated and unacceptable. Take for instance the situation Saul got himself into when Samuel didn't appear in time to officiate over the sacrifice (I Sam 13:8-14). This not only invalidated the sacrifice, but cost Saul his crown eventually. A layman administering the sacrament of Communion is like Saul attempting that sacrafice without Samuel, God's only servant and paraclete of the time. In the case of Communion, Sammuel, is a type of the Pastor of current times, and Saul is a type of the Layman overstepping his authority to administer the sacrament.
Have I got this right Reverand?


You know sometimes it amazes me.:scratch: I just opened my Bible to find the appropriate verse and it practically fell open to the right page. Spooky.:eek:
Do you mean that a communion administered by a layperson does not have Christ's body & blood & bread & wine in it?
I say it does have it. I also say it is in no way okay for a layperson to administer communion.
Sort of like this: God instituted sex for marriage.Sex within marriage is real sex. Fornication is not the situation in which sex should take place, however, fornication is just as real sex as the acceptable sex within marriage is. Sexual acts are sexual acts no matter what situation they happen in, but not all sex acts in all situations are acceptable and OK and God pleasing.

[DaRev]

Do you use the word "valid" in the same sense as I have explained I use it in this discussion?

Also, how come laypeople can "do baptism" and it's OK? Baptism too was given by God to the church and in the church to the pastor.

The Luther quote I posted earlier... What are your comments regarding him saying all believers have the same power in respect to the Word and sacraments? (Earlier you only commented on the second half of the Luther quote, which is the half we agreed on all along.)

First, the second part qualifies the first.
Second, it isn't saying that all have the authority to administer the sacraments.

Third, you seem to have some problem with my explanation that baptism and the Lord's Supper are two distinctlt different sacraments. I know of no one who has been spiritually harmed by baptism, but many are spiritually harmed by unworthy reception of the Lord's Supper. Also, since baptism is required for salvation, emergency baptism can be done by a lay person in those situations. The Lord's Supper is a different situation entirely.

[DaRev]

Do you mean that a communion administered by a layperson does not have Christ's body & blood & bread & wine in it?
I say it does have it. I also say it is in no way okay for a layperson to administer communion.
Sort of like this: God instituted sex for marriage.Sex within marriage is real sex. Fornication is not the situation in which sex should take place, however, fornication is just as real sex as the acceptable sex within marriage is. Sexual acts are sexual acts no matter what situation they happen in, but not all sex acts in all situations are acceptable and OK and God pleasing.

:doh:
First off, sex is not a sacrament that was institued by Christ for the forgiveness of sins. You analogy is pointless.

As for this statement: "Do you mean that a communion administered by a layperson does not have Christ's body & blood & bread & wine in it? I say it does have it." I have shown you the Biblical and Confessional basis as to why it's not. So now I ask you, where do you get this from and what is your Biblical basis for such an assumption?

[cerette]

First, the second part qualifies the first.
Second, it isn't saying that all have the authority to administer the sacraments.

Third, you seem to have some problem with my explanation that baptism and the Lord's Supper are two distinctlt different sacraments. I know of no one who has been spiritually harmed by baptism, but many are spiritually harmed by unworthy reception of the Lord's Supper. Also, since baptism is required for salvation, emergency baptism can be done by a lay person in those situations. The Lord's Supper is a different situation entirely.
I do not see that what you say about the Luther quote is in fact true about the quote. Plain reading of the quote does not lead to the understanding you have.

[filosofer]

So, does a Christian have the right to preach the Gospel, baptize, and administer the Lord's Supper? Yes. For instance, "emergency Baptism" is not made valid by the fact of the emergency. Rather it is valid. And in the case of "emergency Baptism" the pastor does not baptize the person again in Church. Why? Because it is a valid (and acceptable) Baptism.

[cerette]

:doh:
First off, sex is not a sacrament that was institued by Christ for the forgiveness of sins. You analogy is pointless.

As for this statement: "Do you mean that a communion administered by a layperson does not have Christ's body & blood & bread & wine in it? I say it does have it." I have shown you the Biblical and Confessional basis as to why it's not. So now I ask you, where do you get this from and what is your Biblical basis for such an assumption?
1. Christ has given Communion to the church, not just to the pastors.
2. Since Christ has given communion to the church, the church has the power to administer the communion.
3. Hence, since the church is all believers, all believers have the power to administer communion. [Power is not the same as responsibility to, or right to..]

The Luther quote is only one of many quotations from Luther to support my view. Pieper is very clear also in his Christian Dogmatics.

I am surprised to see that the LCMS has the view you have, if that is the official LCMS view, I did not know that was a difference between us.

Blessed Easter to you.

[DaRev]

:sorry:

[cerette]

Well, I guess we don't need to call pastors, then. We could just pick someone (male or female since both can be Christian) from the congregation to preach and administer the sacraments. I mean, according to you, that is the WELS position. Seems that the WELS are hypocritical in not allowing women to administer the sacraments, huh?

:doh: I'm done here.
What?! Ridiculous! .

I really cannot see how you, from what I have written, can come to the conclusion that WELS teaches the stuff you accuse me of saying. Ridiculous!

Of course we will call pastors. That is what God wants us to do. He even wants us to call men (and not women!) to be pastors, so not 'just any Christian' can be a pastor. There is a long list of requirements in the Bible which a pastor must meet.
The called servants, the pastors, are to be responsible for and administer the sacraments. God wants things to be done in an orderly manner. For this reason, I suggest we do not allow just any Christian to administer the sacraments whenever they feel like it.

[DaRev]

:sorry:

[BreadAlone]

Why not? According to the WELS it's valid, right?
For the sake of order, according to my trusty WELS Q&A book.

DaRev, do you mean to insinuate that the person who is administering it makes the sacrament, and rather not the word and power of God? That's a dangerous road to go down IMHO..

[DaRev]

For the sake of order, according to my trusty WELS Q&A book.

DaRev, do you mean to insinuate that the person who is administering it makes the sacrament, and rather not the word and power of God? That's a dangerous road to go down IMHO..

What makes it the sacrament is Christ's command. If it is not done according to Christ's command it is not the sacrament. The Lutheran Confessions support this. This is why the Reformed churches who reject the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood do not have the sacrament either, even though they say the Verba over the elements as we do. They do not do it according to Christ's command and thus they do not have the body and blood of Christ, as per the FoC article VII.

[BreadAlone]

What makes it the sacrament is Christ's command. If it is not done according to Christ's command it is not the sacrament. The Lutheran Confessions support this. This is why the Reformed churches who reject the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood do not have the sacrament either, even though they say the Verba over the elements as we do. They do not do it according to Christ's command and thus they do not have the body and blood of Christ, as per the FoC article VII.
I tend to look at I Cor. which states that even those who don't recognize the body/blood recieve the sacrament..but to their own destruction.

[DaRev]

I tend to look at I Cor. which states that even those who don't recognize the body/blood recieve the sacrament..but to their own destruction.

But they aren't receiving to their destruction when the Sacrament isn't present.

[seajoy]

Good grief.....what's all this fighting about? Who's ever heard of an emergency communion anyway. :doh: Knock it off everybody. :sigh:

[cerette]

:sorry:
Read the whole post and you will get the answer. I don't know where that smiley came from because I replied to a post of yours which was a question and not a smiley..

[cerette]

Good grief.....what's all this fighting about? Who's ever heard of an emergency communion anyway. :doh: Knock it off everybody. :sigh:
It's not fighting, at least not from my side.
Do you not think it is important to discuss theological matters if there seems to be a misunderstanding, a false teaching or something else going on?

[PreachersWife2004]

DaRev, do you mean to insinuate that the person who is administering it makes the sacrament, and rather not the word and power of God? That's a dangerous road to go down IMHO..

That is EXACTLY the implication being made here - that a sacrament is only valid because of WHO is presiding over it. It is the WORDS that have the power of the Holy Spirit in them.

Liturgies and allowing only pastors to administer sacraments is part of good order. It does not mean that one could not do communion or a baptism using the WORDS of the Holy Spirit. It is not recommended, but it is not wrong, either.

My first son was baptized by my dad in the hospital. His baptism was no less than the baptism I received in the church 34 years ago. My other sons were baptized by their dad, a minister, in the hospital as well, with a service held at church to affirm the baptisms.

As for communion, I tend to say (after much thought-provoking discussion here on CF) that it is better for you to refrain from receiving communion than taking it from someone who is not a pastor. Communion, unlike baptism, isn't necessary for our salvation. It is a wonderful reminder of what Christ sacrificed for us, to be sure. Therefore, it is better to wait until a pastor can commune you.

[seajoy]

It's not fighting, at least not from my side.
Do you not think it is important to discuss theological matters if there seems to be a misunderstanding, a false teaching or something else going on?
It's just that I've seen a lot of spats between the LCMS and WELS lately here in TCL. We are on the same conservative, confessional side. I'm just tired of it. We both believe in the inerrency of Scripture, and in the saving grace of Christ. Fighting for the sake of fighting is just plain goofy.

[DaRev]

I have become quite frustrated at this discussion, fueled in part by some flu-like symptoms. If I've offended anyone (and I'm sure I have), I apologize.

But this whole matter has caused me to do a little digging and reading, and I have concluded the following:

As to baptism, it is wholly the work of God to and for the recipient. Since it is wholly the work of God there is no real preparation necessary. The only thing necessary in baptism on the part of the recipient is the faith necessary to receive it, which is given by God. Baptism creates the faith necessary to receive it. No one can be harmed by baptism, thus it is possible for any baptized Christian to baptize, and it would be a valid baptism in the eyes of God (since it's His work) and of the Church.

The Lord's Supper, on the other hand, does require certain preparation on the part of the recipient, namely the recognition of the body and blood of Christ within the Sacrament, and acknowledgment of their sinfulness and their need of forgiveness given in the Sacrament (as per 1 Corithians 11). Because it is possible for someone to receive the Lord's Supper to their harm, more pastoral care must be exercised in order to assure that no one receive the Sacrament to their spiritual detriment. This is why God gave the stewardship of the Sacrament to those who are called and ordained by the congregation to carry out the functions of the Keys, so that all things are done in a good and orderly way.

The Confessions tell us plainly that the faith of the administrator of the Sacrament nor the recipient effects the presence of Christ's body and blood in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. Even if an athiest were to administer the Sacrament according to Christ's command, it would be a vaild Sacrament. The Confessions also tell us that the Sacrament entails not just the consecration of the elements but the whole act of consecration, absolution, and distribution/receiving. These are contained within the Divine Service. Thus, in order for there to be good order and to assure the efficacy of the Sacrament to all who receive, it should be done within the context of the Divine Service (this can even be done with shut-ins and the sick).

Now, the question that was raised is if lay person, in their home or at the church or wherever, were to recite the Verba over the elements and distribute, would they be receiving the true body and blood of Christ. There are a number of variables to consider, such as the context of the act. If some children were playing "church" and they had the elements and recited the Verba over them as part of their game, would they in fact be receiving the body and blood of Christ? I would have to say no because the context of the Divine Service is not present. It is merely a game, so no Sacrament is present. But if it were done within a context of the Divine Service by the head of a household in their home (for whatever reason) it is possible that the Sacrament would indeed be valid, since it is the words of Christ that hold the power of the Sacrament. But there are some concerns that must be considered. What type of pastoral care is being taken to assure (as much as possible) that those who receive are doing so worthily? Is the service being conducted within the Confession of the Church (as per FoC VII)? With such variables, it isn't wise to attempt the Sacrament outside the setting of the Divine Service in the Church administered by a rightly called and ordained steward of the Sacraments.

[PreachersWife2004]

It's just that I've seen a lot of spats between the LCMS and WELS lately here in TCL. We are on the same conservative, confessional side. I'm just tired of it. We both believe in the inerrency of Scripture, and in the saving grace of Christ. Fighting for the sake of fighting is just plain goofy.

I say that we aren't fighting for the sake of fighting. And I bet there's a couple of WELS and LCMS people that would agree with me.

Think of how poor Luther felt...he took on the whole Catholic church and cried foul. What if someone had told him to stop "fighting"?

[PreachersWife2004]

I have become quite frustrated at this discussion, fueled in part by some flu-like symptoms. If I've offended anyone (and I'm sure I have), I apologize.

But this whole matter has caused me to do a little digging and reading, and I have concluded the following: (snipped for brevity

Now THIS I can be on board with.

Hope ya feel better soon, Rev. The flu during holy week - how convenient! :sick:

[DaRev]

Now THIS I can be on board with.

Hope ya feel better soon, Rev. The flu during holy week - how convenient! :sick:

It's become a tradition with me I think. Although I'm not so bad this time around, last year I was miserable to the point that I couldn't even read during the Good Friday service. I barely had the strength to stand in the pulpit for the homily.

[cerette]

It's just that I've seen a lot of spats between the LCMS and WELS lately here in TCL. We are on the same conservative, confessional side. I'm just tired of it. We both believe in the inerrency of Scripture, and in the saving grace of Christ. Fighting for the sake of fighting is just plain goofy.
I agree. We shouldn't fight at all, and I never did, I was just discussing. :)

[seajoy]

I say that we aren't fighting for the sake of fighting. And I bet there's a couple of WELS and LCMS people that would agree with me.

Think of how poor Luther felt...he took on the whole Catholic church and cried foul. What if someone had told him to stop "fighting"?
Hey, go ahead...have at it.

[cerette]

I have become quite frustrated at this discussion, fueled in part by some flu-like symptoms. If I've offended anyone (and I'm sure I have), I apologize.

But this whole matter has caused me to do a little digging and reading, and I have concluded the following:

As to baptism, it is wholly the work of God to and for the recipient. Since it is wholly the work of God there is no real preparation necessary. The only thing necessary in baptism on the part of the recipient is the faith necessary to receive it, which is given by God. Baptism creates the faith necessary to receive it. No one can be harmed by baptism, thus it is possible for any baptized Christian to baptize, and it would be a valid baptism in the eyes of God (since it's His work) and of the Church.

The Lord's Supper, on the other hand, does require certain preparation on the part of the recipient, namely the recognition of the body and blood of Christ within the Sacrament, and acknowledgment of their sinfulness and their need of forgiveness given in the Sacrament (as per 1 Corithians 11). Because it is possible for someone to receive the Lord's Supper to their harm, more pastoral care must be exercised in order to assure that no one receive the Sacrament to their spiritual detriment. This is why God gave the stewardship of the Sacrament to those who are called and ordained by the congregation to carry out the functions of the Keys, so that all things are done in a good and orderly way.

The Confessions tell us plainly that the faith of the administrator of the Sacrament nor the recipient effects the presence of Christ's body and blood in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. Even if an athiest were to administer the Sacrament according to Christ's command, it would be a vaild Sacrament. The Confessions also tell us that the Sacrament entails not just the consecration of the elements but the whole act of consecration, absolution, and distribution/receiving. These are contained within the Divine Service. Thus, in order for there to be good order and to assure the efficacy of the Sacrament to all who receive, it should be done within the context of the Divine Service (this can even be done with shut-ins and the sick).

Now, the question that was raised is if lay person, in their home or at the church or wherever, were to recite the Verba over the elements and distribute, would they be receiving the true body and blood of Christ. There are a number of variables to consider, such as the context of the act. If some children were playing "church" and they had the elements and recited the Verba over them as part of their game, would they in fact be receiving the body and blood of Christ? I would have to say no because the context of the Divine Service is not present. It is merely a game, so no Sacrament is present. But if it were done within a context of the Divine Service by the head of a household in their home (for whatever reason) it is possible that the Sacrament would indeed be valid, since it is the words of Christ that hold the power of the Sacrament. But there are some concerns that must be considered. What type of pastoral care is being taken to assure (as much as possible) that those who receive are doing so worthily? Is the service being conducted within the Confession of the Church (as per FoC VII)? With such variables, it isn't wise to attempt the Sacrament outside the setting of the Divine Service in the Church administered by a rightly called and ordained steward of the Sacraments.
Thanks for posting your conclusion, it was interesting to read.

I do hope you feel better soon and can enjoy the Easter celebrations!

[PreachersWife2004]

Matt has been loading up on vitamins and cold remedies this week to keep the one he already has at bay. Two Easters ago he had laryngitis and one of the ushers had to read the service. Matt played it off, but I think it really bothered him that he couldn't do it.

Drink lots of honey tea.

It's become a tradition with me I think. Although I'm not so bad this time around, last year I was miserable to the point that I couldn't even read during the Good Friday service. I barely had the strength to stand in the pulpit for the homily.

[seajoy]

Sorry everybody....I just got sassy in this thread. I am in a lot of pain today, so I'm pretty irritable. :sorry:
It's not my job to try and keep the peace around here. Forgive me.

[cerette]

Sorry everybody....I just got sassy in this thread. I am in a lot of pain today, so I'm pretty irritable. :sorry:
It's not my job to try and keep the peace around here. Forgive me.
Sorry to hear you're in pain. :(
My arthritis has been bothering me all week. No fun. :(

A Blessed Easter to you & I hope you feel better soon and can enjoy this Easter season.

[seajoy]

Sorry to hear you're in pain. :(
My arthritis has been bothering me all week. No fun. :(

A Blessed Easter to you & I hope you feel better soon and can enjoy this Easter season.
Thanks....and I hope you feel better too. :)

[Studeclunker]

Okay... This has gotten a bit out of hand.:eek: Thankfully though things seem to have calmed down a bit, still it's got off track.

WELS members, your input is appreciated and valued, however please remember that this is focused upon the practices of the LCMS. :sorry: Please re-read the Original Post.

I'm looking for answers to a non-Lutheran on Communion (as practiced in the LCMS). Baptism doesn't even come into the question. Please also be aware that this non-Lutheran friend of mine is reading this thread. What kind of message are everyone's posts giving her?:scratch:

There's no point to argue between LCMS and WELS on this as we are probably closer than one might think. Still, this doesn't concern the WELS practice, just LCMS.

Thank you all for your participation, Let's please keep to the original subject only; Communion.:)

Because it is possible for someone to receive the Lord's Supper to their harm, more pastoral care must be exercised in order to assure that no one receive the Sacrament to their spiritual detriment. This is why God gave the stewardship of the Sacrament to those who are called and ordained by the congregation to carry out the functions of the Keys, so that all things are done in a good and orderly way.


So, for the same reason, caution, we cede the authority of this particular key to the Pastor, correct? It then becomes part of Pastoral care?

But if it were done within a context of the Divine Service by the head of a household in their home (for whatever reason) it is possible that the Sacrament would indeed be valid, since it is the words of Christ that hold the power of the Sacrament. But there are some concerns that must be considered. What type of pastoral care is being taken to assure (as much as possible) that those who receive are doing so worthily? Is the service being conducted within the Confession of the Church (as per FoC VII)? With such variables, it isn't wise to attempt the Sacrament outside the setting of the Divine Service in the Church administered by a rightly called and ordained steward of the Sacraments.

So, if the head of a household followed the form of the divine service and the Verba, the Communion recieved would be valid and real. The problem arises in the wisdom and safety of doing such?

Personally, I would never attempt such an act. There are too many areas and places to err. Also, one's heart must be taken into account. What is the motivation for taking Communion apart from the fellowship of the local congregation? As a fallen son of Adam, I've never any confidence that my motives would be right. My personal take on this is to leave it with the ordained and called servant of the Congregation, the Pastor. But that's just me, I admit it... I'm chicken... it's true.:o

[synger]

In my mental bag of emergency supplies to grab in case of catastrophe are the Book of Concord, a hymnal, and our family Bible (Hunter's book assignments are the Red Cross first aid book, the RAF Survival Manual, and the Anarchist's Cookbook). In such a case, we have the Verba if necessary.

Absolute catastrophe is one of the only reasons I can think of that Hunter would need to serve as our minister in the matter of communion. Yes, we watch too many end-of-the-world SF movies. *grins* Or maybe if we moved somewhere so remote that there were no Lutheran churches around. But I don't see it happening any time soon.

[DaRev]

I apologize for my part in the confusion and misdirection of the thread. :pray:


So, if the head of a household followed the form of the divine service and the Verba, the Communion recieved would be valid and real. The problem arises in the wisdom and safety of doing such?

Under the conditions that I outlined, it may be considered a valid Sacrament.


Personally, I would never attempt such an act. There are too many areas and places to err. Also, one's heart must be taken into account. What is the motivation for taking Communion apart from the fellowship of the local congregation? As a fallen son of Adam, I've never any confidence that my motives would be right. My personal take on this is to leave it with the ordained and called servant of the Congregation, the Pastor. But that's just me, I admit it... I'm chicken... it's true.:o

I think you've touched upon another aspect that we haven't mentioned before, the communal aspect of the Sacrament. The Lord's Supper is more than just an individual receiving the body and blood of Christ in faith, but it is also the coming together of the assembly, the body of believers, who share a common confession as outlined in 1 Corinthians 10. I think that, as in baptism, if there is the opportunity to receive the sacrament in the context of the congregation, then that is the preferable practice. For one to simply do a "home Sacrament" apart from the Church is questionable, unless the circumstances prohibited attending a Divine Service with the congregation or if there was no pastor available to administer the Sacrament in an extreme circumstance, such as someone being on their death bed and desiring the Lord's Supper in a timely fashion.

[Edial]

It's become a tradition with me I think. Although I'm not so bad this time around, last year I was miserable to the point that I couldn't even read during the Good Friday service. I barely had the strength to stand in the pulpit for the homily.
Maybe you got the flu from drinking from the common Cup ... :liturgy:

[DaRev]

Maybe you got the flu from drinking from the common Cup ... :liturgy:

Silly Ed. :D

[Edial]

Silly Ed. :D
:)

[Edial]

...
So, for the same reason, caution, we cede the authority of this particular key to the Pastor, correct? It then becomes part of Pastoral care?
Pastors have a responsibility to perform Communion. That's what they do, among other things.

To be a Pastor is a calling from God. It is a calling to be a shepherd.

And many are pastors without that calling, it's a job, a means to support the family.
(One quickly sees the difference between the two, the latter one gets very stirred up when his salary is affected or when he complains that church members call him too often).

Some non-called ones also see it as a mean to promote own agenda.

Do I cede the responsibility of communing to any pastor?
No.

I am looking and looking through the Bible and do not see anything about non-called pastors having the authority to commune.

Some are not called by God. Some do not even believe in resurrection. :)

Example of a non-called pastor: http://herchurch.org/

God responds to the ones He called.

...
So, if the head of a household followed the form of the divine service and the Verba, the Communion recieved would be valid and real. The problem arises in the wisdom and safety of doing such?

Personally, I would never attempt such an act. There are too many areas and places to err. Also, one's heart must be taken into account. What is the motivation for taking Communion apart from the fellowship of the local congregation? As a fallen son of Adam, I've never any confidence that my motives would be right. My personal take on this is to leave it with the ordained and called servant of the Congregation, the Pastor. But that's just me, I admit it... I'm chicken... it's true.:o
Good point.

It is OK to be afraid or feel uncomfortable, because called laymen are not required to do Communion.

The Pastor is required.

And as you saw above from LCMS and others, the head of the household could perform Communion.

And concerning the fact that your friend is reading this thread, this is how the Lutherans usually discuss topics. :) ... Well, we do. :)

I think we got that from Martin Luther. :)

You see, there must be differences of opinions.

1CO 11:17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

However, we are not to be involved malicious fights or in the other points that are made in the text above.

So, to your friend - Welcome to TCL. :):)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[seajoy]

Maybe you got the flu from drinking from the common Cup ... :liturgy:
That was funny. ^_^

[Studeclunker]

Actually there are a lot of churches who don't allow their congregants to drink directly from the common cup anymore. If they wish to do so, it's done by intinction (sp?). That is to say, the wafer is dipped into the cup and placed on the communicant's toungue. I went to a Mission Church whilst attending ELCA many years ago and this (intinction) is how they did communion. They were meeting in a rented hall (a school cafeteria) with no facilities to clean the articles of communion.

I was given to understand that intinction is a very old practice and was quite acceptable. Then again, it was an ELCA church. Admittedly, the pastor was one of the best I've had the pleasure of being acquainted with.

[PreachersWife2004]

It is quite acceptable, actually. According to the WELS Q&A, there's nothing wrong with it, and by dipping the bread into the wine, that's probably an accurate portrayal of how the Last Supper was. SOURCE (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuItem_itemID=7707&cuTopic_topicID=60)

I think what comes into play, as stated in the source above, is the comfort level of those who are taking communion.

I attended a Catholic service where I thought they were dipping the bread into the wine, but when my partner came back and I asked him about it, he said that only the priest drank the wine. Partner's bread was not dipped into the wine. I think some might confuse intinction with that, as well.

I wouldn't be uncomfortable with it myself, to be honest, but I do like the way we do communion presently so I wouldn't see a need to change.

[DaRev]

and by dipping the bread into the wine, that's probably an accurate portrayal of how the Last Supper was.

I'm curious where you got this from. It doesn't jive at all with the Biblical accounts of the Last Supper.


At my home congregation, they used the common cup exclusively. Those who do not wish to drink from it would intinct the host in the cup as it came by. My daughter regularly receives that way. When she visited here once she asked me if it was alright to do that and I said "Of course", but I did tell her that no one else does that here and she may get some inquisitive looks from people. If I remember, she took one of the individual cups instead, although that was "weird" to her. :P

[PreachersWife2004]

Hah, that was a misread on my part. I did include the source, though, but here's the sentence that I misread...

Bread dipped in wine would be a true observance of the Lord's Supper...

Here's another line to set you at ease that it was just my error...

From the gospel accounts we know that Jesus passed the bread and the cup and did not use intinction.

That's from a different question.

Sorry about that folks.

[DaRev]

Hah, that was a misread on my part. I did include the source, though, but here's the sentence that I misread...

Bread dipped in wine would be a true observance of the Lord's Supper...

Here's another line to set you at ease that it was just my error...

From the gospel accounts we know that Jesus passed the bread and the cup and did not use intinction.

That's from a different question.

Sorry about that folks.

Thanks for the clarification. I'd been scratching my head over that. :scratch:
What I agree with in that Q & A page is that it doesn't matter what the amount or the mode of reception (individual wafer vs. piece from a single loaf, or common cup vs. individual cup vs. intinction), but rather what it is we are receiving and why we receive it :) .

[WildStrawberry]

When I was actively doing chemo, just the thought of the smell of wine made me violently ill. I'd forgotten all about intinction until Pastor asked me why I didn't come up for communion the previous week. When I told him, he reminded me of the practice.

I sure did get some strange looks...even from the Elder :D but it was really nice to be able to receive communion again without the ill feelings.

Kae

[Edial]

That was funny. ^_^
:)

[Edial]

Actually there are a lot of churches who don't allow their congregants to drink directly from the common cup anymore. If they wish to do so, it's done by intinction (sp?). That is to say, the wafer is dipped into the cup and placed on the communicant's toungue. I went to a Mission Church whilst attending ELCA many years ago and this (intinction) is how they did communion. They were meeting in a rented hall (a school cafeteria) with no facilities to clean the articles of communion.

I was given to understand that intinction is a very old practice and was quite acceptable. Then again, it was an ELCA church. Admittedly, the pastor was one of the best I've had the pleasure of being acquainted with.
Actually there was a whole otther thread on that.

I just tried presenting a joke knowing that DaRev likes the common Cup.
I don't have a problem with common Cup, small cups, wine or grape juice.

It is not the matter (in my opinion) how this is processed.
What matters is what the content is. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[ctay]

I met these 2 ladies at that church without a pastor right now, someone in the church needed some help and they gave me some money to go towards a gift card to a grocery store, I picked up a bulletin, brought it home and was looking through it and noticed that layperson of the church was on the call list. I know one of the ladies awhile back said something about he could go back to school for a little bit more and become like a pastor or something in no time but he could only pastor that church and couldn't do it anywhere else. If they get around to getting him to pastor that church, the clique is still going to be there, they need a strong leader that hopefully would get rid of that clique. Whenever I've been to that church and he's done the service and does communion, I hadn't took it. I just feel right taking it from a layperson. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy Lutheran that can't change.

[DaRev]

I met these 2 ladies at that church without a pastor right now, someone in the church needed some help and they gave me some money to go towards a gift card to a grocery store, I picked up a bulletin, brought it home and was looking through it and noticed that layperson of the church was on the call list. I know one of the ladies awhile back said something about he could go back to school for a little bit more and become like a pastor or something in no time but he could only pastor that church and couldn't do it anywhere else. If they get around to getting him to pastor that church, the clique is still going to be there, they need a strong leader that hopefully would get rid of that clique. Whenever I've been to that church and he's done the service and does communion, I hadn't took it. I just feel right taking it from a layperson. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy Lutheran that can't change.

They may be referring to the DELTO (Distance Education Leading To Ordination) program, which no longer exists (Thank you Jesus!!). It has been replaced with the Specific Ministry Pastor Program which is much different and has has different requirements. DELTO had been widely abused by congregations, thinking they could have a layperson take classes while serving as pastor in order to avoid calling an ordianed minister. Hopefully this new SMPP will rectify that.

[RadMan]

4. Is the SMPP a part of the Synod’s Ablaze! Program?

The SMPP program traces its roots back to the Assisting Pastor proposal that was sent by a task force to the 2001 convention. Thus it has been under discussion and in development for nearly seven years. Nevertheless, it does provide a way to prepare pastors in accord with AC XIV for goal of planting 2000 new congregations as adopted by the 2004 synodical convention.

[ctay]

They may be referring to the DELTO (Distance Education Leading To Ordination) program, which no longer exists (Thank you Jesus!!). It has been replaced with the Specific Ministry Pastor Program which is much different and has has different requirements. DELTO had been widely abused by congregations, thinking they could have a layperson take classes while serving as pastor in order to avoid calling an ordianed minister. Hopefully this new SMPP will rectify that.

Maybe that's what they are thinking of sending him to. If they do that, I'm gone for good, the church needs a strong leader and he's to easy going and he's in with the clique of the church, I've been going back because of the braille and having trouble finding anyone to do it. I may just send the braille back or see if another church will pick it up.

[porterross]

Maybe that's what they are thinking of sending him to. If they do that, I'm gone for good, the church needs a strong leader and he's to easy going and he's in with the clique of the church, I've been going back because of the braille and having trouble finding anyone to do it. I may just send the braille back or see if another church will pick it up.
Boy, does that sound familiar! Unfortunately, he doesn't go anywhere for proper instruction and it really shows. Don't expect things or his way of handling them to change. It's all but killed the local LC-MS here, but those who decided it was necessary refuse to admit it. Unfortunately, when the doors close due to lack of funds, they might have to, but I'm not counting on that either. It boggles my mind how the synod can allow such travesties to occur.

[ctay]

I don't think this church thinks they have a clique going on but it does and can't figure out why quite a few left the church and a few more are thinking about leaving. I was there yesterday setting the braille up and a lady came in for something and before she left she told me not to have it spread out everywhere which I don't anyway, it stays in one small corner, because a vicar is coming to check the church out tomorrow. I probably wouldn't have let it bother me but the church was in a mess, stays in a mess and no one says anything about it. There's a few that don't respect the church at all. I've cleaned up after everyone when no one was looking, did it because I wanted to, not because I had to, wanted it to look nice if any visitors came and didn't say a word to anyone about how messy it looks all the time.

[ctay]

What's PLO?

[ctay]

I think that's what I heard sunday what the layperson would go through or something close

[ctay]

Ok the call commitee of this church is sending a letter to the district asking if they could hire this person part time and have a pastor visit part time. He's not even a pastor, if the district office says yes and they put a vote out to the congregation, it will probably pass. I kind of hadn't transfered yet, been holding off trying to fight this but looks like I won't win.

[Studeclunker]

<snip>
It is not the matter (in my opinion) how this is processed.
What matters is what the content is. :)


I agree, Ed, to a certain point. Still, using that philosophy can lead to the use of grape juice and Wonder Bread (shudder... leavened bread?) as the elements of communion. Remember, the elements and most of the service are a teaching tool. The elements are one of the most subtle lessons given. "a little leaven, leavens the lot." "let not the leven of the world..." As I'm sure you know, the reason unleavened bread was/is used is to symbolize the sinless condition of Christ's flesh. Being that we aren't the followers of Zwinglii, we continue to believe in the real presence in the elements. Therefore using something, like leavened bread, for Christ's flesh is... inappropriate. Therefore the physical presentation of Christ's elements is very important.



Ctay, I remember being in a similar situation as far as a clique running a congregation. In this case, it was a single family that controlled the congregation. They had a strangle hold on the place. When the ELCA's leadership insisted that we have meetings with the original parent church for 'blending', the motive of this family came out. It seems that their patriarch was of the opinion that the members remaining should get any return from the sale of the church property after the closing of it. The leadership of the ELCA set them straight. They informed our little congregation that we would be blended with St Peter in Santa Ana and the ELCA would take all proceeds from the sale of the property for the missions fund. Still, I have no doubt the old man retained some hope of getting the rights to the property in the end. I finally left because of their behaviour. It was less than a year later that I jumped to the LCMS.

[ctay]

I don't see how they can call him since he's not even a pastor and his wife chewed me out in church a few weeks ago. She's trying to run things now. If the LCMS lets them hire him part time, and a vote goes to the congregation on it, I'm staying long enough to vote no on it and it will probably pass if the district lets him work part time. I still don't get how they could do it if he's not a pastor. They are fixing to start a prayer garden thinking it will bring people in but it won't, they need a full time pastor, a pastor will bring more people in. They've had visitors but they don't return.