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

[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.
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.
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. 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. 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?

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.

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 ...

 

[DaRev]

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

Silly Ed.

 

[Edial]

Silly Ed.

 

[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 ...

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

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.

 

[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.
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 but it was really nice to be able to receive communion again without the ill feelings.

Kae

 

[Edial]

That was funny.