What's the Difference?

[LutheranHawkeye]

The distribution of the body and blood of Christ is part of the administration of the Sacrament which women should not do. The reason is that the distribution also contains the proclamation "Take, eat. Take, drink" which are words of Christ and part of the administration of the Sacrament. The work of the administration of the Sacrament, from the reciting of the Verba to the distribution, is the work of Christ being done by the pastor and assistants in the stead and by the command of Christ. It is as if Christ Himself is giving us His very body and blood. The hands that give us the Sacrament veil the very hand of Christ. It is part of the role of 'provider' which is the role and responsibility of the Bridegroom, not the bride.

You would think that Roman Catholics would follow this as well, but they use women to help distribution too. So if I come across another LCMS parish where the pastor has acolytes help distribute, and one of them is a girl, should I refuse to go up?

 

[DaRev]

Well, at this point you are pushing what Lutheran doctrine does state and does not state. There is nothing in the Sacrament about the "hands that give us the Sacrament veil the very hand of Christ." That is taking away from the real presence of Christ "in, with, and under" the elements. The pastor/elder/distributor is not an element in the presence of Christ in the sacrament.

I never said the administer was "an element". That's just silly.

Who is it that gives us the body and blood of Christ? Does Christ give it to us, or does Man give it to us?

 

[Zecryphon]

You would think that Roman Catholics would follow this as well, but they use women to help distribution too. So if I come across another LCMS parish where the pastor has acolytes help distribute, and one of them is a girl, should I refuse to go up?

I would not go up and receive, but then that's me. I think you should pray about it and see what the Holy Spirit says for you to do.

 

[DaRev]

You would think that Roman Catholics would follow this as well, but they use women to help distribution too. So if I come across another LCMS parish where the pastor has acolytes help distribute, and one of them is a girl, should I refuse to go up?

Why would an acolyte be distributing Communion?

If you go to a church where the acolytes are distributing the elements (whether boy or girl), then No, you shouldn't go up. I wouldn't.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

I respect you even more now Stude, knowing that you tried for 4 years to do something. I guess it just might be my young age, but I would make a HUGE deal about this. Most Missouri Synod Lutherans I know would be disgusted by the situation that your local LCMS churches have put you through. I just wish I lived near you, so I could give some of these pastors a good walloping. Because we know the only solution to contemporary worship is violence. (please detect sarcasm)

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

It was a church I was visiting.

 

[Zecryphon]

It was a church I was visiting.

What did you do? I've walked out of churches for improper serving of Communion. The last one modeled their practice after the church in Corinth. They had various stations set up around the church where you could go up and help yourself to the grape juice and bread. Since no church official was monitoring this, I guess anyone could take as much as they wanted.

 

[BelindaP]

Zeph, I don't see where Christmas Calvinism is all that different from Lutheranism. It basically says that God chooses the elect and that nobody is predestined to damnation. Seems fairly consistent with the Confessions to me. I'm only going to ask this once here. Please drop your vendetta against me.

 

[filosofer]

The distribution of the body and blood of Christ is part of the administration of the Sacrament which women should not do. The reason is that the distribution also contains the proclamation "Take, eat. Take, drink" which are words of Christ and part of the administration of the Sacrament. The work of the administration of the Sacrament, from the reciting of the Verba to the distribution, is the work of Christ being done by the pastor and assistants in the stead and by the command of Christ. It is as if Christ Himself is giving us His very body and blood. The hands that give us the Sacrament veil the very hand of Christ. It is part of the role of 'provider' which is the role and responsibility of the Bridegroom, not the bride.

Okay, let's try this again. Here is the problem with what you wrote: You linked these two as if that is the essence of the Sacrament.

"It is as if Christ Himself is giving us His very body and blood. The hands that give us the Sacrament veil the very hand of Christ."

The first sentence is legitimate Lutheran doctrine, the second is not. That has moved beyond what constitutes the Sacrament (institution and administration).

So regarding your question:

"Who is it that gives us the body and blood of Christ? Does Christ give it to us, or does man give it to us?"

The answer is, "Yes." Christ gives his body and blood. Humans distribute that. Let's not confuse the two. Your position on this borders on the statement "pastor as sacramental presence," which is consistent with RCC doctrine but not Lutheran.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

What did you do? I've walked out of churches for improper serving of Communion. The last one modeled their practice after the church in Corinth. They had various stations set up around the church where you could go up and help yourself to the grape juice and bread. Since no church official was monitoring this, I guess anyone could take as much as they wanted.

I just received the Eucharist like I normally do. The pastor came around with one element while the 3 or 4 other distributors helped out. I didn't have a problem with it, I think I like Philo's explanation. But I would walk out of a church that was in anyway blaspheming the Sacrament, and I'm not a very quiet person.

 

[filosofer]

This is a subforum for the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, and other conservative Lutherans.

If you belong to the ELCA, ELCIC, or anyother liberal Lutheran branch, only fellowship posts are allowed. You are not allowed to debate here. If you would like to debate something with a member of a conservative Lutheran branch, please do so in the main Lutherans forum.

Thank you.

Did you not read her post? She indicated she is a member of an LCMS congregation.






But then maybe you don't want me here, even though our church is in fellowship with LCMS.

 

[BelindaP]

Zephycron has followed me to the point of harassment on this issue and stated quite plainly that he doesn't believe I am a Lutheran. As far as the pastor who confirmed me and the pastors who baptized my children are concerned, I am. I resent being called a liar and not Lutheran.

It's one thing if you want to argue with me about whether Christmas calvinism is inconsistent with Lutheran doctrine. It's quite another to say I'm not Lutheran. Or, perhaps all Lutherans have the doctrine down perfectly in Zephycron's church. If so, I applaud your congregation. Otherwise, back the heck off me or put me on ignore.

 

[Zecryphon]

Did you not read her post? She indicated she is a member of an LCMS congregation.






But then maybe you don't want me here, even though our church is in fellowship with LCMS.

Did you not read her thread on Calvinism in CC. She can't be both a Calvinist and a Lutheran. If such a thing is possible, explain how. And I never said anything about not wanting you here. But is the requirement for being Lutheran, just saying you are a member of an LCMS congregation or is there more to it?

 

[BelindaP]

Did you not read her thread on Calvinism in CC. She can't be both a Calvinist and a Lutheran. If such a thing is possible, explain how. And I never said anything about not wanting you here. But is the requirement for being Lutheran, just saying you are a member of an LCMS congregation or is there more to it?

To become a member of an LCMS congregation, I had to affirm the contents of the Small Catechism. No problems there. Apparently, the LCMS considers me eligible to be a member. Are you a higher authority than the synod?

Even so, you haven't explained to me how Christmas Calvinism is inconsistent with the Confessions.

 

[seajoy]

ok, now I want to know, since I've never heard of a Christmas Calvinist - are they one in the same with Lutherans?

 

[BelindaP]

A Christian calvinist doesn't hold to the L in TULIP. It's a pun (no-L).

While we do believe in the election of the saints, we don't believe in predestination to hell. Jesus' atonement was for everyone, not just the elect. If somebody is willing to explain to me how that's inconsistent with the Confessions, I am more than willing to listen. Thus far, I've been called non-Lutheran for it, but nobody's taken time to explain why.

 

[Tangible]

There might be something in here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7390494/

 

[seajoy]

Then why not just say you believe what Lutherans believe, why call yourself a Christmas Calvinist? Guess I'm a little lost here.

 

[filosofer]

A Christian calvinist doesn't hold to the L in TULIP. It's a pun (no-L).

While we do believe in the election of the saints, we don't believe in predestination to hell. Jesus' atonement was for everyone, not just the elect. If somebody is willing to explain to me how that's inconsistent with the Confessions, I am more than willing to listen. Thus far, I've been called non-Lutheran for it, but nobody's taken time to explain why.

While we agree with those limitations of Calvinism, Lutherans have always looked beyond that. The negative side of such an identification is that it is not consistent with how the Confessions speak about who we are when we confess the faith. That is, Calvinism as developed during the formative years of Lutheranism (post Augsburg, post Apology, post Catechisms, post Smalcald Articles) was shown not to be the standard (Formula of Concord, in particular, addresses the Calvinist teaching regarding the Lord's Supper and derivatively the two natures of Christ).

This followed the earlier confessional writings which did the same with the RCC or the Anabaptists who were not the standard, rather the Church Catholic. As Lutherans, the Church Catholic is our heritage, not a corrective of a side show (Calvinism). That is why when someone wants to discuss theology coming from the Reformed camp (in the broadest application of that term), we refuse to accept the definitions and parameters of either Calvinists or Arminians, because neither represents the Biblical, Catholic faith as confessed in the Book of Concord (each for different reasons).

Thus, it appears that applying any kind of adjective that includes "Calvinism" misses the positive confession of the Book of Concord, who we are as Lutherans.

 

[BelindaP]

Calvinism isn't a denomination. It's a sotierology. There are calvinists in most denominations. I started a thread in CC to discuss calvinism and said I pretty much lined up with Christmas calvinists with regard to sotierology. Zeph, who had previously decided I wasn't a Lutheran has seized upon that and will not leave me alone about it.