A question about "Got a question"?

[TCat]

I didn't want to hi-jack the 'got a question" thread but I too have a question.

From what I gathered in that thread about the administration of Communion is that the efficacy and validity of God's gifts of grace and forgiveness thru the body and blood of Christ revolves around the person administering and officiating at the table. Is that right??? The education and title of the distributor are affects what God does in the sacrament?

I guess I need to reread my Bible, I don't remember this part.

 

[filosofer]

From what I gathered in that thread about the administration of Communion is that the efficacy and validity of God's gifts of grace and forgiveness thru the body and blood of Christ revolves around the person administering and officiating at the table. Is that right??? The education and title of the distributor are affects what God does in the sacrament?

I guess I need to reread my Bible, I don't remember this part.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
If you mean the pastor, then no, that is not correct. The validity and efficacy of the Sacrament is dependent on the Word, not the one administering. In fact, the person could even be an atheist, and the sacrament could still be valid. If you mean Christ, then yes, he is the sufficient one,a nd his Word is what makes it valid and efficacious.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[TCat]

Thanks filo, that is what I thought too but I got confused by what I must have misunderstood in another thread. I did not think that God withheld His means of grace from His people simply because of a title or lack there of.

I was trying to figure out if "ordained pastor only" administration was a Lutheran directive or a Biblical mandate. I just reread what Paul said about Communion in 2 Cor.

Thanks

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

The pastor administers the sacrament in the office of Christ. Christ is not separated from His Word. To rightly administer the sacrament, the person must do so according to the office of Christ and be one acting in His stead. An atheist is one who cannot do this. Nor can a homose*ual priest nor a woman for she has no appropriate calling to that office. Nor can a lay member. For a lay member has not been given the call to act in the name of the congregation.

So maybe it is best not to leave this in a "either-or" proposition but to understand the sacrament "in" and "from" the office of Christ. Who can stand in His shoes? Only those who have been appropriately called.

Peace,
Cos

 

[filosofer]

The pastor administers the sacrament in the office of Christ. Christ is not separated from His Word. To rightly administer the sacrament, the person must do so according to the office of Christ and be one acting in His stead. An atheist is one who cannot do this. Nor can a homose*ual priest nor a woman for she has no appropriate calling to that office. Nor can a lay member. For a lay member has not been given the call to act in the name of the congregation.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Just to be clear, there is a difference between the validity f the sacrament (the question in this thread) and the appropriate calling of the one administering the sacrament.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[filosofer]

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]

FC SD VII - 73] Since a misunderstanding and dissension among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession also has occurred concerning consecration and the common rule, that nothing is a sacrament without the appointed use [or divinely instituted act], we have made a fraternal and unanimous declaration to one another also concerning this matter to the following purport, 74] namely, that not the word or work of any man produces the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, whether it be the merit or recitation of the minister, or the eating and drinking or faith of the communicants; but all this should be ascribed alone to the power of Almighty God and the word, institution, and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ.

75] For the true and almighty words of Jesus Christ which He spake at the first institution were efficacious not only at the first Supper, but they endure, are valid, operate, and are still efficacious [their force, power, and efficacy endure and avail even to the present], so that in all places where the Supper is celebrated according to the institution of Christ, and His words are used, the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed, and received, because of the power and efficacy of the words which Christ spake at the first Supper. For where His institution is observed and His words are spoken over the bread and cup [wine], and the consecrated bread and cup [wine] are distributed, Christ Himself, through the spoken words, is still efficacious by virtue of the first institution, through His word, which He wishes to be there repeated. 76] As Chrysostom says (in Serm. de Pass.) in his Sermon concerning the Passion: Christ Himself prepared this table and blesses it; for no man makes the bread and wine set before us the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but by God's power and grace, by the word, where He speaks: "This is My body," the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper. And just as the declaration, Gen. 1, 28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," was spoken only once, but is ever efficacious in nature, so that it is fruitful and multiplies, so also this declaration ["This is My body; this is My blood"] was spoken once, but even to this day and to His advent it is efficacious, and works so that in the Supper of the Church His true body and blood are present.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Soooo----here we go again. So if the "words" of the sacrament are instituted "by whom?" then the "words" are sufficient, in and of themselves, to allow anyone to administer them?

 

[filosofer]

Soooo----here we go again. So if the "words" of the sacrament are instituted "by whom?" then the "words" are sufficient, in and of themselves, to allow anyone to administer them?

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Actually not. The efficacy of the words and sacrament do not entitle anyone to do it. That is why I noted above that the validity of the sacrament is a separate issue from whether one is rightly called to do so.

If we are not careful, we can easily slide into the Donatist heresy.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[TCat]

What is the Donatist heresy?

 

[DaSeminarian]

What is the Donatist heresy?

Donatus headed what was called the Church of the Martyrs during the reign of Constantine. He and his followers stated that if a priest was ordained by what they called an apostate bishop (one who had fallen from the church during the persecution by Rome prior to Constantine) the ordination was invalid because the Bishop should not have been allowed to have his see returned. If the Priest then married anyone after his invalid ordination the marriage was also invalid.

This was branded a heresy by the church in Rome headed by Miltiades and three Gaul Bishops. 1

1. A History of the Church, Walker, Williston 4th Ed.

 

[filosofer]

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Technically it wasn't that they had fallen from the church, rather that they had not continued to confess Christ under persecution. The pastor who had succumbed then confessed his sin and was reinstated by some bishops. The Donatists refused to recognize their repentance and refused to acknowledge them as pastors.

Donatists refused to accept as valid any baptism that the reinstated pastor performed.



In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think it's fair to say that in most normal circumstances, a called pastor should be the one doing the sacraments. Neither the confessions, nor the bible, maintain that it MUST be a pastor, though...the confessions merely point out that it should be a called minister. Many of our male teachers' calls include the call to assist with communion as needed. And yes, that includes them saying the words as well. Nowhere in the bible will you find that our communion is less, as some would have people think. As I've stated before, many times my husband and I have received communion from an elder in our congregation.

It is true that an atheist could say the words and the bread and the wine would then be consecrated, again, because it is not the PERSON saying the words that holds the power, it is the WORD itself that holds the power. However, I can't think of too many instances where an atheist would be asked to do that, nor would they accept if they were. Although, my cousin's baby was baptized by an atheist nurse at the direction of my cousin, who was undergoing an operation at the time and the baby's condition was grave. My cousin had pointed out the emergency baptism section in the hymnal and asked her if she would say those words and sprinkle water on the baby's forehead. The nurse did so, and there is no questioning the validity of the baptism. (The baby is alive and well today, thanks be to God!)

 

[DaRev]

It must be clear, however, that the words of institution are Christ's words (and this is indeed Biblical). The one who consecrates the elements of the Sacrament are speaking in the stead and by the command of Christ. Therefore, the one who speaks those words must be in the office instituted by Christ for that purpose. The Lutheran Confessions (which are thoroughly Scriptural) state this rather clearly.

It is true, however, that the faith of the pastor or the recipient has no bearing on the efficacy or validity of the Sacrament. That is totally by Christ's command. But why a congregation would call an atheist to be their pastor is beyond me.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

One should be cautious when using the words "in the stead of" Christ.

Pastors do not become Christ when they are administering the sacraments. Christ said "do this in remembrance of me" not "do this in place of me".

Of course we do it at the command of Jesus. But not in his place.

 

[TCat]

Would someone mind posting the scripture, not the confession, which states that the means are to be distributed by a called minister only?
I agree that no athiest should be asked to distribute, I had just never thought about the means needing to be presided over by a pastor only.

 

[DaRev]

Would someone mind posting the scripture, not the confession, which states that the means are to be distributed by a called minister only?
I agree that no athiest should be asked to distribute, I had just never thought about the means needing to be presided over by a pastor only.

The administration of the Sacrament is part of the office of the keys, which is given to the Church. The church then calls and ordains one to carry out the functions of that office. Those functions are not given to just anyone, but the one who is rightly called to stand in the stead and by the command of Christ to carry out that function.

If you are looking for a sepcific verse that says "only an ordained pastor...", I suppose it would be right next to the ones that contain the words "Trinity" and "baptize infants." While there is no single verse, it is a clear teaching of Scripture based upon a number of passages that pertain to the pastoral office.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The administration of the Sacrament is part of the office of the keys, which is given to the Church. The church then calls and ordains one to carry out the functions of that office. Those functions are not given to just anyone, but the one who is rightly called to stand in the stead and by the command of Christ to carry out that function.

If you are looking for a sepcific verse that says "only an ordained pastor...", I suppose it would be right next to the ones that contain the words "Trinity" and "baptize infants." While there is no single verse, it is a clear teaching of Scripture based upon a number of passages that pertain to the pastoral office.

Well then, you could certainly post those passages...

 

[DaRev]

Well then, you could certainly post those passages...

Luke 10:16
Acts 20:28
1 Peter 5:1-2
Timothy 3
Titus 1
Eph: 4:11, 14
Col. 4:17
1 Cor. 4:1
1 Cor. 14:40
2 Cor. 2:17
Matt. 28:18-20
Matt. 16:13-19
Matt 18: 17-20
John 20:22, 23
1 John 4:1
1 Peter 2:5- 6
1 Peter 4:11
Acts 6:6
1 Tim. 3:10
1 Tim 4:14
1 Tim 5:17
Titus 1:5
Acts 1:23
Heb.13:17
1 Thess. 5:12

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

In the early formation of the LCMS Walther and others defined what is involved in the functions of the pastor. To avoid the heresy of Stephanism they had to clarify the "call" and what the Keys really meant. Walther says that the Catechism teaches “the Keys” to be “that special authority which Christ has given to His Church.” Since ‘Church’ refers to both Laity and Clergy together, this cannot mean for Walther that the Keys are given exclusively to the Clergy and not to the laity. Hence the priesthood of all believers. Luther also says such keys “are nothing other than the Office through which the promise is imparted.”

It is noted here that the "whole multitude" (priesthood of believers, church) choose "the seven" and not just the 11 apostles did the chosing. .


Acts 6 NKJV


Seven Chosen to Serve

1 Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.
7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

On the other hand Walther notes that if there are no officiating ministers in a particular congregation, the laity of such a “vacant congregation should not act alone and according to its own opinion" and “seek the counsel of ministers in office" , and “listen to their advice and instruction..”Tthe clergy are to exercise a definite position of leadership over the church. In fact, Walther notes in Thesis 5 that the clergy have a certain power of spiritual judgement. “every bishop has” to “exclude from the Christian congregation those who are found guilty of open crimes and again to receive and absolve them when they are converted.”Such spiritual authority, therefore, refers to than the power of the Office of the Keys. This is performed through the Means of Grace given to the church (congregation) through the Keys given to them.

So therein lies the concern. How to keep a biblical balance so that the clerics or vice versa the congregation doesn't declare that they have the the Office of the Keys exclusively.

We can also see that the PLI initiative then solely subverts and perverts this "office".

 

[filosofer]

Luke 10:16

Matt. 28:18-20

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
So, is Matthew 28 for Pastors only? What about including Matt. 28:16-20 to get the context. He said to the disciples, "make disciples". Note, it does not say "pastors make disciples". Rather whatever they were, they are to reproduce themselves.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]