How "quia" must one be to still remain "quia"?

[Qoheleth]

Can we just trap Jesus in the elements and parade him around or put him in a little building and teach that there is God? Where is this taught in scripture?

Im not surprised with this Strawman. Where does scripture tell us the when the Sacrament no longer remains to be such?

Now why shouldn't we genuflect to other people? I would say we do not genuflect when we meet other Christians because we would not want it to be misunderstood that we are worshipping the person, we are to worship God not his creation.

Acts 10:24-26 NET.
(24) The following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting anxiously for them and had called together his relatives and close friends.
(25) So when Peter came in, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and worshiped him.
(26) But Peter helped him up, saying, "Stand up. I too am a mere mortal."

Revelation 19:9-10 NET.
(9) Then the angel said to me, "Write the following: Blessed are those who are invited to the banquet at the wedding celebration of the Lamb!" He also said to me, "These are the true words of God."
(10) So I threw myself down at his feet to worship him, but he said, "Do not do this! I am only a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony about Jesus. Worship God, for the testimony about Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Now Peter had clearly communed, God lived in him, yet he gave the command as from God Himself, "Stand up".

So we don't genuflect to other people because we are directly commanded not to, we don't bow down to honor saints because we are commanded not to.

Now we could come up with some wonderful explanation that we weren't really bowing down to the person but to God who is in that person, but God tells us not to bow down to other people.

I understand your position but I can not appreciate the mishandling of scripture and the obvious Eisegesis.

It is important to note that there is a difference between veneration and worship. Just as they are two different words in English, so they are in Greek and Hebrew. Unfortunately, the two words have come to mean virtually the same thing in English.


Let others help...


23:7, 12 "And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth... And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land."

27:29 "Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee"

33:3 "And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother."

37:7, 9, 10 "Behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf."

42:6 "and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth."

43:26, 28 "And they bowed down their heads, and made obeisance."

47:31 (quoted in the NT, Hebrews 11:21) "And Israel worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

48:12 "And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth."

49:8 "thy father's children shall bow down before thee."


In Esther 3:2-4, Mordecai refuses to bow before Haman since the latter is demanding this as latria (worship). But in Est 8:3, Mordecai’s own niece, Esther, bows before King Ahasuerus, which is simply an instance of her rendering him the honor (proskunew) he is due as royalty.

What's significant about these passages is they demonstrate a form of veneration or respect that is *NOT* worship. This is the OT basis for the fundamental distinction that St John of Damascus makes between worship (latreia) and veneration (proskunew).

but you don't even know that Jesus is there because he didn't tell us to put the elements on an altar and genuflect every time we went by.

Tell us when the Lord ceases to be present, by scripture alone.

Same for the church itself. God doesn't live in a tabernacle.

Does Our Lord live within you and me and others? How can we confine God to our bodies, Marv?


Q

 

[Qoheleth]

Dicey. Who am I to say? But, personally, I would most likely skip that Sunday. Goes back to the "rite vocatus" mess that Weedon was talking about.

Well, come on, take a stand Kep... what do you understand of the Confessions and the Rite Vocatus? Or is absolutely everything adiaphora??

Q

 

[KEPLER]

I don't know how to understand it.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

My point, Dixie, is that there is no logic for comprehending this. We understand a, b, and c from your list. We understand d. But HOW those both occur (they appear to contradict one another) is a mystery.

OOHHH...I finally get it...what you were trying to say! The irreconcilable dicotomy. Duh! Like the Lutheran Doctrine of Election! I know...I can be dense.

However...regarding the "mystery" of when there is a Sacrament and when there isn't. Where does this come from in Scripture? Where does Scripture say d? I know the Confessions say but where in Scripture? I would think mysteries are pretty much limited to Scriptures, right?

Such as an LCMS church where the pastor was molesting little children? The BoC says that even thougha knave administers the sacrament, it is stil a sacrament.

I was thinking about abuses like open communion, communion outside of the divine service, grape juice, elder consecration and well, abuse of the elements upon completion of the Sacrament...you know...the kind of thing Luther excommunicated Bresserer for. Those are the abuses I was thinking about. In a congregation at some point...do enough abuses occur that the Congregation no longer has the Sacrament? (In essence, a group of people who are "enemies of the Sacrament".)

 

[Philip]

a. The Word causes the Sacrament
b. The Sacrament does not depend on the faith of the administrator
c. The Sacrament does not depend on the faith of the receiver
d. But there is no Sacrament for "enemies of the Sacrament".

If I may, what of the faith of the community?

 

[Protoevangel]

If I may, what of the faith of the community?

The validity of the Sacrament rests soley upon the Word of God. There may be no benefit recieved (judgement may be recieved instead).

Only if the meaning of the very words are changed, then there is no Sacrament, according to the Solid Declaration, The Holy Supper, verse 32.

 

[ricg]

The validity of the Sacrament rests soley upon the Word of God. There may be no benefit recieved (judgement may be recieved instead).

Only if the meaning of the very words are changed, then there is no Sacrament, according to the Solid Declaration, The Holy Supper, verse 32.

Although I've never researched it, my working opinion is that it is indeed function of the community. Not so much their faith but their intention, for the promise of the Word is attached to the command, "This do," which I think includes the intention to take and eat the Body and Blood of the Lord, not merely the motions of distributing bread and wine/juice. It is a communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord if the communicants, i.e., the assembly "gathered together" in that place, working through the instruments of the mouths and hands of the pastor and ministers, "do this:" give thanks, distribute, take and eat/drink in order to participate in a communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus. It is not a matter of their faith in a direct way, and the unbelief of others in attendance, including the officiant doesn't change the result, but there is no communion of the Lord's Body and Blood if none is intended, just as there wouldn't be if the verba were spoken with as part of the epistle lesson by the pastor from the lecturn while the bread and wine sit on the altar. The promise of the Word is that when "this" is "done," we receive the Body and Blood of Jesus. Sacramentarians don't do "this," so they do not receive the promises attached to doing "this."

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Although I've never researched it, my working opinion is that it is indeed function of the community. Not so much their faith but their intention, for the promise of the Word is attached to the command, "This do," which I think includes the intention to take and eat the Body and Blood of the Lord, not merely the motions of distributing bread and wine/juice. It is a communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord if the communicants, i.e., the assembly "gathered together" in that place, working through the instruments of the mouths and hands of the pastor and ministers, "do this:" give thanks, distribute, take and eat/drink in order to participate in a communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus. It is not a matter of their faith in a direct way, and the unbelief of others in attendance, including the officiant doesn't change the result, but there is no communion of the Lord's Body and Blood if none is intended, just as there wouldn't be if the verba were spoken with as part of the epistle lesson by the pastor from the lecturn while the bread and wine sit on the altar. The promise of the Word is that when "this" is "done," we receive the Body and Blood of Jesus. Sacramentarians don't do "this," so they do not receive the promises attached to doing "this."

I think this is a very good explanation of my understanding of what Lutherans believe. I wonder though...which is where I was going earlier...does this just break down along denominational lines or can congregations within a denonination or communion also not have the Sacrament based on their collective beliefs or alternatively, abuses which are a reflection of what is believed.

Do some Episcopal congregations have the Eucharist and not others...likewise with ELCA? If some Episcopals have reformed beliefs as Kep suggested...what about the old lady in such a congregation who believes in the Sacrament. She doesn't get it because the majority do not? It just seems like a slippery slope to have to defend who is and who is not getting the Sacrament using these criteria.

I can imagine what some of you are thinking...she sounds like the 13 year olds in confirmation class. I supposed I do. Hey...I get what if's all day long at work. I vent here!!!

 

[ricg]

does this just break down along denominational lines or can congregations within a denonination or communion also not have the Sacrament based on their collective beliefs or alternatively, abuses which are a reflection of what is believed.

Do some Episcopal congregations have the Eucharist and not others...likewise with ELCA? If some Episcopals have reformed beliefs as Kep suggested...what about the old lady in such a congregation who believes in the Sacrament. She doesn't get it because the majority do not? It just seems like a slippery slope to have to defend who is and who is not getting the Sacrament using these criteria.

I can imagine what some of you are thinking...she sounds like the 13 year olds in confirmation class. I supposed I do. Hey...I get what if's all day long at work. I vent here!!!

I think that, in effect, it does break down along denominational lines. My working assumption is that a congregation of believers have what they publicly proclaim they have, so long as (in the case of congregations proclaiming the True Presence, at least "two or three" intend to participate in the communion of the Lord's Body and Blood (and all other parts of the sacrament are observed). St. Paul implies the Corinthians were taught what they had but did not act as though they understood it, yet he affirms the Real Presence among them.

I guess my question is how the ELCA defends communion fellowship with the reformed on this basis. It's a different question than "open communion" in my view. Do they believe Lutherans communing at Reformed altars are receiving the sacrament?

I think "proper intention" falls in along with other "This do" requirements: verba, bread, wine, taking, eating/drinking to which Jesus' promise attaches. Take any of these away, and you lose the promise. Tinker around the edges (grape juice, private masses, reserving the uneaten/-drunken elements), and you start raising doubts -- and questions from catechcumens!

 

[SPALATIN]

I think that, in effect, it does break down along denominational lines. My working assumption is that a congregation of believers have what they publicly proclaim they have, so long as (in the case of congregations proclaiming the True Presence, at least "two or three" intend to participate in the communion of the Lord's Body and Blood (and all other parts of the sacrament are observed). St. Paul implies the Corinthians were taught what they had but did not act as though they understood it, yet he affirms the Real Presence among them.

I guess my question is how the ELCA defends communion fellowship with the reformed on this basis. It's a different question than "open communion" in my view. Do they believe Lutherans communing at Reformed altars are receiving the sacrament?

I think "proper intention" falls in along with other "This do" requirements: verba, bread, wine, taking, eating/drinking to which Jesus' promise attaches. Take any of these away, and you lose the promise. Tinker around the edges (grape juice, private masses, reserving the uneaten/-drunken elements), and you start raising doubts -- and questions from catechcumens!

For that matter, one could point a finger at WELS on the same reason of Grape Juice. Some are even saying that a Woman could ordained only if she is being Pastor over women. What's up with that?

Not just denominationally, but synodically as well and then even within difference districts and regions. Salt Water districts vs. Fresh Water districts. LQ is having a similar discussion in the "Galveston thread"

 

[ByzantineDixie]

BUMP...in honor of ChiRho. I saw him logged in last night and this was the thread containing his last post on CF. ChiRho...I don't know about the rest of these guys but I have missed you!

 

[DaRev]

He was logged in this morning, too.

 

[mrshoperose]

He was logged in this morning, too.

Who is ChiRho?

 

[Protoevangel]

Wow, what a long strange trip it's been...




mrshoperose,
ChiRho was a Confessional Lutheran who used to post here quite a bit. It was a sad day when he stopped posting.

 

[RadMan]

Hey Dan. What trip? The EO one?

Oh BTW. THis is Radidio

 

[Jim47]

Yes I miss him too. He dumped all his blessings on me right before he left. Pretty cool guy.

Nice to see you posting hee again Dan and Rose

 

[synger]

This is fascinating discussion. Thank you.

The issue of the eternal light, and of genuflection intrigues me, because my church has both the light, and the practice of genuflection before stepping up and upon leaving the altar area, and before and after we kneel to receive Communion.

I always assumed it was like Catholic churches I'd attended, where the consecrated wafers were somewhere on the altar, and we were reverancing them. (It always reminded me SCA events, where you were expected to bow to the throne (even if it were empty) to "reverance" the ruler of the kingdom)

So, if there is no tabernacle with consecrated wafers, why do we have a light? And why do we genuflect?

 

[DaRev]

So, if there is no tabernacle with consecrated wafers, why do we have a light? And why do we genuflect?

Neither of them have anything to do with the consecrated elements.

The light, known as the eternal light or eternal flame, signifies the presence of Christ, the light of the world.
We genuflect toward the altar out of reverence to God. The altar signifies the presence of God in the sanctuary. It is also to acknowledge the cross of Christ which is either upon or above the altar.

 

[synger]

Ah, thanks, DaRev. That makes more sense, and fits with what I have understood (but had never really asked about). I thought maybe I was wrong because of what the poster below said, which led me to believe that most Lutheran churches no longer practice the eternal light or genuflection. I must have mis-read the post.

Alright...maybe I wasn't clear. Lemme try again.

My professor in my Lay Ministry classes told us that:

1) Prior to the Reformation people believed the Body and Blood of Christ remained present after the Sacrament and any left were stored in the tabernacle.

2) Because of this belief, that Christ was present in the Elements in the tabernacle, the people would genuflect when they came into church before sitting down...in reverence to the presence of Christ in the Tabernacle.

3) Lutherans do not have tabernacles because Lutherans do not believe Christ remains present in the Elements upon the completion of the Sacrament.

4) Therefore...the practice of genuflexion goes away because there is nothing there to revere.

I am trying to show cause and effect...you know practice reflecting doctrine. This was one of the examples the professor used for this very purpose.

Now...I am not saying all Lutherans believe this (the presence of Christ in the elements after the distribution of the Sacrament is completed). I know there are some that do not. But I use it to support my contention that most Lutherans today do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ remain in the Elements after the Sacrament has been distributed...since even university level Lutheran classes are teaching this to DELTO students and Lay Ministers. I will admit, however...it is anecdotal support for my point.

 

[Tofferer]

At our church, it is above the alter (about seven or eight feet up and suspended by wires).