serving Communion... Can we go over this again please?

[Studeclunker]

I have a wee problem and would appreciate the LCMS pastors take on this.


This past Sunday I recieved Communion from a Lay-Pastor. He wasn't ordained and yet is still referred to with the title of Revrand. I'm confused. As far as my knowledge goes, only an ordained pastor should serve Communion. It's completely improper for a layman of any kind to preside over the distribution of the elements.

The man was listed on the bulletin as Rev. such and such and so I thought he must be ordained. WRONG!! Not being sure, I asked him after service. It really upset me when he said, quite blithely as a matter of fact, that he wasn't. He didn't even have a problem, as a layman, serving communion. I felt decieved and frankly... betrayed. At an ELCA church I would expect this kind of thing. Never at an LCMS.

 

[ctay]

Sounds like a church I know

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Did he also celebrate the Service of the Sacrament, or was he assisting the Pastor with the distribution?

 

[seajoy]

Did he also celebrate the Service of the Sacrament, or was he assisting the Pastor with the distribution?

Hmmm, Stude said "preside over". It sounds like this person did the Service of Communion. Our elders assist with the Lord's Supper at times (we have 2 pastors, so that doesn't happen very often), but I've never seen one do the institution. Ours is a WELS church.

 

[DaRev]

I have a wee problem and would appreciate the LCMS pastors take on this.


This past Sunday I recieved Communion from a Lay-Pastor. He wasn't ordained and yet is still referred to with the title of Revrand. I'm confused. As far as my knowledge goes, only an ordained pastor should serve Communion. It's completely improper for a layman of any kind to preside over the distribution of the elements.

The man was listed on the bulletin as Rev. such and such and so I thought he must be ordained. WRONG!! Not being sure, I asked him after service. It really upset me when he said, quite blithely as a matter of fact, that he wasn't. He didn't even have a problem, as a layman, serving communion. I felt decieved and frankly... betrayed. At an ELCA church I would expect this kind of thing. Never at an LCMS.

If he is a "DELTO" (now called SMPP) student serving at that church, he would be able to administer the Sacrament. Personally, I have a REAL problem with this whole program. It contradicts the Confessions.

And he most certainly should NOT use the title "Reverand" if he is not properly called AND ordained.

 

[RadMan]

I've had trouble with "sacraments" part of it also. If the church calls a pastor and passes the Keys then it would seem that the pastor has the only right to give communion. But Luther also mentions that if there is no ordained pastor available that a called person from the congregation can perform the sacraments. This seems to be upheld by comments from the BOC that the sacraments are valid no matter what the beliefs or sinful nature of the administrator is. I haven't reviewed the references in the BOC or Luther's Works for this yet so my memory might be faulty.

 

[Studeclunker]

This fellow has been filling in for the pastor. He presides over the entire service. The elders consistantly assist during communion in this congregation, which I have no problem with, as long as the pastor presides. The pastor usually offers the Chalice and repeats the blessings whilst the elements of bread and the small cups of wine are offered. This 'Lay-pastor-elder' fills in for the pastor during his absence.
I thought that a congregation calling anyone in to the office of pastor (in any occasion) who's outside the LCMS roster was a serious no-no.

As to the book Of Concord, I believe you're half-right, Rad. I'll have to go over it again, but I believe that even there it designates a called and ordained pastor to preside over communion. Also, the pastor is on vacation for a few weeks. That doesn't qualify, in my humble opinion, for a 'lack of pastoral care' situation. Communion isn't that essential to the service, I mean, one can wait for a few weeks...

 

[maylor]

My church (WELS) has an assistant, an elder, help with the distribution. He comes first with the Body, saying something along the lines of "This is the true Body of our Lord, which is given for you, take and eat". Now, I've been a member for less than a year and I had just assumed that it was always an elder who helped with this. I was recently asked by our president to take on the financial secretary job which is a council member position. I was voted in last week, and I thought my only duty was to enter contribution amounts into the computer. Now I find out that council members are required to assist with the distribution and I've been told to assist for the month of October. I really don't think I'm qualified to help with the distribution of the Sacrament. I don't know what to do about this. I'm thinking of talking with pastor about my concerns and see what he has to say on the matter.

It sounds to me like LCMS churches do not use council members in this way.

 

[DaRev]

I've had trouble with "sacraments" part of it also. If the church calls a pastor and passes the Keys then it would seem that the pastor has the only right to give communion. But Luther also mentions that if there is no ordained pastor available that a called person from the congregation can perform the sacraments. This seems to be upheld by comments from the BOC that the sacraments are valid no matter what the beliefs or sinful nature of the administrator is. I haven't reviewed the references in the BOC or Luther's Works for this yet so my memory might be faulty.

I thought that a congregation calling anyone in to the office of pastor (in any occasion) who's outside the LCMS roster was a serious no-no.

As to the book Of Concord, I believe you're half-right, Rad. I'll have to go over it again, but I believe that even there it designates a called and ordained pastor to preside over communion.

From the Augustana:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. [/FONT]

It sounds to me like LCMS churches do not use council members in this way.

No. The LCMS usually uses Elders or Deacons for this. Council members do not assist with the pastoral functions unless they are also elders or deacons.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My church (WELS) has an assistant, an elder, help with the distribution. He comes first with the Body, saying something along the lines of "This is the true Body of our Lord, which is given for you, take and eat". Now, I've been a member for less than a year and I had just assumed that it was always an elder who helped with this. I was recently asked by our president to take on the financial secretary job which is a council member position. I was voted in last week, and I thought my only duty was to enter contribution amounts into the computer. Now I find out that council members are required to assist with the distribution and I've been told to assist for the month of October. I really don't think I'm qualified to help with the distribution of the Sacrament. I don't know what to do about this. I'm thinking of talking with pastor about my concerns and see what he has to say on the matter.

It sounds to me like LCMS churches do not use council members in this way.

In our LCC Congregation, one of us Elders (and only and Elder) always assists. It has also been our practice that only an Elder prepares the altar for Communion. The assisting Elder kneels at the rail and is communed first by the Pastor with the chalice. The Pastor and Elder switch places, and the Elder then Communes the Pastor (with the chalice also). The Pastor distributes Christ's body, and we follow along with the tray of individual cups and announce to those who take one "take and drink, the blood of Christ". Pastor then comes along after the Elder with the chalice for those who desire it, then he dismisses the table.

Having someone who is not ordained officiate in our (and I'm sure most Congregations) Congregation would not be allowed. Period.

Mark

 

[RadMan]

From the Augustana:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. [/FONT]




No. The LCMS usually uses Elders or Deacons for this. Council members do not assist with the pastoral functions unless they are also elders or deacons.

And therein lies the crux of who is "called". Even you have said that the Elders and Deacons are "called" to assist in pastoral functions. This is beyond the Hypo-Euro explanation that only the pastor is allowed to administer the sacraments. The sacraments of Holy Communion and Baptism. This was the heart of the problem of the episcope that Stephans demanded and Walther fought against. Stephans lost. So being "called" is not just a right relegated to the pastor. It also includes, in this case, the Elders and Deacons since they also hold the Keys.

Formula of Concord--Epitome
OF THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE
Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald, in the
Year 1537.

67] For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it
is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is
a gift which in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul
also testifies to the Ephesians when he says, Eph 4, 8: He ascended, He gave gifts to men. And he
enumerates among the gifts specially belonging to the Church pastors and teachers, and adds that such
are given for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Hence, wherever there is a true church,
the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. Just as in a case of necessity even a layman
absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another; as Augustine narrates the story of two
Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after Baptism then absolved the
baptizer.
68] Here belong the statements of Christ which testify that the keys have been given to the Church, and
not merely to certain persons, Matt. 18, 20: Where two or three are gathered together in My name, etc.
69] Lastly, the statement of Peter also confirms this, 1 Pet. 2, 9: Ye are a royal priesthood. These words
pertain to the true Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has
the priesthood.

 

[DaRev]

So, why have pastors then? I guess we're all just useless, power hungry, heretics.
What a waste of 20 grand.

 

[RadMan]

So, why have pastors then? I guess we're all just useless, power hungry, heretics.
What a waste of 20 grand.

Oh come on. You don't give up that easily.

 

[Studeclunker]

um... Rad? That's not giving up, it's called biting sarcasm. {here's where an OUCH smiley would work well}

Therein though, lies the rub. To what purpose do we call a Pastor if not to exercise the Office Of the Keys on behalf of the congregation (Church). Yes, the Office belongs to the Church, that I've never debated. The point is; whom is to exercise it? Do we not call our Pastors to this very office? Is not the Office Of the Keys not the very essence of the Pastoral call? Are we to blithely offer communion whenever or wherever the mood strikes? How about baptism, marriage, burials, or confession (God forbid!!)? These duties have traditionally been the venue of a Pastor. Surely, he doesn't just stand in front of a congregation of a Sunday and give a nice Biblically based speech.

Also one thing I almost forgot; Ordination also assures a congregation that the individual is competant and understands the requirements of the position of 'Pastor'. That he understands the Office of the Keys and will execute it with respect and due reverance. Elsewise, what's the point of a Seminary training? Not to mention the waste of considerable resources by the Church to support said Seminary.

This is my take... my understanding on the subject. I'm not trying to pontificate, just get my... head straight on this. Sunday service really shook me up.

 

[ctay]

That layman at the church I had been going to, they sent a letter to the district to ask if they could hire this layman parttime. Around easter time I got chewed out by his wife for something she did. A couple of people witnessed it, said it was uncalled for and one of them said it was something this lady and the youth should have did. I've been to this church once in the past 2 months now. Really hadn't been anywhere. The church my parents go to the pastor sent a card to my parents house, she lost it but she said it said something about me coming to a new members class. I thought I just had to transfer and I grew up Lutheran. I was at this other church, the pastor of this church is interim pastor of the church I had been going to, I told him I wanted to transfer, he told me I needed to stay where I was at. I am frustrated right now.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That layman at the church I had been going to, they sent a letter to the district to ask if they could hire this layman parttime. Around easter time I got chewed out by his wife for something she did. A couple of people witnessed it, said it was uncalled for and one of them said it was something this lady and the youth should have did. I've been to this church once in the past 2 months now. Really hadn't been anywhere. The church my parents go to the pastor sent a card to my parents house, she lost it but she said it said something about me coming to a new members class. I thought I just had to transfer and I grew up Lutheran. I was at this other church, the pastor of this church is interim pastor of the church I had been going to, I told him I wanted to transfer, he told me I needed to stay where I was at. I am frustrated right now.

I attended Church of my childhood for many years, but it was the Pastor who behaved in a non confessional, heterodox manor. He told me that if I was not happy, I should leave. I did. This was one of the darkest times in my life, but after a few years I gave Lutheranism another try, and found a Confessional Congregation much closer to home. My faith has grown on account of it, and I and those around me are much happier. Pray that God will give you guidance and direction. Remember too that it is our lot as believers to suffer for the Word, but only in this life! Blessings and prayers for you, Markhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/crossrc.gif

 

[BigNorsk]

I believe a lot of the confusion comes from the LCMS changing it's position in the 1960's.

http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/ordinationreview.html
Lays out the differences in the historic and the positions taken in the 1960'

Mueller in his Christian Dogmatics lays out the historic position quite clearly. This is still taught of course in the seminaries, but then the graduates operate under a handbook that conflicts with it.

Since the mediate call is extended through men (the Church), we must consider also the question who the men are by whom God duly calls His ministers. The Romanists claim that only the Pope has authority to create bishops and their assistants. The Episcopalians teach that ordination by the bishop confers the highest orders. Romanizing Lutherans hold that Christian ministers owe their pastoral authority to “the estate of the ministry” (der geistliche Stand), which is self-propagating. In other cases, princes or ruling bodies in the Church have claimed the right to call and ordain ministers.
However, Holy Scripture ascribes this power to call to all true believers, since to them Christ has entrusted the Office of the Keys, Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:4, 13; 3:21. Christ’s Great Commission, Matt. 28:19, 20, was meant not only for the apostles, but for all Christians; for He states expressly: “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” By virtue of their spiritual priesthood all believers “unto the end of the world” possess the inherent right to preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. Since, then, all Christian believers are entrusted with the means of grace, it is their privilege to call pastors, or ministers, who in their name publicly apply the means of grace. Cp. Luther: “That some are chosen from the multitude is done for the reason that they, as representatives of the congregation, should administer and execute the office [ministerial office], which they all have.” (St. L., IX, 1174.&#65279
But while the communion of all believers constitutes the Church Universal, it is not to the ecclesia universalis as such that Christ has given the power to call and ordain ministers, but rather to the local churches (ecclesiae particulares), as is clear from Matt. 18:17–20; 1 Cor. 5:13; etc. The Smalcald Articles rightly say (Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope, § 67–69): “Wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists.” (Cp. also Luther, St. L., XVII, 1074ff.)
Individual persons or representative bodies may duly call ministers for others, but only if they, either directly or by consent, tacito consensu, have received authority to do so from those who originally possess the right to call, principaliter et immediate, that is, from local churches.
Against the exclusive right of the local congregations to call their ministers various objections have been raised, of which we may note the following:—
Mueller, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.) (571). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.​

Yet, while this is true, it is true also that our Confessions, in accord with Scripture, Matt. 18:17–20; 1 Cor. 5:13; Rom. 16:17; 1 Pet. 2:9, expressly teach that the Office of the Keys belongs to the whole Church and that Christian ministers therefore hold their office by virtue of their call from their churches. The Smalcald Articles say (Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 67–69): “Wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift that in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church …. Hence, wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists …. Here belong the statements of Christ which testify that the keys have been given to the Church, and not merely to certain persons, Matt. 18:20. Lastly, also the statement of Peter confirms this, 1 Pet. 2:9. These words pertain to the Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has the priesthood.” While, then, all Christian ministers who are duly called are “fellow-elders” (συνπρεσβύτεροι) of the blessed apostles, 2 John 1; 3 John 1; 1 Cor. 3:5—9, they are elders and bishops (ministers, pastors) not through any “apostolic succession” nor through any “self-propagation of the clerical estate,” but solely by virtue of the call which they have received from their churches. In other words, it is alone the divine call extended to them mediately through the local congregation that makes them “fellow-elders” of the apostles.
Mueller, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.) (574). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.​

The ordination of called ministers is not a divine institution, or ordinance, but a church rite; for while it is mentioned, Acts 14:23, it is not commanded in Scripture. We therefore rightly classify ordination among the adiaphora and affirm that not the ordination, but the call makes a person a minister.​

Mueller, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.) (574). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.



​

It goes without saying that also the right of ordination is originally vested in the local churches, as the Smalcald Articles declare: “Wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists.”
According to Roman Catholic doctrine only those are Christian ministers (priests) who have been ordained by bishops created by the Pope, while pastors called and ordained by Christian congregations are thieves and murderers (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, Can. 4). From the viewpoint of the Papacy this antichristian doctrine is quite intelligible; for according to papistic teaching the “sacrament” of ordination confers ex opere operato upon the ordained the Holy Spirit and impresses upon him an “indelible character” (character indelebilis), which makes him a priest for all times, even though by gross sins he should render himself unworthy of the sacred office.
But this is not all. Through the ordination the priest, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, receives also the supernatural power to transubstantiate the bread and wine in the Holy Supper into Christ’s body and blood and to offer these up as a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead (Council of Trent, De Sacram. Ord., Cans. 1–8). This is a power so great that not even the holy angels or the greatest saints are said to possess it. Indeed, this power is superior even to that of the human nature of Christ, which, as they claim, must obey the command of the priest whenever he bids it appear on earth to be sacrificed for the sins of the living and the dead. The papistic doctrine of ordination and the Mass therefore involves an unspeakable blasphemy of Christ and His holy Word.
While the Episcopalians do not acknowledge the Pope as the vicar of Christ on earth, they nevertheless teach that ordination is the only means by which the apostolic succession, and with it the true ministry, can be transmitted.
Finally also the Romanizing Lutherans, who regard the ministry as a “special spiritual estate” (ein besonderer geistlicher Stand), which is self-propagating, change the church rite of ordination into a divine institution, or ordinance. These Romanizing Lutherans emphatically deny that the Christian minister receives his office through the call of the congregation, though this doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture.​

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47589608#_ftn1 http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47589608#_ftnref1Mueller, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.) (575). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

​

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That layman at the church I had been going to, they sent a letter to the district to ask if they could hire this layman parttime. Around easter time I got chewed out by his wife for something she did. A couple of people witnessed it, said it was uncalled for and one of them said it was something this lady and the youth should have did. I've been to this church once in the past 2 months now. Really hadn't been anywhere. The church my parents go to the pastor sent a card to my parents house, she lost it but she said it said something about me coming to a new members class. I thought I just had to transfer and I grew up Lutheran. I was at this other church, the pastor of this church is interim pastor of the church I had been going to, I told him I wanted to transfer, he told me I needed to stay where I was at. I am frustrated right now.

It sounds as though it is a personality difference between you and the layman's wife. To me, that's not a good enough reason to transfer churches. Round these parts, though, people transfer from church to church like they're country clubs. We've lost a lot of our own members because they switched to the church associated with the school because three churches joined together and our members wanted to be where the young kids were. It never occurred to them what they were doing to Mt Olive's youth population. We now have exactly five kids in our church. My four and one other child whose attendance is spotty at best.

But I think really transferring churches shouldn't be done regularly. If you're moving, that's fine, if there's some heretical teachings going on then of course you should transfer but someone should be notified - in our case it would be the synodical level (WELS).

As for communion, we generally allow elders to help serve. Very rarely do we encounter a situation where we don't have a pastor to preside over communion. In our church specific, we have a retired pastor who gives Matt and I communion, and who will disperse communion if Matt is ill, but Matt still does the presiding. In some churches, the church council and the elders are synonymous. That's how it is in our church. But in my old church, it was usually the president of the congregation who was called to assist first, and then it was the principal of the school on down the line through the male teachers and THEN it would be an elder.

 

[RadMan]

um... Rad? That's not giving up, it's called biting sarcasm. {here's where an OUCH smiley would work well}

Therein though, lies the rub. To what purpose do we call a Pastor if not to exercise the Office Of the Keys on behalf of the congregation (Church). Yes, the Office belongs to the Church, that I've never debated. The point is; whom is to exercise it? Do we not call our Pastors to this very office? Is not the Office Of the Keys not the very essence of the Pastoral call? Are we to blithely offer communion whenever or wherever the mood strikes? How about baptism, marriage, burials, or confession (God forbid!!)? These duties have traditionally been the venue of a Pastor. Surely, he doesn't just stand in front of a congregation of a Sunday and give a nice Biblically based speech.

Also one thing I almost forgot; Ordination also assures a congregation that the individual is competant and understands the requirements of the position of 'Pastor'. That he understands the Office of the Keys and will execute it with respect and due reverance. Elsewise, what's the point of a Seminary training? Not to mention the waste of considerable resources by the Church to support said Seminary.

This is my take... my understanding on the subject. I'm not trying to pontificate, just get my... head straight on this. Sunday service really shook me up.

The reason I bring this subject up is a warning to not regress back to the problem that was addressed with our synod with CFW Walther and what brought LCMS about. This was the problem with episcopy that Stephans brought over with the Saxon Lutherans and was very abused in Germany. It is totally what could have swayed the course of the synod in the 1800s and we would be more like the RCC or EO if it hadn't been nipped at the bud.

My reaction, as many hold in the synod, is seeing this episcopy reemerging. It might be seem as an extreme reaction but it needs to be addresses. Maybe it is a rebound action to the resolution 8-01a that synod passed at the 2004 convention which states widespread changes in the “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution,” process virtually removes the right of a congregation and pastor to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings, so that this right now rests solely at the discretion of the district presidents and the synodical president. Basicly removing the right of the "CHURCH" to judge doctrine. The church is the congregation and not synod.

This resolution makes some pastors think that they are not solely responsible to the congregation but only to the synod. Hence the regression back to a hierachy of episcopy. The PLI program makes this feasible since it promotes the pastor as the head of the congregation as a CEO and the laity are just yes-men.

I'm not trying to downgrade the pastors. Notice I didn't say the Office of the Ministry. I realize that the "call" is legitimate from God but there has to be a balance between laity and pastor with the pastor not getting an upper hand. Whether there is abuses brought on by congregations is really not the point. The point is that if we are to be the church we need to do what the Bible says about the pastoral office and have the laity more educated in the Word. Then there won't be these abuses by either the pastor or the laity.

Pastors are obviously more educated in theology and need to pass this down to the laity to be able to judge doctrine. I just see that is hasn't happened much in the last century. The pastors have gone along with synod in certain aspects because it gives them more of the feeling of being in control. Look at any convention, conference or circuits and you will see pastors and synod members hob-knobing with each other like they are the ones that should have the total say so in church polity. I'm not saying this happens all the time but the "good ol boy" syndrome is very prevalent. Many of the laity convention delegates have been swayed because they haven't been taught except by only what the pastors views are. That can be one sided with an agenda.

 

[ctay]

It sounds as though it is a personality difference between you and the layman's wife. To me, that's not a good enough reason to transfer churches. Round these parts, though, people transfer from church to church like they're country clubs. We've lost a lot of our own members because they switched to the church associated with the school because three churches joined together and our members wanted to be where the young kids were. It never occurred to them what they were doing to Mt Olive's youth population. We now have exactly five kids in our church. My four and one other child whose attendance is spotty at best.

But I think really transferring churches shouldn't be done regularly. If you're moving, that's fine, if there's some heretical teachings going on then of course you should transfer but someone should be notified - in our case it would be the synodical level (WELS).

As for communion, we generally allow elders to help serve. Very rarely do we encounter a situation where we don't have a pastor to preside over communion. In our church specific, we have a retired pastor who gives Matt and I communion, and who will disperse communion if Matt is ill, but Matt still does the presiding. In some churches, the church council and the elders are synonymous. That's how it is in our church. But in my old church, it was usually the president of the congregation who was called to assist first, and then it was the principal of the school on down the line through the male teachers and THEN it would be an elder.

There's a clique in the church and either you fit in or you don't. Its a small church. There has been other stuff that's happened in the past year to me, its just not the one thing with her. Other people left too cause of the clique and things that happened to them. Before the pastor left average attendance was between 100 to 125, now they are lucky if they have 50 there on a sunday. Visitors come maybe once or twice, then they don't come back. I could post everything on here but it would take to long