LutheranStudent:
OK, I did have a role in starting the debate. You’ll have to forgive me, because as soon as we got into the idea of apostolic succession I launched into defense mode. I’ve been there before - and I’m afraid my faith in humankind (none at all) is not enough to warrant any sort of trust in it. It is just names when it comes down to it. Neither do I find the idea in Scripture, so I leave it behind.
I’ve launched into defense mode myself many times when it wasn’t necessary. I apologize if I was too strident in my post, looking back I may very well have been.
I did call the ELCA and the LOC pitiful because, as a staunch Lutheran, I see their attempts to get involved with it as a sell-out. Being neither necessary nor beneficial (in the Lutheran view) it would be ridiculous to run after it.
I certainly emphathize with your feelings, as I can understand how I’d feel if a group I felt was kindred to me did likewise. I only disagree in that, of course, I do believe such things are necessary.
In the meantime I have learned that adoration of the sacrament is neither forbidden nor expected in most Lutheran churches. It’s what we call an adiaphra - do what seems best to you because it’s neither forbidden nor commanded in Scripture.
In regards to what you said earlier, “Neither do I find the idea in Scripture, so I leave it behind.” Honestly, I was wondering, if this practice isn’t commanded in Scripture, why Lutherans don’t abandon it completely as they do Apostolic succession, which they don’t find in Scripture either. Or perhaps, which is more likely, I’m unrealistically reducing the basis of Lutheran beliefs to that one statement.
I also did some reading about early NT ministers who would offer the sacrament to the sick. It is true that they did not reconsecrate the bread and wine, but that does not mean that they were working outside of the Lutheran theology. It just means that there was a greater span between the consecration, distribution and reception. I learned that this practice is still used in some Lutheran churches today because it has a symbolic meaning of being able to commune with the rest of the congregation which was present at the worship service. A more common practice, however, is to reconsecrate the elements at the home of the sick - because while it is true that the symbolism (of unity) is lost, the sick person does get to hear the words of institution for the benefit of their faith.
Perhaps not explicitly, no. But I wouldn’t worry
too much about that, in that, we’re more posting that to defend our beliefs than to knock your own. I’m sure you can generally harmonize the practice. In fact, I think all of the host are eventually eaten-- we don’t just let them stay uneaten forever, they are consumed in future Masses.
However, “reconsecrating” the elements would likely, from my perception of those quotes, not happen, as if you accept it is already Christ, then the words are meaningless when used the second time. The monks that had to self-communicate, for example, would not have been able to say the words of institution. Can anyone find any circumstances where the Host was reconsecrated? (i.e., in the Fathers?) I’m rather doubtful about that part.
Someone along the line decided that my view of the invisible Christian church was unreal because Lutherans don’t have apostolic succession. I would only like to explain that in the Lutheran church all that is needed for a sacrament to be a sacrament are earthly elements used in conjunction with and accoding to the Word of God. It in no way depends upon the person performing or recieving the sacrament. We Lutherans know that you in the RCC are indeed recieving the body and blood of Christ when you celebrate mass. (I should clarify - when both elements are present we know this. Use of the bread only is viewed as a departure from Scripture and Christ’s example.)
First, the bolded part. It does depend on the person… kinda sorta. The person has to be baptized, right?
I’m unclear on what you mean by this last part: Catholics
always consecrate the bread and wine together, however, Catholics usually only receive the Eucharist wafer. Do you mean that they have to be consecrated together to be valid, or received together to be valid? I think Catholics would agree with you on the former, but disagree on the latter.
