Lutherans and anointing of the sick

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaryT777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
andrewstx said:
Who does the confirmations in the LCMS and other Lutheran churches that have no bishops?
Click to expand...
As Evangel noted, confirmations are presided over by the pastor.

I’m simplifying here for the benefit of our Orthodox and Roman friends, so please don’t interpret these words to be particularly precise…

For Lutherans, the pastor of a congregation essentially is the local bishop.

This is because Lutherans tend to practice a presbyter-style ordination. In essence, Lutherans don’t perceive a difference to exist between a priest and a bishop when it comes to the administration of Word and Sacrament - both are simply pastors (only the scope of their call differs - one as a pastor to a congregation, and the other a pastor to fellow pastors). The necessary hierarchy that exists within the church is simply a useful, well-intentioned, man-made construct (church structure is adiaphora to Lutherans). Even among those Lutherans that have either always maintained or are now ‘reintroducing’ Apostolic Succession, it is understood to be only a reinforcement of the Apostolic Teaching already professed, confirmed, and promised in a Lutheran ordination.
 
steido01 said:
As Evangel noted, confirmations are presided over by the pastor.

I’m simplifying here for the benefit of our Orthodox and Roman friends, so please don’t interpret these words to be particularly precise…

For Lutherans, the pastor of a congregation essentially is the local bishop.

This is because Lutherans tend to practice a presbyter-style ordination. In essence, Lutherans don’t perceive a difference to exist between a priest and a bishop when it comes to the administration of Word and Sacrament - both are simply pastors (only the scope of their call differs - one as a pastor to a congregation, and the other a pastor to fellow pastors). The necessary hierarchy that exists within the church is simply a useful, well-intentioned, man-made construct (church structure is adiaphora to Lutherans). Even among those Lutherans that have either always maintained or are now ‘reintroducing’ Apostolic Succession, it is understood to be only a reinforcement of the Apostolic Teaching already professed, confirmed, and promised in a Lutheran ordination.
Click to expand...
Well stated! 🙂
 
Actually I was speaking about the Latin Catholic church and the Episcopalians. They both have confirmation by bishops.

But I am Orthodox and our practice is more like the Evangelical Catholics. We too are chrismated by the local priest. The difference is that it is done right after baptism at the same service and the chrism must be blessed by the bishop.

There is no long gap between the two as is usual in the West.
 
andrewstx said:
But I am Orthodox and our practice is more like the Evangelical Catholics. We too are chrismated by the local priest. The difference is that it is done right after baptism at the same service and the chrism must be blessed by the bishop.

There is no long gap between the two as is usual in the West.
Click to expand...
I presume the practice was, at one time, similar. Any idea when East and West began to differ, and why? I can think of some possible reasons, but if you happen to be an expert, that saves me some research time.
 
The episcopal Church considers the sacrament of the sick -with anointing a Sacrament & is done frequently
 
Peter_J said:
Actually, most Catholics don’t have a regular Anointing of the Sick either, just on occasion for those who are, well, sick. 🙂 But in the Melkite Catholic Church we have one each year during Holy Week.
Click to expand...
Back when I was a Catholic, we had a once per month anointing of the sick service you could go to. Seemed to me a perversion of the sacrament, but I don’t know. Is it common for Catholic parishes to do this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top