Lutherans, please

[Shibboleth]

RonWI:

I am not sure it has “nothing to do” with the Apostles being all male, as such fact supports the orthodox Lutheran position that God calls only males to the Office of Holy Ministry.

Here is how the Smalcald Articles address the matter:

X. Of Ordination and the Call.

1] If the bishops would be true bishops [would rightly discharge their office], and would devote themselves to the Church and the Gospel, it might be granted to them for the sake of love and unity, but not from necessity, to ordain and confirm us and our preachers; omitting, however, all comedies and spectacular display [deceptions, absurdities, and appearances] of unchristian [heathenish] parade and pomp. 2] But because they neither are, nor wish to be, true bishops, but worldly lords and princes, who will neither preach, nor teach, nor baptize, nor administer the Lord’s Supper, nor perform any work or office of the Church, and, moreover, persecute and condemn those who discharge these functions, having been called to do so, the Church ought not on their account to remain without ministers [to be forsaken by or deprived of ministers].

3] Therefore, as the ancient examples of the Church and the Fathers teach us, we ourselves will and ought to ordain suitable persons to this office; and, even according to their own laws, they have not the right to forbid or prevent us. For their laws say that those ordained even by heretics should be declared [truly] ordained and stay ordained [and that such ordination must not be changed], as St. Jerome writes of the Church at Alexandria, that at first it was governed in common by priests and preachers, without bishops.

bookofconcord.org/smalcald.html#ordination

This is why Lutheran’s do not have valid holy orders and might as well have a Justice of the Peace consencrate the bread and wine… and why has the Lutheran Church neglected these tidbits?

… it is our greatest wish to maintain church polity and the grades in the Church, even though they have been made by human authority. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. . . . Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined.
Apology XIV, 24

**

According to divine right, therefore (as said above), it is the office of the Bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest. All this is to be done not by human power but by God’s Word alone. On this account parish ministers and churches are bound to be obedient to the Bishops according to the saying of Christ in Luke 10:16, “He who hears you hears Me.”

Augsburg Confession XXVIII, 21-22 (German)

**

 

[Matt16_18]

Againor

The reason I asked if, in principle, sincere little girls could become ordained priests in the LCMS, is because you gave this answer to this question:Question: “where does a Lutheran minister get his (or her) authority to consecrate the elements?”

Againor: The authority comes not from the minister, but of the Words of consecration themselves.This is a radically different view compared to what the Catholic Church teaches from whence Catholic priests derive their authority to consecrate bread and wine during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

If I were to accept your answer as being correct, I can see no reason why, in principle, that the LCMS should NOT allow sincere little girls to consecrate the bread and the wine. For you are asserting that the authority to consecrate the elements does not come from a calling by God confirmed by a bishop with apostolic succession, but only by the words of consecration. (And I presumed that the LCMS believe that the words of consecration must be said with utmost sincerity, since without sincere belief, even practicians of black magic could, in principle, bring forth the “true body and blood of Christ” for blasphemous use in Satanic rituals if merely saying words alone were sufficient for the elements to be consecrated.)
Againor:

Consecration takes place when anyone says the words with the intention of consecrating the bread and wine. It can be misused. Misuse is a grave sin. Therefore we place the responsibility in the hands of the pastor, who we trust to be responsible.

Anyone? Even a Satanist intent on practicing blasphemous ritualistic magic?

 

[RonWI]

I suppose there are a couple of reasons one can come to this site. One is to learn what the Catholic Church and other “faith traditions” profess. The other is to blindly tell others what they believe and tell them they are wrong. If you start with the position that Lutherans are wrong, and are frauds with no authority to do anything, then it really does not matter what they believe or why they believe it. So why do you bother to ask?

If, on the other hand, you actually want to learn what they believe for the sake of knowing and understanding, then all you have to do is read what already has been posted. Orthodox Lutherans (not the ELCA, which officially has been declared heterodox by the LCMS) do not ordain female pastors for the same reason the Catholic Church does not ordain female priests. Lutherans do not ordain children for the same reason the Catholic Church does not.

Lutherans do not believe that lay consecration is valid. It must be done by an ordained pastor:

users.aol.com/SemperRef/#Playing (click on the “full essay” button for the “Playing Church” article)

While Lutherans do not believe in the necessity of apostolic succession in order for an ordination to be valid, that does not mean that Lutherans do not believe in a valid system for ordination:

users.aol.com/SemperRef/office.html

users.aol.com/SemperRef/change.html

bookofconcord.org/smalcald.html#ordination

So, in sum, just like in the Catholic Church, only pastors can consecrate the bread and wine in the Lutheran Church. While there may be a dispute over what constitutes a “valid” priest/pastor, there is no disagreement that only valid priests/pastors can consecrate, and there is no disagreement that little girls cannot be ordained into the Office of Holy Ministry.

 

[RonWI]

From the “Playing Church” article (Chemnitz was a Lutheran theologian):

The lay/Clergy distinction plays most prominently in the discussion of the efficacy of the Holy Communion. In his Examen, Chemnitz elucidated the importance of the Office in the administration of the Sacrament after first rejecting any sort of magical potency in the words of institution. …the recitation of these words is not to be used in the way magicians recite their incantations in set formulas, for instance to bring down Jupiter Elicius or the moon from heaven, namely by the strength and power of the letters and syllables, if they are recited and pronounced a certain way; but as Paul asserts, that in the preaching of the Gospel Christ Himself speaks through the mouth of ministers (Rom. 15:18-19; 2 Cor. 13:3) and that God is making His appeal through us (2 Cor. 5:20). So in the action of the Eucharist the minister acts as an ambassador in the place of Christ, who is Himself there present, and through the minister pronounces these words: This is My body; this do, etc., and for this reason His Word is efficacious. Therefore it is not a man, the minister, who by his consecration and blessing makes bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, by means of His Word, is present in this action, and by means of the Word of His institution, which is spoken through the mouth of the minister, He brings it about that the bread is His body and the cup His blood…21**Chemnitz would allow no incantational understanding of the consecration; he rejected any suggestion that the sounds of the words alone could effect a magical transformation of the elements. The words of institution are said to be efficacious because they are the words of the present and powerful Christ, spoken by Christ Himself through the mouth of the Minister. **

Chemnitz continued his discussion of the essential relationship between the Office and the Sacrament, after spurning the notion that the consecration has nothing more than historical significance. Therefore the words of institution are spoken in our Lord’s Supper, not merely for the sake of history but to show to the church that Christ Himself, through His Word, according to His command and promise, is present in the action of the Supper and by the power of this Word offers His body and blood to those who eat. For it is He who distributes, though it be through the minister; it is He who says: This is my body. It is He who is efficacious through His Word, so that the bread is His body and the wine His blood.22Christ is said to be present not only in the words and elements of the Supper but in the action of the Supper as well.23 The Sacrament, therefore, is efficacious because Jesus personally speaks the words of institution. The Minister is only the instrument through which Christ Himself is among His people to consecrate and distribute His own body and blood.
This understanding of the consecration and distribution was also presented in De coena Domini where Chemnitz cited Chrysostom to once more suggest that through the Minister it is Christ Himself who actually consecrates and distributes the Sacrament: "When you see the hand of the priest holding out to us the body of the Lord, we must remember that it is not the hand of the priest stretching out to us but the hand of Christ who says, ‘Take and eat; this is My body.’"24 Chemnitz would have the Christian “see” Christ under both the sacramental bread and the sacramental celebrant. The “real presence” of the Lord’s Supper is here fused with the “real presence” of the Lord’s Office.

 

[RonWI]

More from the article:

It seems that the young Luther’s view of Sacramental efficacy was correct: an ordinary layperson may perform all the actions of the Holy Communion quite reverently and correctly, yet he/she can only offer ordinary bread and wine; for without Christ’s presence through the Office of the Ministry, His command and institution simply cannot be observed. Unless Christ Himself says, “This is MY body…” there can be no consecration and therefore no Sacrament of the Altar. More than a minor departure from “good order,” any attempt to celebrate the Eucharist apart from the Public Ministry is not only illicit but also invalid and inefficacious. Since “lay minister” is a confusing, oxymoronic term,33 the issue of the lay minister and the Lord’s Supper is not so easily or quickly resolved. The endless discussions of “ordained versus called,” “educated versus uneducated,” “exclusive functions of ministry versus distinctive functions of ministry” may be promptly dismissed, however; for lay ministry can only be properly defined and understood according to its relationship to the Public Ministry. ***In matters of Eucharistic efficacy, the Office makes a difference. ***

 

[Gene_C]

Ron,

I asked you on another thread if you were in an ELCA or LCMS congregation. I see from your post that you are LCMS. Obviously, no need to answer on the other thread (Are you saved? thread.)

By the way, one of your quotes here from the Confessions mentions checking with the Fathers on an issue. When I check with the Fathers on what is valid ordination into the ministry, it is Apostolic Succession. I don’t see why this needed to be changed by the Reformers. (Obviously, they needed to come up with another answer because the Reformers left the Catholic Church and those who were validly ordanied priests, no longer were.)

This is one of the reasons why I have “come home,” as they say. The Fathers seem to be united on this. Who am I or anyone else to argue with them or come up with another way?

Grace and peace to you,
Gene

P.S. Is your congregation affiliated with the R.I.M. movement? There are two LCMS congregations near me; one is, the other isn’t, but the one that isn’t has a Pentecostal pastor (quietly so, though).

 

[RonWI]

Gene C.:

P.S. Is your congregation affiliated with the R.I.M. movement? There are two LCMS congregations near me; one is, the other isn’t, but the one that isn’t has a Pentecostal pastor (quietly so, though).

No. The R.I.M. “movement” (as you so well put it) is not representative of confessional Lutheranism in the least. The movement’s sole purpose is to promote charismata. The LCMS, and all confessional Lutherans, reject R.I.M.'s promotion of charismata:

It is noteworthy that the Scripture nowhere promises or encourages us to hope that extraordinary charismatic gifts will become the possession of the Christian church throughout the centuries. The pattern set in Scripture may actually indicate the opposite.

lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/charismatic_Movement1.pdf

*It Is Contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and Therefore Dangerous to the Salvation of Men, to Teach:

*1. That God desires every Christian, following Baptism, to have a “second experience” such as the “baptism with the Spirit.”

1. That the so-called “gifts of the Spirit” are external signs by which we can assure ourselves that we have faith, are living in God’s grace, or have the Spirit of God.
2. That God promises every Christian such gifts as speaking in tongues, healing, discerning of spirits, and prophesy and that God has given such a promise as a part of the “full” or “complete Gospel.”
3. That a “conversion experience,” “baptism with the Spirit,” or other inner religious experience is necessary for, or should be urged upon, Christians in order that they may be certain either of having faith and salvation or of the indwelling of God’s Spirit.

lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/charismatic.pdf

 

[Matt16_18]

RonWI:

While Lutherans do not believe in the necessity of apostolic succession in order for an ordination to be valid, that does not mean that Lutherans do not believe in a valid system for ordination.

From the Catholic Church’s point of view, Lutheran “ordination” is meaningless. Lutheran “ordination” has nothing to do with what the earliest Christians accepted - it is only a farce of lay people attempting to ordain other lay people, and everyone accepting the charade that the emperor is clothed, when in fact, he is naked.

 

[Angainor]

Againor

The reason I asked if, in principle, sincere little girls could become ordained priests in the LCMS, is because you gave this answer to this question:Question: “where does a Lutheran minister get his (or her) authority to consecrate the elements?”

Againor: The authority comes not from the minister, but of the Words of consecration themselves.
This is a radically different view compared to what the Catholic Church teaches from whence Catholic priests derive their authority to consecrate bread and wine during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

If I were to accept your answer as being correct, I can see no reason why, in principle, that the LCMS should NOT allow sincere little girls to consecrate the bread and the wine.

In principle, I suppose we could. I suppose I could think up some bizzare extraordinary situation which we might ask a sincere little girl to consecrate the bread and wine (if a group of Lutherans were shipwreked on a tropical island and all the men lost their voice…).

Under ordinary situations, Lutherans choose to place that responsiblity in the hands of trained pastors, with the expectation that they will take their responsibility very seriously.

Matt16_18:

For you are asserting that the authority to consecrate the elements does not come from a calling by God confirmed by a bishop with apostolic succession, but only by the words of consecration.

Absolutely correct.

(And I presumed that the LCMS believe that the words of consecration must be said with utmost sincerity, since without sincere belief, even practicians of black magic could, in principle, bring forth the “true body and blood of Christ” for blasphemous use in Satanic rituals if merely saying words alone were sufficient for the elements to be consecrated.)

There must be an intention to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, that is, simply reading the New Testament text aloud would not be enough, but I wouldn’t say there is some sinceretly threshold that must be met.

Matt16_18:

Anyone? Even a Satanist intent on practicing blasphemous ritualistic magic?

There wouldn’t be an intent here to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, so I wouldn’t think a Satanist could do that, but I can’t sit here and say I know for sure.

 

[Angainor]

Againor

The reason I asked if, in principle, sincere little girls could become ordained priests in the LCMS, is because you gave this answer to this question:Question: “where does a Lutheran minister get his (or her) authority to consecrate the elements?”

Againor: The authority comes not from the minister, but of the Words of consecration themselves.

This is a radically different view compared to what the Catholic Church teaches from whence Catholic priests derive their authority to consecrate bread and wine during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

If I were to accept your answer as being correct, I can see no reason why, in principle, that the LCMS should NOT allow sincere little girls to consecrate the bread and the wine.

In principle, I suppose we could. I suppose I could think up some bizzare extraordinary situation which we might ask a sincere little girl to consecrate the bread and wine (if a group of Lutherans were shipwreked on a tropical island and all the men lost their voice…).

Under ordinary situations, Lutherans choose to place that responsiblity in the hands of trained pastors, with the expectation that they will take their responsibility very seriously.

Matt16_18:

For you are asserting that the authority to consecrate the elements does not come from a calling by God confirmed by a bishop with apostolic succession, but only by the words of consecration.

Absolutely correct.

(And I presumed that the LCMS believe that the words of consecration must be said with utmost sincerity, since without sincere belief, even practicians of black magic could, in principle, bring forth the “true body and blood of Christ” for blasphemous use in Satanic rituals if merely saying words alone were sufficient for the elements to be consecrated.)

There must be an intention to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, that is, simply reading the New Testament text aloud would not be enough, but I wouldn’t say there is some sincerety threshold that must be met.

Matt16_18:

Anyone? Even a Satanist intent on practicing blasphemous ritualistic magic?

There wouldn’t be an intent here to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, so I wouldn’t think a Satanist could do that, but I can’t sit here and say I know for sure.

 

[RonWI]

Angainor, you are wrong. PLEASE read the links I have provided. There is no “bizzare extraordinary situation which we might ask a sincere little girl to consecrate the bread and wine”. Lutheran doctrine is clear: consecration is valid ONLY if done by an ordained pastor. Period. Lutherans do not “choose to place that responsiblity in the hands of trained pastors”. It is not a choice. It is a Biblical requirement. Please, read the articles to which I have provided links. You are misrepresenting LCMS doctrine to readers who probably do not have a clear understanding of it to begin with.

Matt 16_18 said: “From the Catholic Church’s point of view, Lutheran “ordination” is meaningless.” Yes, I know. And from the Lutheran point of view, apostolic succession is meaningless. It has nothing to do with what the earliest Christians accepted. If you want to understand why this is the Lutheran position, read the links I provided.

users.aol.com/SemperRef/office.html

users.aol.com/SemperRef/change.html

bookofconcord.org/smalcald.html#ordination

 

[Angainor]

RonWI:

Angainor, you are wrong… Lutheran doctrine is clear: consecration is valid ONLY if done by an ordained pastor. Period.

Not true. Consecration happens on a weekly basis by the words of the unordained. Part of the training process for Lutheran pastors is a vicarage program. Lutheran vicars are pastors-in-training who are in a mentoring program, supervised by ordained pastors. Vicars concecrate the Lord’s Supper. Vicars are not yet ordained and may never be ordained. After being a vicar, students go back to school for one more year where they can, and occasionally do, fail or drop out.

RonWI:

Lutherans do not “choose to place that responsiblity in the hands of trained pastors”. It is not a choice. It is a Biblical requirement.

My point was, the authority to concecrate the Lord’s Supper does not come from ordination. The authority comes from the words themselves. That is the point that most concerns Catholics.

I do not dispute that it is a Biblical requirement to ordain pastors. But it is a requirement that can be broken at the risk of grave sin. The Sacrament would still take place.

 

[RonWI]

Angainor:

Not true. Consecration happens on a weekly basis by the words of the unordained. Part of the training process for Lutheran pastors is a vicarage program. Lutheran vicars are pastors-in-training who are in a mentoring program, supervised by ordained pastors. Vicars concecrate the Lord’s Supper. Vicars are not yet ordained and may never be ordained. After being a vicar, students go back to school for one more year where they can, and occasionally do, fail or drop out.My point was, the authority to concecrate the Lord’s Supper does not come from ordination. The authority comes from the words themselves. That is the point that most concerns Catholics.

I do not dispute that it is a Biblical requirement to ordain pastors. But it is a requirement that can be broken at the risk of grave sin. The Sacrament would still take place.

Angainor, when a congregation accepts a vicar, the supervising pastor gets a Supervisor’s Manual from the seminary. This manual specifically says: don’t ask us for permission to allow the vicar to consecrate the Eucharist. Permission will not be granted. If individual pastors and congregations violate this policy, that may be. But it is NOT the policy of the LCMS to allow vicars to consecrate.

You say the sacrament would still take place even if done by a layman. I have cited numerous places that establish the LCMS position that it would not. You have cited none to support your claim.

Here is more:

The church does not transfer its office of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments to individuals in its membership, but it fills this office entrusted to it by God, it calls into this office instituted by God. In this office the pastor therefore acts in the name and at the direction of God and in the stead of Jesus Christ. He acts with authority not on the basis of an arrangement made by believers but on the basis of the divine institution.

lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf

 

[gracelife]

I was told by a LCMS pastor that during words of institution that it is a blessing and the hosts are considered blessed. It was not until the host was taken in the mouth that it becomes Jesus.
Although remaining hosts are saved respectfully until the next time they are blessed, the real presense is not believed to remain as in the Roman Catholic church.

Can any LCMS people help explain what the correct LCMS teaching is? is WELS the same?
When does the host become Jesus?
Why doesn’t it remain as Jesus?
Who decided that it doesn’t remain Jesus, as the Catholics teach?

Anyone:
Do the Early Fathers teach that it remains Jesus? Who? Where?

 

[Angainor]

RonWI:

Angainor, when a congregation accepts a vicar, the supervising pastor gets a Supervisor’s Manual from the seminary. This manual specifically says: don’t ask us for permission to allow the vicar to consecrate the Eucharist. Permission will not be granted. If individual pastors and congregations violate this policy, that may be. But it is NOT the policy of the LCMS to allow vicars to consecrate.

Now that you mention it, you are right, I was wrong. It is not policy to allow vicars to consecrate. (Does the manual really say “Eucharist”?) One year a vicar in our congregation was allowed, but I can’t say for sure if our Pastor got extra special permission or if he was just a rogue Pastor. Since I don’t know the details, I will refrain from further comment.

RonWI:

The church does not transfer its office of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments to individuals in its membership…

The church does not transfer…

Perhaps it is best left at that, but I can’t help but note the the text does not say “the church cannot transfer”.

This is how I fit the pieces together:
Only ordained pastors are authorized to consecrate the Lord’s Supper. That authorization comes from both the church hierarchy, by way of being ordained, and the local congregation, by way of the call (which can be recinded, with cause).

I see authorization as different than authority. From the Large Catechism — Part Fifth:

16] For here we conclude and say: Even though a knave takes or distributes
the Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the true body and blood of Christ, just as truly as he who [receives or] administers it in the most worthy manner. For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be misused. 17] For the Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief. For He does not say: If you believe or are worthy, you receive My body and blood, but: Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood. Likewise: Do this (namely, what I now do, institute, give, and bid you take). 18] That is as much as to say, No matter whether you are worthy or unworthy, you have here His body and blood by virtue of these words which are added to the bread and wine. 19] Only note and remember this well; for upon these words rest all our foundation, protection, and defense against all errors and deception that have ever come or may yet come.